Internet TV News

The Irish film censor is attempting to scrounge a website link from the US video on demand service, Netflix.

The Irish Film Classification Office (Ifco) wrote twice last year asking Netflix to redirect people looking for information about the age suitability of a film to the censor's website. Ifco wants a link to be added in the frequently asked questions (FAQ) section of the Netflix website. Ifco wrote:

Ifco habitually receives queries and complaints, primarily from parents, relating to film content viewed without Ifco's age ratings, often online. This being the case, we feel it would be beneficial to your Irish users, parents in particular, to know more detailed consumer advice regarding your content is freely available.

Netflix have declined the link exchange citing technical difficulties.

Ofcom commissioned a public survey of 1830 UK viewers aged 16 and over. A similar survey is published each year so as to be able to track trends.

Ofcom's summary of results of relevant topics is as follows:

Levels of offence on TV

Less than a fifth of UK adults say they have been offended by something on TV in the previous 12 months a similar proportion to the previous year.

• Almost a fifth (18%) of respondents said they had been offended by something on TV in the previous 12 months, a similar proportion to the 2011 results.
   
• Older respondents were more likely than younger people to say they had been offended (27% of over-65s compared to 13% among 16-34s).
   
•  As in the two previous years, among those offended, language (47%), violence (33%) and sexual content (32%) were the most common causes of offence. But among those offended, fewer people (10%) said they were offended by nakedness than in 2010 (14%) and 2011 (16%).
   
• Among those who had been offended, four in ten (39%) agreed with the statement such things should only be shown when viewers are likely to expect them (e.g. after a clear warning), followed by 36% who agreed that others should be allowed to see these things , whereas 20% thought that it should not have been shown .
   
• The main reaction on seeing something that caused offence was to switch channel (50%). Almost a quarter (22%) said they switched off, 15% continued watching the programme and 15% discussed it with others.
   
• Audiences today are less likely than in 2008 to switch off when they see something that offends them (32% in 2008 vs 22% in 2012) and more likely to continue watching (5% in 2008 vs 15% in 2012).

Attitudes towards sex, violence, swearing and harmful content on TV

Opinions about the amount of sex, violence and offensive language on TV look to have shifted since 2005; with the proportion saying the amount is about right having steadily increased for each type of content, while the proportion stating too much has declined.

• The majority of respondents felt that current levels of sex (67%), violence (56%) and swearing (56%) on TV are about right . One in four (24%) felt there was too much sex and just over two in five felt there was too much violence (39%) and swearing (39%). This compares to 36% of adults saying there was too much sex on TV in 2005, with 56% for violence and 55% for swearing.
   
• Older respondents were more likely than younger respondents to think levels were about right for each type of content.
   
• 16% of respondents said they had seen something on TV in the past 12 months that they thought was harmful, either to themselves, to other adults or children; a similar proportion as in 2011.

Protection of children and the TV watershed

Audiences today are more likely than in 2005 to think the 9pm watershed is at about the right time

• 50% of respondents felt it was the responsibility of both broadcasters and parents to make sure that children do not see unsuitable programmes. Just under half (45%) felt it was mainly parents responsibility and 4% mainly broadcasters .
   
• Parents were more likely than those without childcare responsibility to feel it was the responsibility of both broadcasters and parents to ensure that children do not see unsuitable programmes (53% vs 48%), and less likely to say mainly parents (42% vs 46%).
   
• Most (96%) were aware that broadcasters are required to show television programmes that are not suitable for children only after a certain time in the evening.
   
• Audience today were more likely to think the 9pm watershed was at about the right time, with three-quarters (75%) of respondents saying so. This compares to 64% in 20052 .

Internet Censorship

Opinions that the amount of censorship for the internet is too little have increased since 2010.

• The majority of respondents (88%) thought TV programmes were censored, an increase from 85% in 2010. 74% felt that current levels of TV censorship were about right .
   
• 40% thought the internet was censored. Almost half (47%) felt that current levels of internet censorship were too little , (increasing to 54% among parents), 23% said about right and 28% said they didn't know whether it was about right or not. Since 2010 the proportion of respondents who said they did not know has declined (from 38%).
   
• Since 2010 opinions that the amount of censorship for the internet is too little have increased from 41% in 2010 to almost half (47%) of UK adults in 2012. This rises to more than half (53%) among parents.
   
• 73% of respondents were aware that it is possible to watch/download programmes online. Awareness declined with age (81% of 16-34s vs 53% of 65+) and parents' awareness was higher than among those not responsible for children (80% vs 70%).
   
• Among those aware that it is possible to watch/download programmes online, 55% thought that the content was censored and 10% thought that it was not. Awareness was higher among 16-34s (57%, compared to 50% of over-65s)

The Financial Times is reporting that Google will launch paid subscription channels on YouTube sometime very soon. Channels will be priced from about £ 1.30 a month. The idea would allow traditional broadcasters to offer content to viewers

YouTube has been interested in creating more high-quality channels for some time now. Recently it awarded grants of $1million to several UK bidders who pitched channel ideas.

There is one interesting side issue here, because at some point YouTube will become, in the eyes of the UK government - and likely others - a broadcaster. When that happens, the firm is going to have to obey UK censorship laws and make sure that under-18s are protected from unsuitable content.

Pocket-lint understands that the money YouTube gave to its channel partners to start channels was paid in advance specifically to avoid the need to be censored by ATVOD and Ofcom.

ATVOD's censorship fees are very expensive and the money is mostly spent dreaming up ways to suffocate the UK adult internet business.

YouTube is currently outside of the grasp of ATVOD as user content is specifically excused from their censorship under European law. However material from commercial channels which may be TV programmes is not exempt from TV censorship once it is under editorial control and uploaded by the channels themselves.

The House of Lords' Communications Committee are looking for 'voluntary' participation in Ofcom's content regulation, but these kinds of voluntary arrangement are rarely truly voluntary. Usually the government threatens legislation if the required 'volunteering' doesn't take place.

These are the key paragraphs from the House of Lords Communications Committee recommendations :

204.  Ofcom should investigate the option of non-broadcast providers of TV-like services, such as Netflix and the content providers mentioned in Box 1, being invited to comply with an appropriate set of standards (the Broadcasting Code suitably amended for their environment) in return for some form of public recognition or kitemark. (Para 53)

211.  We urge the Government to ensure that cooperation on the regulation of converging media content, such as the category of TV and TV-like material, is included as part of the discussions between the EU and the US about the establishment of a free trade agreement. (Para 94)

221.  Specifically, Ofcom should be required, in dialogue with UK citizens and key industry players, to establish and publish on a regular basis the UK public's expectations of major digital intermediaries such as ISPs and other digital gateways, specifically with regard to protecting UK audiences and their families when accessing content through digital intermediaries' services, covering for example:

• The scope of their responsibilities (given they are not always in direct control of the content to which they provide access);

• Appropriate processes for receiving complaints and subsequent redress;

• Any specific measures, such as access controls, content classification systems, or other actions which the UK public might expect them to take in protecting children from harmful material. (Para 141)

YouTube has sparked outrage in Spain by banning videos featuring bloody bullfights from its site.

The web portal pulled the plug on the pablolr89 channel.

A spokesman from the U.S. firm told El Mundo newspaper people could still post videos of bulls with the cape or the bullfighter's stick. But those featuring blood and where the bull is speared or killed are now banned.

A petition has also been set up on the Change.org website, with more than 2,100 signatures already calling for YouTube to reinstate the channel.

On 12th February 2013, the government minister for Culture, Communications and Creative Industries, Ed Vaizey, appeared before the House of Lords Communications Select Committee to give his opinions about media convergence.

One interesting point was that the government intends to extend internet censorship in the upcoming Communications white paper.

The government looks set to extend the onerous TV censorship regime administered by Ofcom to all channels appearing on a TV's Electronic Programme Guide. At the moment, internet TV channels are not subject to Ofcom's suffocating TV censorship. Vaizey feels that 'viewers expect' anything that looks like a TV channel which presents itself for channel hopping in the EPG to be subject to the same strict censorship as broadcast TV.

However channels presenting themselves via an app interface, seem likely to be let off the hook and censored according to the less strict censorship of the Video on Demand censor, ATVOD.

So anything featuring biased news such as Fox News, or else hardcore porn will have to stay off the EPG, and stick with being available only as an app. Vaizey's thinking is that viewers will not expect the same strict censorship for a channel that is more obviously internet based.

The Thai government plans to ask Youtube to remove a video clip joking about the sex industry in Thailand.

The clip is a parody of a commercial for the Rosetta Stone foreign language learning programme. The spoof was produced by popular American late-night television show Saturday Night Live .

In the video, foreigners are interested in learning the Thai language so they know how to say things like, How much? , Is that for the whole night? or How can I take off your clothes? in Thai.

Culture Minister Sonthaya Khunploem said that the Culture Watch Centre is working with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in an effort to have the video removed from Youtube.

The government will also claim to the United States embassy that the commercial spoof is tarnishing Thailand's image and will ask the embassy to explain the situation to the producer of Saturday Night Live, Sonthaya said.

Rather ironically the Thai culture minister is the brother of the Mayor of Pattaya which is very much the capital of the tourist sector of the sex industry. Perhaps the minister should consider that his actions are contributing to an image of hypocrisy and internet censorship.

One Thai commenter kindly translated the culture ministers diplomacy speak:

Even though it might be true, the producers should not offend Thailand this way.

Update: Censored?

5th February 2013.  See  article from  nationmultimedia.com

YouTube has removed the Rosetta Stone Thai spoof video clip produced by US late-night TV show's Saturday Night Live that portrays Thailand in a negative light, mocking the country as a destination for sex tourists. Well at least according to Apinand Poshaya-nond, deputy permanent secretary for culture, who 'confirmed' the removal yesterday.

Apinand said yesterday that the ministry would explain the situation later to the producer of Saturday Night Live .

Meanwhile you can watch the 'offending' video on...you've guessed it... YouTube !

Comment: What a proper minister of fun would have said

6th February 2013.  See  article from  notthenation.com

This video is neither accurate nor humorous, and relies on outdated stereotypes to make fun of our nation and culture, said Thailand's minister of fun: The truth is that Thai prostitutes and those who provide sex services are fluent in English.

The minister blasted the video's ignorant suggestion that foreign tourists who wished to experience the unique pleasures of Thailand's extensive commercial sex services needed to undergo expensive and difficult language training.

Our sex tourism industry is one of the world leaders in the field, and we have serviced millions of satisfied customers -- male and female -- for decades. English, Chinese, German, Japanese, Russian, French, and Arabic-speaking sex tourists from around the world know that you don't need to speak a word of Thai to enjoy sex in Thailand. We are proud of this and will fight to maintain our image.

The Thai government plans to ask Youtube to remove a video clip joking about the sex industry in Thailand.

The clip is a parody of a commercial for the Rosetta Stone foreign language learning programme. The spoof was produced by popular American late-night television show Saturday Night Live .

In the video, foreigners are interested in learning the Thai language so they know how to say things like, How much? , Is that for the whole night? or How can I take off your clothes? in Thai.

Culture Minister Sonthaya Khunploem said that the Culture Watch Centre is working with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in an effort to have the video removed from Youtube.

The government will also claim to the United States embassy that the commercial spoof is tarnishing Thailand's image and will ask the embassy to explain the situation to the producer of Saturday Night Live, Sonthaya said.

Rather ironically the Thai culture minister is the brother of the Mayor of Pattaya which is very much the capital of the tourist sector of the sex industry. Perhaps the minister should consider that his actions are contributing to an image of hypocrisy and internet censorship.

One Thai commenter kindly translated the culture ministers diplomacy speak:

Even though it might be true, the producers should not offend Thailand this way.

Update: Censored?

5th February 2013.  See  article from  nationmultimedia.com

YouTube has removed the Rosetta Stone Thai spoof video clip produced by US late-night TV show's Saturday Night Live that portrays Thailand in a negative light, mocking the country as a destination for sex tourists. Well at least according to Apinand Poshaya-nond, deputy permanent secretary for culture, who 'confirmed' the removal yesterday.

Apinand said yesterday that the ministry would explain the situation later to the producer of Saturday Night Live .

Meanwhile you can watch the 'offending' video on...you've guessed it... YouTube !

Vimeo introduces its new ratings system in a blog post:

As the home for exceptional original videos and the people who make them, we have an unflinching belief in the integrity of visual storytelling, including --- in some cases --- material that may make some viewers uncomfortable. But the truth is that one cannot ignore the naked, the violent, and the swearing when striving to capture the breadth of the human condition. Uncomfortable subjects, even discomfort itself, are essential components of our shared experience, and artists need the freedom to express them.

Though often essential to artistic expression, so-called mature content can be decidedly less essential for certain audiences, such as children, office workers with their computer speakers turned up too loud, and people who'd rather not encounter particular things. To make sure Vimeo remains accessible to all audiences, we're introducing content ratings, which let viewers know what's in the video they're about to watch. All videos on Vimeo will now have a little badge next to their title: All Audiences, Mature, or Not Yet Rated.

This means we'll ask creators to tell us if there's nudity, violence, or illegal substances (e.g., plutonium) in their videos, which can still be uploaded to Vimeo as long as they comply with our Guidelines.

Ratings are just the first step along a path that will make Vimeo more accessible to all audiences. The eventual goal of this project is to create a system that enables viewers to filter out mature content, or opt to see only videos that have been intended for all audiences.

Vimeo will always be the place to find an audience for your original creative work, but sometimes it means giving people a heads up if a face is going to explode or if someone is going to take their jean shorts off.

Decisions uphold ATVOD determination that Business Channel was subject to regulation as an on-demand programme service, but rule that two BBC Worldwide YouTube channels were outside scope of VOD regulation

An appeal by Greystone Media Ltd against an ATVOD determination in April 2011 that its web- based video on demand service The Business Channel was an on-demand programme service and therefore subject to regulation by ATVOD has today not been upheld by Ofcom.

However, two further appeals against ATVOD determinations in May 2011 that BBC Worldwide was providing on-demand programme services on its YouTube channels BBC Food and BBC Top Gear have today been upheld.

In order to fall victim to censorship overseen by ATVOD, a service must satisfy a number of statutory criteria, as set out in section 368A of the Communications Act 2003. One of these is that the principal purpose of the service is the provision of programmes the form and content of which are comparable to the form and content of programmes normally included in television programme services.

To a significant extent, the outcome of all three appeals turned on whether the relevant on demand videos were comparable to television programmes.

Commenting on the decisions, ATVOD Chief Executive Pete Johnson said:

The question of whether video content is 'comparable' to programmes normally included in television broadcasts is far from straightforward. We will now consider the appeal decisions carefully and analyse the implications for future decisions as to whether a particular service is, or is not, subject to regulations designed to protect consumers.