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."

17 of 66 comments (clear)

  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 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.

  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

  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 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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.
  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!"
  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. 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!

  7. 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 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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

  10. 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
  11. 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.

  12. 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 :)