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

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

What’s the legal position on making a copy when web browsing?

Peter

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.