Recent High Court judgement

[media08]

Ok I must ask the question - what would stop a company from incorporating in a country that did not recognise the Australian copywrite laws, publishing offshore program guides and then allowing internet users from other countries (ie: Australia) to consume the program guide information remotely? (if this costs me an additional $13 to help fund please let me know I'm in)

If a company can set up internet gaming overseas that Australians consume as a service, why would a company not set up their program guide web farm overseas also???

Another alternative is to have the program information for that channel in pseudo english - ie:change the name of the channel from 9 to something else, modify the program names to alternative names similar to the alternatvies used by Chinese companies for example CSI could be "Gambling City crime" or the Footy show could be "Those ex-players talking crap"  or a Current Affair could be "Infomoercial half hour" and for the times you don't have to change anything - most TV channels are guilty of running overtime so they are guilty of false advertising anyway, that bit is simple.

Oh and as for voting with your feet - this legal decision just cost one of Channel Nines biggest Advertisers the new car that I was going to buy. I have instead sent a letter to the General Manager of the particular car company informing him of my decision to NOT purchase his product as a result of the Channel nine decision to push this matter - I told him that I liked the car but the advertiser stinks.

[prl]

It would have to incorporate in a country that didn't have copyright law that conformed to the Berne convention, since the Berne convention is the basic principle behind most copyright law.

And if it did that, then Ice TV would be giving up its copyright on its own work, which they seem to value (see their Copyright and Privacy Policy).

Translation into "pseudo English" probably wouldn't help:

For the purposes of this Act, unless the contrary intention appears, copyright, in relation to a work, is the exclusive right:
                     (a)  in the case of a literary, dramatic or musical work, to do all or any of the following acts:
                              ...
                            (vi)  to make an adaptation of the work;

The IceTV program synopses are pretty clearly not the work of the broadcasters. Just have a look at the IceTV synopsis for Nine's A Current Affair. :)

And as for the times, my understanding is that they are at the centre of the current appeals, and it was exactly the "time and title" information that IceTV was told to remove.

[ackbar33]

this is such a good idea....


also ... has anyone tried talking to channel 7's todaytonight they love slinging shiat on 9 ...channel nine beating down the small aussie battler company.

[Matt at IceTV]

IceTV has been sucessfully granted special leave to appeal the recent decision made by the Full Court of the Federal Court to the High Court of Australia.

The court date for the High Court appeal has now been set for October 16-17 this year.

Check the News section of our website for any further information.

For those interested in the ongoing case first made against IceTV back in early 2006, you can read the complete transcript of proceedings heard by the High Court in Sydney on the 26th of August 2008.

High Court of Australia (26/08/08) - TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

There was also an interesting article written by Anne Flahvin published in the Australian newspaper regarding the importance the High Court intends to place on this case.

"IceTV case may take copyright in a U-turn" - The Australian (12/09/08).

Regards,

mattk

[pvogel]

I have been at the High Court today, my report of the day's hearing of IceTV vs Nine is here: http://vogelross.com.au/vrblog/

Peter "so sue me" Vogel

[tonymy01]

Peter, can you summarise day 2 of the high court proceedings pls?
Regards