Sad day
http://www.lawfont.com/2008/05/09/all-our-...-belongs-to-us/

Wow. That is big.

First up for ICETV themselves. While ICE have done a lot of work to diversify there base 'product' (such as provide remote scheduling) just about everything they provided is based around the core EPG they create. I assume that failing an appeal by ICETV they will almost immediately have to cease and desist their entire business?

Let alone the costs awarded to the opposing channel Nine. I'd assume that it will be enough to bankrupt the fledgling company. NO idea how something like refunds to customers might be handled, if at all. Can ICE refund all its moneys and then wind itself up in administration? No doubt channel Nine will be popping the champagne

Although its probably small consolation ICETV have managed to do what they initially set out to do - get an EPG onto our FTA screens. I have no doubt that we'd still be looking at Now & Next if ICE didn't exist. The networks here have finally had to start moving and while the eventual outcome might be not what I'd like we can at least look at the (admittedly still pretty poor excuse of a) EPG they've created.

Of the judgement, I have to say I wouldn't have thought it possible based on ICETVs strong prima face case. However copyright law is always a huge exercise in minutiae and intellectual analysis. Read hobos article the best I can understand is that:

1) It was accepted that ICETV did create its own EPG and did only change a very small percentage of that document by refering to the Networks published schedules.

2) However what seems to be new is that the relative value of the contents needs to be weighed in deciding what constitutes the body of knowledge.

So that what renders the EPG a useful piece of work (ie title and time) is given the highest weighting.

As to what it means for us punters? I don't know. It seems likely that the networks push to ensure PVRS released in Oz do not have SKIP functionality is now much more likely to succeed.

What really gets me here is how unfair it all is. Here we have a small entity that has worked extremely hard and risked a lot to provide a honest public service. They've consulted extensively and tried as best they can to fit inside the existing rules. When told to desist they went to an independent arbiter in good faith and had been found to be fully compliant. When challenged again and after 100s of hours of argument on the smallest minutiae they have been found wrong. They should just be able to take the hit and leave, but instead they are lumbered with a million of dollars of costs.

Indeed a sad and sorry day.

Peter Gillespie

If what renders an EPG a useful piece of work is taken into consideration then the 'uselessness' of the FTA's transmitted EPGs should be taken into account and the entire case tossed out of court. If ICE relied soley upon the FTA EPGs or even partially their guide data would be so inaccurate as to be unusable. Its is blindingly clear to anyone not employed by 9 that ICE does not rely solely or even wholely upon 9's guide data.

The Full Federal Court's judgment can be found here. I don't have time to read it at the moment, but that blog posting above seems to give a good summary of the issues.

F#&K, this is not good!!!

Looks like we may have to revert to guide scrapers in the future!!

The Nein EPG on both FTA and FOXTEL is friggen useless, as Nein never stick to advertised times, as no network ever does. It may as well not even exist which is what the likes of Nein would much prefer so as to keep propping up their very much outdated 1950's business model.
Hate to say it, along with the ABC, even TEN has a more useful EPG, even on FOXTEL which is more accurate when it comes to actual times and not the useless 'as advertised' times the NEIN and $EVEN EPG's have. That is of course when vermin programing like Brig Brother Live is not on which then throws the EPG all out of whack when they run over.
Gave up on Nein many moons ago, they are less than the status of TEN thesedays, and that's saying alot.
Anyways, gave up on Australian broadcast TV many moons ago, not overly reliant on it anymore. Internet donloads dominate our viewing patterns thesedays.

I sent the Following email to Minister Stephen Conroy: (minister@dbcde.gov.au)



Im not sure it'll do any good but someone has gotta tell him how insane the situation is!

Official IceTV response:
IceTV - News

From the summary, it would appear that the copyright is not just the 'list' and what is done with it (or not done) but also the creative aspect that goes behind making up the 'list'. ie Nine spend a considerable effort deciding what will be shown on TV and when and the list reflects the results of this effort. So ICE have apparently impinged on Nines programming department.

The option for appeal sounds good and based on how this case has gone so far I am making no predictions. Go ICE.

Regards

Peter Gillespie

I find it hard to believe that a great deal of time, thought or effort goes into 9's programming. No one could be that incompetent.

The whole "it takes considerable effort to create the programme guide blah blah" sounds like an utter pile of the biggest Laddette turd to me.
Nein doesn't put considerable effort in to compile the guide!?!? All TV broadcasters have to schedule a list of shows to broadcast so they can actually pump something down the airwaves. The guide is merely a simple reflection of what they have scheduled, and as such, no effort has gone into creating the guide apart from deciding what episode and other synopsis should be indicated for each show, and this is where ICETV uniquely created their own synopsis. How can anyone copyright what time a TV show starts?? This is ludicrous. So if I provide a list of train times to my friend for tomorrow, to help them arrive at my house, have I breached some imaginary copyright of a train timetable?!?
I cannot believe these boffin judges took Neins case seriously, surely they were laughing throughout some of those stupid arguments? They can't be serious can they?
Grrr

But cynicism aside, I'd have to concur that the networks spend millions of $ deciding what airs on TV. From the initial picking of the shows to what night and time slot they are on, to moving them if they might rate better else where, etc. Its a big $ business and while we viewers might endlessly disagree with how they treat our favorite shows and the endless 'garbage' they schedule, I don't think anyone really believes they just toss a dice and so Lost is now showing at 9:30 Tuesdays. The ruling would appear to link that effort with the physical guide itself.

As for handing out your own train schedules, we'll if you started charging $2 a week and making some good cash I do suspect that yes you would be in breech of copyright. The last landmark copyright case involved someone who started providing published telephone numbers to people.

Regards

Peter Gillespie

I am not denying that scheduling takes a lot of effort. Scheduling is very important. But how are we, the masses, meant to know what is on without some portrayal of that schedule to us? This is where the "guide" comes into the picture. The guide is not something that takes considerable effort to produce, as it isn't the guide that the networks are creating when they create their schedules. The guide is merely a means of conveying "this is the show and this is when it is on" to us. This should not be copyright, as it is merely a statement of facts about a schedule. A guide should be *mandatory* for conveying television service details to the public, in a form most suitable for current technologies, which as we all know is electronic these days. It should be freely available to all.
I don't mind giving Ice my money, as they value add services to the guide, providing it in a form suitable for a PVR, providing series recording, favourites etc. By ICE charging for information that should be freely available is not in question here, ICE has always been trying to value add on top of just a raw electronic TV guide.
Regards

We can find out what's on via a hundred 'sanctioned' outlets. Just because we think there's a much better outlet (ICETV) doesn't mean its legit. We should remember that there's no inherent 'right' to know when a corporation is going to broadcast something. They have purchased the bandwidth and if they felt so inclined could broadcast an encrypted game of tic tac toe 24/7.

But this case has broken new ground IMO. It has effectively reduced the 5% fair use rule. IMO if someone writes a 100 page book which details how to buy a house and then someone reads the book and provides a 5 page summary of the salient points of this book then this new ruling has said you are breaching copyright. ie it looks to the totality of the document and applies a 'weighting' to aspects of the document. In ICETV's case the 5% they chose to use was the extremely important bit of an EPG - the date and time a show aired. The judgement seems to say that 5% is actually worth 50% and so a breech occurs - this is a new application.

End of the day I think this is a classic case of "Corporations being psychopathic". What Nine are doing is wrong in every sense of the word, but they don't care. They can do it and it makes 100% sense for them to do it as it only (potentially) increases Nine's dominance over its environment. As a bonus its also completely legal.

Regards

Peter Gillespie

Man I just started using ICE this week and now it's gone before I could fully appreciate. Back to downloads...

Finally! I hope IceTV will go bankrupt because of legal costs.
Such a terrible service...
-Idiotic connection protocol that allow channel list update only every hour.
-Delayed HD channels listings for few months.
-Unrealistically high price. Instead of lowering the price and attracting more customers they alienate them with cost.

Anyway there's no need for icetv now expect for SBS guide.

The underlying data only updates once or twice a day (why do you want to download it more than 24 times?)

The only way they can (could) operate was based on a predictive model. They couldn't really just copy the green guide on day one could they?

We'll there's lots of pricey things in the world - maybe BMW should start selling under $20,000 a car to stop alienating us all?



Gosh anyone would think they've forced you to use the service krammer? We all have things we wouldn't spend money on but usually we don't take it as such a personal affront.

Regards

Peter Gillespie

Judging by ICEs response (and probable appeal) I'd anticipate they'll be around for a good year or two yet - justice is slow.

Regards

Peter Gillespie

FTA shooting itself in the foot one stupid move at a time.

"Let's not let people find out what's on by a convient method that MIGHT actually increase our declining audience".
Good move NIEN. I hope Ice continues to run & removes NIEN them from their service.

I wonder if NIEN knows that EyeTV3 reads EPGs and creates smartguides?

Why?

It seems to me that provided you are allowed to record FTA transmissions going an extra step in mandating the way in which you can replay the recorded material wouldn't succeed.

Would no skip mean no FF or FR, no slow motion etc, no bookmarking - I think not and IMHO skipping, either forward or back through a recording, is just a variation on these forms of movement or navigation through the recording.

Tossers, this is the biggest load of cr@p

Its only because of IceTV that I watch some shows on FTA, without it I wouldn't even know they were on FTA

If IceTV closes and there is no adequate alternative, I'll be watching less FTA by default, surely this is not in the FTA channels intended by this course of action

..............IMHO the dumbasses are just shooting themselves in the foot

Am I infringing on their copyright because I remember that what and when a few shows are on, seriously my brain has stored more of their EPG data than they release

In reality EPG data should be freeware, in that anyone can create it and use in the way they want, surly this would be highly beneficial for them and us.

cheers

Except that that's what the networks have already publicly stipulated. They will not allow any manufacturer to have an EPG if it has a SKIP function. They will allow FF and REW but I think at x32 max speed. Anyone can still built a PVR with SKIP capabilities but they will be in court (and losing) if they try add EPG options. While ICE was there manufacturers had an option to use them and provide SKIP. With ICE pushed out then all manufacturers will have to decide.

Regards

Peter Gillespie

Absolutely untrue. The assertion of control over PVR manufacturers in regard to use of EPG data is bogus. The networks have absolutely zero power in that department, and they know it. The threat was made before a free and unencrypted EPG was provided, when the networks' intention appeared to be to supply a restricted one.

All PVRs do is receive EIT EPG data as part of the DVB spec. There is precisely ZERO that anyone can do to stop them.

As for the Nine Vs. Ice case, it's one of the most disgusting misuses of the courts in Australian history, a bogus case fought purely on technicalities that is designed to do one thing and one thing only - to crush and destroy a company that Nine doesn't want around.

It is in the nature of any beast to thrash around in it's death throes. Nine is just that - A dying beast.

I don't want to sound like I'm doing a commercial for EyeTV3 but .......

Just downloaded a user written applescript that runs after you've completed an EyeTV recording.
It flags the commercials and then skips over them automatically during playback.

Up yours NIEN.

Any half-competent government would have stipulated that programming information must be made freely available to anyone that wants it, as part of the conditions of the broadcasting licence. Is it too late for them to put this into law now?

Do the existing networks' licences ever come up for renewal? If so, when is the next time this happens?

Presumably newspapers & magazines buy the data from the networks? Could IceTV argue that they should be allowed to purchase it at a similar price? After all, the networks are using an extremely valuable public resource - bandwidth.

I believe that this is all about them controlling the EPG to avoid people recording ahead so that they can skip ads. The networks simply have to accept that people will demand this sort of information in a pre-digested, easily-accessible way. In the future when there are many more channels, it simply won't be possible to use newspapers or magazines, so an EPG is essential (e.g. Foxtel). If they refuse to provide such information, viewers will increasingly look elsewhere for content on demand and they will end up with an ever declining market share.

I think they need to accept that they don't have everyone by the short-and-curlies like they used to, and that we now have choices. If they don't we'll go elsewhere. In any case, they probably don't need to be quite as uptight in clinging to their old business model as Nein seem to believe.

- Most people aren't fanatical about recording everything to be able to skip the ads. I'd say I'm one of those who try to avoid them as much as possible, but sometimes it either isn't possible or I can't be bothered, or I don't have anything else to do so I watch (or at least sit through) some of them. Some are even quite entertaining in their own right - perhaps the networks should concentrate on this aspect.

- FTA television will probably still remain a premium way for advertisers to reach their market, and they will probably still be prepared to pay substantially for the privilege.

On this basis the networks should concentrate on retaining & building market share, and in this context an EPG acts as an advert for their shows. They can, of course, provide their own EPG (and are to some extent), but they seem less than competent at doing so. If they eventually encrypt it, they will alienate & lose an increasing number of viewers and hasten the decline of their out-of-date business model.

Dave.

[quote name='Neon Kitten' date='May 10 2008, 06:48 PM' post='1056200']Absolutely untrue. The assertion of control over PVR manufacturers in regard to use of EPG data is bogus. The networks have absolutely zero power in that department, and they know it. The threat was made before a free and unencrypted EPG was provided, when the networks' intention appeared to be to supply a restricted one.

And Yellow Pages gives away all its information for free to every year. However these days no one tries to copy that out and distribute it themselves.

I'm not suggesting that networks can directly mandate a PVR does not have skip abilities. However it would appear they can stipulate what the devices that use the broadcast EPG can do. On the face of it it does seem a bit silly - can they insist I don't drive a car if I look at their EPG? Presumably not. Skip abilities have absolutely no connection to an EPG an would also seem to be beyond the purview of the networks.

It would appear that there is no actual requirement that network broadcast an EPG in Oz. It would also appear that they do broadcast this information in a wide variety of ways. (Paper, Online, FTA). However legally it would seem they retain ownership of this information regardless of how completely available it is to the public.

The broadcasting legislation / standard presumably specifies in what format information must be transmitted over the air. However it also presumably doesn't say that viewers now have cart blanche on the shows broadcast. In fact, its a really tightly controlled legal area in Oz that until recently didn't actually allow you to record anything legally.

So now we have the networks flexing some muscle and saying the info is ours. If you want to build a box to show that info it must conform to what we want. Be interesting if any PVR manufacture feels inclined to 'have a go'. I'm thinking the big guns (Sony etc.) have a hugely vested interest in acquiescing, while the small guns (eg Topfield) are likely to feel a bit scarred of how the networks can use the legal system to bankrupt them.

Regards

Peter Gillespie

NB. I believe the 'threat' was made as part of announcing a 'true' FTA EPG being broadcast - ie the same document announced an EPG will be broadcast and that PVRs would be restricted in SKIP ability if they were to qualify for EPG rights.

Excuse my complete ignorance here, but could this have anything to do with the fact that Nine also owns TV Week and already has arrangements in place with the other FTA stations to provide their guides? Could they be protecting their monopoly with a view to potentially producing their own ICE TV style guide using TV Week as the source?

Not suggesting I'm right or anything. It just seems that they see ICE TV as a threat to their tv guide monopoly and are trying to protect their future interests.

This whole thing was back when broadcast epg was now+next.
So it has zero to do with the broadcast epg.

It was more about scraping the epg info from other sources (websites or even the mags+newspapers)



Yes it seems that way.
I can see an argument for bits that are actually creative eg the descriptions of the show.
But I find it silly that they show name and time of broadcast can be considered copyright.


Again - I think you have jumped the guns.
The broadcast epg should be free to be used by a box designed to recieve it and that shouldnt depend on what other features your box has.
What you cant do is repackage that info and on-sell it, which is what IceTv was doing.

This decision was about the retransmission of the epg.
It wasnt about STB and ad skip features.

I think people are getting confused with the "Freeview" stamp of approval, which has conditions on skip+ffwd. But that isnt saying they will bans one that can skip, just that they wont get the cute stamp of approval.

silly double post!

What you say is true, but don't forget that the broadcast standard includes the provision of encrypting the EPG information that is embedded in the broadcast stream.

Up until now the tv stations haven't done this because they could probably see that encrypting the data would just play into the hands of IceTV and the free EPG providers (as not broadcasting it all did for a while). Broadcasting the information free and unencrypted provides less push for people to explore alternative options. Once the alternative options are killed off - as seems to be happening - I think the tv stations will introduce encryption to their broadcast EPGs (though now & next will remain accessible) and only allow decryption by 'approved' devices. This would effectively mean future PVRs won't have ad skipping and current PVR won't be able to display full EPG info.

This recent [and extremely stupid and short sighted] judgement, if it stands, effectively closes the door to anyone publishing a list of program times and titles that reflects what the TV stations have decided to put on. Apparently they have copyright on that list!!!

Disagree on that. The networks announced on the same day that they were broadcasting an EPG (unencrypted) and that any future PVRs using that EPG would need to be "licensed" and that said license would impose some restrictions visa vie ad skipping. All existing 'alternative' sources of EPGs we're already flagrantly illegal under copyright law and they are of no concern to the networks - either they will only reach a small number of people or if they get too large they will simply be issued a cease and desist note. What was a major concern was ICE.
Indeed this is exactly what they are trying to do. The existence of ICETV as a legitimate alternative to the network guides would have put a huge dent in the networks ability to demand anything visa vie an EPG.
This is where the recent case has extended the definition of copyright. It has ruled that the "body of work" covered is not simply the "Name and Time" as shown on a list but rather includes all the creative decision making that goes into deciding what airs on our TVs each day (which is considerable). That is the copyright isn't just on the end product, but also everything that led up to it.

The networks can't specify that a box must have a certain set of features, however the one thing they can specify is that you are not allowed to display their EPG on screen. So then they turn it into a quid pro and say you get the EPG if you disable the SKIP. Its a smart move as its a lot easier to sue a box manufacturer out of existence for a 'flagrant' abuse of copyright than it is to try stop a million end users abusing copyright.

Regards

Peter Gillespie

I think its all a bit of a storm in a teacup which is making a few lawyers even richer. I, like most people, probably wouldn't ever use an EPG. I use the TV guide and if there's something on I want to watch, I turn on the recorder when it starts. I don't think I've ever set a timer to record something and even if I did, I'd use the TV guide to determine when to record it.

Give me ad skipping any day over an EPG. We have a Pioneer SD HDD recorder and a DGTEC twin HD tuner recorder. The skip function on the DodgyTec is unreliable, so we just let the ads play. You really notice not being able to skip three minutes in a few button clicks.

The shows get recorded on a hard drive. I can't see how the FTA stations can prevent skipping. I don't care about technology which detects the ads, I just want to be able to skip them if I choose.

I don't think anyone's talking about automatic ad skipping (leastways I wasn't), just skipping them manually during the playback of a recording or during chaseplay. An EPG makes recording your favourite programs much easier, so it then becomes much easier to do what you do and skip the ads. I use it all the time, and I think more & more viewers will choose this option once they:

- Realise it exists

- Have the appropriate equipment

- Learn how to use it.

Still a minority at present, but certain to grow, particularly with gen-Ys who won't have the patience to sit through ads as we used to!

Dave.

Do you use a PVR with IceTV and a full EPG display? Or a HTPC with the IceTv or the FreeEPG guide enabled? I've done both and couldn't conceive of going back to the old way of having to manually program everything I want to watch. Having a reliable and complete EPG has completely changed the way I watch TV. I never watch anything live - at least not on commercial networks.

Far from being a storm in a teacup, this decision is going to keep Australia in the digital TV dark ages for years to come. IMO the EPG is to digital TV what Google is the internet, or iTunes is to music players. It's an essential service.

So I guess only a 3 month subscription to icetv is advisable.....

PS: What are the chances of ICETV being granted an appeal in the high court and that appeal being upheld?

Basically Nines strategy all along. They stopped a float that would have given ICE some definite funds with the initial law suit (after who invests in a company where there main product might be ruled illegal in a few months and render the company worthless?). Now potential subscribers will continue to be hesitant further starving ICE of funds to put its case forward.

As for the appeal I have no idea. Logic would suggest that the issue is 'debatable' and that the judge that originally decided in ICETVs favour will also decide if it remains 'debatable'. And of course the legal system depends on 5 levels of appeal to ensure all parties have paid enough to get a simple decision. So I'd be leaning towards an appeal being granted, but feel free to toss a coin on the outcome.

Regards

Peter Gillespie

Although I find the ad skip function useful I could live without it, but it would be a huge blow if I didn't have a full EPG - oztivo via freeEPG under VMC.

Once you;ve tried it you won't want to go back.

Does it? News to me, and I'm sure it'd be news to the DVB-T standards people too.

What it does include is provision for private data streams, but the Aus networks would have to come up with a technical spec for EPG delivery via these streams, and sell the idea of providing customised Australia-only firmware to STB manufacturers. Not saying that won't happen, but ...


Well, technically, N&N is a compulsory mandated part of the DVB-T spec. Strictly speaking, Ten repeatedly violated the spec when they left it stuck on "6:00am - Benny Hinn" for days on end (because the N&N flag time did not match the current broadcast clock time). Of course they could just broadcast nothing, as long as the N&N flag times were current.

Put simply, the networks - particularly Nein, who have mighty leverage via the EPG through their acquisition of HWW a year or two ago - want complete control, from their end right through to your TV. With FTA, they missed the chance to control the very STB like they do via Foxtel (ever wonder why Australia is one of the few countries where you must lease a Pay-TV box from the provider, when Europe is fairly open and even the US has been working to break that market stranglehold?), so they're going for the next-best option - trying to control the features of the STB and what you can do with it.

Seven tried / are trying the other option - gain direct control of the STB through marketing e.g. Tivo (and they, maybe surprisingly, maybe not, seem to have the other networks at least nominally on-side with that) - but, with their continuous on again / off again release schedule and other holdups, may be letting that slip.

Overall, they really don't want you to have control of your TV. Or, rather, you can have control - as long as you use it exactly the way they want.

I know it sounds paranoid and crazy, but I can really forsee a time when "approved" STBs could lock you out from changing channels during a programme, in order to preserve networks' market share. And, of course, you wouldn't be allowed to change channels during an ad break either...

(Actually, I'm only including that last paragraph on the off chance that I can point back to it in 20 years time and say "look, I told you so!" ;-)

Perhaps it's not defined by the standard, but it is possible under the standard. Here is response received from the ABC when the LG saga was in full flight:

"The ABC returned to the old configuration yesterday afternoon to provide LG with some time to resolve their issue with the 250 DAT set-top box, however we will return to the new configuration within the next month, as this is required to instigate some initiatives including EPG encryption. Once again, I would like to reiterate that any changes made by the ABC are within the specifications and standards of the Australian Digital Video Broadcasting system and the fault lies solely with that make and model of set-top box, which LG are responsible for resolving."

Not that i am a copyright or IP expert but are you in breach of copyright if you acknowledge your source(s)? If IceTV acknowledged their sources in composing the EPG are they still in breack of copyright or any IP law? Failing that as i understand it if they seek "authorisation" from the original author of the content or source of the information they intend to use and that authorisation is granted then would they be allowed to do what they are currently doing without being in breach of any copyright or IP law? If they aren't then i wonder if IceTV has sought the authorisation of the TV stations to reproduce their TV schedules in an electronic format? Maybe this is all that is required? As for TV guides published in newspapers and magazines surely this is considered a form of "advertisement" for those publications? Would not these TV stations pay for the right to have this information published in these newspapers and magazines? If they do pay what type of information or content is it defined as?

Reading some of these posts about programming scheduling and the amount of money it costs TV stations to do this i think it is also important to consider "other programming constraints" such as censorship ratings etc (PG, MA, M+ etc) which are factors that need to be taken into consideration. So one would think that with such a rating system it would now make the programmers task alot easier?

cheers
Jeff

I'm with you on this. I've been happily recording TV shows (based on paper and/or online listings) for decades without an EPG. I am happy to set all timers manually, and would take ad-skipping over an EPG any day.

How is use of the copyright material flagrant if they simply display something that is in the DVB-T spec??
If they dont want you to have it then they shouldnt transmit it to you using the public spec that says how to read it!!!

I dont think that they can transmit it in a method designed to be read by anyone and then pick and choose who can use it based on other factors.

Hell they might be better to say "we have copyright over the picture and content and we dont authorise that unless you use a device that doesnt skip ads" - I doubt that logic would hold up in court, so how could it do any better on something like epg.

I can see that they can stop someone like IceTv from using their copyright material, collecting it overtly and selling it. But its a different thing if they are broadcasting the epg then it should assumed they have given you permission to view and use it (just as they have with the video content of the broadcast)

I dont think they would have much legal grounds to refuse use of the epg based on features of a stb/pvr that arent related to the epg. In fact in the current climate that could be seen as an illegal restriction of business, which is frowned on especially if the companies have some sort of monopoly.


I still think you are reading way more into this.
They have said they would only approve Freeview boxes that didnt skip.
I dont think Ive seen anything saying they would remove permission to use epg (or video content!) from devices that have skip.

Yes. You still need permission from the copyright holder regardless of whether or not you acknowledge them.


I would imagine IceTV have been down that avenue. Given that Nein don't want IceTV to exist at all, I doubt that they would give them permission to use the info.


I doubt that the TV stations pay. I'd say that with the print media it's a mutually beneficial relationship, therefore noone pays.

It's not. It's widely acknowledged that if they broadcast the EPG unencrypted then any suitable settop box is allowed to display it. But the problem is that if there is no alternative sources of the EPG, then the TV stations could decide to broadcast the EPG info encrypted and only give permission for qualifying set top boxes to decrypt it. Under Australian law - unlike some other parts of the world - there is no compulsion to broadcast unencrypted EPG info like there is for 'Now and Next' info.

Sounds about right.

They do other stuff with the mags + newspapers that doesnt involve a direct payment either way.
The networks send "screeners" to varies media outlets so they can review shows.
This actually costs them a fair bit.

I believe Seven decided to change from tape to dvd to make it cheaper to do and ended up giving away a few dvd players to some reviewers who didnt have them!


Back to the original concept of the EPG having creative content, sounds like Nine argued that it takes "creative" effort to make the schedule and hence the EPG.
I wonder if someone could refute this argument by showing that a simple computer program could probably produce the epg especially considering the times are nearly always rounded to the nearest 30 min.
It certainly is a much easier process than trying to generate a paragraph of text and have it match something that someone wrote.
Given a list of shows Nine has and some simple rules Im pretty sure I could do a program to make all possible schedules for a week. While it would be a large number its not vastly large like the paragraph of text problem.
Actually it would be interesting to see how its complexity measures up against sentances containing a given number of words (eg is a weeks epg equivalent to a 5 work sentance?)
One other thing is that given the schedule generally repeats most of the current week to the next week the problem is probably greatly reduced if you take last week as the starting point.
Yes thats starting from a copyright work, but in terms of the complexity of any given weeks schedule its actually much less than it would seem when you consider than most of the "creative effort" is spread over many weeks.
I guess thats one argument for moving shows around - you are using your creative effort on the schedule to enhance your copyright claim!

Now, now Nine's schedule has always been a creative work. showing series out of order. cutting off series midway through.. never showing second halfs of two part finals (Startrek DS9) The whole schedule is designed for maximum frustration of consumers I'm sure that people responcible for programming spend weeks dreaming up new ways to annoy and frustrate the Australian television viewer.

It's almost valueless anyway with shows starting up to 20 minutes late and finishing later.

No, acknowledgment is not enough. In practical terms if I could copy the latest blockbuster TV and sell it to everyone in Oz for $2 just because I put "With thanks to..." on the cover then copyright wouldn't be worth a dime. The nature of copyright is that you must get formal permission to 'copy' something from the rights owner.

ICETV have indeed asked to broadcast EPGs. The networks are trying to sue them into oblivion in return. So no, its not just a matter of asking.

When talking about the 'effort' involved in putting together a guide its not really the rating that's a factor. Its about the network deciding that they'll run Lost against The Footy Show on Thursday because that will maximise ratings - ie ICE doesn't replicate this part of the creaing of the ICE guide.

Regards

Peter Gillespie

Ok - I know why ch9 cant stop PVR models using the EPG (with or without the silly ad skip conditions)

Because... the ability to use the epg is not breaking copyright, it would only be when the user actually uses it on ch9 that it would be actively breaking their copyright.
Someone could legally use the pvr to watch other stations and use their epg or even watch ch9 and not use the epg.

A copyright holder cant stop the sale of dvd recorders or other potential copyright infringing technology if they have other legitimate uses.
This would be the same. They could only attempt to go after "users" not the pvrs themselves.

IceTV is not dead yet. Watch this space.