XBIZ: 11 U.K. Porn Sites Found to Have Violated Age-Verification Rules

[signupdamnit]

Apologies if already posted. I didn't see it on this board.

Originally Posted by XBIZ

LONDON ? ATVOD, the authority that regulates video-on-demand in the U.K., has disclosed that three U.K. online adult companies were determined to have violated Rule 11, which requires that website operators make sure those under 18 can't access hardcore porn.

ATVOD?s findings against Studio66 TV, G Spot Productions and Abused Piggy brings to 17 the number of adult companies successfully challenged by the regulator over the past 18 months.

The three companies in the latest probe operated 11 websites that included on-demand video content.

http://www.xbiz.com/news/161862

Abused Piggy seems to have shut down.

[Jake]

I'm not all that familiar with UK laws governing pornography however I'm a bit confused by this statement:

"...ATVOD found that G Spot Productions broke statutory rules in two ways ? by allowing trailers of explicit sex without age verification and by failing to place effective access controls with debit cards..."

So ATVOD is expending its limited resources going after legitimate paysite operators because of their promotional "trailers" when they could be utilizing those resources to go after much more egregious offenses such as the glut of tube sites posting full-length (stolen) videos.

Seriously, why go after a paysite operator with a couple dozen "trailers" in their tour when there's no shortage of tube sites posting hundreds of thousands of "full-length" videos? Seems that they could have a much greater impact using the same amount of resources if they went after the sites with vastly more content (and full-length at that) rather than going after a site with a couple dozen trailers. Anyone know if there's a particular reason why they chose to go after these particular sites? Someone running them piss off the wrong person?

[PornoMonster]

Originally Posted by Jake

I'm not all that familiar with UK laws governing pornography however I'm a bit confused by this statement:

"...ATVOD found that G Spot Productions broke statutory rules in two ways ? by allowing trailers of explicit sex without age verification and by failing to place effective access controls with debit cards..."

So ATVOD is expending its limited resources going after legitimate paysite operators because of their promotional "trailers" when they could be utilizing those resources to go after much more egregious offenses such as the glut of tube sites posting full-length (stolen) videos.

Seriously, why go after a paysite operator with a couple dozen "trailers" in their tour when there's no shortage of tube sites posting hundreds of thousands of "full-length" videos? Seems that they could have a much greater impact using the same amount of resources if they went after the sites with vastly more content (and full-length at that) rather than going after a site with a couple dozen trailers. Anyone know if there's a particular reason why they chose to go after these particular sites? Someone running them piss off the wrong person?

Easy --
Websites have a business address.
Tubes -- an anonymous person uploaded it..

HAHAH Stupid, but that is spot on, with current laws.

[yoeleven]

isn't the abusedpiggy guy a poster on here?

[Captain Kawaii]

Originally Posted by signupdamnit

Apologies if already posted. I didn't see it on this board.



http://www.xbiz.com/news/161862

Abused Piggy seems to have shut down.

I guess Gary from G Spot won't be posting for awhile.

[baddog]

Originally Posted by Jake

I'm not all that familiar with UK laws governing pornography however I'm a bit confused by this statement:

"...ATVOD found that G Spot Productions broke statutory rules in two ways ? by allowing trailers of explicit sex without age verification and by failing to place effective access controls with debit cards..."

So ATVOD is expending its limited resources going after legitimate paysite operators because of their promotional "trailers" when they could be utilizing those resources to go after much more egregious offenses such as the glut of tube sites posting full-length (stolen) videos.

I don't think that falls under their charter: http://www.atvod.co.uk/

[Arnox]

The logic is so beyond me. Yeah, I get the law. The government has to look like it doesn't support younger people watching porn, that's the type of policy that you'd be suiciding over if you tried to repeal it coming up to an election. That's fine.

What I don't understand is why they're actively shutting down legitimate businesses instead of giving them warnings or making suggestions. No child has ever been destroyed by seeing a guy getting a blowjob. No child has ever had to undergo psychological treatment because he Googled 'boobie videos' and got an erection.

To me, the type of shit that should be funded is for people to go after those that actually harm society. People who make completely disgusting claims about vaccines, alternative medicine and, I'm going to go there, hell.

The idea that an adult can freely tell a child that if they do not believe in god they will be tortured for eternity is pornographic. The fact that people can willingly lie about vaccines and risk the lives of children is pornographic. The fact that people can dupe individuals out of hundreds of thousands of dollars for 'miracle' cancer cures is pornographic.

If you want to go after instances of obscenity in our society. Go after those instances, not trailer porn videos that a kid interested in sex (HEAVEN FUCKING FORBID) might watch.

[Klen]

So that means uk have same law as germany - no free sites allowed ?

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by Arnox

What I don't understand is why they're actively shutting down legitimate businesses instead of giving them warnings or making suggestions. No child has ever been destroyed by seeing a guy getting a blowjob. No child has ever had to undergo psychological treatment because he Googled 'boobie videos' and got an erection.

I don't get this either. Nothing in the world is going to stop a fourteen year old boy from seeing porn, period. And there isn't much harm in it anyhow because it's something they'll be doing shortly anyhow....

I saw porn while I was a child. I never raped anyone, and went on to be a US Marine and college graduated. I even pay my taxes.

[borked]

Originally Posted by Arnox

The logic is so beyond me....
No child has ever been destroyed by seeing a guy getting a blowjob. No child has ever had to undergo psychological treatment because he Googled 'boobie videos' and got an erection.

You've never been a child of 10 years old in the internet era then.

Google blojob and see what comes up on the first page. When I was young, I went to a dictionary to learn what a word meant. Today, kids go to google. Such single word terms should be free of porn on the 1st page serps imho.

If you say otherwise to get more sales to your sites, then I say fuck you, think of the kids.

[signupdamnit]

What doesn't make sense to me is that they are punishing UK sites but leaving foreign sites alone. If you're going to require this you should at least be blocking other sites [at the ISP level within the U.K.] from other countries until they come in compliance. Otherwise you are doing nothing but hurting businesses within your own country and it does nothing to help keep the kids away from porn. You are simply having them go to foreign websites instead of domestic ones.

A worldwide partnership (without any authority held by industry scumbags) for verifying that a surfer is an adult would make a lot of sense. There is no problem with the idea in itself theory. The problem is that government or industry scumbags would surely try to push things and use it to gain revenue or to restrict free speech.

[borked]

Originally Posted by signupdamnit

A worldwide partnership (without any authority held by industry scumbags) for verifying that a surfer is an adult would make a lot of sense.

This can only mean the SEs....they already have most information on your surfing habits - not difficult (meaning w/o cc verification) to determine with certainty whether you're an adult or not.

[2013]

paul markham teens? one of them

[Welshmorph]

I got fed up of ATVOD keep sending me memory sticks and letters about what was wrong with Abused Piggy so I said fuck it and closed it.
If anyone is after some unique femdom & humiliation content, that has a lot of humour in it, at a dirt cheap price hit me up and you can have it. Can shoot more if you need it too. morph [at] morphettes.com

Morph

[Jake]

Originally Posted by Welshmorph

I got fed up of ATVOD keep sending me memory sticks and letters about what was wrong with Abused Piggy so I said fuck it and closed it.
If anyone is after some unique femdom & humiliation content, that has a lot of humour in it, at a dirt cheap price hit me up and you can have it. Can shoot more if you need it too. morph [at] morphettes.com

Morph

So they basically ran you out of business yet I'm guessing there are plenty of your full-length vids all over UK owned tube sites and they've done nothing to address that issue, right?

Is this not the purest example of "unfair competition"? As site owners we are required to jump through all these regulatory hoops, 2257 for us in the U.S. and apparently ATVOD regs in the U.K. while tube sites are not only allowed to steal our content unfettered they also have no requirement to comply with all the overburdensome regulations imposed upon legitimate paysite owners/content producers. Truly amazing!

[Welshmorph]

Originally Posted by Jake

So they basically ran you out of business yet I'm guessing there are plenty of your full-length vids all over UK owned tube sites and they've done nothing to address that issue, right?

Is this not the purest example of "unfair competition"? As site owners we are required to jump through all these regulatory hoops, 2257 for us in the U.S. and apparently ATVOD regs in the U.K. while tube sites are not only allowed to steal our content unfettered they also have no requirement to comply with all the overburdensome regulations imposed upon legitimate paysite owners/content producers. Truly amazing!

That pretty much sums it all up.

Morph

[Bman]

Originally Posted by Welshmorph

I got fed up of ATVOD keep sending me memory sticks and letters about what was wrong with Abused Piggy so I said fuck it and closed it.
If anyone is after some unique femdom & humiliation content, that has a lot of humour in it, at a dirt cheap price hit me up and you can have it. Can shoot more if you need it too. morph [at] morphettes.com

Morph

what kind of $ was it making?

[Relentless]

Originally Posted by borked

If you say otherwise to get more sales to your sites, then I say fuck you, think of the kids.

Your conclusion is backward because your point of view is upside down.
Think of the PARENTS, not the kids.

Any parent can monitor their child, turn on safeguards and restrict content easily.
If a parent doesn't do that, their progeny will still find porn on page five so keeping it off page one does nothing.
If their parents do monitor and restrict content, then there is no reason to default it off page one.
There never was, is not, and never will be a default solution that obviates the role of parents.

[Jake]

Originally Posted by Welshmorph

That pretty much sums it all up.

Morph

Sorry to hear that you were harassed right out of business! Perhaps as paysite owners we should all just close up shop and start tube sites. Just think, we'd never have to spend valuable resources on the production of content (that's just going to get stolen and devalued to the point of worthlessness anyway), minimal if any customer support, and best of all no requirement to comply with all the overburdensome regulations imposed upon us as paysite owners.

Imagine all the free time you'll have and all the extra disposable income available to pick up a couple of lambos, bigger/nicer home, or whatever floats your boat. I mean why waste your money and time producing content when there's so much content available for free (assuming you have no ethics). Just install a tube script, scrape the web for content, slap up some ads, and then sit back and watch the money start rolling in with little effort on your part. Best of all, you'll be exempt from any requirement to comply with all the regulations required of paysite owners because you're simply a "service provider". Sounds like the perfect business model to me!

[Welshmorph]

Originally Posted by Bman

what kind of $ was it making?

It was only live a few months, so not much. In the right hands I think it could have done well though as despite it being proper femdom & humiliation, the characters on the site were funny. Running paysites isn't really my thing, I had tried to find a webmaster for it before launching but to no avail. I prefer to just shoot content.

At least I'm not being fined by ATVOD.

Morph

[Welshmorph]

Originally Posted by Jake

Sorry to hear that you were harassed right out of business! Perhaps as paysite owners we should all just close up shop and start tube sites. Just think, we'd never have to spend valuable resources on the production of content (that's just going to get stolen and devalued to the point of worthlessness anyway), minimal if any customer support, and best of all no requirement to comply with all the overburdensome regulations imposed upon us as paysite owners.

Imagine all the free time you'll have and all the extra disposable income available to pick up a couple of lambos, bigger/nicer home, or whatever floats your boat. I mean why waste your money and time producing content when there's so much content available for free (assuming you have no ethics). Just install a tube script, scrape the web for content, slap up some ads, and then sit back and watch the money start rolling in with little effort on your part. Best of all, you'll be exempt from any requirement to comply with all the regulations required of paysite owners because you're simply a "service provider". Sounds like the perfect business model to me!

Lol.

Morph

[borked]

Originally Posted by Relentless

Your conclusion is backward because your point of view is upside down.
Think of the PARENTS, not the kids.

Any parent can monitor their child, turn on safeguards and restrict content easily.
If a parent doesn't do that, their progeny will still find porn on page five so keeping it off page one does nothing.
If their parents do monitor and restrict content, then there is no reason to default it off page one.
There never was, is not, and never will be a default solution that obviates the role of parents.

Yup, cos of course content restriction measures work right? I have opendns on all computers in the house blocking adult stuff but still stuff gets through. If my kids want to search for porn and they are old enough, meaning 15+ in my eyes then I'll lift the restrictions but my kids are of an age using google to search for the meaning of a word. If you don't know what a word means you are going to mispell it, hence why i said search for blojob.
Wikipedia isn't number 1 for that and I couldn't give a shit what comes up on page 2+ cos small kids never go that far.

And yeah, I've heard it all before, never let kids unsupervised on a computer blah blah

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by Welshmorph

That pretty much sums it all up.

Morph

[BFT3K]

Here's what the law SHOULD be...

In order to upload content to tube sites, the uploader should be legally obligated to prove that they are adults in a country where porn is legal. They must provide photo ID, and then fill out an upload form guaranteeing they have the copyrights to the content they are uploading.

Otherwise there is no equal playing field whatsoever.