Yeah you do by not working !

I would have sugested they just remove the vids and stay pics only, but i think that site is mainly a vid site.

i presume they will upload to clips for sale and such to avoid the problems.

it must suck being a uk model as work must be less and less.

i wonder how many models and so on will end up on the dole. so rather than making cash, its going to cost the goverment more is paying for models to be on the dole.

but as i say if your in the uk, write to your mp. moaing on this and other forums will do nothing.

lets face it, most mp's are not going to know of this. so tell them.

write to them and ask if they belive its right for a uk bu8siness to be disadvantaged next to other eu and non eu countries?

I'm open to offers.

I have the contacts here who can do everything.

Glad to see you've come out of retirement.

paul, you need to do nothing.

just do a sigle site that says your based in the country your in and that you do web site stuff. then just charge £10 a letter on request.

that way if a uk webmaster simply says he has you to do the editing and uploads, and can provide a letter of proof direct. you just type a standered letter and send it.

Divvy, it's probably a good idea that you stop advising people to commit fraud.

We all know you are a content-stealing, fraudster scammer that likes bumming men from usenet, but you shouldn't post in public forums advising people to break the law.

Jerry Barnett, Chairman of AITA, and MD of Strictly Broadband, was invited to speak at the ATVOD Industry Forum on the 23rd May. He had also been invited to speak at the board meeting that same day to present issues facing the adult industry. Without prior warning that invitation was postponed until July.

On 1st June he received notification from ATVOD that he was in breach of Rule 11 and given 10 working days to respond. This is his response which he has decided to make public for the benefit of the industry.



7 June 2012

To: Pete Johnson, ATVOD



Dear Pete,

I’m writing further to my letter (sent on behalf of AITA) of 30th March, and also in response to your letter dated 31st May, declaring my company in breach of Rule 11.

Following my March letter, which was an open letter to the ATVOD board, I was invited to present my concerns at the 23rd May Industry Forum meeting, and also attend the board meeting that afternoon to present issues facing the adult industry. I was also told that you would be sending a detailed response following the 23rd May meeting. I did indeed present my concerns at the industry forum, but was told that I was not in fact invited to attend that afternoon’s board meeting (I’d received no notification that this invitation had been rescinded). I was told that I would be instead invited to the July board meeting (this hasn’t yet been officially confirmed).

I have not yet received your promised response to my letter – instead, last Friday, I received official notice that my services are considered in breach of Rule 11, and given ten working days to respond. This letter comprises my response to that notice. Please note and respond to the following points:
1.I made clear in my last letter and at the Industry Forum meeting that I would not be able to operate my VoD business within the UK if Rule 11 is imposed as you have designed and interpreted it. I consider Rule 11 to be punitive; it effectively makes it impossible to run a adult web site in the UK, even though it breaks no UK law. This raises legal implications, which will require further exploration (I’m informed that a measure similar to Rule 11 was struck down by the US Supreme Court on grounds of free speech).
2.Given that the issues raised in my last letter are still (in theory) under discussion, and I’ve been (I’m told verbally) invited to present these issues to the July board meeting, this raises an issue of timing: how can my VoD business be forced offshore in June while this discussion is ongoing? I therefore request that you postpone enforcement of the notice until at least after the ATVOD board meeting in July.
3.Please be notified that I intend to move the editorial side of the VoD business out of the UK, probably to another EU country, by the end of this month. As I’ve said previously, our VoD business is in decline, and the future focus of my operation will be on adult phone chat, webcam and other social-media services. My currently employed Content Manager is leaving my employment on 12th June.
4.Although my company will no longer be an ATVOD-notified ODPS, I plan to continue representing the UK adult industry at ATVOD industry forum meetings on behalf of AITA.

I would like to further ask the following questions:
•You have been informed by multiple businesses within the UK adult industry that Rule 11 is punitive, and cannot be implemented without seriously damaging or destroying existing, legal businesses. Have you sought an opinion on whether it is in fact legal to knowingly drive our industry out of business or offshore? If so, please share this with ourselves and the Industry Forum.
•The ATVOD definition of “TV-like” appears to be very different from the definition chosen by other EU member states, which have not included adult web sites within the remit. Are you aware of any other EU countries that have followed the same path as the UK regulator in this regard?
•You have come to the decision that legal adult content “may seriously impair” under-18s. I request that you publish all expert opinion and academic research that was utilised in reaching this decision.



Regards,



J Barnett

Managing Director,

Strictly Broadband Ltd.


One Comment







Charles McMonagle June 12, 2012


I am so happy that at last we have someone who is prepared to challenge these so called committee’s that set themselves up and in reality have no power as such . I wish when I had my business in the adult shops ,I had someone fighting my case like this we all ended up closing the shops and moving on so I do hope that Jerry keeps fighting this case and we all get behind him give him full support to fight these goons who know nothing about the adult industry

http://www.aita.co.uk/?p=1002

Update on censorship-related activity in the UK

from Jerry Barnett, AITA Chairman



Dear All,

In recent months I’ve been involved in a lot of activity related to censorship and how it may affect the adult industry. Here is a summary of the three main areas of activity:

1) ATVOD

Over recent years I have attempted to track regulations that may affect the UK adult industry. ATVOD’s rule 11, which specifies that web sites are responsible for age-verifying users before any hardcore still or moving images can be displayed, is a source of major concern.

I have made representations to ATVOD that this regulation is punitive to UK businesses as it is not possible for a web site to implement such a mechanism without losing the bulk of its customers. Furthermore, since this only applies to businesses based in the UK, it has no effect on availability of adult content anyway – this regulation seems to be designed solely to drive UK adult businesses either offshore, or out of business.

ATVOD’s response to this has not been sympathetic – they repeat the mantra that they are “protecting children” while ignoring the simple fact that these rules do nothing to reduce the availability of easily accessible adult content. My position is that the right approach to this is for the industry to use proper labeling technologies and ensure that parents are empowered and educated in how to block adult content if they so wish. Driving the UK adult industry out of existence would simply destroy the chance of any self-regulation.

I am currently taking legal advice on whether these regulations can be challenged and feel there are several grounds on which to challenge them.

2) Internet filtering

Claire Perry MP (backed by the Daily Mail) is pushing for the ISPs to filter out adult content at the connection level. I’m strongly opposed to this approach for several reasons – as are a number of free speech organisations, not to mention Google. I have met with some anti-censorship organisations that are opposing the filter and will continue to meet with more. It appears an alliance against the plans is building.

There are several problems with network-level filtering:
1.Do we trust the government to decide what is “adult”? The experience in other online censorship exercise shows that the list of blocked sites will grow over time. The filter in Australia was extended to cover all sorts of material that the religious right objected to.
2.We know that many people who legally enjoy adult content would not switch off the filter (for a variety of reasons – confidentiality, embarrassment, etc.)
3.The filter would be easy to get around. It’s likely that teenagers would find out how to avoid it while their parents are left with a false sense of security.
4.It takes control out of the hands of parents and puts it into the hands of a nanny state that makes moral decisions about what adults and teenagers should choose to look at.

3) Obscenity

The Michael Peacock obscenity trial, in which he was found not guilty, seems to have undermined the case for obscenity prosecutions and for certain censorship decisions taken by the BBFC. However, the CPS and BBFC have stated that despite losing the prosecution the guidelines remain the same.

There is an opportunity to challenge the BBFC and CPS guidelines and it is likely that lawyers will take up this opportunity later this year. I believe this will be beneficial both for the industry and for free speech, and will be supporting this action.

Best regards,



Jerry Barnett,

AITA Chairman


http://www.aita.co.uk/?p=1028

29 March 2012

Open Letter to the ATVOD Board and ATVOD Industry Forum

Dear Sirs,

I’m writing both as Managing Director of Strictly Broadband Ltd., a notified ATVOD ODPS provider, and Chairman of AITA, the UK’s Adult Industry Trade Association.

It has recently become apparent that despite some efforts, the voice of our industry hasn’t, until recently, been heard by the ATVOD board. This has recently changed with the appointment of Chris Ratcliff of Portland TV to the board, which we welcome. This letter is intended to explain why our industry has apparently been reticent to implement ATVOD rules.

My own business has been operating since 2004, selling rentals of online streaming adult videos. I established the business in the UK, which at the time was quite unusual for an online adult business; in 2004, the online adult industry had little idea where we stood legally, and most companies were established offshore. My aim was to track and implement UK regulation as it evolved. Initially, we worried that we may be in breach of the Video Recordings Act (VRA) – however, the BBFC and police came to the conclusion that the VRA didn’t apply to online adult businesses, and we found ourselves in a legal grey area.

The first attempt at regulation was by the BBFC Online scheme; Strictly Broadband joined and implemented the scheme at a cost to ourselves of around £10,000. The scheme ultimately failed to gain official recognition. So the first real regulation we faced came when ATVOD was formed. As with the BBFC scheme, Strictly Broadband made early contact with ATVOD, and became an early service to notify.

During this same period, the global online adult industry has been through a huge recession and shake-out as a result of the sudden availability, from late-2007, of free streaming content via the so-called “tube sites”. It is estimated within the industry that a revenue decline of 80% to 90% has been experienced during the past four years. Rather than being a grass-roots movement, the tube sites are largely operated by a few big industry players, in particular Manwin, which is a Canadian company (but owns UK businesses). The end result is that, as the ATVOD regulations are being introduced, many of the original players have gone out of business and those that remain are relatively small businesses compared to a few years ago. Strictly Broadband has seen its revenue and staff levels fall by over 50% during this time.

As a business and an industry, we have consistently strived to operate within laws and regulations; however, the regulations now being imposed by ATVOD are so onerous that they are effectively impossible to implement. We have always age-verified (via payment systems) before people can view our video product. However, the requirement that we age-verify before even photographic sales imagery can be seen will simply drive most of our customers to sites outside ATVOD’s scope. The one company to fully implement these rules to date, Portland TV, has seen an 80% fall in new business, and a 28% fall in overall revenue, since they complied. As I’m sure the board will appreciate, few businesses can survive such a decline, especially in the current economic climate.

The ATVOD regulations seem to ignore a basic fact: the Internet is a global, borderless marketplace, and well over 99% of our competitors operate outside ATVOD’s scope. To my knowledge, none of the top 100 adult services viewed by UK consumers falls within ATVOD’s remit. Even among UK sites, none of the top three has bothered to notify. Furthermore, thousands of non-adult services, including Google and Twitter, freely display hardcore imagery without age verification. Therefore the ATVOD rules, particularly Rule 11, do not protect consumers in any way, but merely serve to punish those services that try to operate legally within the UK.

So far, I’m aware of one UK business that has closed down due to ATVOD’s rules, and a second that has relocated outside the UK. If ATVOD pushes ahead with enforcement of Rule 11, the effect will be to decimate the UK adult industry. My own business would not survive the implementation of Rule 11, and I’m currently in discussion with EU-based partner businesses to outsource the key business functions if necessary. Our aim, since 2004, has been to comply with UK regulation; ATVOD is currently making that aim impossible to achieve.

Even if the entire UK industry closes down, adult content from outside the UK will be as easily accessible as it was before ATVOD. The regulations not only fail to stop adult content being accessible by children, but actually remove the few ethical businesses that want to comply with UK laws and pay UK taxes. From an industry perspective, this seems counter-productive; surely the aim of any regulations should be to tilt the playing field towards compliant businesses, rather than towards those who escape regulation?

AITA is looking at the possibility of creating a campaign, similar to the Drink Aware brand run by the alcohol industry, that would help educate parents on how to filter adult content from their children’s Internet devices. We feel that this would be a better way forward to a regulated industry rather than punitive measures which would simply drive the UK industry offshore.

Sincerely,



Jerry Barnett

Chairman AITA

Managing Director, Strictly Broadband Ltd.


http://www.aita.co.uk/?p=856

Much better to do it properly and not risk getting caught out.

This is the problem they will ignore until the papers are hit with the truth.

What someone in the UK needs to do is get onto the TV on a major news program and explain to viewers that regulating UK Internet sites is pointless the way the Internet works. Telling each other what's wrong is pointless.