Monday, 12 May 2008
Following up from my long post on the case, some more comments and things on IceTV that are interesting:
- This thread discussing the decision in the Digital TV Forum
- This post on the case, with a reference to a really interesting paper by Kathy Bowrey on digital television and copyright;
- The responding press release from IceTV (foreshadowing a special leave application if necessary).
One thing that I mentioned in my previous post was that I had a vague recollection something was already happening on electronic program guides and their provision. I’ve looked into that, and it appears that:
- FreeTV Australia (ndustry body which represents all of Australia’s commercial free-to-air television licencees) made two announcements last year. First in July they announced they would be providing the electronic program guide (EPG) to ‘ manufacturers of set top boxes, personal video recorders (PVRs) and other service providers’ – BUT with conditions ‘designed to protect copyright, protect the integrity of the program information and facilitate collection of ratings information’ (which probably means ‘no ad skipping allowed’, but the press release doesn’t specify);
- Then in November 2007, they announced that they would be ‘openly broadcasting program listing information by 1 January 2008, creating Australia’s first free electronic program guide (EPG)’. To be honest, I don’t know what the impact of that is.
It’s also worth noting that the Australian Communications and Media Authority has the power under the Broadcasting Services Act, s130K, to register Industry Codes, including (as an example) codes of practice relating to EPGs. ACMA also has the power to request that a code be established by an Industry, and ‘a reserve power to make an industry standard if there are no industry codes or if an industry code is deficient’ (s130C). As far as I know, ACMA has not in any way exercised this power, and while there’s a negotiated ‘deal’ on EPGs, as in the announcements above, I couldn’t see any reference to it being an industry code in any way.
Update: Bill Patry has commented on the case from a US perspective – here.
3 Responses to “More on the IceTV judgment”
Leave a Reply
Do not post material that is defamatory or obscene, that infringes any third party's copyrights, trademarks or other proprietary rights, or that violates any other right of any other person.
We reserve the right to remove or edit any comment for any reason.
Note: Posting more than two links in a comment may cause it not to appear because it will be submitted for moderation. Also, links in comments will not be counted by Google, so spamming is pointless.
May 15th, 2008 at 5:33 am
What likelihood is there that IceTV will be granted leave to appeal to the High Court?
May 15th, 2008 at 8:57 am
Don’t know Richard. On the one hand the case is an interesting one, raising important issues in copyright law, and one where reasonable minds can differ about aspects of the judgment. Not having taken the appeal from Desktop, the High Court might want to get in on this act. And it’s got a certain appeal, being a case with the involvement of leading IP counsel, as well as interesting technology issues in addition to the interesting substantive law issues.
On the other hand, one of the judges who’ve historically been interested in this stuff (ie technology) – namely Kirby – is due to retire in March 2009. And Gleeson retires in August this year. It’s transition time in the High Court, so it’s a little harder to predict what they might take. And the Court has looked at ‘substantial part’ recently in the Panel case – do they want to take another case on that issue so soon?
I wonder too whether – given the availability of EPG now in some forms, albeit somewhat limited – it will be worthwhile for IceTV to pursue a High Court appeal – another 2 year commitment.
I guess we’ll see!
October 16th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
I have been at the High Court today, my report of the day’s hearing is here: http://vogelross.com.au/vrblog/
Peter “so sue me” Vogel