copyright: 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 the Today Tonight v The Chaser saga that I blogged about previously, Channel 7 obtained an interim injunction to prevent the broadcast of The Chaser's footage filmed on Channel 7's premises.
In that judgment (Seven Network (Operations) Pty Ltd v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2007] NSWSC 1289), Barrett J says:
I wonder if the ABC will apply to have Channel 7 held in contempt?
In that judgment (Seven Network (Operations) Pty Ltd v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2007] NSWSC 1289), Barrett J says:
[14] It has been conceded by Channel 7 that there was a plan to put to air tomorrow a program about today's incident in which the Chaser team visited the Channel 7 premises. Channel 7 would, in that program, use footage taken by Channel 7 itself when the Chaser team were at the premises. I was concerned about that aspect and communicated that concern to counsel for Channel 7 who, during a short adjournment, obtained instructions to offer to court an undertaking by Channel 7, the plaintiff, to continue to take immediate steps to do what it can to withdraw the 15 second promotional broadcast for a story on the incident and also that, until determination of these proceedings, Channel 7 will not broadcast that story.I'm reliably informed by one of my 'known associates', and a news story seems to confirm, that Channel 7 did in fact broadcast the story that they undertook not to broadcast. The Daily Telegraph have video of the story that was aired online.
...
[18] Upon the plaintiff by its counsel giving to the court the usual undertaking as to damages and an undertaking to continue to take immediate steps to do what it can to withdraw the 15 second promotional broadcast for a story on the incident the subject of these proceedings and that until determination of these proceedings it will not broadcast that story, I order that the defendants and each of them, whether by themselves, their servants or agents or otherwise, be restrained up to and including 15 November 2007 from making a copy of (except as permitted by these orders), communicating to the public or causing to be seen in public (a) the film or any part of it taken by the defendants or any of them or at the direction of any of them at the premises of the plaintiff at about 2.15 pm today and (b) any film which includes any part of that film.
I wonder if the ABC will apply to have Channel 7 held in contempt?
News.com.au reports on an interesting copyright twist in the recent catfight between Channel 7 and The Chaser over footage that The Chaser filmed in 7's studios in Sydney after apparently sneaking in uninvited. Apparently 7 believes that sending camera crews onto private property, uninvited, ambushing people, filming them, and broadcasting the footage is morally objectionable. I guess they'll be cancelling Today Tonight forthwith, in that case. Pot, kettle, black.
Anyhow, although the judgment doesn't mention copyright issues -- Seven Network (Operations) Pty Ltd v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2007] NSWSC 1289 -- the news.com.au report says that:
Anyhow, although the judgment doesn't mention copyright issues -- Seven Network (Operations) Pty Ltd v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2007] NSWSC 1289 -- the news.com.au report says that:
In an expensive bid to stop the skit via a Supreme Court injunction, Seven's lawyer Dauid Sibtain stated Coren's involvement as a "performer" meant the ABC would be breaking copyright laws if they reproduced her image without her employer's consent.I don't know whether the news report is somewhat garbled, or whether 7's understanding of copyright is somewhat garbled. Perhaps they think Ms Coren qualifies as an 'artistic work', the communication to the public of which would infringe the copyright that subsists in Coren?
The Sydney Morning Herald and other outlets are reporting that the Sydney man who made a 'bootleg' recording of the Simpsons movie with his mobile phone, uploaded it to the Internet, and was subsequently charged with two criminal offences for so doing, has pled guilty and been fined $1000.
It's a bit of a joke really -- not because his punishment was so low, but because it shows up all the claims that the government was making about the copyright infringement notice scheme as a low-cost, low-hassle alternative to the 'traditional' methods of charging people and bringing them before a court.
This guy was fined $1000. If, instead of being charged with two copyright offences, he was given two infringement notices, he would have had to pay 12 penalty units for each one, with a penalty unit being worth $110, for a total of $2640.
That's right -- this villainous scourge of the motion picture industry, whose Crimes Against Hollywood were so great so as to cause the Attorney-General to weigh in, saying how good Australia's copyright laws were, and how seriously we take these issues, went to court the 'traditional' way and paid less than half of what he would have paid if he'd been given infringement notices.
This really gives the lie to the government claims that the fines associated with infringement notices would be less than if people took the matter to court.
It won't be long before MIPI, AFACT, and their ilk start bleating about Australia being a 'banana republic'. Again.
It's a bit of a joke really -- not because his punishment was so low, but because it shows up all the claims that the government was making about the copyright infringement notice scheme as a low-cost, low-hassle alternative to the 'traditional' methods of charging people and bringing them before a court.
This guy was fined $1000. If, instead of being charged with two copyright offences, he was given two infringement notices, he would have had to pay 12 penalty units for each one, with a penalty unit being worth $110, for a total of $2640.
That's right -- this villainous scourge of the motion picture industry, whose Crimes Against Hollywood were so great so as to cause the Attorney-General to weigh in, saying how good Australia's copyright laws were, and how seriously we take these issues, went to court the 'traditional' way and paid less than half of what he would have paid if he'd been given infringement notices.
This really gives the lie to the government claims that the fines associated with infringement notices would be less than if people took the matter to court.
It won't be long before MIPI, AFACT, and their ilk start bleating about Australia being a 'banana republic'. Again.
