Nine appeals copyright case

The Nine Network is to appeal against a copyright ruling last year against ICE-TV.

ICE-TV allows viewers to subscribe to an electronic programme guide and record programmes on PVRs and computers.

Nine argues ICE-TV is infringing its copyright by compiling information relating to the programs it puts to air, using “skill and labour”.

But ICE-TV says it “predicts” what shows will be on the TV and only checks its guides against those published.

When it was pointed out that only a “sliver” of Nine’s TV program details were reproduced in ICE-TV’s guide — the time and title of programs — Nine’s barrister, Tony Bannon SC, said a sliver of something was often “the best part”.

Mr Bannon also said the judge hearing the case last year should not have been satisfied with the evidence given by Mitchell Rilet, who said he had been hired by ICE-TV to help devise an independent TV schedule template.

Mr Rilet said he watched TV for three weeks — which he described as “torture” — and made notes about what time programs were on TV as well as their title, genre and classification.

“Although he set about making contemporaneous notes of what he did at the time he destroyed it and didn’t produce any evidence for examination,” Mr Bannon said.

In her judgment, judge Annabelle Bennett said that although Nine challenged Mr Rilet’s evidence, “he was not a substantial shareholder in ICE Holdings and no sufficient reason was established for him to exaggerate his achievements”.

ICE-TV’s barrister likened part of its argument to that of a “trainspotter” — someone who watches trains and notes their time of arrival, or passing through a station.

By writing down that information, the trainspotter is not breaching the copyright of any timetable, ICE-TV argued.

Their appeal was heard in the Federal Court on February 25th and 26th 2008. A decision in the case is likely in the next six months.

Source: The Australian