Home -> Law Blog Directory -> International Law Blogs -> Freedom to Differ
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
International Law
: Freedom to DifferNine appeals Ice TV decision
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).
California Supreme Court Proposition 8 Decision
Court Rejects Challenges to Proposition 8, but Finds Marriages Valid
Personal Injury
Appeals Court Upholds Congressional Legislation

"Appeals court upholds Doctor John's decision"
Press Release on New York Court of Appeals' Recent Scaffold Law Decision
CAFC appellate advice from Judge Lourie
New York Court of Appeals Recent Decision on Personal Jurisdiction







