consumer protection: November 2007 Archives
The Sydney Morning Herald is reporting that Australian TV stations are using their copyright over programming information (i.e. what shows will be on, and when) to demand concessions from manufacturers of digital video recorders.
The TV stations' representative group Free TV Australia sent a letter to the representative group for DVR manufacturers, saying that:
It's a pity that Australia doesn't have a doctrine of copyright misuse. We do however have a statutory prohibition against misuse of market power -- perhaps the TV stations should read up on the Magill case?
The TV stations' representative group Free TV Australia sent a letter to the representative group for DVR manufacturers, saying that:
Broadcasters are not authorising the use of the programs listing data in PVRs where 'ad-skip' functionality goes beyond a maximum fast forward speed of x60; broadcasters reserve their rights with respect to those suppliers
and that
There you have it. If you want the program data, you have to nobble the fast-forward ability of your products, and use DRM, or they sue you.In addition, the PVR's [sic] which display the EPG [Electronic Program Guide] must employ adequate copy protection measures to prevent the redistribution of free to air content outside the home or on the internet... Broadcasters reserve their rights subject to the Commonwealth Copyright Act 1968, to take legal action at any time for copyright infringement where program listings are used in contravention of these terms.
It's a pity that Australia doesn't have a doctrine of copyright misuse. We do however have a statutory prohibition against misuse of market power -- perhaps the TV stations should read up on the Magill case?
In May, the Federal Court made a default judgment against Nuera Health Pty Ltd, a number of other 'Nuera' companies, as well as Paul Rana and his sons Christopher Rana, and Michael Rana -- Australian Competition and Consumer
Commission v Nuera Health Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) [2007] FCA 695.
The clan Rana and a number of companies involved with them had been engaging in what is probably one of the most contemptible examples of misleading and deceptive, unconscionable, and just plain odious conduct to come before the courts in Australia. The Ranas, through their companies, invented a 'system' of pseudo-medical quackery (including coffee enemas, colonic irrigation, vitamin treatments, fruit juice diets, devices called 'Zen-Chi Massagers', 'Zambroza with mangosteen' and Himalayan Goji juice) which they claimed could cure cancer.
They then sold their alleged 'system' to the families of people who were suffering terminal cancer for tens of thousands of dollars. At least four of their victims died before the court gave its judgment.
It now seems that the Ranas have been harassing the families of their victims who were witnesses against them in these proceedings. To quote Heery J in Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Nuera Health Pty Ltd (No 2) [2007] FCA 1756:
The clan Rana and a number of companies involved with them had been engaging in what is probably one of the most contemptible examples of misleading and deceptive, unconscionable, and just plain odious conduct to come before the courts in Australia. The Ranas, through their companies, invented a 'system' of pseudo-medical quackery (including coffee enemas, colonic irrigation, vitamin treatments, fruit juice diets, devices called 'Zen-Chi Massagers', 'Zambroza with mangosteen' and Himalayan Goji juice) which they claimed could cure cancer.
They then sold their alleged 'system' to the families of people who were suffering terminal cancer for tens of thousands of dollars. At least four of their victims died before the court gave its judgment.
It now seems that the Ranas have been harassing the families of their victims who were witnesses against them in these proceedings. To quote Heery J in Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Nuera Health Pty Ltd (No 2) [2007] FCA 1756:
Since [the earlier proceedings] the respondents have persistently harassed the witnesses by sending them strange documents couched in pseudo-legal medieval language, including demands for some $294 million. Understandably, this has caused great distress to the witnesses and has revived their tragic memories.Have these people no shame?
