Friday, 16 May 2008
Simon Rumble expresses concern that the ruling in IceTV may be far-reaching indeed:
To my non-lawyerly eyes, this judgement seems rather far-ranging. It seems that basically any collection of data can now be covered by copyright, no matter how you recreate it. …
For example, let’s say I wanted to set up a web site that allows people to compare phone plans. I use publicly-available information about the various suppliers’ pricing to build a database that is looked up to recommend a specific plan from a specific provider. This would now seem to be a breach of copyright. I work with people who design phone plans, and I can tell you it’s a very creative process — though perhaps not for the right reasons.
My response to that would be – not necessarily. Actually, the cases where people have tried to use copyright to prevent this kind of ‘comparison’ site go way back to the early days of the Internet. In the US, they tend to fail on ‘fair use’. In Australia, we don’t have fair use, but I think there are at least two safety valves that mean this isn’t going to be infringement:
- First, you may not end up copying enough to be infringing copyright. Let’s say there’s a whole mobile phone plan. Let’s say you extract a few key items: price of phone, price per minute, connection fees, timing. That’s a whole lot less than the whole plan. Whichever way you look at it, you always have to copy a substantial part of the copyright work to infringe. In the IceTV case, the copyright work was the whole weekly schedule. I think the court’s assessment of whether a substantial part was taken is open to question in IceTV, but the phone case is another case, that would be assessed on its own facts. There’d be serious doubts whether you copy enough;
- Second, even if you did copy enough, there’s a fair dealing defence for ‘criticism and review’. If you are specifically reviewing the various phone plans, with a view to making a recommendation on which are the best – I think you’re criticising and reviewing. Sure, you’re not reviewing the literary merits, but that’s not necessary, as a long line of copyright cases establishes.
So don’t start panicking yet.
6 Responses to “And Yet More {Fear} on IceTV”
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 17th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Thanks for the comments Kim. Quite an interesting point.
Your point 1, I’d say you really do have to copy all the details of the plan to make an adequate comparison. Phone companies spend lots of time sneakily building plans specifically so you can’t directly compare them, by changing the basis of what you’re paying for. 30-second billing is the first idea that comes to mind, though excess bandwidth fees (see Optus’ $79 Fusion Plan, known at Optus as the “$379 Fusion Plan”) would also be another item.
I imagine criticism and review could well be the way you’d get off.
Personally, I think the ACCC should have an entire division working on forcing various industries to produce publicly-available data specifically so that their products can be compared. There’s a number of industries where this confusopoly tactic applies other than telecommunications. Private health insurance, while effectively mandatory in Australia, is basically impossible to compare — Choice admitted after trying very hard.
Of course, these industries would mightily complain. Which is a sign the government is doing something right. I always figure when Telstra is complaining, competition policy is starting to work.
May 17th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Much as I hate to draw a long bow, having been on the receiving end of Nine’s wrath, something that could be used against someone comparing phone plans is that if they have looked at the whole plan using a web browser, you have copied the whole work into your computer so that you can extract the bits you’re interested in.
What’s the legal position on making a copy when web browsing?
Peter
May 17th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Another point in response to Kim’s last post is that “substantiality” is qualitative not quantitative. In my case, I assumed that the time and title information in a guide is a small part (and Bennett J agreed).
Furthermore, Nine argued that their guide is an ongoing work spanning many years, so you would think that taking just a few time and title entries would be insubstantial. But Nine narrowed it down to just a week’s worth of time and title, in isolation.
What’s to say that they could not argue that even one showing’s time and title is a valuable work, involving sweat of the brow, and it has been appropriated?
In Autodesk for example opying just a few bytes out of millions was found to be an infringment.
Regarding the “criticism and review” defence, it is likely that the purpose of doing the phone plan comparison is to make money, for example by selling the informattion or even advertsiing on the website. IceTV also criticised and reviewed Nine’s programs (no doubt adding fuel to the fire). Butt he fact that IceTV used Nine’s information for commercial gain also seems to have been weighed in the full court’s judgment.
Simon would be accused of appropriating the sweat of the brow of the phone company, or using the “sine qu non” argument, if the phone company had not compiled their plans, Simon would not be able to compare them.
Peter
May 19th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Peter: I would suggest that you have an implied license to “copy” the work into your web browser, by the content provider placing a copy online via HTTP.
June 13th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
I sat in on the unfolding saga at the Federal Court yesterday, Nine’s application for an injunction restraining IceTV. My notes are here
http://vogelross.com.au/vrblog/?p=24
June 25th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
The Court has now made orders against IceTV the bgist of which is as follows:
IceTV is permanently restrained from reproducing in a material form Nine Program Time and Title Information, to the extent that such information reproduces the whole or a substantial part of the Nine Weekly Program Schedule.
(The complete order is here: http://esearch.fedcourt.gov.au/Esearch?showDoc=25553926)
IceTV say they have “started to provide scheduling information once again for Channel Nine by methods which strictly comply to the Full Court’s findings”.
Given that the full court found against IceTV on the basis of indirect copying, I wonder how this could be possible. My reading of the judgment is that no matter what the method, if there is a reproduction, there is copyright breach.
Perhaps someone with better understanding of copyright law can see a flaw in my reasoning?
Peter