ATVOD/Clips4Sale

[videokim]

There as to be loop holes & simple ones at that, we do have friends who are now under ATVOD & its been business as usual but we have also heard of people closing down because of the restrictions.

We would only go under them if it seriously effects the way AW works, its ATVOD's biggest prize & even though they operate offshore this will be the one that makes everyone come together because it would put 1000's out of work in one go.

[videokim]

Maybe if we dropped the adult industry bit & worded complaints quoting unfair trading, employment & sales compared to the rest of the EU we might stand more of a chance.

We all know ATVOD's major purpose was to cripple the adult industry but for those of us doing this as a legal job & paying taxes it goes against job & employment rules, as anyone tried the CAB lawyers yet? they offer free legal advice on your employment etc.

[Welshmorph]

They already had my address from when I had my Abused Piggy paysite as it was on my whois.

Morph

[Fordcortina]

Welshmorph wrote:

after contacting C4S to see if it's possible to only
> take payments via credit card, which it isn't,

The Privacy Policy of clips4sale has a section entitled "Minors"
It begins

MINORS.Our company's services are directed to adults who possess validated credit card information, and are not marketed to individuals under the age of Eighteen(18)(21-years old where 18 is not the age of majority).

I cannot say whether this stands up but you might cite it to Atvod if you are minded to argue the toss with them.

But, I cannot stress to much, there is very little point in getting involved with Atvod's process too much. They won't listen to you. You must respond to them but only to dispute that you are providing any service within their remit to regulate.

You have to understand that they are not regulating you because are making adult content. They are regulating you because they say you are providing television on-demand. If you are clear in your own mind that you are providing television services, then fine. If not you don't need to do what they say, but you must insist that the matter is referred to Ofcom. Ofcom will decide independently of Atvod whether what you are doing is providing television on-demand. If you aren't, it's goodbye Atvod. You stand a very good chance of succeeding with Ofcom if you present your case well. You will need some good help to make a successful case. But even if Ofcom backs up Atvod you will be in no worse position. Close your site down then if you like. But Atvod will not stop unless they are challenged.

[AdultFilmServices]

@ Welshmorph
As you've shut down a lot and been severely restricted on other sites, can you not de-register from ATVOD and then challenge them?
ATVOD must know what they're doing is borderline illegal and making rules up as they go along and must be worried when the first challenge comes to them.

[one eyed jack]

Pete (ATVOD) Johnsons "5 Points Caught" Rule



Editing control applies to who uploads the content and who has the decision to the site where it is uploaded to, not as said here, down to the creation of the content by means of shooting and editing or that would mean every single person with a camera and editing capability putting their content on a site to monetise it would have to sign up to ATVOD. That would mean TV, film and even the amateur enthusiast with a mobile phone so lets be clear on that one

If anyone thinks that this recording is dated then consider the fact that Pete Johnson himself has said it, so therefore it must be true until he turns around and says its not.

His actions so far with ATVOD says they are moving the goalposts all the time and it leaves me in doubt just how credible they really are

Seems evident to me that ATVOD are acting outside of their remit but its no good just saying it when the evidence is there to quote it

As for super/ multi sites getting off the hook I dont think so but they dont come under the same category if the companies responsible for these type o sites are/ were based abroad before ATVOD came into being.

This is also easily checked out.

Also, it doesnt take much to work out how ATVOD got their information if you read between the lines of what Pete Johnson says in this youtube video:



It would certainly make sense why he ducked away from view when addressing for industry wide unity in entering discussions with ATVOD particularly with UKAP BIG CLUE! BIG CLUE!

If anyone wants changes to happen then you have to make like James Brown said:

Get up and get involved...

Change aint gonna come by itself and if you dont get involved then people with an agenda like Pete Johnson and Claire Perry etc will continue to carve out a career regulating and making money from sites while not doing a damn thing to protect kids

All I see is an organisation making money for itself regulating the wrong sites and allowing the bad sites to run without penalty

[VintageTog]

videokim wrote:

> "TACNet Ltd boast that they run over 300 sites in their
> network"
>
> They are the UK's biggest network of models & they do easily
> run over 300 sites but individuals are being contacted by ATVOD
> & some have joined ATVOD.
>
> Its against EU rulings to restrict its members trade unfairly
> so ATVOD are chancing their luck until someone big enough can
> meet them head on in court,
> we need to find a Barrister who wants to make legal history &
> on the cheap lol!...it could though come back & bite him/her on
> the arse if they lose,
>
>

I thought to be ATVOD compliant you had to not take debit cards? There are debit card logos all over the TAC site.

[one eyed jack]

> Its against EU rulings to restrict its members trade unfairly
> so ATVOD are chancing their luck until someone big enough can
> meet them head on in court,
> we need to find a Barrister who wants to make legal history &
> on the cheap lol!

Allow me to introduce our friend Myles Jackman, he has already said at the meetings that he would represent anyone willing to make a case against ATVODs decision but you can go and spend 6k on a waste of space lawyer like one angry befuddled ex UKAP member did

You can find Myles on twitter @ObscenityLawyer I do believe he is working on a case right now

Also follow @PornPanic for info and campaigns and make like Jams Brown: Get up! Get into it! Get involved!

[Fordcortina]

I cannot help but feel that an opportunity has been lost here. So before this thread disappears I'm going to add a bit more to help anyone else threatened by Atvod over clips4sale. Atvod doesn't have a snowballs chance of making a determination that a c4s is within their remit. (Though one should never say never because perverse decisions do happen.)

Here is the EU Directive


Recital 21 states:

For the purposes of this Directive, the definition of an
audiovisual media service should cover only audiovisual
media services, whether television broadcasting or on-
demand, which are mass media, that is, which are
intended for reception by, and which could have a
clear impact on, a significant proportion of the general
public. Its scope should be limited to services as defined
by the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
and therefore should cover any form of economic
activity, including that of public service enterprises, but
should not cover activities which are primarily non-
economic and which are not in competition with
television broadcasting, such as private websites and
services consisting of the provision or distribution of
audiovisual content generated by private users for the
purposes of sharing and exchange within communities
of interest.

You will see that the last sentence specifically excludes websites such as C4S.

But the reasons why Atvod has no remit over C4S are greater than that alone. Atvod would need to show that a visitor to C4S would reasonably ('reasonably' is a special word) consider that they were watching television services regulated by European law (recital 24). Ofcom has already decided (ask me for a citation) that there is no service within the scope of the regulations unless that is satisfied. In the case of C4S the way users obtain the service is not comparable to television, and the website is based in the USA and refers to Federal US law as the applicable law. No one would reasonably (that word again) think that it was regulated under European Television Law, even if a contributor was based in the UK or the service was accessed in the UK.

I also believe further that a stunning case could be made to show that Atvod was misapplying the law more generally, but I won't go on to distract from the points above. It is also just possible that Welshmorph might have compromised his position by voluntarily registering with Atvod. If he did. (I don't know all the circumstances.) But I think he should reconsider deleting his C4S site until at least appealing to Ofcom. And anyone else approached by Atvod should as a matter of course dispute Atvod's remit and insist on an Ofcom review. Don't even give Atvod an even break by going into too much depth with them. Always ask for an Ofcom review.

You might also consider that politics comes into this. There may be politicians who are encouraging Mr Johnson to do things he shouldn't. It may be that there are dedicated fastidious civil servants in Ofcom (paid much less than Pete) who resent the antics of Atvod. I wouldn't know whether that is or isn't so. But don't imagine that all authority is monolithic, or that you won't get a fair hearing to a proper argument. You have nothing to loose.