Nine v IceTV moves to High Court
- Published by David Knox
- on
- Filed under News
On Tuesday, the Nine Network obtained a Federal Court order restraining IceTV from reproducing or communicating “the whole or a substantial part of any Nine Weekly Program Schedules… without the licence of the [Nine Network]”.
The action follows a long running battle between the network and the private company to publish, reproduce or even recreate elements of the Nine guide. Nine’s objection is believed to be that making recording on devices other than VCRs facilitates the complete skipping of advertisements.
This will include episode titles; episode numbers; information about the currency of programs; information about the formats in which programs are to be broadcast; closed captioning information for the hearing impaired; program classification information; and or consumer advice.
Between Tuesday afternoon to Wednesday morning, IceTV did not supply 9 programme information to its subscribers via its electronic programme guide.
“We expect the majority of Nine’s weekly program schedule to be available within the IceTV Guide and our normal high level of services to continue,” says the IceTV website.
“During this time IceTV’s coverage of Nine’s program schedule may contain N/A notifications.”
IceTV has since advised its subscribers to update its guide daily.
IceTV has lodged an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia from the decision of the Full Court.
Sources: ITWire, Smarthouse
3 Responses
There’s the old adage that the best way to get rid of a bad law is to enforce it ruthlessly and without discretion. I think this is showing up just how untenable old-fashioned notions of copyright are. (And how decisively technology recasts reality.)
But that’s a longer term view. This particular snafu isn’t down the to the judges who backed Nine in faithfully determining that show times and titles (not even the synopsis or precis!) constitute “an original literary work”.
It’s down to our bloody politicians.
How could Nine have been awarded a licence to broadcast into our public ether without being forced to disclose to the public what they plan to broadcast on our precious spectrum?
Could anyone imagine a train company securing the rights to operate a train service – and then insisting on controlling who accesses the timetable and under what conditions? “Okay, your all day ticket will cost $7.40. Now, to know precisely when the train will leave requires a modest further payment in the form of a newspaper subscription or just viewing these half-dozen ads …” Of course not.
It’s absurd. And only a blunder could allow it to happen. The kind that results from Government lawyers drafting contracts with the private sector, who can afford much more savvy lawyers. Lawyers who know what they’re doing and are paid accordingly.
So our Government basically forgot to insist on this ownership provision in its spectrum auction. That was years ago. No Government wants to pick a fight with a major media proprietor. Ergo, stupid oversight stays in.
(Until, that is, TV becomes a sufficiently weak medium that it can no longer swing an election. Then the gloves come off.)
I agree, it’s very petty, and only delaying the inevitable.
Here’s hoping the High Court will finally overturn this ridiculous piece of technicality-based legal decision-making.
Nine’s objection to PVRs (i.e. their complete inability to see how the TV landscape is changing) is a pathetic reason to start claiming “copyright” on the list of programs that they show. That’s right, not the actual programs – the LIST of them!
Anyway, how on earth can they claim “intellectual property” on the titles, episode numbers, and formats of programs they did not produce (i.e. the vast majority of what they put to air)?
For those unfamiliar with this abuse of the legal process, by the way, Nine’s actually been winning thanks to an equally dubious decision from years ago in which a producer of CD-ROM phone books was successfully sued by Telstra on the basis that the list of names and numbers in the phone book was Telstra’s “intellectual property”. Nine’s lawyers have attempted to push this even further.
The whole thing is absolutely shameful, and needless to say, Australia is the ONLY country IN THE WORLD where EPG information has first been completely withheld from viewers (prompting IceTV’s existence in the first place!) and then subjected to copyright law.
In quite a few forum discussions on this subject, some people have taken the legal rulings at face value “because it’s the law”. Well, bad law is bad law, and the law is malleable. This case shows just how malleable it can be, and not always for the greater good. Someone needs to remind the commercial networks that holding a TV broadcasting licence is not a right, it’s a rare privilege.
Oh, and would someone tell Nine that I’ve been skipping ads – yes, completely – since 1981 when I got my first VCR.