Passionate about IP! Since June 2003 the IPKat has covered copyright, patent, trade mark, designs, info-tech and confidentiality issues from a mainly UK and European perspective. Read, post comments and participate!

The team is Eleonora Rosati, Annsley Merelle Ward and Merpel. E-mail the Kats here!

The team is joined by GuestKats Kevin Bercimuelle-Chamot, Jocelyn Bosse, Alessandro Cerri, Anastasiia Kyrylenko, Marcel Pemsel and Anna Maria Stein.

SpecialKats: Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo (TechieKat), Antonios Baris (Book Review Editor), Rose Hughes (PatKat) and Chijioke Okorie (Africa Correspondent).

InternKats: Asude Sena Moya and Söğüt Atilla.
Home / / AUSSIE TiVo-TYPE COPYRIGHT CASE

AUSSIE TiVo-TYPE COPYRIGHT CASE


Variety and Lateline report that Australian Channel 9 was in court yesterday with a copyright action against fellow Aussie company Ice TV. Ice TV deploys a Personal Interactive Media Player (PIMP for short – yes, really) which, for a fee of AUS$3 a week, allows subscribers to designate programmes that they wish to record electronically. The recordings skip the adverts in the original broadcasts. Channel 9 claims that in so doing, Ice TV infringes Channel 9’s copyright in its broadcast schedules by using the information therein and by reproducing the schedules in electronic form.
The IPKat has some sympathy with Channel 9 here. A programme that means that viewers won’t see the adverts could reduce Channel 9’s revenue stream, and ultimately deprive those viewers of the programmes that they are using PIMP to record. He further notes that while Channel 9 might be preventing the development of a secondary market in such technology, unlike the ECJ’s Magill case, there is a good reason inherent in the nature of broadcasting for keeping this information back.
AUSSIE TiVo-TYPE COPYRIGHT CASE AUSSIE TiVo-TYPE COPYRIGHT CASE Reviewed by Anonymous on Tuesday, October 17, 2006 Rating: 5

7 comments:

  1. AnonymousTuesday, 17 October 2006 at 23:38:00 GMT+1

    Interestingly, it's also been reported that the defendant invited Channel 9 to view how the system operates, but Channel 9 declined to do so. Network Ten and Channel 7, Australia's other free to air broadcasters, took up the invitation and, so far, have not joined Channel 9 in rushing to the Court door.

    Just to make it that much more fascinating, there are rumours swirling Australia this morning that James Packer will put up half of PBL (the company that owns Channel 9) for sale. Any potential threat to the revenue stream could drive down the price just a little bit!

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousWednesday, 18 October 2006 at 02:31:00 GMT+1

    < rant >
    As a British ex-pat in Australia, I applaud anything that can be done to reduce the number of adverts we're subjected to over here.

    Actually, to be fair, I would applaud anything that can be done to reduce the influence of the commercial networks generally. They make Channel 5 look like a polished station. And the programming ... back-to-back US cop drivel.

    And the radio is even worse!

    I miss the BBC. Even Jonathan Ross on Radio 2 is better than the drivel we get. I'd even rather listen to Sue McGregor than the morons on Mix 106, Nova 96.9 or Triple-J.
    < /rant >

    ReplyDelete
  3. AnonymousWednesday, 18 October 2006 at 10:56:00 GMT+1

    Try the archived programmes on the BBC's excellent website.

    ReplyDelete
  4. AnonymousWednesday, 18 October 2006 at 11:53:00 GMT+1

    IPKat is mistaken in thinking that IceTV subscribers coud be depriving Nine of revenue. Nine's advertisers pay for viewers. Viewers are measured by the ratings. Ratings measure people who watch shows LIVE - NOT people who miss the show and watch a time-shifted recording of it.

    Some then say that if everyone started to time shift, Nine might have fewer viewers and still lose revenue. But that's fallacious too - Nine's market share wouldn't change since every network's share of live audience would fall proportionately. There's no reason to suppose that Nine viewers would record and skip ads and every other station's viewers would keep watching live TV.

    So, at the end of the day, Nine has in my opinion brought an unwinnable case for erroneous reasons and the Australian public is in danger of losing the sole EPG service that will let them enjoy the benefits of s. 111 of the Copyright Act!

    ReplyDelete
  5. AnonymousSaturday, 21 October 2006 at 03:12:00 GMT+1

    The recordings skip the adverts in the original broadcasts

    ...wish they did

    ICETV provide the Electronic Program Guide data. The PVR devices record the shows based on selections in the EPG, whether they use PIMP or not.

    The viewer CAN skip the adverts by fast forwarding through what they recorded when they play it back (pretty much like what you can do on a VCR).

    At this point in time, there is no way to skip adverts in original broadcasts in Australia unless you sit there pausing the recording while it is happening (but why would you bother)

    ReplyDelete
  6. AnonymousTuesday, 24 October 2006 at 06:52:00 GMT+1

    So unusual to see a Brit ex pat (Anon 2:31am) have a rave against Aussie TV, radio, newspapers, butter, cars, clothes, beer, popcorn, cranes, shops, light bulbs ... i could go on. Imagine a TiVo type system that could erase their miserable comments from your blogs - or turn them into happy blogs with constructive ideas and a progressive attitude. I'd really like to see that.

    ReplyDelete
  7. rashid1891Friday, 3 December 2010 at 10:37:00 GMT

    The viewer CAN skip the adverts by fast forwarding through what they recorded when they play it back (pretty much like what you can do on a VCR).

    ReplyDelete

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Subscribe to: Post Comments ( Atom )
Powered by Blogger.