Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Copyright Decision In Australia Vindicates 3d-Party EPG Provider

Posted by timothy on from the facts-and-figures dept.

angry tapir writes "In a landmark decision, the High Court of Australia has ruled that Electronic Program Guide (EPG) vendor IceTV has not violated the copyright of Channel 9 by reproducing programming information in its third-party EPG. This case has been running since May 2006, when the Nine Network alleged that IceTV's electronic program guide infringed the copyright of Channel 9's television schedule."

66 comments

  1. This is great by Hecatonchires · · Score: 4, Insightful

    IceTV provide a decent product, and the big companies were trying to stifle it while they faffed around. Good to see them win.

    --

    Yay me!

    1. Re:This is great by Techman83 · · Score: 1

      Yep, been using it for a few years now, got really tired of tweaking my grabber every couple of weeks when it broke or some provider changed the way they displayed information. IceTV has literally been, pay money, download grabber for MythTV, follow the basic instructions and leave it alone.

      Wonder how long till they start populating the data properly?

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i cat
      Damn, my RAM is full of cats. MEOW!!
    2. Re:This is great by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 1

      What do you mean by "populating the data properly"?

      --
      Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
    3. Re:This is great by Techman83 · · Score: 1

      Well IceTV to get around the previous ruling, IceTV only posted what could be "predicted" to be scheduled. So quite often you would see "Channel 9 and Affiliates only" or something similar. So what I meant was, I wonder when they will change from "Predicting" to doing what they do for all the other channels.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i cat
      Damn, my RAM is full of cats. MEOW!!
    4. Re:This is great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SKY TV New Zealand (& all the TV companies) have used this to make media centers computer based or STB Tivos impratical to use and to push their own offerings. Bastards.

    5. Re:This is great by BrokenHalo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Channel 9 already gets around any automatic recording by grossly misrepresenting their timetable. Anyone who uses it will have a large section of advertising (or the previous program) at the beginning of their recording, and the end will be chopped off. The difference in timing is usually around 12 minutes for primetime, but I have known it stretch to over 20 minutes on occasion.

    6. Re:This is great by NoMaster · · Score: 1

      got really tired of tweaking my grabber every couple of weeks when it broke or some provider changed the way they displayed information

      You wrote your grabber wrong ;-)

      When the then-current Aus grabber (JavaXMLTV?) stopped chasing the moving target of the TV guide websites when they went to Javascript 'encryption' in about 2005 or 2006, I - a half-arsed programmer if ever there was one - sat down and decided to write my own. One week, and a bit of lateral thinking* later, I had a working grabber. Outside of maybe the half-dozen times they've changed channel designations or radically changed the individual event pages, that grabber has worked continuously since then. I still use it to feed EPG data to my Topfield.

      (Actually, looking at my original code, I lie a bit - they made a big change in November 2007, so I took the opportunity to re-write my original grabber, though it still uses the same method I originally came up with. I've made exactly one change - not guide-provider related, but due to a protocol spec change - to the grabber part since then.)

      (* Not going to reveal it here in case they twig and close that particular loophole - though it'd be hard, and actually hurt them web-wise to do it - but think WAP and the World's Biggest Proxy... ;-)

      --
      What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?
  2. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is great news for us Australians who use the IceTV service - its adds TIVO like features to PVR recorders.
    Now Channel Nine might actually play nice with them

    1. Re:Anonymous Coward by Techman83 · · Score: 1

      Certainly save some space! I add 10 - 20 mins (sometimes more if it is following a show like "Rove Live). Not so bad now that I have 3 tuners.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i cat
      Damn, my RAM is full of cats. MEOW!!
  3. suddenbreakoutofcommonsense Justified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You can't copyright a fact.

    To think anyone could argue over that for three years...

    1. Re:suddenbreakoutofcommonsense Justified by dns_server · · Score: 1

      You cannot copyright facts but somehow you can copyright a phone book.

    2. Re:suddenbreakoutofcommonsense Justified by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 2, Funny

      You can't copyright a fact.

      That is true, however a TV guide doesn't become a fact until after the shows have been broadcast. Before that time it is a plan.

      But I would go one step further. Australian TV networks are terrible at sticking to their schedule. They consistently air their shows late, swap shows to a different time/night without warning or show a different episode that the one that was advertised. I generally consider a TV guide to be a work of fiction.

    3. Re:suddenbreakoutofcommonsense Justified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The principle there is that there's a lot of effort that goes into compiling a phone book - and that it is worth protecting the end result of that effort.

      Another example would be something like a chess endgame tablebase. Yes, everything in such a tablebase falls directly out of the rules of chess. But the amount of time that's involved in generating such a tablebase is significant - consider, for example, if you were the first person to generate a complete seven piece tablebase, you'd be in a very strong position in the market.

      So, yes, facts cannot be copyrighted, but Australian law does allow for copyright to be extended to a large body of work that requires significant effort to be put together.

    4. Re:suddenbreakoutofcommonsense Justified by bpkiwi · · Score: 2, Informative

      Reading the full decision from the High Court is actually (for a change) worth while. It's in pretty plain English, and is very well written.

      It correctly identifies that facts can not be copyright, even when "colocated" with original material that can be. However, the "original material" may consist of the presentation of those facts, such as their order. Consider a poem that consists of well know facts, but presented in a dramatic and original order.

      They determined that IceTV had indeed copied facts, and that there was minimal originality in the ordering of those facts because they were simply presented in chronological order - which is both obvious and necessary for their intended function.

      Finally, they also noted that Nine Networks had probably not expended much effort to arrange the information, which could also be a factor in such cases.

    5. Re:suddenbreakoutofcommonsense Justified by bug1 · · Score: 1

      There are two types of copyright, "original works" and "collective work".

      The copyright of original works is for just that, original work, like a song, or a book, or a program.

      A Collective work is a collection of original works, like the "hits of the 90's" compilation of songs.

      The copyright of a collective work is much weaker than for an original work, it only protects the collection or arrangement of the original works, and you still need copyright permission to use the original works in your collection.

      The collective copyright on "hits of the 90's" doesnt stop someone from changing one song in the collection, or perhaps just the order, and claiming its a new collection, and therefore eligible as its own collective work.

      So to say its not copyrightable because its just facts is an oversimplification, something might be copyright able as a collective work and but not an original work AFAIK.

    6. Re:suddenbreakoutofcommonsense Justified by lamasquerade · · Score: 1

      Actually this decision appears to disapprove of the phone book case (Desktop Marketing), though as they say IceTV didn't dispute the copyright of the TV schedule, they just disputed that they had infringed it, so the court didn't consider the question in depth here. But maybe it'll be overturned in the future.

      "It is by no means apparent that the law even before the 1911 Act was to any different effect to that for which the Digital Alliance contends. It may be that the reasoning in Desktop Marketing with respect to compilations is out of line with the understanding of copyright law over many years. These reasons explain the need to treat with some caution the emphasis in Desktop Marketing upon "labour and expense" per se and upon misappropriation. However, in the light of the admission of Ice that the Weekly Schedule was an original literary work, this is not an appropriate occasion to take any further the subject of originality in copyright works."

      --

      // It had been Fat's delusion for years that he could help people. --Philip K. Dick, Valis

    7. Re:suddenbreakoutofcommonsense Justified by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Laws in your country might be different, but you cannot copyright a phonebook here either. You can, though, copyright the organisation (the "database" if you want), but not the data itself, unless you created the data yourself, too.

      You didn't create the person's name, phone number or address. But you created the database entry, and that entry is yours. Not the data within, though. So anyone could take your phonebook and use it as a source for his own database of a phone book.

      If your head hurts already, don't ever touch our copyright law. That's one of its easier parts.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    8. Re:suddenbreakoutofcommonsense Justified by Xaoswolf · · Score: 1
      Finally, they also noted that Nine Networks had probably not expended much effort to arrange the information, which could also be a factor in such cases.

      don't networks have whole departments that plan the lineup and scheduling? I believe that there is much work in determining what shows will air and in what order.

      --
      Xaotik Designs
    9. Re:suddenbreakoutofcommonsense Justified by ozphx · · Score: 1

      So anyone could take your phonebook and use it as a source for his own database of a phone book.

      Not strictly correct. Anyone could take the same data set and use that as a source for his own phone book. However, they generally can't take your phonebook and use it as the data source, as they would be likely copying your 'collation' of the data.

      This is why, for example, map products or baseballs stats have deliberate minor inaccuracies. These are enough to prove that someone copied the data rather than collating it themselves, by aerial photos, or watching shitloads of baseball replays :P

      --
      3laws: No freebies, no backsies, GTFO.
    10. Re:suddenbreakoutofcommonsense Justified by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      don't networks have whole departments that plan the lineup and scheduling? I believe that there is much work in determining what shows will air and in what order.

      I don't supposed anyone knows a quicker way to say "That is a stupid suggestion and you are stupid for suggesting it"? The TV guide is just a statement of what the schedule looks like. It's not used to plan the schedule, it reflects the plan. You might as well say that a great deal of work went into making the price list at your local agricultural supply. It's true that the prices are based on a variety of factors as diverse as the rainfall in the midwest and the price of beef in Japan, but that doesn't grant the price list all the complexity of the universe. It's just a list of prices, just as the TV guide is just a list of shows. Synopses are probably provided with the majority of the programming.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:suddenbreakoutofcommonsense Justified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when is a TV schedule a fact? Only after the time, and the programs have been aired. The times for programs may be what is intended by the channels, but things can change due to, for example sports running into extra time.
      But maybe that doesn't happenin Aussie sports.

    12. Re:suddenbreakoutofcommonsense Justified by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      So anyone could take your phonebook and use it as a source for his own database of a phone book.

      They can still get you if they faked some data and you copied the fake data. Fake data aren't facts and thus protected by copyright, so if you copy the fake data, you've violated copyright.

      This is done all over the place. Dictionaries will have fake words, phone books will have fake names, numbers, or addresses, even books reprinted from the public domain may change a word or a sentence or a spelling slightly and get you for infringement that way.

      So if you're going to copy someone else's collection of facts or other public data, you'd better do a differential analysis of multiple independent sources of those facts to weed out the copyrighted entries before you publish.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  4. Way to go Australia by KlaymenDK · · Score: 4, Informative

    I recall a recent story about UK train schedules being made available by a third party, which *was* deemed an infringement.

    You guys got it right. Thumbs-up.

    --
    "Good news, everyone!"
    1. Re:Way to go Australia by sr180 · · Score: 1

      Same thing, A Collection of Facts can be copyrighted. This has been tested under Australian law in a case where a company was copying the phone book.

      --
      In Soviet Russia the insensitive clod is YOU!
    2. Re:Way to go Australia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Copyright for creative works. But here in Denmark where I live, it also can be extended to databases (dictionaries etc) and other compilations/collections of copyrigthed work.

      I can actually copyright all combinations of songs by Madonna that fits one CD, and the record company or Madonna can not publish the compilation without breaking my copyright. They will have to find a new song and add. My "works" will be derived works where I have the copyright.

      The programming schedule is a bit different. It is not really a static database. In one hour it is different from the version now. It is a moving target of some sort.

      Program summaries can be considerede independent copyrigthed work. So these they better take fro somewhere else.

    3. Re:Way to go Australia by bpkiwi · · Score: 1

      Interestingly, one of the deciding factors in this case was that Nine claimed the copyright of their weekly schedules was being infringed, not the copyright of the database as a whole. The court then decided that only a small part of any schedule was being copied, and that part had little originality.

      It might have been different if they had considered it as copying the scheduling database as a whole, since it might have ammounted to a substantial part then (but I doubt it).

    4. Re:Way to go Australia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Factual information can only be copyrighted by the Crown, who gets special treatment.

    5. Re:Way to go Australia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I recall a recent story about UK train schedules being made available by a third party, which *was* deemed an infringement.

      You guys got it right. Thumbs-up.

      If you're talking about the same train schedule story, that was in Sydney, in Australia. I don't think it ever went/has been to court, the developer was threatened by the group that operated the trains.

  5. Legal whotnots by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 4, Informative

    Can be found here.

    Well done Ice TV.

    --
    Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
  6. fix the title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    3rd X = the one after the 2nd X.
    3d X = a 3 dimensional X.

  7. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Now if they could just get the stations to start and end shows at the advertised times!

  8. It was ridiculous in the first place! by AbRASiON · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It ENCOURAGES PEOPLE TO WATCH THEIR STATION!

    Are they so scared their programming is that bad, that they don't want people to know what they have on?
    It's one of the most stupid things a company has ever done, it's not like sharing the content, it's a bloody listing.

    Someone needs to slap channel 9 on the upside of the head, wtf were they thinking?

    1. Re:It was ridiculous in the first place! by Techman83 · · Score: 1

      Couldn't agree more, I've been using IceTV since 2006 and here's some stats since January 2008.

      Title | Recorded | Last Recorded
      TEN Digital | 188 | April 21 2009
      7 Digital | 40 | April 20 2009
      Nine Digital | 34 | April 11 2009
      ONE Digital | 24 | March 10 2009
      Nine HD | 11 | April 20 2009
      SBS | 10 | March 31 2009
      7 HD Digital | 10 | April 10 2009
      ABC1 | 10 | April 12 2009
      ONE HD | 1 | March 16 2009

      Sure there is a bit of a bias to Ten Digital as My partner enjoys Neighbours, but still I regularly missed recording/watching shows I might have otherwise watched if it appeared in my guide data. I also still watch a lot of LiveTV, so they really don't miss out on that much AD revenue.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i cat
      Damn, my RAM is full of cats. MEOW!!
    2. Re:It was ridiculous in the first place! by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      It ENCOURAGES PEOPLE TO WATCH THEIR STATION!

      But not their website. And since TV might one day be replaced by online media, that could be a legitimate worry. Still, I agree that preventing people from obtaining a TV schedule is not an option.

    3. Re:It was ridiculous in the first place! by njen · · Score: 1

      I could be wrong, but I think what was at stake here was a potential revenue stream. If Channel 9 was legally the only service to offer this data, then they could charge what they wanted for it to other companies.

      But with this ruling, they basically will not have a monopoly over that service, and other companies can compete on equal footing. And a good call too!

    4. Re:It was ridiculous in the first place! by AbRASiON · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I equate charging for a TV guide to the same thing as charging me for the price list of a store, it's lunacy.

    5. Re:It was ridiculous in the first place! by Techman83 · · Score: 1

      Their website is atrocious, so very very busy.. glad I don't have to go there anymore Nine

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i cat
      Damn, my RAM is full of cats. MEOW!!
    6. Re:It was ridiculous in the first place! by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      I can imagine. Many of the official UK sites for TV schedules are horrible too.

    7. Re:It was ridiculous in the first place! by njen · · Score: 1

      They won't be charging the consumer, they would be charging other companies who want to use this data.

    8. Re:It was ridiculous in the first place! by Hucko · · Score: 1

      And when you reply to give feed back to shows (this irks me particularly on current affairs type shows), they give you a 8mm x 5mm box to fit a response into. gah

      --
      Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
    9. Re:It was ridiculous in the first place! by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      What a wonderful Idea! Charge for the price list! Brilliant!

      Why hasn't anyone thought of this before???

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    10. Re:It was ridiculous in the first place! by compro01 · · Score: 1

      They have.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    11. Re:It was ridiculous in the first place! by wilko11 · · Score: 1

      It ENCOURAGES PEOPLE TO WATCH THEIR STATION!

      I think that what they were worried about is that it encourages people to record their station with a PVR and then skip the advertising.

      TIVO in Australia has ad skipping disabled. To carry the new "Freeview" logo and gain access to the enhanced Freeview EPG (when it becomes available!) an STB cannot permit ad skipping.

      A non-freeview box with IceTV gives both ad skipping and a good EPG

    12. Re:It was ridiculous in the first place! by bh_doc · · Score: 1

      Are they so scared their programming is that bad, that they don't want people to know what they have on?

      It's Channel 9, so I'm going with "Yes".

  9. A breath of fresh air by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Score one for the good guys.

    It's nice to have a positive story in between all the censorship, spying, eavesdropping, patent abuse, surveillance, and expansion of police powers stories.

    It would be too much to hope that this is the start of a more enlightened approach to the internet, but I'll take what we can get at this point.

  10. This suit has always been ridiculous. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Facts, per se, are not copyrightable. A schedule is a collection of facts. Once published, the schedule is basically public information. As long as it is not a straight copy of wording and style, they never had a case.

  11. Train timetables by b00fhead · · Score: 1

    Could somebody more legal-savvy than myself please explain what implications this ruling might have for e.g. this problem? Especially since para 28 in the ruling states that:

    Copyright does not protect facts or information. Copyright protects the particular form of expression of the information, namely the words, figures and symbols in which the pieces of information are expressed, and the selection and arrangement of that information.

    1. Re:Train timetables by bpkiwi · · Score: 1

      IANAL ... But I've at least read the court ruling

      FunkWorks appears to be an almost identical case to this, they are copying simple facts that are arranged in chronological order, where that order is the natural and obvious order for such facts.

      They might have a bit of a problem in that they are copying a large part of the timetable (all weekdays I beleive, but not weekends), but I can't really see RailCorp being able to claim that they put much effort into compiling the timetable - it's not that big.

    2. Re:Train timetables by wilko11 · · Score: 3, Informative
      From my reading of the decision, it looks like this would apply to the train timetable (but IANAL).

      What the court has said is that although collections of facts can be copyrighted, the question is to the degree of originality in the expression of those facts.

      In the case of the TV guide, the alleged infringement consisted of two pieces of information; the program title and the time of transmission. The title is supplied by the program's creator; not Channel 9 and the time can only be expressed in a standard way (Channel 9 could hardly claim copyright of "7:30 pm"); Channel 9 has therefore not exercised creativity or originality.

      The train timetable is much the same. There are two pieces of information; a station name (which is much like the program name) and a departure time. Cityrail has not exercised any creativity or originality in the expression of this information.

      It is the lack of originality of expression that results in the information not being copyright; it is not a fair use claim, so the amount of information copied does not matter.

    3. Re:Train timetables by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but I can't really see RailCorp being able to claim that they put much effort into compiling the timetable - it's not that big.

      You are kidding, right?

      Do you have any idea how many thousands of human hours go into designing a timetable around a complex network like Cityrail's? (And I know, compared to Tokyo, it's peanuts - it's still complex enough though.)

      It's a massive optimisation problem. You have to find the most efficient train routes for over 100 train stations, taking into consideration a huge number of variables and constraints, such as the different numbers of people who are likely to use each of those stations at different times during the day.

      You then have to take into account the physical trains themselves and the fact that only so many trains exist, can service any particular line, move about the network thereby affecting the next stops they can service, can hold only so many people, operate at different top speeds and with different efficiencies due to the different train models, have differing numbers of carriages, not to mention that some percentage of trains will be out of service for maintenance or graffiti removal...

      After that, you need to take into account the complex switching and track network to make sure none of the trains are going to hit each other, or that switch junctions don't become clogged because too many trains are queued up waiting to go through.

      You also need to account for time required for passengers to disembark at each stop, train driver shift changes, changes to times and routes due to track work...

      I think I've made my point. Train scheduling is not a trivial problem. It takes some very intelligent people heck of a long time to put a schedule together.

      Now, as for the issue of copyrighting train timetables, I don't think that should be possible. It's obvious a lot of time, effort and yes, creativity went into creating the timetable itself, but the information is given away freely by the creators.

      Furthermore, Cityrail is a government-granted, heavily subsidised monopoly whose sole purpose is to... ulp, serve the public (yes, I laughed as I typed that...). I don't see what the point of allowing the timetable to be copyrightable would be. Hell, we taxpayers paid for most of it.

    4. Re:Train timetables by Richard_at_work · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The big issue with the FunkWorks ruling is that train times are not facts, they are fiction. Complete and utter fiction. And therefor fully copyrightable :)

    5. Re:Train timetables by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The court ruling points out that effort spent making the decision as to when to air a show (or by comparison, run a train) does not count. It's only the effort required to compile the resulting information into the schedule / timetable that is measured.

      It makes sense, you don't say 'we want to publish a train schedule, let's go work out when the trains should run so we can do that'. You say 'we have trains running at set times - let's gather that information, organise it, and publish it'.

    6. Re:Train timetables by Lunzo · · Score: 1

      I disagree. It is a fact that in a perfect world the train would arrive at the time printed in the timetable. They just neglected to print the following facts: 1. We don't live in a perfect world, and 2. The train will arrive later than the printed time.

  12. Thank God? by LS · · Score: 1

    story tag: "thankgod"

    I'm imagining the person who wrote this tag sweating and pacing, then finding out about this judgment and falling to his knees, shedding tears of relief and joy, and looking to the sky thanking god for this miracle.

    LS

    --
    There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
  13. Great job. Do you have references to prove this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Certainly, you can prove these? I'll wait a spell for you to respond. I'll conserve oxygen while I wait, maybe even drinking some hydrogen peroxide too.

  14. To AC by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2, Informative

    It has always been a basic principle, at least in the US: you cannot copyright a fact. You can copyright the way you word things about a fact, but that is not the same thing.

    So, for example: your article about the beauty of yesterday's sunset at 7:45pm can be copyrighted. But anyone else can read your article, and in turn write that yesterday's sunrise was at 7:45pm, because that basic fact is not copyrightable.

    That is a sufficiently thorough explanation, as it really is a very basic element of law. If you still don't believe it, http://tinyurl.com/2c9np

    1. Re:To AC by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Apologies, of course I meant "sunset" both times, not "sunrise".

  15. Idiotic by r1n530uT · · Score: 0

    What are channel9 complaining about... More people having access to their programming? Surely that's a good thing

    1. Re:Idiotic by MichaelSmith · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What are channel9 complaining about... More people having access to their programming? Surely that's a good thing

      Not if they don't sit down and watch the advertisements.

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
    2. Re:Idiotic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not if they don't sit down and watch the advertisements.

      .. and unfortunately that part hasn't yet been tested;

      IceTV Pty Limited v Nine Network Australia Pty Limited

      85. The majority of the revenue of the Nine Network is currently derived from advertisements broadcast during television programmes. The commercial interest of Nine in the litigation was said by counsel to be directly related to the loss of revenue that might be occasioned by the "skipping" of advertisements. Reference also was made in submissions to the possibility of unauthorised distribution of recorded programmes on the internet. There is no allegation in the litigation that, by facilitation of the recording of television broadcasts and the skipping of advertisements, IceTV has contravened any provision of the Broadcasting Act or otherwise engaged in unlawful conduct. Nor is there any allegation that IceTV has infringed the copyright subsisting in any television broadcast (Pt IV of the Act) or television programme (Pt III of the Act)[124].

      However, I am not ungrateful for a clean decision on copyright entitlement to "compilations" in the information age.

  16. Beacon for others... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good news. It's amazing that common sense rulings like this can happen in one country and then in another, draconian internet filters are being planned as we speak....

    wait a sec

  17. So only including 18hrs is legal? by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    If ICE just included 6am to 12am it would be legal?

    its not identical, but midnight to 6am is useless informercials and evil xian funamentalist brainwashing tv.

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    1. Re:So only including 18hrs is legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would think if the third party system incorporated its own reviews / program synopsis / ratings / value-add then it's significantly different. Chronological ordering is obvious and necessary and hardly copyrightable.

  18. About time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's good to see this decision.

    Back in 1995 I ran an footy site (Australian Rules) which although with other sites was shut down by the AFL due to copyright material. At the time the AFL did not have a web site and there were few web services... internationals used the site for results and news.

    One of the biggest "bits of bullshit" was the claim that the AFL *OWNED* the fixtures which could not be published without written permission. While this thread may call them facts they claimed that they were subject to change and the intellectual property of the AFL... ... try running a tipping competition without the fixtures.

    Several years ago the AFL sent further "cease and desist" letters to my company at which time I completely closed the site since I wasn't maintaining it nor making money from it and just didn't care (why support these wankers).

    Anyway, the AFL still claims this fixture ownership and unless I'm mistaken you need a license to run an online footy tipping site due to the fixtures being owned by the AFL.

    I'm no legal man but this decision suggests the AFL is on shaky ground,

    Wil

  19. The reason Channel 9 fought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People have joked about Channel 9 starting "twenty minutes late" all the time, but the important thing to notice is not that they're regularly late but that they're occasionally on time, and occasionally *really* late. That's the key to understanding their EPG fight: they don't schedule late, they schedule *unpredictably*. So long as all available EPGs have inaccurate timing, PVR programming is non-trivial. After several mistakes and disappointments many viewers decide it's preferable to watch live and put up with advertisements than risk missing part of the show by incorrect PVR programming. Which of course is Channel 9's objective.

    Advertising revenue during daytime and after midnight is negligible compared to prime time, so it's not worth effort making last-minute changes to advertised schedule. Which is why you never see the "twenty minutes late" phenomenon at those times. It's easier to leave the schedule on auto-pilot cued to the regular schedule.

    Channel 9 aren't afraid of people republishing their program guides verbatim. What they fear is those third parties producing EPG systems with overlapping/compensated start and end times that would make PVR timer recording simple without risk of missing the start or the end of programs.