Who's the guilty? That is the question.

I take Bad Boy's cue from Shakespeare's Hamlet
[hidden link - please register]

Who's the guilty of the current status of ETV?

I start by analyzing 2 posts:

[hidden link - please register]

HvB in Eurotics website & webstream, 01.05.2012, 21:59 wrote:As I said before: Same rules as for the nightshows.
And it doesn't matter that Christine answered something different. Most likely, thanks to the mystery of internal communications (or better the lack of it), she doesn't know better.
Ammy was a glitch as obviously nobody told her about the changed rules since she left (and I hope nobody does).

[hidden link - please register]

Carl in Eurotic TV - General Discussion, 13.10.2012, 19:47 wrote:By the way I think the WEB project is the best idea in months, and furthermore the only opportunity they have to keep offering Shows that are absolutely impossible at FTA, and that will be worse in Future due to strict rules that will be implemented in EU for FTA programs.
Maybe some people who complains should put the blame in the right place which are on this "Censors" who are so concern about our "Morality" but they do keep struggling people with their economical decisions based on ruling what to do and what not to do, and restricting freedom, but of course increasing the people charges to support their "Happy Life".

From the first post we see:

1) New rules since 2011/2012 (after Amy left).

Question: no Astra or HB new rules, no Molvanian new laws, no RTR new rules.
Where these "new rules" come from ?

2) Webshows have the same rules as Nightshows.

Implicitly this means that among Astra/HB, Molvanian and RTR rules, the strictest rules are the molvanian ones.
Now I'm sorry that, for a strange rule imposed by ETV, a member can send a gift to ETV' studio but he can't say where the studio is. So I cannot post a link with the documents, otherwise you could read what Molvania stands for, but I can say: no molvanian new rules about "pornography" since 2007 .
Then: why new rules since 2011/2012 ?

From the second post:

Everybody speaks about new rules.
But nobody can see neither these new rules, nor a new guideline from regulators for the old rules.
Last year someone spoke about the beginning of 2012 as the end of the world.
Astra 19.2 was the problem, because of the renewal of licenses.Now this is no more a problem, Astra renewed ETV' license for 10 years. But 2012 is the poorest year in ETV' history.

How can't we see a temporal connection between 2012 ETV' poor shows on sat and the birth of the webshows ?

Then, answering to Carl, where should I "put the blame" ?

As regards these questions:
[hidden link - please register]

This is under the strict UK rules:
[hidden link - please register]

This under the rules of Astra 19.2 (the same as ETV), 2 nights ago:
[hidden link - please register] [hidden link - please register] [hidden link - please register]

You (HvB) always present a 3 years old document. In that document:

- RTR says that ETV breached the rules as regards daily content (shows and smss content).
RTR analyzed ETV for a whole day (24h), but the rules were breached only during the day.
This means that nightshows were OK.

- RTR says that the content that breached these daily rules can be showed in the 23:00/06:00 period.

- ETV never received warnings for the nightshow content after this.

- RTR says an important thing: there's an important dividing line between two categories:
a) Tasteful representation of eroticism and sexuality.This is allowed in the 23:00/06:00 time frame.

b) Obscenity, pornography, gratuitous and brutal depiction of violence.This is forbidden 24h on fta.
As I showed here:
[hidden link - please register]
no problem about pornography or violence on ETV. As regards obscenity ETV's nightshow contet couldn't be accused to be "obscene" because "obscenity" according EU laws, must be weighed up referring to an "average person" living in the modern era, living a common family and relationship life, being free from both excess of moralism and excess of objectionable wildness.

-------------

Conclusion:

It seems to me clear that EU, Molvania, RTR, Astra/HB have their own rules.
But I can't find anywhere explanations about what happens on ETV.
What are we talking about?

Now and then I watch BS24 and I see that the quality of the shows has a very irregular trend but the action is not so tamed down as on ETV.
My opinion is that every channel has an "internal main rule", which is the main aim of FTA channels:
"long calls --- > more money".

But ETV, following this way, has reached a very high level of manipulation.
Nothing against their "editorial choice", it's their right.
But I find very incorrect to hide the editorial choices behind the generic term "censors".

----------

As always, other points of view are welcome.
But please: give us a proof.
I know, many members hate "conspiracy theories".
But they should also consider that if they say something without giving any proof, this can be considered "conspiracy theory" as well.

----------

My apologise to Bad Boy
I've been long, but I've tried to go straight to the point and not beat around the bush
I think this is the meaning of Shakespeare's words .

' FredvomJupiter from Roshana - Discussion & Chat wrote:Roshana is not my No. 1, but I really like her, and yes, she is really cute and sexy in my opinion. Great body and great smile.

Sadly she is totally framed by her 2 "superfans", which make her fulfill always the same wishes every night, so her performance got, I wouldnt say boring, but very predicatable with almost no room for surprises.

I cant blame this fans for their wishes, they like it that way and they pay for it. If it would disturb me, I could send some different wishes, but I fear at the current state of censorship at ETV they would not be fulfilled anyway.

A brief comment about the part of FredvomJupiter's post in bold :

The new year 2014 couldn't begin in a worse way.
Etv's strategists are the guilty, because they have set a sort of idiotic internal censorship in order to hijack viewers' requests.
There's absolutely no regulator and no laws which can impose such a level of idiocy.
It's just their will:
Today they want to squeeze money for spanking, oiled feet, pussy lips without a face, 10000x identical mirror shows,... etc
At the same time they claim that riding balloons, tonguejobs, airc*cks ... etc are not allowed.
Unfortunately they don't say that these actions are forbidden by ETV itself !

Tomorrow they will say that spanking, oiled feet, pussy lips without a face, 10000x identical mirror shows are not allowed.
At the same time what is forbidden today will be allowed again.

Only a simpleton can believe in these fairy tales they provide from ages.
Current girls are partially guilty, because they accept to be part of this idiotic behaviour, by mocking the viewers for long years, and they don't understand that the viewers lose some money, but the models lose something more...

vappiano68- Eurotic TV - General Discussion, 17.01.2013, 12:29 wrote:

Iguana wrote:could someone please explain how this censorship works....i have often wondered why the cameraman seems to drop his camera as soon as the girl that he focused on drops her panties.

The main part of ETV' censorship is a manipulation.

Once again:

[hidden link - please register]

HvB in Eurotics website & webstream, 01.05.2012, 21:59 wrote:As I said before: Same rules as for the nightshows.
And it doesn't matter that Christine answered something different. Most likely, thanks to the mystery of internal communications (or better the lack of it), she doesn't know better.
Ammy was a glitch as obviously nobody told her about the changed rules since she left (and I hope nobody does).

One year later...
... and Aria still continues to affirm the opposite...
if you don't believe me, then believe to Aria's words.
She said it on Saturday 12.01.2013, 23:32.
You can find it here, in the first file (credit to Elmo):
[hidden link - please register]

Maybe it can help you to understand how censorship works in ETVland.
Where's the truth ? Nobody knows...

zxcv wrote:...a touch of creativity ....

2012 + etv + creativity = (rofl)

Over again where the problem is ???

Regardless of the complicated issue of censorship ….And it's agreed that the problem is so complicated and has many sides .

But it's also true that .....What is not allowed to be provided due to the rules of censorship ….could be presented and played at the symbolic level within a touch of creativity ....That's how it could be balanced .

That's what they are trying to apply on the web shows (which have the rules as the TV shows )….

...Their choice for the web shows is to be …more creative , more revealing , more hot ,

...Their choice for the tv shows is to be ….more soft , boring , empty of the ideas , creativity , erotic sense .

So .....It's all about their economics .

However their economics neither have been able to electrified and draw the attention of their huge base of fans …..Nor to breakthrough the huge brick wall of trust .

Mr_Niceguy wrote:The answer to this question is really simple. The viewers amongst which many members of this forum are guilty. No viewers, no ETV

Unquestionable! And more than true! I just wanted to put only the word customers near viewers .. however, from this point of view, I would do exactly as Etv!! Indeed, in their place, I'd like to find other situations to meet even more people who love these moments closer to Plato than an oriental concept of karma or, more latin of our days, to live hoping.. The money, the easiest, borns from the hopes and the ingenuity of others, so much greater than the instincts .. then there are certainly exceptions, as they say, prove the rule..
So, I agree with niceguy .. then if we want to really talk only about the shows and how Etv, and who justifies it always and in any case, is climbing on the mirrors, then I agree with Vappiano..

One of the differences that can be seen here, in fact, is that those who complain they are also able to appreciate many things in a calm and honest way.. And maybe, how does Vappiano, they try to build a constructive complaint.. While, from Etv and Etv fans side, the impression ( I make an Italian citation ), is a rubber wall on which everything bounces and behind which, all is impeccable, almost perfect and, above all, excluding some small trivial and insignificant negative notes, there is never a word against the property .. not constructive criticism, or the admission of a mistake.. Among many forums that I know, also politicians with mods clearly aligned by one side, that attitude is found only here .. But, for sure, I recognize that every choice of Etv is law.. it's right and acceptable.. It would be better if you avoided to pass it as the only possible and right law..

That said, we wish a long life, a lot of money and success to Etv, to his imperturbable and faithful spokesmen, and to all the models...
With sincere respect for what it is, with great regret not for what it was, but for what it could be .. and that does not want to be .. and that is not.. but thanks anyway

The answer to this question is really simple. The viewers amongst which many members of this forum are guilty. No viewers, no ETV

HvB wrote:nice try I quoted the complete Art. 159. There is no definition in it.

But you've understood very well what I meant.
Art. 159 speaks about punisments for "criminal acts". The definition of “pornographic material” has been added to "Criminal Acts". Since you know art. 159, you know where to find the molvanian definition of "pornography" and you don't need to use wikipedia .

Everything is around the definition of "sexual act" (as already said in the censorship thread).
The keys are here

"None of the scenes and texts examined have a quality that goes beyond the propagation of sexual content."

"open manner"

"real or simulated sexual intercourses between persons"

A medium level lawyer would be able to make a complete demolition of the accusation.

HvB wrote:And if you remember the Ammy, Mashiara and Scarlet treatment of a banana and 2 strawberries, we can certainly call that simulated sexual intercourse, can't we?

Only if all these conditions are satisfied:
- the banana is between one girl's legs
- It's depicted in a open manner
- RTR can demonstrate that there's no other purpose rather than arousing the viewers lust to finaly motivate them to make the advertised calls or sms. But you have thousands methods to demonstrate that, during the scenes, ETV has also other aims.
Just an idea:
people are accustomed to ETV's cuts-away and there are thousands products to advertise...
and IIRC Ressel had interests in musical groups...
-------

Nothing about further stricter rules for the future?

Nice thread !
Well given all the channels across sly, yes there is obviously censoreship from Offcom etc.
Personally I thing etv has a self appointed censoreship.
10% Censoreship, Watershed slots and naked vagina being shown
10% Models own censoreship, just being egotistic and wanting money for nothing
60 Directors censoreship, cutting cameras and not knowing where they should be peeking or looking
10 % Website causing a censoreship, trying to fool viewers there is better on the net, there is but not at etvshow ?
10 % Just not having a clue how to sexually tease.

vappiano68 wrote:Just a quick reply to HvB:

1- as you know I'm not a lawyer, but I know very well the job of an expert witness and how lawyers use this work.

HvB wrote:(translation: Paragraph 4: "In particular, it is required that television programs in the sense of paragraph 2, which largely reduce themself on the mindless depictions of sexual activity or when its programming contains parts, which are reduced to the display of such content, if the programming is not already prohibited by paragraph 1, are at least encrypted.")

I hope nobody of my friends will ever need to be defended by ETV's 2009 lawyer .

2- You've posted almost the whole art. 159, but strangely you've given a definition of pornography which is different from that one given in the same art. 159

"action, which expresses real or simulated sexual intercourse between persons of the same or different gender, sodomy, masturbation, sexual sadism or masochism, or lascivious demonstration of the sexual organs of a person."

3-Nothing about further stricter rules for the future?

nice try I quoted the complete Art. 159. There is no definition in it.
Most likely you refer to Article 93 Paragraph 28: “Pornographic material” is an indecent, unacceptable or incompatible with the public moral material which depicts in an open manner a sexual conduct. Such a conduct shall be a conduct which expresses real or simulated sexual intercourses between persons from the same or the opposite sex, sodomy, masturbation, sexual sadism or masochism, or lascivious demonstration of the sexual organs of a person.
Which brings us back to the findings of the Austrian investigation:None of the scenes and texts examined have a quality, that goes beyond the propagation of sexual content. All of the portrait scenes and texts aim at arousing the viewers lust to finaly motivate him to make the advertised calls or sms. The fact, that the touching and stimulating of the pictured women is only simulated, doesn't change the conclusion
sounds a bit like; Pornographic material” is an indecent, unacceptable or incompatible with the public moral material which depicts in an open manner a sexual conduct. Such a conduct shall be a conduct which expresses real or simulated sexual intercourses between persons from the same or the opposite sex
doesn't it?
And if you remember the Ammy, Mashiara and Scarlet treatment of a banana and 2 strawberries, we can certainly call that simulated sexual intercourse, can't we?
Or maybe you remember Scarlets second last show before her first leave in 2010 with the nice simulated pussy licking ...
I also remember a time when you posted a lot of videos containing such scenes, I'm just too lazy to dig through the old posts.

Just a quick reply to HvB:

1- as you know I'm not a lawyer, but I know very well the job of an expert witness and how lawyers use this work.

HvB wrote:(translation: Paragraph 4: "In particular, it is required that television programs in the sense of paragraph 2, which largely reduce themself on the mindless depictions of sexual activity or when its programming contains parts, which are reduced to the display of such content, if the programming is not already prohibited by paragraph 1, are at least encrypted.")

I hope nobody of my friends will ever need to be defended by ETV's 2009 lawyer .

2- You've posted almost the whole art. 159, but strangely you've given a definition of pornography which is different from that one given in the same art. 159

"action, which expresses real or simulated sexual intercourse between persons of the same or different gender, sodomy, masturbation, sexual sadism or masochism, or lascivious demonstration of the sexual organs of a person."

3-Nothing about further stricter rules for the future?

the answer is soooooo simple
all who pay for this bullshit for years like me.....
the fools want to be fooled

kolokotronis wrote:

LeahLuv wrote:

kolokotronis wrote:

Joker1305 wrote:It's their business, they do it their way, if we like it or not.
Joker

Wrong .Whithout customers there isnt any kind of business. Dont forget that etv is an interactive program so....

There will be always customer for something.
Joker is right, it´s their money, so why asking for who is the guilty for what?

For something and not for nothing
Wrong again.Its customers money

And for nothing there will be also somebody who is willing to pay.
Sorry, but if you want to built up something, you must first invest, so it´s the invester money who decide.

LeahLuv wrote:

kolokotronis wrote:

Joker1305 wrote:It's their business, they do it their way, if we like it or not.
Joker

Wrong .Whithout customers there isnt any kind of business. Dont forget that etv is an interactive program so....

There will be always customer for something.
Joker is right, it´s their money, so why asking for who is the guilty for what?

For something and not for nothing
Wrong again.Its customers money

kolokotronis wrote:

Joker1305 wrote:It's their business, they do it their way, if we like it or not.
Joker

Wrong .Whithout customers there isnt any kind of business. Dont forget that etv is an interactive program so....

There will be always customer for something.The 2 basic questions are: what kind of customer you want to reach.
And what do you want to sell.

Joker is right, it´s their money, so why asking for who is the guilty for what?