egafd.com

Really, you ought to read this


They say they judge every case on its merits, but it's pretty obvious that porn always swings the decision one way. I think, if you had a site full of "show-reels" that were all porn, they would say you should register. A site full of wedding videos on a wedding photographer's site would be treated differently, I'm sure.

But, if you've the time and money it would be worth disputing.

Thanks RGB, I had a quick read of that, and also

But am no legal expert, and the wording seems to leave massive wiggle room for the ATVOD to claim anything is tv-like.

Maybe extending the idea to be a portfolio site for the "models", so that the videos are individual show-reels. Although I'd still be considered to have editorial control so there's that one, but other that that I am definitely in the LESS tv-like column.

Here is my breakdown of my site as I see it...

LESS?TV-LIKE...

* Not previously broadcast on linear TV
* Amateur
* Niche
* Program Title Unknown
* Producer Unknown (IE Not famous)
* Content format is short form (clips not films)
* Brand is unknown

MORE TV-LIKE...
* No Micropayment at point of viewing


UNSURE...
presentation is debatable, I like to think its quite professional but I do state all over the site that I am not a professional and the content IS unstructured (IE blog like)

But as you say they probably have a massive bias when it comes to porn.

I guess my only option is to liaise with them but I am loathe to do so. =(

If you honestly believe that you are not a 'notifiable ODPS' under the terms of their guidance, then you should set up your site without notifying them - that's what the guidance is there for!

If they contact you and say you should register, then you can present them with a list of reasons why you need not. I've spoken with Pete Johnson and he's a reasonable bloke to argue with - since porn is involved you will lose the argument! - but if you have presented a reasonable case the worst that will happen is that you will have to register and comply with their rules - or remove your videos.

You could challenge him in court, of course, but in the middle of the current moral panic, what judge would want to be outed as pro-porn in the Daily Mail?

It's good to see this debate here. Insculpt is on the right lines. He has found one of Ofcom's commissioned research reports and identified the key drivers. Ofcom carried out further research in 2012 also available through their website.

The real problem is that small adult website authors have failed at the first hurdle to stand up to ATVOD. If ATVOD makes a determination against you, you have a right to a review of the decision to Ofcom (an appeal to Ofcom). Ofcom would undertake a quasi judicial review and would have been unlikely, in my opinion, to have upheld ATVOD's decisions in many of the instances of action against adult sites if a good case was made against it. An Ofcom appeal has no cost implications. Unfortunately because no one has used this procedure ATVOD has been given the green light to carry on.

The only people who ought to be affected by the law are producers of television on demand. You might say that that is being interpreted so loosely that anyone with motion picture images on a website is covered. That is what Pete Johnson might say, perhaps. But actually the law cannot be that vague. If it was it would be void for uncertainty under our common law. And since the operation of the ATVOD regime infringes the right to freedom of expression guaranteed by the Human Rights Act that could not be so either. Because any permitted infringement can only be lawful if permitted by law that is sufficiently precise to enable the citizen to regulate his conduct. The operation of the "TV like" test as practised by ATVOD fails that requirement. Ofcom would have to consider such an argument. And only if that failed might you then have to fall back on the Court. rgb is wrong to malign the judiciary as susceptible to influence from the Daily Mail.

On the subject of grassing up websites to ATVOD. I have informed on a website to them last week. I found a website which appeared to be an ODPS within their definition. I searched the list of notified providers and it wasn't listed. I like this website and don't want it to be hindered or regulated in anyway by ATVOD but nonetheless I informed on it. ATVOD say they looked at it in the past but thought it wasn't an ODPS, however they will now carry out a new investigation. You can find the site in question here.

That is the sort of grassing up we should applaud. Now if only atvod had video on their site explaining their fatuous rules and had not registered with themselves.

Fordcortina wrote:

> The real problem is that small adult website authors have
> failed at the first hurdle to stand up to ATVOD. If ATVOD makes
> a determination against you, you have a right to a review of
> the decision to Ofcom (an appeal to Ofcom). Ofcom would
> undertake a quasi judicial review and would have been unlikely,
> in my opinion, to have upheld ATVOD's decisions in many of the
> instances of action against adult sites if a good case was made
> against it. An Ofcom appeal has no cost implications.
> Unfortunately because no one has used this procedure ATVOD has
> been given the green light to carry on.

The problem is, certainly for me, that I prefer to keep my activities "on the down low", I certainly wouldn't want to be dragged into the courts. and I assume its the same for many producers. whist not ashamed of what I do (in fact I'm rather proud in the right circles) that doesn't mean I want my kids/family/neighbors to be aware of it.


> On the subject of grassing up websites to ATVOD. I have
> informed on a website to them last week. I found a website
> which appeared to be an ODPS within their definition. I
> searched the list of notified providers and it wasn't listed. I
> like this website and don't want it to be hindered or regulated
> in anyway by ATVOD but nonetheless I informed on it. ATVOD say
> they looked at it in the past but thought it wasn't an ODPS,
> however they will now carry out a new investigation. You can
> find the site in question here.
>

This was brilliant!, I was reading your response via email, which didn;t include the link. I was just thinking, is this guy crazy? admitting to this?, here? then I logged onto reply and saw the link address...superb! and superb because it is absolutely correct.

In the meantime I am changing my site to only show stills from the videos, if I have any contacts I wish to share the videos with I can, but I believe that makes them non-public, removing them my site from the ATVODs remit entirely.

I'm not actively trying to skirt or avoid the law, but the way it is at the moment seems unworkable for people in my position.

insculpt wrote:

> The problem is, certainly for me, that I prefer to keep my
> activities "on the down low", I certainly wouldn't want to be
> dragged into the courts. and I assume its the same for many
> producers. whist not ashamed of what I do (in fact I'm rather
> proud in the right circles) that doesn't mean I want my
> kids/family/neighbors to be aware of it.

And that's exactly why ATVOD is able to get away with it. But an Ofcom review (appeal) is an administrative procedure on paper not a trial at the Old Bailey.

As regards ParliamentLive TV there may be a number of reasons why it might be exempt from the legislation that ATVOD haven't considered. For instance I wonder if an attempt to regulate it might be thought to be an attempt to limit Parliamentary Privilege. ATVOD would need to consider whatever legislation or Parliamentary concession allowed cameras into Parliament in the first place. Also there is the involvement of the BBC who actually produce these broadcasts. The BBC is immune from Government regulation through a deal cut by Lord Reith in the 1920s. So ATVOD does not apply to BBC i-player for instance. Though it does apply to BBC productions through the commercial arm of the BBC, BBC Worldwide. On which subject, an Ofcom appeal found that clips from the TV programme "Top Gear" were not "TV like" when BBC Worldwide put them on YouTube and ATVOD was overruled. But it would certainly put the cat among the pigeons if it turned out that the legislation was so vague that even Parliament couldn't apply it to itself.

> I'm not actively trying to skirt or avoid the law, but the way
> it is at the moment seems unworkable for people in my position.

But ATVOD isn't The Law it's a quango that is out of control. The Law is what Parliament enacts and the courts construe. Democracy is not just putting a cross on a piece of paper, as someone called Russel Brand seems to think. It includes, amongst other things, asserting your rights against attempts to limit them by delinquent offshoots of the executive.

No one needs to have anything to do with ATVOD unless they contact you. To voluntarily register is madness. If they contact you, you need to consider carefully whether you are competing with mass media broadcast TV. If you are not, then politely decline ATVOD's offer to join their scheme. If they insist you'll have to apply to Ofcom for a review. You will get a fair hearing to a reasonable argument. None of that is likely to result in any more publicity than has followed from ATVOD's determinations to date.

rgb wrote:

> Really, you ought to read this
>
>
>
> They say they judge every case on its merits, but it's pretty
> obvious that porn always swings the decision one way. I think,
> if you had a site full of "show-reels" that were all porn, they
> would say you should register. A site full of wedding videos
> on a wedding photographer's site would be treated differently,
> I'm sure.
>
> But, if you've the time and money it would be worth disputing.

Guidance on who
needs to notify
Application and Scope of the
Regulations for Video On Demand
(VOD) services

Edition 3.3

Published 23 May 2013

Section 3. What types of service would, and would not, be considered ?on
demand programme services?

3.3 Services comprised of the following types of video content may not be considered to be
?on-demand programme services? (depending on the particular circumstances):
a) video content posted by private individuals onto video sharing sites (where the
content has been self-generated and is not posted as part of an ?economic?
purpose on the part of the individual);

Hmm, could the above passage include uploading video clips to view for free onto those dreaded tube sites?

I received quite a few abusive emails a while ago from anonymous emails addresses, tended to just ignore them as I presumed it was some sad persons idea of an (unfunny) joke

monicahaze wrote:

> I received quite a few abusive emails a while ago from
> anonymous emails addresses, tended to just ignore them as I
> presumed it was some sad persons idea of an (unfunny) joke

This truly is a very strange business now.