Content deleted Content added
Polly Tunnel (talk | contribs) m fixed double redirect→Criticism |
GreenC bot (talk | contribs) Move 1 url. Wayback Medic 2.5 per WP:URLREQ#prweb.com |
||
| (25 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Short description|UK television regulator (2010–2015)}}
{{EngvarB|date=September 2017}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=September 2017}}
{{Infobox organisation
|name = The Authority for Television on Demand
Line 5 ⟶ 8:
|caption =
|abbreviation = ATVOD
|formation = 2010
|dissolved = 2015
|type = Private company limited by guarantee<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.atvod.co.uk/uploads/files/ATVOD_Articles_of_Association.pdf |title=Articles of Association of ATVOD |date=22 June 2011
|status = [[Quango]]
|purpose = independent co-regulator for the editorial content of UK video on demand services<ref name=about/>
|headquarters = 27 Sheet Street, [[Windsor, Berkshire|Windsor]], UK<ref>{{cite report
|region_served = United Kingdom
|membership =
|leader_title = Independent Chair
|leader_name = Ruth Evans
|leader_title2 = Independent Deputy Chair
|leader_name2 = Nigel Walmsley
| leader_title3 =
| board_of_directors = Robin Foster, Ian McBride, Paul Whiteing, Alexander Kann, Nicola Phillips, James Tatam<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.atvod.co.uk/about-ATVOD/atvod-Board |title=ATVOD Board
▲| board_of_directors = Robin Foster, Ian McBride, Paul Whiteing, Alexander Kann, Nicola Phillips, James Tatam<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.atvod.co.uk/about-ATVOD/atvod-Board |title=ATVOD Board |date= |website=atvod.co.uk |publisher=ATVOD |access-date=8 November 2015 |quote= |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150826030547/http://www.atvod.co.uk/about-ATVOD/atvod-Board |archivedate=August 26, 2015 }}</ref>
| main_organ =
| website =
| formerly = The Association for Television On-Demand
}}
The '''Authority for Television
== Origins ==
The ''Audiovisual Media Services Directive 2007'' (2007/65/EU) of the European Union was implemented into [[Law of the United Kingdom|UK law]] through Part 4A of the [[Communications Act 2003]].<ref name=Ofcom_Review>{{cite web|title=Review of the Ofcom Designation of the Authority for Television
ATVOD, formerly the ''Association for Television On-Demand'', had originally been created as a self-regulatory industry body with the support and encouragement of the
== Regulation ==
Line 51 ⟶ 52:
* Had to abide by rules on advertising, sponsorship, and product placement, but which Ofcom decided would be regulated by the Advertising Standards Authority rather than ATVOD.<ref name=Ofcom_Designation2>{{cite web|title=Ofcom Designation of the Advertising Standards Authority|url=http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/broadcast/tv-ops/vod/asa.pdf|publisher=Ofcom|date=29 July 2010|accessdate=18 May 2014}}</ref>
The question as to which services fell under ATVOD's regulation was tested on an ongoing basis. Appeals against ATVOD's decisions were referred to Ofcom.<ref>{{cite web|title=ATVOD Responds To Ofcom Appeal Decisions
Sanctions against those who failed to comply with these regulations included fines of up to £250,000, suspension of service and criminal prosecution.<ref name=Ofcom_Regulation/><ref name=Guardian_Video>{{cite news|author=Siobhain Butterworth|title=Why video may kill self-regulation of the press|url=https://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/mar/07/video-self-regulation-press|
== Adult websites ==
{{see also|Age verification system}}
In practice the majority of ATVOD's work consisted of regulating UK websites that hosted videos to ensure that services containing adult content could not be accessed by users under 18. In September 2013 it ran a seminar for small businesses to explain VOD regulations.<ref>{{cite web|title=ATVOD Announces Seminar For Small Businesses |url=http://www.atvod.co.uk/news-consultations/news-consultationsnews/atvod-announces-seminar-for-small-businesses |publisher=ATVOD |date=26 September 2013 |accessdate=13 December 2013 |
ATVOD only had the [[jurisdiction]] to take action against websites that were based in the UK. Consequently, in 2013 the regulator proposed the introduction of a new licensing system. Licences would have only been granted to websites that had suitable age checks in place. Unlicensed websites would have had their payments from UK customers blocked.<ref name=BBC_Law>{{cite news|title=Porn site age-check law demanded by media regulator|url=
== Enforcement ==
In
==Consultation and
In 2013 ATVOD conducted a survey into how easy the public
In 2014 ATVOD published the results of research carried out in December 2013, tracking the actions of 45,000 UK internet users under the age of 18. Of those sampled, 10% of under-18s, 6% of under-16s, and 3% of under-12s who used the Internet during that month had accessed an adult internet service at some point.<ref>{{cite web|title=44,000 Primary School Children Access Porn Websites
== Criticism ==
* The AVMSD was criticised by the [[Confederation of British Industry]] in 2006 for its potential to stifle the development of VOD in the UK.<ref>{{cite news|title=Q&A: EU Audiovisual Media Services directive|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6055060.stm|publisher=BBC News|date=16 October 2006|accessdate=22 November 2013}}</ref>
* In 2011 ATVOD wrote to several UK newspapers claiming that their websites came under its regulatory ambit despite the fact that the AVMSD expressly excluded electronic versions of newspapers and magazines from its scope.<ref name=Guardian_Video/>
* Also in 2011 the UK VOD industry expressed concerns over the level of fees charged by ATVOD. The fees were considered to be both disproportionate to the service ATVOD provided and much greater than those charged in the rest of the [[European Union]].<ref>{{cite web|author=Tony Ghee|title=The Association for Television on Demand (ATVOD) – Land Grabber or Just Plain Needy|url=http://www.taylorwessing.com/download/article_atvod.html
* The [[Open Rights Group]] criticised the lack of transparency regarding the 2013 talks between ATVOD and financial institutions and consequent recommendations to government, calling for the process come under parliamentary scrutiny.<ref name=CityAM/>
* There was controversy over ATVOD's process of selecting websites for enforcement action. Itziar Bilbao Urrutia of ''The Urban Chick Supremacy Cell'' has said
==Legacy==
Although ATVOD ceased to exist at the end of 2015, attempts to further regulate on-demand services have continued. Provisions regarding the creation of an age-verification regulator and the blocking of non-compliant sites subsequently formed part of the [[Digital Economy Act 2017]]. However, the implementation of the [[proposed UK Internet age verification system]] was cancelled by the UK government in 2019.<ref>{{cite magazine|title=UK scraps plan to enforce age checks on pornography websites|url=https://www.newscientist.com/article/2220220-uk-scraps-plan-to-enforce-age-checks-on-pornography-websites/|magazine=New Scientist|date=16 October 2019}}</ref> In May 2021, the government published the draft [[Online Safety Act 2023|Online Safety Bill]]<ref>{{Cite web|date=12 May 2021|title=Draft Online Safety Bill|url=https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/985033/Draft_Online_Safety_Bill_Bookmarked.pdf|access-date=15 May 2021}}</ref> which applied a duty of care to all "user-to-user services" that allowed one user to encounter the content of another user. Addressing the [[Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee|House of Commons DCMS Select Committee]], the [[Oliver Dowden|Secretary of State, Rt. Hon. Oliver Dowden MP]] confirmed<ref>{{Cite web|date=13 May 2021|title=Witness Session DCMS Select Committee|url=https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/378/digital-culture-media-and-sport-committee/publications/oral-evidence/|access-date=15 May 2021}}</ref> he would be happy to consider, during pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill by a joint committee of both Houses of Parliament, a proposal to extend the scope of the duty of care to all commercial pornographic websites. In February 2022 the Digital Economy Minister, [[Chris Philp]], announced that the bill would be amended to bring commercial pornographic websites within its scope.<ref>{{cite news|title=Porn sites in UK will have to check ages in planned update to online safety bill|url=https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/feb/08/porn-sites-in-uk-will-have-to-check-ages-in-planned-update-to-online-safety-bill|newspaper=The Guardian|first1=Dan|last1=Milmo|first2=Jim|last2=Waterson|date=8 February 2022}}</ref>
== See also ==
| |||