uk law on net film

[dvtimes]

I was speaking to some chap last night on the phone.

He is planning to start shooting dvd porn.

I said its very hard to do if you have not even shot any content yet.

I said the net is best (I pointed out strictly broadband as an example).

By the sounds of it he had no real net expirence.

But he said that he thought under uk law it was an offence to have films on the net regardless if they were hosted or not in the uk.

In fact he sugested if it had simply been shot in the uk, then it was clased as uk, even if it was then posted to the usa and put on a server.

He said this was a seperate law to the uk film sencor.

In other words just about every uk site is breaking the law.

I said i think he had got that completly wrong.

But he may be correct.

Just wondered if anyone knew more about this.

[Paul Markham]

I think your friend had best go talk to a lawyer who has a clue.

Because he obviously has not.

A film posted on the Net has to be classed as obscene or a copyright violation to be in trouble with the law.

It's my understanding the BBFC wanted a voluntary inclusion of Net content, so I doubt if it was covered under the VRA. You can bet your bottom dollar a Limited Company that charges to censor by the minute would not be asking for a voluntary inclusion if it was already law.

[JT]

I have a mate down the pub who say's he's Elvis

[michel]

I think your friend had best go talk to a lawyer who has a clue.

Because he obviously has not.

A film posted on the Net has to be classed as obscene or a copyright violation to be in trouble with the law.

It's my understanding the BBFC wanted a voluntary inclusion of Net content, so I doubt if it was covered under the VRA. You can bet your bottom dollar a Limited Company that charges to censor by the minute would not be asking for a voluntary inclusion if it was already law.


1. (1) The provisions of this section shall have effect for the interpretation of terms used in this Act.

(2) 'Video work' means any series of visual images (with or without sound)-

(a) produced electronically by the use of information contained on any disc, magnetic tape or any other device capable of storing data electronically, and

(b) shown as a moving picture.

(3) 'Video recording' means any disc, magnetic tape or any other device capable of storing data electronically containing information by the use of which the whole or a part of a video work may be produced.

(4) 'Supply' means supply in any manner, whether or not for reward, and, therefore, includes supply by way of sale, letting on hire, exchange or loan; and references to a supply are to be interpreted accordingly.

That's from the act.
I'm not an expert but it reads to me like it covers all of the Internet.

[Paul Markham]

That's from the act.
I'm not an expert but it reads to me like it covers all of the Internet.
Reads the same to me, so any site buying a $20 video clip from anyone needs a $200 license for it if they are based in the UK.

I will investigate further.

Not that it effects me.

[Paul Markham]

The British Board of Film Classification
3 Soho Square
London W1D 3HD
Telephone switchboard 020 7440 1570
Facsimile 020 7287 0141

On the phone with them now.

[Paul Markham]

So the official policy of the BBFC from the person I spoke to is speak to your lawyer. They have had a person working on this for a year and nothing happened.

At first the person I spoke to said BBFC applies to video hosted and supplied from inside the UK.

Then after speaking to the line manager the position changed to "Speak to your lawyer"

My opinion is they don't know.

Try phoning them they are very helpful. They know more than the bloke down the pub. You could also try your local Trading Standards Dept in the local town hall because these are the people who will knock on your door. The police are not interested usually unless the tag it on the end of other charges or want to close you down.

GO TALK TO A LAWYER.

[michel]

So the official policy of the BBFC from the person I spoke to is speak to your lawyer. They have had a person working on this for a year and nothing happened.

At first the person I spoke to said BBFC applies to video hosted and supplied from inside the UK.

Then after speaking to the line manager the position changed to "Speak to your lawyer"

My opinion is they don't know.(i edited out the rest of the quote)

GO TALK TO A LAWYER.

Sounds like standard operating procedure.

"There is neither someone big enough to go after, nor is there an advantageous situation to warrent doing a crack down, at this moment in time. So keep quiet and not put too much effort into enforcing the act. Just inform everyone to speak to a lawyer for legal advice. In the meantime wait for an opportunity to arise in which maximum advantage can be obtained."

The wording in the VRA is pretty easy to understand and very explicit. It is all encompassing and you would have to be nieve to not see that it's just a waiting game going on.

The question isn't "if they are going to do something."
It's a matter of "when" and "who are they going to nail first?"

[strictlybroadband]

The British Board of Film Classification
3 Soho Square
London W1D 3HD
Telephone switchboard 020 7440 1570
Facsimile 020 7287 0141

On the phone with them now.

The BBFC gave a presentation at AITA last week. For those of you who aren;t members, I'd recommend joining - they have good links with government, BBFC, police etc. http://www.aita.co.uk/

The upshot is that most people believe the VRA does NOT cover the Internet. This includes the BBFC who have taken legal advice. In other words, the BBFC *think* that it's OK to put non-certified content on the internet and so do most lawyers.

HOWEVER they can't guarantee this - it would be up to a court to decide. Nobody has so far been prosecuted, so nobody can say for certain what the legal situation is. But given the number of UK people/companies who have put hardcore porn online over the past 10 years, it's likely that this situation will continue until the UK government decides to amend the law.

[dvtimes]

So technicaly it affects everybody world wide.

In theory you could fly to the uk on holiday and be arrested as you enter the uk.

also under eu law, if you break a law in one eu country and live in another eu country, you can be arrested and sent to that country.

[mOBSCENE]

So technicaly it affects everybody world wide.

In theory you could fly to the uk on holiday and be arrested as you enter the uk.

also under eu law, if you break a law in one eu country and live in another eu country, you can be arrested and sent to that country.

Interpreted this way, it would even cover a video clip of a clown and his dog wandering throught woods. Or how about a chap's wedding video?

Again, people think the BBFC applies to everything because of that "any recording" definition, but you will find it doesn't apply to broadcasting, which is covered by different laws.

I'm not sure about films on TV, but I never see a BBFC certificate on all the dramas and soaps etc that are shown.

I asked a friend with a law degree, and as far as she understands the wording, in logical form, to "supply a video recording" means to supply a physical item which is "any disc, magnetic tape or any other device capable of storing data electronically" - an interpretation which could not cover the internet since nothing physical is being supplied. Ok, the recording is being exchanged, but a physical item is not - the act originally was meant to cover videotapes and any super duper new formats that might come out in the future like CD and DVD.

They could try to prosecute an internet case, but any decent lawyer would probably use that defence, which they know, which is why there have never been any prosecutions, and why as SB says, there would need to be further amendments to the law for them to start doing this, but I imagine they realise it would be unworkable, and that is why they are working on their voluntary rating idea.

[dvtimes]

it does not cover tv, unless they sell dvd's.

some educational films are excempt.

if its a family wedding, that is excempt unless you start selling it on mass.

also a clown and his dog in woods is excempt as its classed as art.

[Paul Markham]

From the conversation I had and the way it changed, added to the fact that it's a service which is charged for, I would bet they know they do not have a leg to stand on.

They are looking to run a company and they would of had a few prosecutions to scare the rest into getting a license if they could. Forget about this as a porn issue, it's as DVT points out except he forgot factual recordings. Like the World Cup or some news worthy item. "Adult" goes over the top of this.

So if you did an educational video and made the shooting a news worthy item, say you got some one famous to show you how to have sex, striptease or anything vaguely sexual you need a certificate.

[dvtimes]

My thought is, they would not take anUK net firm to court over this.

The reason being is i would suspect that it would be deemed unfair on uk based firms as they are in the eu.

If they were to loose, i suspect thatin theory people could use the ruling not to bother with the film senors in the uk, and simply sell the films.

Personaly i find the film sencers odd. On one hand they are an independent firm. But on the other hand they can invent the law? I mean its like me setting up a business that examins hats. You would think it mad if i could say what was and was not legal to wear on your head, and even charged you a fee for me to look at your hat.

Its a great business charge people £2000 to watch there films, and play god. Only in the UK.

[dvtimes]

its things like this that i often think surly we should just let the eu govern us, rather than have all these pointless chinless wonders get in the way of things all the time, just so they can look like they are important.

[Paul Markham]

My thought is, they would not take anUK net firm to court over this.

The reason being is i would suspect that it would be deemed unfair on uk based firms as they are in the eu.

If they were to loose, i suspect thatin theory people could use the ruling not to bother with the film senors in the uk, and simply sell the films.

Personaly i find the film sencers odd. On one hand they are an independent firm. But on the other hand they can invent the law? I mean its like me setting up a business that examins hats. You would think it mad if i could say what was and was not legal to wear on your head, and even charged you a fee for me to look at your hat.

Its a great business charge people £2000 to watch there films, and play god. Only in the UK.
You really should not post about things you know so little about.

Censorship is a country by country matter. Already been tried and failed.

They do not invent the law as is totally obvious by my posts. Phone them and ask them the questions I did.

[mOBSCENE]

Let's face it the BBFC watch porn all day and get paid for it.

[gawdi]

Let's face it the BBFC watch porn all day and get paid for it.
:( Thats OK for the first month I suppose....

Do the reviewers at BBFC have private cubicles so they can wank as they watch?

[mOBSCENE]

:( Thats OK for the first month I suppose....

Do the reviewers at BBFC have private cubicles so they can wank as they watch?

No but their wives complain about how randy they are after a day at the office :)