Aust Federal court rules against IceTV's EPG[->] 2008-05-09 02:21 BigLug
BigLug writes "Back in May 2006, PBL's Australian Nine Network brought a case against local PVR purveyor IceTV claiming that IceTV's EPG breached Nine's copyright on their TV schedule. Justice Annabelle Bennett ruled in favour of IceTV (pdf).
PBL appealed the decision and yesterday the Federal Court granted the appeal and has ordered that Ice must pay PBL's appeal costs. The case is now referred back to Justice Bennett and Ice will have to argue the case all over again.
Of course, PBL's problem here isn't the EPG. It's IceTV's PVR that can skip advertisements that bring in revenue for PBL. But you can't take that to court when recording TV was recently decriminalized in Australia.
But ignoring that, the court case was about the copyright on a schedule. Should a schedule be copywritable? Does PBL have a case here? The show descriptions have not been copied, only the times, program names and ratings. We all know you can't copyright the title of a work, but should you be able to copyright the association of a title with a time and date?"
http://www.icetv.com.au/news/?p=162
PBL appealed the decision and yesterday the Federal Court granted the appeal and has ordered that Ice must pay PBL's appeal costs. The case is now referred back to Justice Bennett and Ice will have to argue the case all over again.
Of course, PBL's problem here isn't the EPG. It's IceTV's PVR that can skip advertisements that bring in revenue for PBL. But you can't take that to court when recording TV was recently decriminalized in Australia.
But ignoring that, the court case was about the copyright on a schedule. Should a schedule be copywritable? Does PBL have a case here? The show descriptions have not been copied, only the times, program names and ratings. We all know you can't copyright the title of a work, but should you be able to copyright the association of a title with a time and date?"
http://www.icetv.com.au/news/?p=162

