Does Ireland need Purn Channels? [WARNING Explict Content]

scath

With DVB-T2 you could have up on over 60 channels. I'm of the view that terrestrial comboing with satellite could be attractive by Onevision offering premium channels such as adult channels and sports channels and not trying to push hard channels that are on satellite free to air or cable. Thus Onevision becomes the really premium option and not the general option.

But I know perhaps you don't want to not have channels that you can get on UPC like Dave etc so you may want to offer these. I guess with T2 you could have it all on offer. So you give people the option though, if you wish to have satellite DTT combo then you can, making switching provider easier in the future, or you can pay a little more if you want to avoid FTA satelllite for these channels with us on just terrestrial (aerial TV).

I know that is encouraing people to think of satellite. Its very attractive for the customer cos if they ever want to switch to sky they only need to change box.

As ye've said before, Onevision won't wish to go down the combo route for fear of encouraging switching options. The most important thing is the sale of digital TVs with an inbuilt card slot would make it very attractive for Onevision so the customer would have the switching option.

I know this is something people don't talk about openly here but isn't adult a necessary part of pay TV platforms as it does draw in subscribers? There are some useful guidelines from the UK http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/obb/ocsc_adjud/rhfportland.pdf

3e overnight I thought have very soft stuff. I wonder what the guidelines of the BAI are there?

Interesting research carried out for Ofcom at http://www.ofcom.org.uk/research/radio/reports/bcr/language.pdf

Elmo

scath wrote: »

I know this is something people don't talk about openly here but isn't adult a necessary part of pay TV platforms as it does draw in subscribers?

This is the problem with TV, the idea that you need crap to promote it. Look at City Channel and TV3 both showing either gambling or softporn to survive, both pay TV (at least C4 gave it to us for Free )

I think the rape crisis centre may disagree with your view point on pornography.

Useless the porno movie channel has to redirect funding to actual proper TV and film their is no point to it, and even then I don't beleive that it is an option. Pay TV doesn't pay for TV it makes money.

Does UPC provide porno channels as extras? how are they regulated?

scath

I don't agree with the view of that adult pornography has any relationship to violence. This commonly held view is a) neurotic b)misplaced.

I will tell you what does have a relationship to sexual violence is violence on TV. Violence on TV is considered acceptable. It should not be.

However I would be very much against any other type as that is clearly exploitative, harmful, abusive and against the society's interest. The problem with adult pornography is that it is exclusively acted, rather than more reflective of real couples ie real-life. I always think real couples would make more enjoyable adult pornography than actors.

I think at the end of the day regulation is important in that area ie BBFC R18 definitely. I don't agree with raids on adult films at Adult sex shops where a retail license for Video is in place. There are always people who have a mental deficiency. Pornography neither encourages nor discourages sexual violence so I wouldn't just take the Rape Crisis centre's view on it. I don't know why there are no TV ads like there is about contraception that sexual violence causes alot of damage to a person & is worse than or as bad as physical violence. Pornograpy has no relationship to that but violence in film clearly has.

I don't know what the situation is regarding cable. But that the IFCO won't apparently classify adult films I think is unacceptable as it is a breach of freedom of expression in my view.

Its all wrong in my view that violence on TV is okay and adult pornography is not. It should be the opposite. This notion that sex or depiction of adult sex is bad always is clearly neurotic as in real life adults have sex and it is natural and enjoyable.

I do believe however that depiction of violence on TV encourages acceptance of violence and I don't agree with the notion that its only on TV...as we know violence exists, so we don't need to see it. I don't believe it makes a good film even though I know film is make believe or hypotethical, fantasy as it were. I don't believe except in things like crimewatch, recreations that it should be depicted. There's too much violence in TV. By saying violence on TV is entertaining we are saying that its acceptable when clearly in law it is not.

Of course TV maybe is reflective of reality which is why violence on TV is accepted. But this gives it acceptability it should not have.

Elmo

I don't totally want to go off the topic but since it has be brought up.

The BCI did do research which suggested that most Irish Adults find sex on screen not as bad as violence. However sex on screen in a movie/television is different to watching pornography, pornography is explicit and doesn't pretend to be otherwise, and indeed their storylines (if any) suggested a certain amount of exceptable sexual violence, indeed (as you point out) others can go futher. I do not know the research that the rape crisis centre could provide that Porn is related to sexual violence, but I would be more than willing to listen to their concerns.

This goes back to what many here on boards have being say and that is more TV channels don't necessarily make for better TV.

I think that UPC and One Vision should provide 10% of their funds to the Sound and Vision Fund or there should be more regulation of Pay TV in Ireland.

I can see where scath is coming from. Part of the reason VHS succeeded over Betamax was that the adult industry adopted VHS. So its significance can't be under-estimated or dismissed.

Elmo

Karsini wrote: »

I can see where scath is coming from. Part of the reason VHS succeeded over Betamax was that the adult industry adopted VHS. So its significance can't be under-estimated or dismissed.

Well then I suggest that analogue start providing FTA pronography to prevent the take up of DTT.

I do not beleive that pornography should be provided on DTT it is a waste of time and space it wouldn't add anything to the Irish economy. Unless we set up some company who films and broadcasts pronography in Ireland. Like those ones that the Blizzard of Odd used to show clips from.

I think it would lead to the futher dumbing down of Television.

scath

I don't totally want to go off the topic either likewise. Just though its worthy within DTT context. I had heard they did. I'm glad they did.

I agree that sex on screen in a movie/television is different to watching adult pornography. People should have a choice what they have on TV and thus I believe encryption and all that is a necessity similar to the UK situation though I don't agree that explicit should be limited to just DVD. But I very much agree with parental controls, age verification etc.

In adult films there is no sexual violence any I've seen. That is the reality actually in the industry today. This notion that adult films are violent is not actually reflected in the facts. Maybe in the 70s it was but not today.I have seen quite a number myself and have not seen violence at all in them. That is why I would be very interested to see the research that they quote and to enquire how many films the research sampled and whether it is up-to-date. Based on my own 'research' if you want to term it, I have not seen it, nor would films with violence interest me, be they in TV or adult films. Therefore I am likely to be sceptical about the research they quote based my own research if you will. Its why I believe classification rather than a blanket ban is the way to go. I know Ofcom don't allow R18 to be broadcast. But I wouldn't agree with that either. But I believe that age verification is very important to avoid minors viewing the material for which they would not understand.

Like everything, opinion should always be reflective of facts to avoid it being conjecture and based on morality rather than on fact.

Indeed, TV channels don't necessarily make for better TV but they should cater to all tastes once they don't have promote harm to others.

I think that is built into the license but that is to fund the BAI rather than for the Sound & Vision Fund per say. What you would then be suggesting is an extra contribution. For cable that is established, you could have maybe 3% contribution.

With DTT you need to give it a few years before introducing it to give it time to be profitable.

Elmo

scath wrote: »

With DTT you need to give it a few years before introducing it to give it time to be profitable.

It should just be part of the licence. No questions. 3% of their subsciptions for UPC and One Vision to go into the broadcasting fund. Then I would be happy to see them provide a pay porno service :rolleyes:

scath

Haha @ the porn service lol. But I agree. But then you have the problem of Sky. I believe that they also should contribute if they want take subscriptions here. The problem with this Euro legislation is it allows differing standards. I mean the TWF directive should not just kick the BCI into touch regarding a UK provider but it does it seems to me, though AVMS revision of that allows for complaints but I think it should allow the imposition of things like this as after all it is making profits in our market and thus should abide by some of rules, without necessarily paying for 2 TV licenses, though Ofcom should be able to collect and regulate on the BCI's behalf to a UK License holder.

I'm all for classification and regulation and age verification but am against blanket bans etc..or some sort of morality society. BTW the adult industry went for Blu-Ray as far as I read which did make a difference though this time PS3 as standard was more the tiping point. Its not about dumming down TV, its about choice. There's nothing to stop smarten up TV. TV should not reflect one particular taste. That is not to say I think adult TV is the bees knees. Much of it is boring. But it has its place. Its only entertainment after all like a Hollywood film for god's sake...its not anything else except entertainment lol.

I also agree that if it was classified you would in fact have such an industry here and it would benefit the Irish economy and no doubt about it.

There are people in tights situations with mortgages. I would not be suprised if it was classified that you would have that industry here and now it wouldn't be for everybody except people into that sort of fun, ie single people or couples into that who might work in such an industry here. But it would result in revenues to the Irish taxpayer by the companies operating here.

Any time you move something from black market to regulation you make it more safer. I would argument the same about escorting. Even though I think its a sad livelihood for all concerned. I think banning outright leaves it in the hands of criminals. With regulation then you can create rules that benefit people.

I see a problem with regulating illicit drugs as even marijuana has side affects according to some studies so some things have to be made illegal and resources can be deployed more properly then against that. Criminal laws here are too short anyhow. There should be financial penalty for all criminal behaviour

Do you think people buying adult films abroad helps the Irish economy? I would be interested if someone researched it. With classification, there'd be no issue with adult shops selling classified films and this would help the Irish economy as we all know adult films are bought here, its one of those things not talked about similar to the English. Its so funny, sex in reality is normal, sex on film is unclassifiable, its so neurotic lol.

Anyhow I think that's probably enough on the topic from me before going too far off topic.

Nah, I'm not suggesting that a porn channel be launched, just that it can make or break a platform. I'd be all for a handful of good quality channels than having hundreds of crap ones.

Elmo

You know the prono industry (lets not be so neurotic about it and be PC by calling it an Adult Industry) could if it wanted get ratings from the IFCO.

Its not about dumming down TV, its about choice. There's nothing to stop smarten up TV. TV should not reflect one particular taste. That is not to say I think adult TV is the bees knees. Much of it is boring. But it has its place. Its only entertainment after all like a Hollywood film for god's sake...its not anything else except entertainment lol.

It is about dumming down TV, if something like porno is so successful why would One Vision be interested in doing anything else? Money, money, money we have seen it time and time again. The dumming down of television under the banner of choice. There is no choice. As you point out Porno would be limited due to its adult nature, that really isn't choice.

Its so funny, sex in reality is normal, sex on film is unclassifiable, its so neurotic lol.

And as you have already pointed out the sex in porno flicks isn't based on reality. Again if a film/tv show as a sex scene then that is fine as hopefully it will be based on reality. I have a huge problem with bans and cuts from film but porno or a porno station would provide nothing worthwhile.

Again how is UPC regulated over the Playboy channel.

But then you have the problem of Sky. I believe that they also should contribute if they want take subscriptions here. The problem with this Euro legislation is it allows differing standards. I mean the TWF directive should not just kick the BCI into touch regarding a UK provider but it does it seems to me, though AVMS revision of that allows for complaints but I think it should allow the imposition of things like this as after all it is making profits in our market and thus should abide by some of rules, without necessarily paying for 2 TV licenses, though Ofcom should be able to collect and regulate on the BCI's behalf to a UK License holder.

Really the AVMS should have stated that if you are collecting a subscription in any country with a PBS fund then you must provided that country with what ever amount they require for the fund. OfCom, BAI and AVMS are all neo-liberals wanting to make so called choice more accessible to the customer. HAHAHA.

scath

You make valid points. You know when you compare Ofcom and the BCI I find the Ofcom website much more transparent than the BCI, there is so much more available on the site.

Regarding adult you would have to have a restriction on any platform that you are only allowed a certain percentage to adult. That's how you ensure quality.

As far as I know Adult films of an explicit nature has been submitted a number of times and repeatedly refused classification by the IFCO apparently according to few shops I spoke with. I disagree with such a stance as morality gone mad. I gathe that the excuse is that those classifying don't wish to view it. But if you work at this job then you can easily employ people, given a list of allowed and not allowed and people will apply for the position. Someone who doesn't do it properly then gets fired as in any job for not following rules then following oversight. I've no problem with current classifiers not wanting to watch it. But they should hire classifiers that don't mind to, and classify it. In this way it encourages people to buy locally instead of abroad and is better for our economy ie vat take etc.

Elmo

Karsini wrote: »

Nah, I'm not suggesting that a porn channel be launched, just that it can make or break a platform. I'd be all for a handful of good quality channels than having hundreds of crap ones.

Is that an Irish porn channel or would you be alright with One Vision/Easy TV providing the Playboy channel as an extra?

Elmo

scath wrote: »

It cannot get rating from the IFCO apparently according to few shops I spoke with. Apparently they have refused to classify it

You know you have to pay to get classified. They may never have asked.

Elmo

Elmo wrote: »

Is that an Irish porn channel or would you be alright with One Vision/Easy TV providing the Playboy channel as an extra?

Neither, I was literally just making the point that it did have an influence in the video format war.

On the other hand I'd be all for a completely indigenous DTT service with no UK content so I guess my argument is moot since it's not going to happen.

scath

In every jurisdiction I gather you have to pay to get classified. I gather a few of the UK companies submitted with the appropriate fee apparently and were refused classification on the basis of the content that classifiers didn't wish to classify it. Now in fairness 9 songs was classified on the basis of context. In fairness I'm not against the IFCO. But I think hire afew people for that genre then classify it, support Irish jobs as they say. I'm all for taking the nastiness out of adult...

On the general point though, the way you avoid dumming town TV is to have genre quotas as part of platform licenses. You provide poor quality and then you don't get re-licensed at end of contract.

Elmo

scath wrote: »

In every jurisdiction I gather you have to pay to get classified. I gather a few of the UK companies submitted with the appropriate fee apparently and were refused classification on the basis of the content that classifiers didn't wish to classify it. Now in fairness 9 songs was classified on the basis of context. In fairness I'm not against the IFCO. But I think hire afew people for that genre then classify it, support Irish jobs as they say. I'm all for taking the nastiness out of adult...

On the general point though, the way you avoid dumming town TV is to have genre quotas as part of platform licenses. You provide poor quality and then you don't get re-licensed at end of contract.

Really IFCO could always create an X rating and not bother looking at such porno films, it would make it easier for them if they don't want so watch such films.

X: unsuitable for anyone, we won't even watch it.

scath

Elmo wrote: »

Really IFCO could always create an X rating and not bother looking at such porno films, it would make it easier for them if they don't want so watch such films.

X: unsuitable for anyone, we won't even watch it.

No..you couldn't have that, as adult films would get through the net then that shouldn't. In general most adult films are rated by the BBFC which doesn't allow the depiction of violence in R18 as far as I read. So again that backs up my point regarding the lack of link with violence and adult film really.

You have to have classification in order to say what is and isn't acceptable. Once the UK licensed adult films then we should have followed as we're just too close. Before that, fair enough if that was the social mores of the time.

So yes we need an R18. All they have to do is follow the UK ratings if they don't wanna watch them and rate them. Anything that doesn't get a rating then is clearly not for anyone to watch.

BTW before a moderator considers us off topic, we are relating this to the regulation of the DTT platform and whether or not adult channels should be allowed on the platform. At the moment because adult films are not classified in Ireland it is unlikely that the BCI could regulate such channels that fall outside IFCO Classifications.

Elmo

scath wrote: »

You have to have classification in order to say what is and isn't acceptable. Once the UK licensed adult films then we should have followed as we're just too close. Before that, fair enough if that was the social mores of the time.

TBH I think there are plenty of people who still have so called social morals. But again we are drifting.

scath

I agree with u, that ur probably right. I to be honest put mine on whether something is proven to do harm. Otherwise let people be. If it does then don't allow it. I have no time for those who insist something that doesn't do harm on others because they want a utopia ie Iran for example a few notches up on that. Yes we are drifting.

Elmo

I love the spelling but it really isn't what we are talking about :mad:
It will definately get people talking in Broadcasting haha Explicit

enfant terrible

Karsini wrote: »

I can see where scath is coming from. Part of the reason VHS succeeded over Betamax was that the adult industry adopted VHS. So its significance can't be under-estimated or dismissed.

The porn won the VHS-Beta war is a myth.

The Beta format had some technological edges over VHS at the beginning, but VHS gained the edge in aspects that were most important to consumers (e.g., length of tape, affordability of players, etc.). To the bulk of videocassette system buyers, a longer playing time per tape was a far more important factor than slightly better picture quality.

watty

Playing time of tape systems designed for both systems have the inherent 5/6ths playing time for USA vs Europe.
Betamax while superior was just too short a playing time and JVC more successful licencing than Sony. Philips was 1st with clunky 1500 then 1700 but its decent length V2000 format was hard to make and thus nearly 2 years late to market. VHS had basically won.

VHS was out for ages before you could economically buy a pre-recorded tape. I bought mine 1st model in Dec 1982 or Jan/Feb 1983. It was portable with a matching tuner box for home use.

Elmo

watty wrote: »

Playing time of tape systems designed for both systems have the inherent 5/6ths playing time for USA vs Europe.
Betamax while superior was just too short a playing time and JVC more successful licencing than Sony. Philips was 1st with clunky 1500 then 1700 but its decent length V2000 format was hard to make and thus nearly 2 years late to market. VHS had basically won.

VHS was out for ages before you could economically buy a pre-recorded tape. I bought mine 1st model in Dec 1982 or Jan/Feb 1983. It was portable with a matching tuner box for home use.

In fairness that is way off topic it should be in broadcasting history, and your pushing there

scath

Elmo wrote: »

In fairness that is way off topic it should be in broadcasting history, and your pushing there

Agree

mjsmyth

There are surveys and reports out there to prove that pornography is harmful or to prove that it is not. It is up to you which side you believe. Personally I don't see anything wrong with legal pornography, but then thats just me.

As for adding it as a DTT channel... Hmmm... one side of me is saying why not. Obviously the logistics would need some working out. It would have to be pin locked, but how do you stop little 15yo Timmy Horndog ordering it using his laser card...

Could it be a money spinner for someone brave enough to set it up? well possibly. There is obviously a market for the material otherwise the sex shops all over the country would not be in business.

The other side of me is saying why would we need it. After all, there is the internet out there and if we are being honest here, how many people actually watch a porn movie from start to finish? Its not like you sit down with a coke and popcorn and put on Debbie does Dublin 15. Porn is generally watched with one hand on the fast forward button. You can't do that watching it on DTT (unless you record it of course).

On our screens daily we have channels showing live gambling, we have live UFC, MMA and Boxing, we have excessive and crude language, we have documentaries showing drug taking and excessive drinking. We sat and watched feeds as US and UK missles took out villages and camps in Afghanistan and Iraq live on air. Is porn worse than those? I don't think so.

I don't have any moral or ethical reasons for not having porn on a dedicated channel, I just don't see the need for it.

MJ

Mike 1972

If Ireland does get porn channels no doubt they will be as ludicrously tame as the UK counterparts and still cause uproar amongst the "down with this sort of thing brigade" while those wanting real porn will continue to watch it on non-28.2 E satellites/Buy it on DVD from Amsterdam/Download it off that internet thing.

Really IFCO could always create an X rating and not bother looking at such porno films, it would make it easier for them if they don't want so watch such films.

Would make the IFCO an even more ridiculous outfit than it is now.

but how do you stop little 15yo Timmy Horndog ordering it using his laser card...

Whatever about 15yo Timmy Horndog Ive always found it a bit bizzare that his older 17yo brother can legally do things that he cannot legally watch others doing in the cinema (other then in the seats around him perhaps )

Elmo

I just want to comment on all the violence and bad language on TV/Film the same can be said for Sex. It also depends what your looking at sex, violence and bad language in Lost is far tamer than lets say The Wire, none of which make the Wire any better than Lost, the Wire would remain a better show with a tamer approach to all of the above.

tretle

Little 15yo Timmy Horndog cannot get a laser card until he is 18.

Elmo

tretle wrote: »

Little 15yo Timmy Horndog cannot get a laser card until he is 18.

But he may use Mr. and Mrs. Horndogs Laser or just put it on to their account.

tretle

Well then that's their fault, maybe they should discipline their child instead of assuming that the issue is the porn instead of their child performing fraud.
If my child did that I know what I would be annoyed about and it wouldn't be naked ladies
How is that any different from their child using their laser/credit card to buy porn from the net?