Titanic Sinks Iceberg - "Judges ruled that IceTV did breach copyright?"

[ozbear]

We are not most countries, untill such time that that also applies in Australia then it is still their right to do so. If you want to change that you have the option of going to court ....... hang on, they did and lost or are loosing. Then you have the irony that in our and IceTV's quest for "freedom" we expect the government to impose socialistic restrictions on the freedoms and rights of ownership of the broadcasters. Personally I'd rather see no EPG than have the law remove anyone's or any companies rights of ownership, how about you?

The airwaves/bandwidth is owned by the people, not the broadcasters and it is right and proper for government to apply regulations as to how that limited resource is used. That is why we have regulations about which slices of the spectrum can be used for which purposes, signal strength regulations, and so forth. I have no problem with usage of a public resource (the airwaves) being used for private purposes to make a buck by the broadcasters as long as long as there is quid pro quo. A (n additional) regulation requiring the sharing of EPG data by the broadcaster is not onerous, in my view.

Oz

[GlenR]

Personally I'd rather see no EPG than have the law remove anyone's or any companies rights of ownership, how about you?

I think there should be balance between ownership rights and what you call "socialistic restrictions". I concur that the various stations own their broadcast material (or at least the rights to broadcast them) but they are broadcasting these shows. This means they are transmitting them freely to anyone who wishes to view them. The signal they use is publically and freely available. Their braodcast licence forbids them to restrict who can view.

Since they are public broadcasts, I don't think it is unreasonable that the scheduling (that is what program is showm when) should be public information and freely available to all for whatever use. The actual content of the program or any creative aspect of a pubished guide - and by creative I mean content that adds more information, such as plot synopses - should remain copyrighted.

It would be different if the telecast was not broadcast, but privately distributed. So pay TV, for example, could reasonably argue their guide is copyrighted as it is only made available to a select part of the population - ie those who subscribe.

Public broadcasters should have to make their schedules public information, not privately owned since they are broadcasting using public delivery frequencies/methods.

[ExtremePC]

I have taken action personally by writing to the relevant Minister (Conroy) about this ridiculous situation.

The main problem is the old Telstra/White Pages Precedent set by the courts which resulted in companies being able to copyright "a collection of facts" which is absurd, even in the USA (with their DMCA) the courts rejected this stupid idea!!!

And that is what makes the Nine case different. The shows don't spontaneously appear on your TV at a given time on a given day so how could anyone argue that they are simply "a collection of facts". The stupid position to take is where you treat a listing of the events as a seperate entity to actually airing the shows.

[GlenR]

And that is what makes the Nine case different. The shows don't spontaneously appear on your TV at a given time on a given day so how could anyone argue that they are simply "a collection of facts". The stupid position to take is where you treat a listing of the events as a seperate entity to actually airing the shows.

And my phone number didn't spontaneously appear either. someone in Telstra had to work out which exchange I would conenct to, and which number was available and allocate it. How this was done is telstra's IP, but having done it, my name associated with that number is just a fact.

Similarly, what process a TV station goes through to determine which show will screen when is their IP, but once the decision is made it is just a fact that a specific show will screen at a specific time. This should be public information. A list of facts, if you will.

[ExtremePC]

And my phone number didn't spontaneously appear either. someone in Telstra had to work out which exchange I would conenct to, and which number was available and allocate it. How this was done is telstra's IP, but having done it, my name associated with that number is just a fact.

Similarly, what process a TV station goes through to determine which show will screen when is their IP, but once the decision is made it is just a fact that a specific show will screen at a specific time. This should be public information. A list of facts, if you will.

I don't even agree that the complete listing of phone numbers is "just a fact" however as that collection and process was initiated by a government then that collction should be and is public property. If memory serves the partial sale of Telstra was actually conditional with respect to the public property status of the phone directory. This is a very different issue than that of the program guide and Nine. If we were to have the same debate over the programming of the ABC you could relate the Phone book scenario with the dabate but we are NOT talking about the ABC, we are talking about the private property of a privately owned company.

What your belief seems to suggest is that if you wanted to you could publish and attempt to make profit if there was a market for it, the index for the Encyclopeadia Britnaica including refrences to the Encyclopeadia Britanica specifically, whcih obviously would be a breech of copyright even if you were to create your own index by looking up the contents and not replicating the actual index.

[TheRob]

What your belief seems to suggest is that if you wanted to you could publish and attempt to make profit if there was a market for it, the index for the Encyclopeadia Britnaica including refrences to the Encyclopeadia Britanica specifically, whcih obviously would be a breech of copyright even if you were to create your own index by looking up the contents and not replicating the actual index.

Isn't that exactly what Google does?

[logifuse]

Isn't that exactly what Google does?

They're constantly fighting copyright cases.

[ozbear]

IWhat your belief seems to suggest is that if you wanted to you could publish and attempt to make profit if there was a market for it, the index for the Encyclopeadia Britnaica including refrences to the Encyclopeadia Britanica specifically, whcih obviously would be a breech of copyright even if you were to create your own index by looking up the contents and not replicating the actual index.

Actually, it wouldn't be a breach.

Oz

[ExtremePC]

Isn't that exactly what Google does?

Its not the same thing, unless otherwise stated on a website content on the internet is specifically put there to be seen and indexed by search engines.

[TheRob]

Its not the same thing, unless otherwise stated on a website content on the internet is specifically put there to be seen and indexed by search engines.

And I would have thought that television shows freely broadcast over the ether were specifically put there to be seem also. And one way to facilitate this is to have accurate and widely disseminated guide data available so that people know what's on.

[TheRob]

They're constantly fighting copyright cases.

These are generally to do with content they host (or want to host) on their servers, rather than the with indexing function.

[ExtremePC]

one way to facilitate this is to have accurate and widely disseminated guide data available so that people know what's on.

That is their choice to make, not ours.
The point is a company does not have to make the right business decisions, thats what freedom is, the right to make decision NOT that they have to make the right ones.

I posted this in the other thread but i think its appropriate here too.

I'd rather see the TV networks "persuaded" to make the guide data available on their own, For example, do they really need so much FREE publicly owned bandwidth just to show duplicate channels vs. maybe they do to broadcast the full EIT data, that way the choice is theirs as in loose the bandwidth or justify it with full EIT data, see no one would be forcing them to broadcast the data.

[TheRob]

That is their choice to make, not ours.
The point is a company does not have to make the right business decisions, thats what freedom is, the right to make decision NOT that they have to make the right ones.

I posted this in the other thread but i think its appropriate here too.

I'd rather see the TV networks "persuaded" to make the guide data available on their own, For example, do they really need so much FREE publicly owned bandwidth just to show duplicate channels vs. maybe they do to broadcast the full EIT data, that way the choice is theirs as in loose the bandwidth or justify it with full EIT data, see no one would be forcing them to broadcast the data.

By all means, let's "persuade" them. But the track record all over the world of "persuading" companies with a monopoly on something (and that is what Nine will have with the publishing of guide data for all channels if IceTV goes under) to give up that monopoly is not good. It almost always ends up having to be enforced by legislation.

[ExtremePC]

By all means, let's "persuade" them. But the track record all over the world of "persuading" companies with a monopoly on something (and that is what Nine will have with the publishing of guide data for all channels if IceTV goes under) to give up that monopoly is not good. It almost always ends up having to be enforced by legislation.

There is a large difference between a monopoly because of the lack of presence of a real competitor in the business world vs. a monoploy created by government sanction. The former as you correctly state is very difficult to do something about the later on the other hand is and can be as fickle or determined as the voting public.

Thats why I'm picking on EIT specifically as the other networks DON'T and would not dare give up the right to publish their own EIT guide data on their own spectrum. If you want to "win" you need to address them (the networks) individually one by one where they don't have a monopoly as they are in competition with each other for the spectrum. You have to realise that their use of the spectrum is at the discression of the elected public trustee of the airwaves (the government).

If we want real results its time to start attacking a networks very existence rather than their practices.

In this case I don't mind using the term monopoly because it IS by gov. sanction that we only have as many networks as we do.

[TheRob]

You have to realise that their use of the spectrum is at the discression of the elected public trustee of the airwaves (the government).

I DO realise this, and it's exactly why legislation is appropriate to regulate its use.

If we want real results its time to start attacking a networks very existence rather than their practices.

So you would prefer to blackmail the TV stations into submission!

In this case I don't mind using the term monopoly because it IS by gov. sanction that we only have as many networks as we do.

If market forces were left to their own devices here, we may have more channels, but they'd all be owned by the one person and the only news we'd get is via Sky. Talk about dictatorships...