ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> International Law Blogs -> Freedom to Differ

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

International Law

: Freedom to Differ

Nine appeals Ice TV decision

ADVERTISEMENTS

TV Tonight reports on the Nine Network's appeal against the Federal Court's decision in Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd v Ice TV Pty Ltd:

The Nine Network is to appeal against a copyright ruling last year against ICE-TV.

ICE-TV allows viewers to subscribe to an  electronic programme guide and record programmes on PVRs and computers.

Nine argues ICE-TV is infringing its copyright by compiling information relating to the programs it puts to air, using "skill and labour".

But ICE-TV says it "predicts" what shows will be on the TV and only checks its guides against those published.

When it was pointed out that only a "sliver" of Nine's TV program details were reproduced in ICE-TV's guide -- the time and title of programs -- Nine's barrister, Tony Bannon SC, said a sliver of something was often "the best part".

Mr Bannon also said the judge hearing the case last year should not have been satisfied with the evidence given by Mitchell Rilet, who said he had been hired by ICE-TV to help devise an independent TV schedule template.

Mr Rilet said he watched TV for three weeks -- which he described as "torture" -- and made notes about what time programs were on TV as well as their title, genre and classification.

"Although he set about making contemporaneous notes of what he did at the time he destroyed it and didn't produce any evidence for examination," Mr Bannon said.

In her judgment, judge Annabelle Bennett said that although Nine challenged Mr Rilet's evidence, "he was not a substantial shareholder in ICE Holdings and no sufficient reason was established for him to exaggerate his achievements".

ICE-TV's barrister likened part of its argument to that of a "trainspotter" -- someone who watches trains and notes their time of arrival, or passing through a station.

By writing down that information, the trainspotter is not breaching the copyright of any timetable, ICE-TV argued.

Their appeal was heard in the Federal Court on February 25th and 26th 2008. A decision in the case is likely in the next six months.

Read more here.

Full post as published by Freedom to Differ on March 25, 2008 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0118 secs (new cache)