egafd.com

is there an explanation of why ofcom deemed it not 'tv on demand', i presume you have to pay to join her site - is that the reason. Whichever way atvod have had to pay for a kick in the balls.

Sadly it is but a small setback for Mr ?100K a year Johnson and his fatuous organisation. He's riding on the crest of a wave of censorship at present supported in everything he does by both Tories and NL. His ultimate aim is to so infantilise the internet for UK users that there wont be anything accessible that isnt suitable for 14 year olds.

BBFC censorship of music videos arrives in October by the way.

i'll admit i know very little about atvod other than what has been said on here but if, as it says in the report, it is funded by this fee which is payable by all those who fall under it's radar then will this not hurt it's funding and potentially his position? If the site in question doesn't fall under the remit of atvod then she can't be required to pay a fee to them? and if she isn't, how many more will challenge it?

M100. Good question

Ive always maintained that the only way to deal with this issue is to confront it head on and ive also said it needs to be challenged in a court room.

ATVOD have always been about future proofing their existence with a business model to adapt to the changes where online content is concerned. Pete Johnson used to be the chairman of the BBFC after all.

Im not against regulation as an ideal its just the way theyve gone about it is cack handed, aggressive and its just a shame that it has split the industry with those against it working against elements in the business who are for it for their own gain not realising it is not securing their future but facilitating their own demise.

They just cant see it or simply dont care in their pursuit for commercial domination theyd rather be in the back pocket of this organisation and tell us that theyre compliant because its the right thing to do.

Bollocks. That didnt stop them before whenthey had a chance to regulate themselves none of this wouldve happened.

The adult business deserves this for being so complacent in matters affecting it. People only started to care when they got the letters to notify

and following on from it - if successfully challenged wouldn't atvod be legally obliged to return any past fees paid by those who suddenly found themselves exempt. do atvod have a bottomless pit of finances? would they potentially want to pay lawyers for every case brought or settle quickly, cheaper, though at the risk of losing a long-term income.

ATVOD have never had a direct hit with any of their claims to have shut down sites because they have never taken any legal action where the owner has voluntarily shut up shop

Most of their victories were easy catches theyve chalked up as wins.

This of course is not the first time that OFCOM have reversed their decisions on appeal. The massive fine they had on Playboy was an early victory.

It may come down to sharp legal counsel but at least it proves they can be beaten at their own game