Slashdot Mirror
Oz High Court Hears Landmark TV Guide Copyright Case
highways writes "It's rare that that a copyright case is heard in the Australian High Court, let alone a case heard by all seven sitting judges. At stake is a small company IceTV (which we discussed when it launched four years back) taking on Australia's largest television station, the Nine Network, over the copyright status of the weekly broadcast schedule. That is, the schedule itself, not any synopsis or description of the individual programs. Users of PVRs such as MythTV will be well aware of the hassle it is to get a reliable program schedule stream to use for recordings. The saga has gone on for more than two years with Nine unsuccessfully suing IceTV, but later winning on appeal. At issue is whether a list of facts like an electronic program guide is a 'compilation' protected under Australian copyright law. This has implications for the copyright status of many publicly available databases and the limits to which the information can be distributed."
When copyright was created it was to protect artistic work, music, writing, stories, images etc. It was designed to protect artistic endeavor.
The idea that you can copyright a fact, rather than its representation is just dumb.
Besides, you would think that a TV station would want people to know what was on. Objecting to this is like objecting to people linking to your site. Personally I think it would be great if we could just collectively ignore idiots like this, since that seems to be what they want.
Paul Leader
Because writing things down in a list isn't a creative work. This would be as stupid as saying you can copyright a grocery list.
a relevant and insightful first post? i'm shocked.
honestly, how can the TV network claim copyright over a TV schedule? copyright law, like patents, were created to stimulate innovation & creativity and encourage individuals to contribute to society with copyrighted works or patented ideas. so artistic/creative works are given copyright protection, just as original inventions are given patent protection.
but a simple program schedule does not contribute anything meaningful to society. it is not a cultural work. it's a list of factual information--something which no person or organization has the exclusive rights to. if this were a compilation of program synopses/reviews plagiarized from the TV network's writers, that would be a different story. but this is like saying you hold the copyright on a news event, and no one else can report on this event.
i think there was a similar case to this a few years ago involving the MLB and baseball stats. i don't know how that case turned out, but both claims are equally groundless.
Why would a schedule not be considered "creative"?
Because there is no creative element.
There are people who are paid to do nothing but come up with schedules.
There are people who are paid to do nothing but dig ditches. Is ditch-digging considered "creative" now too?
Just because someone is paid to do something, doesn't mean it's creative.
"Users of PVRs such as MythTV will be well aware of the hassle it is the get a reliable program schedule stream to use for recordings" - which means what? As users, we can't post unless we've spent thirty seconds or so re-reading our writing. How about the editors do the same?
bacon eggs bread milk
mustard mayonaise swiss cheese
butter sugar spam
This haiku grocery list (C) 2008, all rights reserved.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
A schedule isn't a list. A schedule takes into account information such as who would watch the shows, what time that demographic usually watches TV and what advertising can be shown at that time.
Like juiceboxfan said, I also think its stupid to prevent the publishing of a schedule, but just calling it a list is a reductio ad absurdum.
Absolutely correct. Copyright law in the US is based on the idea of a utilitarian social contract. "In order to promote the progress of science and the useful arts" as the US Constitution puts it.
Outside the United States, copyright law is largely based on Lockean moral rights. Workers have a right to their work product. Under this theory, copyright can protect works with little to no creativity.
Although I am largely a believer in Locke's natural rights, I do not believe that it is a good idea to apply them in the field of Intellectual Property. I favor the general US approach, although I have many issues with the way the US Congress has implemented IP laws.
If you had super powers, would you use them for good, or for awesome?
Nine is probably suing because when people see the schedule they'll realise that Nine never starts a show at the scheduled time...
Did you even read the summary?
Did you even pass 5th grade english?
Just because you write something in a list and then add a date and time doesn't make it a creative work.
When we're discussing a list, then yes, you're correct. I can put:
And it's not particularly creative.
But we're not talking about a list, we're talking about a programming guide. These are not just a random assortment of crap thrown together because it looks good, playschool follows sesame street because that's the natural progression for children*, then some cartoons that get progressivly childlike as the older children go to school. Day time TV is directed at work-at-home mum's and/or dad's (fishing on some channels, soap's on others). Each show is selected for its prime audience based on rating (which is extremely important), target audience and time they're most likely to be watching TV.
It's not just a list, it's a damned creative essay just to get one day done. Sure, you might not need to change the format or formula much while a series runs, but look at when Heath Ledger died - all the juggling that went on to fit his movies into prime time so that the masses could watch.
Don't even get me started on the last receptionist I worked with who could juggle 5 meeting rooms and the personnel in them - even with all the tracking software and meeting reminders I was flat out keeping track.
Me failed English...
FreeBSD over Linux. If my comments seem odd, this may explain...
Oh, right. Sorry, I forgot that we annexed Australia, the subject of this story, mentioned in the summary and abbreviated in the title of the damn thing, last year. Carry on, then, comrade patriot!
but the same could be said of a set of mathematical formulas, a chronological list of all U.S. presidents, a compilation of state laws, a set of driving directions, etc. it doesn't matter how much skill or labor was employed in making such lists, no one should be prevented from duplicating such information. copyright was never meant to give people a monopoly to factual information. otherwise, journalism would violate all sorts of copyrights.
i mean, should i have to pay the networks a licensing fee just for telling a friend that the news comes on at 10:00 PM? and if a corrupt politician compiles a list of all of his criminal activities, then could he prevent the press from publishing those facts because he holds the copyrights to that compilation of his misdeeds?
the premise of this case is absolutely ludicrous. copyrights should only be granted in a way that is in line with the original spirit of copyright legislation. that is, the copyright system should be used in a way that benefits society by encouraging creative cultural expression. listing facts or technical data, no matter how much work was put into it, does not warrant protection under copyright law.
if the TV network put the program schedule in a creative layout design, or they included a synopsis for each program, or perhaps published the schedule as part of an almanac of all TV programming of the past decade, and IceTV was reproducing these original customized presentations of the program schedule in their entirety, then a copyright claim could be made. but simply listing the times each program is scheduled to air at is not copyright infringement--especially if IceTV uses their own schedule streaming protocol and custom data format, thus creating an original presentation of the schedule.
Let's just suppose that we're talking about a country that believes in the sweat-of-the-brow theory of copyright protection for factual compilations (since we are).
It's one thing to protect a person who goes out and ascertains facts and compiles them. After all, the second guy can always go out and sweat and compile his own database.
It is quite another thing to allow a person who generates facts to refuse to tell anyone what those facts are except for a fee. Nine Network didn't compile these facts, they made them up. One of the underpinning rationales of the sweat-of-the-brow theory is the option for the second guy to compile an independent database of the facts. That option is absent here, giving Nine Networks a monopoly over these facts. The desire to protect compilers should not justify creating monopolies over facts.
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
Reductio ad absurdum is a highly logical and respected technique for making an argument. Given the context in which you used the phrase, I assume you meant it as a logical fallacy, but it's not a fallacy. Perhaps you meant that it is an oversimplification?
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
But all your examples are things that have already happened! They're facts, and yes, I agree that lists of facts shouldn't be copyrightable. But consider this list:
Would you argue that those are not creative? Because that's what a TV guide is; it's probably closest to the US presidents example in that it is a chronological list of events which haven't happened yet.
Would you also argue that any of those on my list are not copyrightable? I'd only argue 1, maybe 2 - a proposal for a new state law, because it's been produced by public official using public funds, and so should be freely available and usable by the public; and possibly the thesis describing a new mathematical formula, provided it was (a) pure math, not something with a direct commercial application, or (b) if the research that led to it had any amount of public funding. Outside of that, they're all copyrightable, no? And I'm given to understand that, in some US states, compilations of state law - or, at least, individual acts introducing new laws - are copyrighted, and not freely available to the public.
Note, I'm not arguing that TV guide data should be copyrighted - as an Australian who's been struggling with the ramifications of this with my PVR since we started harvesting guide data from websites before IceTV launched their guide, I don't think it should. I'm arguing that your analogies suck ;-)
What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?