Who's the guilty? That is the question.

Nice text, here is another view on the topic:
In 4.2. Verletzung des § 32 Abs. 2 PrTV-G (Spruchpunkt 1.) in which is examined if there is an offense according to the cited law, we can read:
Abs. 4: „Im Besonderen bedürfen Fernsehsendungen im Sinne des Abs. 2, die sich
überwiegend auf die unreflektierte Darstellung sexueller Handlungen beschränken, oder die
Sendungsteile beinhalten, die auf die Darstellung derartiger Inhalte reduziert sind, sofern
eine Ausstrahlung nicht bereits nach Abs. 1 untersagt ist, jedenfalls einer Verschlüsselung.“
(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.")
[bla bla]
Keiner der gegenständlichen Szenen und Texte kann ein über die Verbreitung sexueller
Inhalte hinausgehender Gehalt unterstellt werden. Sämtliche dargestellten Szenen und Texte
zielen auf die Reizung der Lüsternheit der Seher ab bzw. sollen diese hierdurch letztlich
motiviert werden, die beworbenen Anrufe zu tätigen bzw. sms zu senden. Dass die
(gegenseitigen) Berührungen und Stimulierungen bei den gezeigten Frauen zT nur
angedeutet sind, ändert an dieser Beurteilung nichts.
[rough translation: 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.
[bla bla]
which means, that even though only the obvious breach of § 32 Abs. 2 was examined, the whole program is breaching § 32 Abs. 4.
This explains the rule changes for the night shows (as we could see in 2009).
As we also remember the night shows in 2010 were pretty hot, because they slowly heated up, before the management became aware of it. They usually don't watch them and the staff is responsible for the content, but it seems they got carried away a bit..., so there was a reminder of that in a meeting and there was another reminder meeting before the web shows started.
The rules that should safeguard the channel from legal troubles and keep them in line with $32 Abs. 4 (Austrian law) and $159 local law are part of the model contracts, so every model should know them.
The $159 you refered to is from 1982 and was changed in 1993, 1997, 2002, 2006, 2007 and 2009.
Art. 159.(1) Who creates, displays, performs, broadcasts, offers, sells, rents or otherwise distributes pornographic material is punishable by imprisonment of up to one year and a fine of five hundred to one thousand five hundred Euro.
(2) who distributs pornographic material via the internet or other similar ways is punishable by imprisonment of up to two years and a fine of five hundred to one thousand five hundred Euro.
(3) who displays, presents, offers, sells, rents or otherwise distributes pornographic material to a person under the age of 16 years shall be punished with imprisonment of up to three years and a fine up to two thousand five hundred Euro.
(4) For the acts under par. 1-3 penalty is imprisonment of up to six years and a fine of four thousand Euro if for the creation of pornographic material a person under 18 years of age or anyone who looks like that is used.
(5) If the act under para. 1-4 was made by order or under an organized crime group, the punishment shall be imprisonment of two to eight years and a fine of five thousand Euro, the court may rule confiscation of part or all of the property of the perpetrator.
(6) who holds or obtains for himself or for another through a computer system or otherwise pornographic material, for the creation of which is a person aged under 18, or anyone who looks like this is uses is punishable by imprisonment of up to one year or a fine of up to one thousand Euro.
(7) Any gains of the crime shall be confiscated in favor of the state, and where absent or alienated, its equivalent is awarded.

Now there is only one thing left to consider: What the fuck is pornography in the sense of the law?
Well, local legal pages help out (same wording in the localised wikipedia page): Pornography is the depiction of the human body or sexual activity with the purpose of sexual arousal.

Which brings us back to the findings of the Austrian examination, which comes to the conclusion, that 'All of the portrait scenes and texts aim at arousing the viewers lust' or in short: pornography in the Molvanian definition.

And that is exactly what the legal advise they questioned about the topic concluded. This lawer also came up with a set of rules to avoid legal trouble, which was practicaly identical with the wording in the model contracts.

vappiano68 wrote:But I cannot accept, on the other side, that theories which depict ETV as a "victim", with all the world against this TV,
don't need to be supported by some facts and some documentation.
...
Otherwise i feel myself free to consider everything I read about "ETV the victim" as "hot air".

Thanks for understanding.
Vapp

Clear, I will feel myself free not only to consider, but also to write in the forum

I think the main idea of the thread is quite justified....We do need to blow up the false allegations from ETV side concerning the fictive issue of censorship and its inlfuence on the content of the shows .

Once it has been proved through the unquestionable evidences that the problem is not essentially in the censorship laws .....this might focus the spotlight on the core issue which brings down the quality of the shows ....The econimics .

Joker1305 wrote:Hi Vappiano,
respect for the work you put in your posts, anyway who do you want to convince and what's your goal?
Even if it turns out ETV is not that limited by censorship as they claim, what should happen then?
It's their business, they do it their way, if we like it or not.
It's only up to us to be customer or not.
I think we all would appreciate if they still would deliver the same shows like 2006, but they don't.
You can deplore it, but you won't change it by posting here.

Regards
Joker

Hi Joker!
This thread was born as an answer to this question:
[hidden link - please register]
Nobody must be convinced of what has been written here.
I've accepted ETV's new course long ago, and my recorder too
But there's something difficult to accept for me, and this is the goal you speak about:

as you can see, every criticism about ETV needs to be accurately demonstrated, otherwise you can be accused to sell
"hot air" or to spread "conspiracy theories".
It's right.

But I cannot accept, on the other side, that theories which depict ETV as a "victim", with all the world against this TV,
don't need to be supported by some facts and some documentation.

Now I leave this thread, because my point of view is clear.
But the thread is open for everyone who can express his/her view with "details and documents".
Otherwise i feel myself free to consider everything I read about "ETV the victim" as "hot air".

Thanks for understanding.
Vapp

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....

Hi Vappiano,
respect for the work you put in your posts, anyway who do you want to convince and what's your goal?
Even if it turns out ETV is not that limited by censorship as they claim, what should happen then?
It's their business, they do it their way, if we like it or not.
It's only up to us to be customer or not.
I think we all would appreciate if they still would deliver the same shows like 2006, but they don't.
You can deplore it, but you won't change it by posting here.

Regards
Joker

zxcv wrote:So , I have some questions :

1- How many entity which ETV is subject to when it comes to the rules of censorship ?

As far as I know:
RTR (Austrian regulator): because the license is from Austria.
Molvania: because it's the Country where the stuff is produced.
EU: because of the Sat
Astra/HB: because they have to accept the content for fta channels.

zxcv wrote:2- Since ETV claims that there were new rules issued in 2011/2012....To be more verified here.....What's the evidence for that …I mean ...When exactly the last update of RTR rules , Astra rules , HB rules , molivain rules...have been issued ?

- Molvanian: law about pornography: 2007. No further law about this subject since then.
- Astra/HB: they renewed the same licenses as before.
If you watch BS24 (Astra 19.2) you can see stuff banned from ETV.
- RTR: Assumption from Vappiano:I didn't find any new document.
ETV was punished during 2009, so I assume that during 2010 ETV has been carefully watched by RTR.
If they didn't find anything during 2010 ...

zxcv wrote:3- ETV never received warnings for the nightshow content after this.
Just to be fair …over again is there is any substantial evidence which proves this fact …facts always matter .

They might came under pressure from those specific entities without any public announcement and therefore they decided to take some actions .

you can go here:
[hidden link - please register]
Date:All
Topic: Rechtsaufsicht
Type: All
Full-text search: eurotic

Ofcom regulators, for example, publish their actions, even when they don't have a verdict of guilty.
I assume that RTR do the same.

zxcv wrote:4-
" Tasteful representation " …. I must admit the expression itself represents a big question mark ...such a complete mysterious What exactly the limits ...what is allowed and what is not allowed .

Usually you can desume these definitions from the "guidelines".
Uk Ofcom punished some channels because they breached some guidelines.
As far I know RTR didn't publish these guidelines.
For this reason they punish daily content, while during the time frame 23:00/06:00 they forbid:
Obscenity, pornography, gratuitous and brutal depiction of violence, according EU laws.
Stuff which is out of these definitions can be considered "tasteful representation".

This is all I can tell you.
But the aim of this thread was not only this.

Usually I don't read any "detail" from people who speak about "censors" like the unique destroyers of ETV, avoiding to mention the "internal strategy".
I'd like to read also these details, because it should be up to them to give a proof of what they say.

Great job as usual . Thanks for addressing the most pressing issues in the most knowledgeable and respectful way .

As for the pressing issue of censorship I nearly share you the same opinion .....however , there are some points which need to be clarified within your remarks which might lead in the end to unquestionable conclusion .

So , I have some questions :

1- How many entity which ETV is subject to when it comes to the rules of censorship ?

2- No Astra or HB new rules, no Molvanian new laws, no RTR new rules.
Where these "new rules" come from ?

Since ETV claims that there were new rules issued in 2011/2012....To be more verified here.....What's the evidence for that …I mean ...When exactly the last update of RTR rules , Astra rules , HB rules , molivain rules...have been issued ?

(Not to mention the other issue which lies in the different legal interpretations and understanding for the rules which ETV subject to )

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

Just to be fair …over again is there is any substantial evidence which proves this fact …facts always matter .

They might came under pressure from those specific entities without any public announcement and therefore they decided to take some actions .

4- What is allowed ...Tasteful representation of eroticism and sexuality.This is allowed in the 23:00/06:00 time frame.

" Tasteful representation " …. I must admit the expression itself represents a big question mark ...such a complete mysterious What exactly the limits ...what is allowed and what is not allowed .

Last but not least :
Apart from the problems and the barriers of the controversial issue of censorship .....but it has never been and it will never be such a justified reason to offer that crap every night .

I totally agree with you vapianno like always.Etv is quilty for so soft and bad shows and not rules. Strange is that some members here always try to defend etv and when some models try to make something hotter complain about < porn > action. These people ask exacty what ask and etv stuff. Artistic shows, whithout much nudity, because nudity isnt so important for them.. Very strange isnt it? But i can see that their web shows have problem because of that change almost every week concept..I have the feeling that the most of members who buy credits to watch something hotter , after maybe second try stop to give them money. Their wall is the most funny think of their site. You can see only good post from memebers They will make hotter shows when people stop to give them money , and will stop artistic shit. I think that soon will see changes