Channel Nine restrictions over?

[Kirben]

Are the current restrictions on information for channel Nine TV guide over now, since IceTV won the court case?

Can be expect a more accurate TV guide for channel Nine again? instead of the current 'N/A' titles for many timeslots.

[dw]

This is a good question and I'm surprised that the official announcement on the news page doesn't say anything about what the win means to subscribers.

There are over 20 'N/A' listings still in the Program Guide over the next week as at 10.30pm today.

Come on IceTV, we love the fact that you've given Channel 9 a bloody nose and we want to share the taste of victory, but it's a bit hard when we're not told what it actually means!  Will it mean the end of:

* N/A listings
* incorrect timings of Channel 9 programmes that are listed correctly in other publications?

[dJOS]

Ice are prolly just checking with their lawyers to ensure they know exactly where the boundaries are before saying or doing anything as the case has had significant implications for copyright in Australia.

As I understand it (and im not a lawyer), you can no longer expect to copyright a list of facts or information, you can only copyright the structure and presentation providing they are original and not obvious (eg the structure of day, date, time & duration, as per the Nein vs IceTV ruling, is obvious and not original)

[Madeleine IceGuide]

Hi all

Please be assured that we will let you know as soon as possible what today's High Court decision means for Ice TV subscribers as it relates to the IceGuide. We will continue to abide by the orders of June 2008 when compiling the schedule for 9 and affiliates until the full legal implications of the ruling are made clear to us.

We understand how frustrating the "N/A" notifications are and genuinely appreciate everyone's patience over the last ten months, and indeed over the last few years as we fought this case.

Thanks

[brianh]

I think that is a wise decision - we have waited this long so a little longer won't hurt us!

[PhilthyM]

I think that is a wise decision - we have waited this long so a little longer won't hurt us!

Yes, the chances are we could go a few months and not miss anything that's any good on the Nine Network!

[dJOS]

Hi Ice Guy's & Gal's, any word on when the laywers will let you guy's resume cross checking against the published guides?

[Kirben]

Check the response in another thread, looks like it could still be a long wait.

[dJOS]

Check the response in another thread, looks like it could still be a long wait.

Thanks but I was after an estimate and there isn't one in those posts from Madeline.

[Vortical]

Check the response in another thread, looks like it could still be a long wait.

Thanks but I was after an estimate and there isn't one in those posts from Madeline.

This is about as good an estimate as they can give. The way I read it it sounds like Two Weeks or longer depending on how fast (or should I say slow) the legal process takes.

The High Court victory did not address the matter of the order from last year, which came from a different court and is a separate, though connected, issue requiring more submissions, paperwork etc.

12 days may seem like a long time but these processes are slow. "Legal time" is different to real time - like dog years, in reverse, so to speak.

We will certainly let people know as soon as anything changes.

[dJOS]

This is about as good an estimate as they can give. The way I read it it sounds like Two Weeks or longer depending on how fast (or should I say slow) the legal process takes.

The High Court victory did not address the matter of the order from last year, which came from a different court and is a separate, though connected, issue requiring more submissions, paperwork etc.

12 days may seem like a long time but these processes are slow. "Legal time" is different to real time - like dog years, in reverse, so to speak.

We will certainly let people know as soon as anything changes.

The 12 Days is very vague and the judgment was on the 22nd April (2 weeks ago).

[prl]

This is about as good an estimate as they can give. The way I read it it sounds like Two Weeks or longer depending on how fast (or should I say slow) the legal process takes.

The High Court victory did not address the matter of the order from last year, which came from a different court and is a separate, though connected, issue requiring more submissions, paperwork etc.

12 days may seem like a long time but these processes are slow. "Legal time" is different to real time - like dog years, in reverse, so to speak.

We will certainly let people know as soon as anything changes.

The 12 Days is very vague and the judgment was on the 22nd April (2 weeks ago).

I think that the 12 days is actually quite precise and refers to the time from when the judgment was handed down (22 Apr) to when Madeleine posted (4 May).

[Vortical]

The 12 Days is very vague and the judgment was on the 22nd April (2 weeks ago).

Yes it is but as was also discussed by the IceTV Rep the final High Court judgement didn't have anything covering the judgement in the previous court case that forced IceTV into the postion of modifying the Nine EPG into the state it's currently in.

Edit: As prl stated above it appears the 12 days may be the time already past up to the time Madeline@IceTV posted.  Sp all we can do is sit tight and wait.

[Madeleine IceGuide]

Hi all

Sorry for any confusion, the "12 days" did refer to how long it had been since the High Court verdict...

I have been informed that a date has been set for an audience with the court to have the order from June 2008 lifted.

This matter will be heard on Monday 18th May.  (Strangely enough, in 12 days time).

We will make an announcement after the matter has been heard to inform subscribers about how this affects Nine scheduling, as well as anything they'll need to do etc.

Thanks

[dJOS]

Thanks Madeleine, thats exactly the info I was after.

Bloody Justice system, you'd think it would be an instant smack down to the lower court order when you've had the lower court judgments quashed by the high court?