An intriguing first post. Come on, spill the beans.
(and welcome to the forum...)

No injunction so IceTV is still very much in business. There is still an avenue of appeal and it will be pursued with vigour and the benefit of hindsight gained from the loss in the full court. The appellant has the front foot and IceTV will be the appellant next time. Can't say anymore but watch IceTV News (and thanks for the welcome, it was about time I joined!!).

The TV Networks are FREE to Air without subscription. Unfortunately with that thought in mind if someone comes in as a provider "enhancer" of the FTA networks and requires a subscription - money paid then this is in generic terms a breach of copyright laws.

What this amounts to: the decision of the court is correct on ruling - despite myself being opposed to such a decision believing it is backward and not in the interest of developing technologies improving viewer FTA experience.

The same would apply in the intent of copyright which OUTLAWS creating or deriving some income money stream from the FTA network model. Example: I go a flea market to sell a TV series. I do not make a profit as such, only my time to PROVIDE a service to those who missed that program.

It is then the FTA model and the "wedge business" inbetween that is the issue. The "Wedge" is collecting money for a FTA service between the FTA Network and the Viewer/Client.

The only way this can be overturned is by clause insertion into the copyright laws that allow extra services - not provided by the broadcaster to be chargable/ addins to the consumer.

The new clauses should also:

(i) Recognise the shifting nature of TV which was just analogue derived for a long time.
(ii) Allowances for the new DATA flow inherent in the MPEG broadcast streaming.
(iii) Recognising specialised receiver devices that can extract extra features from the broadcast stream
(iv) Additives by subscribed service to increase the FTA digital TV experience
(v) Devices under Copyright prohibitions should not be dumbed down or made expensive by Copyright acts.
(vi) Different technologies achieving the same end should be recognised
(vii) Copyright laws that are useless to create prohibition behaviour of new business enitities or the general public where those laws cannot be practically enacted - are unworkable and should be changed.
(viii) Models of fair usage should be enshrined / expanded in copyright legislation

DA

An interesting wish list DA,

Some thoughts:

I don't think (not sure) profit need be made to breech copyright (ie you can post a torrent for downloading and you are still liable). Money being involved does make thinks simpler though.

While providing a 'value add' clause would greatly benefit the consumer it pretty much negates the whole point of copyright law IMO. It would essentially say so long as I can come up with some extra features then I'm free to use your content as I wish. So in an EPG case I can use the EPG and provide better descriptions or better access to the information etc.

As a thought, If after 12 months the networks decided to provide a full 7 day EPG that matched ICEs offering would they then be able to claim that ICE no longer value adds and should be shut down?

Regards

Peter Gillespie

Some thoughts:



Yes peer to peer uploading and downloading is breach of copyright. No money has to be passed to breach present copyright laws.

However my point is that charging for FTA content, gotten from other sources or otherwise compounds and pushes the obscurity of breach of copyright further into concluding it was indeed quite logically a BREACH. Especially when the content is a FTA service.



No, I was relating soley the FTA broadcasting, enshrining copyright extra clauses due to the CHANGED of nature of TV - Analogue to Digital places the broadcaster into a category unforeseen in the present Copyright act. If it is well known that I can record a TV show and remove advertising I have technically breached the copyright act as I have modified the material and changed the nature of its presentation. As well FTA embeds EPG information and creates a situation whereby the Tuner device EXTRACTS EPG information of text. This form of harvesting the EPG is technically the same as seven day EPG. It is harvesting of the EPG that is creating a "grey" area in the old Copyright act. IF I were to take this further I could harvest that EPG - now and next and add this commentary in the archival of the Recording.

When we start to overlay extra technologies over this - like NAME extraction, begin and end timer derived from EPG for RECORDING the problem is compounded further - the Copyright Act is then unworkable and requires either strengthening or specialised insertion of clauses to remove this prohibition.

1. Entrants and stake holders who setup business and sell software that derive money from such a creative venture are in breach of copyright as the information is HARVESTED and STORED and then used. The next level is money or income is derived from the action from the harvesting. FTA provide the information but not for profiting or sale or offline storage onto devices - memory/Hard drive etc via the software mechanism or device. The end result it is COUPLED to RECORDING!

2. It STOPS INNOVATION

3. The consumer is the poorer of the party and is forced to abide to a rigid set of guidlines that are unworkable.

4. The laws of Copyright are too generalised over a great deal of material and requires clarification so we do not have these silly expensive litigations in court. I.E. It proves the legislation is framed poorly - this is so when judges DO NOT agree. It needs fixing.



No - It depends on the quality of delivery. For example a $1200 BeyondWiz PVR is not a match for $25 DVBViewer in rendering the sub titles on a PC. The software viewer in this case has exceeded the ulgy standard generic presentation of the subtitle data and modified by HARVESTING the stream to something with more innovation - outlined SMOOTH fonts with no ugly black cluttering! Wonderful and consumer improved experience.

The format of ICE could be still light years ahead of a mandated generic embedded EPG 7 day by legislation. It could provide portal innovative links to series head web sites and provide colourful embedded meta data not supplied by the broadcasted / improved 7 day EPG - thereby providing a payable service to all consumers.

The Laws of Copyright intended to stop cheats are too broad and blankets the little man in the street with too much blame. It supports big business interests at the expense of consumer experience and rights.

I'll give you one crazy example "inserted clauses" that allow use of music but changes in one EVENT to another:

Wedding Ceremonies allow anyone to use recorded music provided it is played from the orginal CD/TAPE. If it is not orginal, it is still a breach of copyright.

Wedding RECEPTIONS DO NOT ALLOW anyone to play recorded music [orginal CDs or TAPES] AT ALL!. A licence is required!

DA

Im not sure its not a breach to do that - as long as you dont pass it on in that form.
Similar to changing the cover of a book - you can do that, just cant re-sell it in that condition.

Certainly with tv it would be hard to argue that you have modified it - they dont deliver you a tv show as a pre-packed unit. They give you a continuous (hopefully!) stream of their feed. Where you choose to start and stop is up to you. If you choose to stop at an ad break and start again when the program starts should be your choice.
Otherwise you could argue its a breach of copyright to change channels or even stop watching (or heck - to start watching unless you started when the station last came on-line)

Even if you record it - are you recording "the whole show" or recording "each segment"


It could still do that.
All it needs to do is to supply this extra information without supplying the original epg.
Similarly I could release my own "dax's commentary to a movie" and sell it as long as I sold it separately to the movie.


Hmm - I dont think its that bad.

I think the whole problem in this case is not what you can and cant do with copyright material, it was the whole concept of the epg being copyright!

Personally I think the epg shouldnt be considered a work that is copyright.
The description of the shows should be, but the simple text list of times and show names shouldnt be considered a creative work.
I think the copyright act needs to recognise schedules as something that cant be copyright (so epg, lists of footy matches etc cant be a copyright works)
While they may involve research and effort to create, I dont think that they are intrinsically "creative" in the same way as most other copyright works (like a poem, story, music, film etc)


Thats got nothing to do with our copyright laws. Technically playing music at a wedding is breaching copyright ie its a public performance.
Its allowed because that was a decision by the copyright holder (APRA) to waive its rights for weddings.
But if you record the wedding and it has copyright music then you do need permission (or pay to get a license)
And they didnt waive their rights for receptions.
http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/agd.nsf/Page/...riagecelebrants

So again - nothing to do with the laws, its a case of the copyright holder trying to be nice without totally giving away their rights.

It is unfortunate but this ruling does have far reaching consequences and as far as I can see work to halt innovation and competition.

The whole area of 'creative lists' is now protected and in almost all cases these lists are held by large corporations. For example

1) The tram/train timetable
2) The EPG
3) Flight schedules

These things are the result of a creative effort (ie we have the planes when should we fly them?). There is plenty of protection in past rulings to stop straight forward copying of these 'documents'.

Regards

Peter Gillespie

Yep - a sad sad day...

Some fedral court decision came down today - cant find out the details fully as yet.... But the consequences appear to be disastrous.


Around 6:30pm tonight (Tuesday) - Icetv removed all of the Channel 9 programming including HD channel. No notice to the customers, basically anyone using icetv suddenly lost the next 7 days of epg data - gone - vanished....

No forewarning, not giving any notice to at least turn off automatic updates to at least keep what you had - do an update and it deletes everything on your guide for ch9.
Just an announcement at http://www.icetv.com.au/cgi-bin/websupport...mp;faq_cat_id=2

God save the queen, as nothing will save icetv now.

Will ch9 now go after the oztivo guys or epgstream next ?

Our court system is F@#KED UP !!!!

I suspect such 'notice' would have been illegal in itself. Akin to saying we have to remove the data but here's how you can keep it...
Doubtful. These groups are clearly acting illegally and could have been shut down any time in the past few years under existing copyright laws with just a single cease and desist notice. ICETV was/is a threat because it offers an alternative EPG that is potentially legal (although as of now that is not the case) and that has wider ramifications to the industry.
No idea a what level this ruling has occured but presumably ICETV have been ordered to stop right now. Perhaps they have had their application for an appeal denied? If so then I assume all that remains is for the other commercial channels to draft up a legal document saying they are in breach of copyright (as the Nine case has proved) and please cease all EPG broadcasts of their data. Even if they don't just having Nine missing would probably be enough to stop most people subscribing.

Here's hoping ICE still have some avenues.

Regards

Peter Gillespie

Is it just coincidence that this is finally coming to a head at the same time as Topfield are about to release their 7100 with Iceremote, and Seven are about to releas TiVo with a 'legal' EPG? No iceremote available, and no half decent FTA EPG, gives TiVo a huge boost at launch.

Could Nine be doing the hard yakka by being in cohoots for seven, with a view to 'Freeview' domination??

Conversley, should I have taken my anti-paranoia medications this morning??

Don't think its paranoid at all. Nine are definitely just the front men for the legal action but its no doubt based on an agreed decision on how the commercial networks wanted to approach the ICE 'dillema'. Don't think they particularly wanted to destroy the 7100 though. As it is ICE remote and a ICE Nine guide are still available. From another sight and my thoughts on the matter:

Sounds like ICE have adapted there methodology to be able to continue collecting EPG info (they always said they had options if the court rules weren't in their favour. Presumably a judge (or ice) has decided all data gathered so far is 'tainted' and must be removed but that the ne method can start from then on.

Looks like ice are getting a bit more rigourous on there 'predictive' methodology. Previously they did 98% predictive and grabbed the last 2% from the public domain (ie published guides). Now I assume if they don't know (ie a new show is going to air) then we'll get N/A.

As far as I can tell a 100% predictive approach complies with the current legal rulings (which hopefully can be appealed) as something cannot be considered a 'creative body of work' if it can be deduced ahead of time what it will be.

Regards

Peter Gillespie

NOYNE and WYNN data is in there now up to and including Sun 29 June.

For those who are concerned about free access to program data, EPG etc and the nonsense of Channel 9 and the ICE guide, go to http://www.myepg.com.au. These guys have lobby group going, and a petition you can 'sign'.

Certainly do... and if you're serious about getting free access to an EPG on your own choice of equipment then don't forget to shoot off an email or two to the various targets on the website. There are proformas and addresses and virtually everyone of them can be done either as an email or online.

IceTV today got leave to appeal the copyright decision to the High Court.

As the guy who had the idea, some 20 years ago, to recreate the TV guide by observation and prediction, I've written some thoughts about the whole sorry saga on my blog www.vogelross.com.au/vrblog

Peter Vogel
(Who once told Nine "so sue me")

That is good news. Be interesting to see if they argue "Do you really want to interpret the law like that? Because if you do, well then its a whole can of worms you're opening up"

Read the UNSW Law article, some interesting points.

"stopped from engaging in the business of developing media content provision to set-top boxes" - seems a pretty standard clause in most businesses contracts today. Is pure restraint of trade illegal (ie I'll hire you for one year if you don't work for anyone the next). What about the person that is trained and works in a hairdressing store then opens a competing store next door?

"It depends entirely on the public interest in freely competitive markets", "the greater public good" - Surely this needs a balanced approach? Whilst having two hairdressers in the same street is obviously a "good", there also needs to be some guarantee that the first hairdresser is comfortable hiring the second one for training in the first place - another public "good".

I'm also not quite sure why the author seemed to want to draw the fairly long bow that Channel Nine specifically put you out of work in its decision to sue ICETV. Whilst Nine have obviously moved with litigation to try crush ICETV as a whole,

Loved this:


Wishing you well in future endeavours

Peter Gillespie

Why would you want to recreate a TV guide by "observation and prediction" in 1988? What possible need would there be to do so?

g-code

I think the whole thing stinks. If Nine does not like the competition, why doesn't it (and the other channels) start their own EPG provider?

The Aussie TV market needs shaking up - not enough competition. Open up more channels!

The problem is not with an EPG provider - the data is all there. Its just that to date Channel 9 has successfully argued that it 'owns' the EPG and no one else can use it.

There is a supreme court case set down before Christmas that by the sounds of it is going to have a total re-look at the whole copy protection history and ask "Is this really what the laws were intended to do?". Here's hoping.

Regards

Peter Gillespie

Just noticed an article on slashdot saying that the court case is finished, now we just wait for the verdict!
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/08/10/18/2037216.shtml
links to http://vogelross.com.au/vrblog/?p=36

Fingers crossed - I think its terrible to consider the basic program schedule as copyrightable.

The court case isn't finished - it hasn't even started! All that's happened is that there was a short hearing to determine whether the High Court would grant IceTV special leave to appeal the Full Federal Court's decision in favour of Channel 9. Special leave was granted, so at some point in the future (I don't know if the case has been listed yet), the High Court will hear the case. Once that's happened we can wait for the result, but it may be months before the final decision is handed down.

The high court hearing just happened!

Ah, yes, sorry. My bad. The case, as you correctly point out, tony (and dax - sorry), is in fact concluded. For anyone that wants to wade through the arguments presented, a transcript of the hearing can be found here.

Any Idea why Day 2 (17th) is not listed?

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/HCATrans/toc-I.html

The Transcripts from Day 2 (17th) are now online here: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/HCATrans/2008/358.html

Btw, it looks like the decision will be handed down on Tuesday November 4th so we wont have to wait very long for an answer.

hopefully the court teaches channel 9 a lesson when it comes to situations like this. i.e. independently produced guides don't breach copyright laws.

I hope they change the rules to bring them in line with the Yanks where a "compilation of facts" is only afforded minimal protection and only protected if copied in its entirety including formatting and layout!

well packer has resigned from PBL, so I wonder what will happen to 9 now that this has happened?

James Packer is more interested in his Casino operations and has never been fanatical about the Media unlike his late father!
IMO his resignation will have no bearing on Channel Nine's operations and the Ice -TV situation. They have been serving up tripe for years and nothing will change!

The decision does seem to reflect the 'rats off a sinking ship' metaphor. Channel Nine is basically now a vehicle to pay interest on its huge debt obligations (about $40 million a month).

I'm intrigued as to how wide ranging any decision the ICE case can be. Is the high court constrained to just affirming/overturning previous cases or is it possible they will wholis bolis re-interprete a lot of case/copyright law?

A Nov 4 judgment would seem to suggest the former to me.

Regards

Peter Gillespie

PS Kudos to ICE for seeing it through to the 'end'. A lot of us forum members love mouthing off about what should be, but I'm sure that fighting this case long ceased making financial/legal sense and is a great example of putting your money where your mouth is.

Indeed!!

Btw it looks like I was incorrect about having a decision on November 4, Peter Vogel has informed me that they usually take 3-6 months to reach a decision and the Nov4 date is just the next case start date. (can you tell im not a lawyer?)

Looks like channel 9 may be becoming extinct. They need to start dumping those fatcats that are bleeding them dry and start getting back in touch with their audience..........it's almost as if they are living on their own planet and ignoring what their viewing public are telling them with their remotes. I'm almost at the point of removing channel nine from my channel listing, I'm sick of being sucked into a show only to have them shaft me after a couple of episodes..........may as well just buy what I want when they come out on DVD/BD

...........looks like there are many others that are doing the same thing


Thanks to Tony for the link


cheers

I can only receive Ch9 on one of my TV reception devices, the Tivo in the bedroom. My HTPC and other Tivo in the living room do not pick it up. All i need to do to fix it is get up on the roof and repoint the antenna.....have i done it... No...ive not done it sincelast summer's cricket telecasts on 9. Do i miss it? no, never watch anything from 9 on Bedroom tivo... They used to be the best station , but now they offer nothing! ( except the cricket )

I hope ICE TV is successful and Nine can get stuffed!

Hi
Yes its sad to see 9 decline, the oportunists and hangers-on circling the moment KP became bedridden,power stuggles at every level of management that James stood by and watched,KP would have sorted out with 1 Phone call. There are all sorts of factions and power bases at work now ,sections of the community that don't want Scientology involved in main stream media in Oz, others that see an opportunity to own/influence a major TV station,others that just want to make money and further their own careers etc.It will be interesting to see where it all ends but i don't think it will have a happy ending like Walt Disneys Co.. My 2c take on it.