tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post164516316528004489..comments2024-03-15T11:42:21.265-04:00Comments on The Patry Copyright Blog: IceTV Iced: Kangaroos Hopping MadWilliam Patryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12987498082479617363noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-27158861265072654662008-10-20T01:08:00.000-04:002008-10-20T01:08:00.000-04:00The case has now been heard on appeal to the High ...The case has now been heard on appeal to the High Court, the final court in Australia. I have made some notes about the hearing on my blog http://www.vogelross.com.au<BR/><BR/>Most interesting is a shift in emphasis from whether IceTV copied Nine's guide, to whether Nine's guide really is a protected by copyright, and if so how "thin" that protection might be.<BR/><BR/>It's also worth noting that Telstra, Australia's major telephone carrier, obtained leave to appear as amicus to Nine.<BR/><BR/>Peter VogelAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-27746415686537404732008-10-16T03:38:00.000-04:002008-10-16T03:38:00.000-04:00I have been at the High Court today, my report of ...I have been at the High Court today, my report of the day's hearing of IceTV vs Nine is here: http://vogelross.com.au/vrblog/<BR/><BR/>Peter "so sue me" VogelUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04337349481323075788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-71174263596130834852008-05-14T05:39:00.000-04:002008-05-14T05:39:00.000-04:00As the sucker who once, in an interview, told the ...As the sucker who once, in an interview, told the Nine Network "so sue me", I fear the Australian courts have now confirmed that mere information can be copyright. If you are the source of the information, no matter how anyone else reconstructs the same information, you "appropriated" their sweat of the brow. My (non-lawyer) take on this and some other background to the IceTV case is <A HREF="http://vogelross.com.au/vrblog/?p=22" REL="nofollow"> here.</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-73572555671777614242008-05-13T04:07:00.000-04:002008-05-13T04:07:00.000-04:00Hmmmm - I suspect a word of my mother's invention....Hmmmm - I suspect a word of my mother's invention. She used to say something was a bit of a 'schwizzle' - meaning a swindle. OED notes 'swizzle' to mean 'swindle' or 'disappointment', and that's the kind of meaning I was going for.<BR/><BR/>Or it could just be the term for a stick to stir cocktails - as used after you've had a few drinks (parsh me that shwizzle shtick pleashe...).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-71535260149824382652008-05-12T21:04:00.000-04:002008-05-12T21:04:00.000-04:00Josh, no I would never accuse of watching that tur...Josh, no I would never accuse of watching that turkey, which I understand may not recoup its costs. I have no problem with the idea of copyright in a broadcast day, but would regard it more traditionally as the result of a selection, coordination, and arrangement. <BR/><BR/>But even if you describe the broadcast day as a grid, my problem with the Ice appeal is that it deems the weekly guide to be protectible without regard to format, that is without regard to the very thing that you would say is the essence of originality in the broadcast day. I imagine the court did this because Ice did not in fact copy Nine's format, but added new stuff and got the info from different sources.<BR/><BR/>In short, to me -- and I do want to confess I am oblivious to the marvelous nuances in Australian law on this point -- the opinion seems a way merely to find infringement for the taking of facts, all toward anti-competitive objectives. But what do I know except how to score great sneakers.William Patryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12987498082479617363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-48317722145296613712008-05-12T20:54:00.000-04:002008-05-12T20:54:00.000-04:00Bill, how would you express the broadcast day othe...Bill, how would you express the broadcast day other than a grid or a video of the entire day? (For the record, just because you accuse me of watching the Matrix does not mean that my taste is so poor I would have seen Speed Racer - - The Movie made by the same crew.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-36529341033067255352008-05-12T20:48:00.000-04:002008-05-12T20:48:00.000-04:00Kim, what's a "schwizzle?" Is it something you use...Kim, what's a "schwizzle?" Is it something you use to stir the ice cubes in drinks in Australia?William Patryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12987498082479617363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-73305237560556582802008-05-12T20:47:00.000-04:002008-05-12T20:47:00.000-04:00Josh, I fear you have watched "The Matrix" too man...Josh, I fear you have watched "The Matrix" too many times. what we would call the broadcast day may be a copyrightable compilation -- although the DC Circuit held it had no independent economic value, at least for compulsory license purposes.But there is no grid, there is nothing after that; no multiple versions of the One. Neo has shot his pitiful wad.<BR/><BR/>All IceTV took was unprotectible facts even if we assume under Aussie law that the guides were protectible based on sweat of the brow. The trial judge was right, and Zion will be saved!William Patryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12987498082479617363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-13742002295059567382008-05-12T20:39:00.000-04:002008-05-12T20:39:00.000-04:00aaaaah now I get the picture. Cute.Agree with you...aaaaah now I get the picture. Cute.<BR/>Agree with you re deemed sweat and all that jazz. It's just a schwizzle once you step outside the 'right kinds' of originality.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-53589665533670131022008-05-12T20:32:00.000-04:002008-05-12T20:32:00.000-04:00Is this a form of abstraction theory? The program...Is this a form of abstraction theory? The program grid is a by-product of and a reflection of the authorship in designing the broadcast day. That design and the authorship inherent in it is the "master" work and the grid lifted by the guide is an outlined version - -in a sense, the plot - - and so protectable. This then makes it completely different than addresses, than baseball scores and batting averages and other such fodder for the no-sweat-of-the-brow fact gleaners.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-20278168780059800102008-05-12T19:25:00.000-04:002008-05-12T19:25:00.000-04:00Well, my dear Kim, my point is that the court coul...Well, my dear Kim, my point is that the court could have called it a Kangaroo, but that didn't make it one, like calling something an originality analysis when it is really sweat of the brow, and deemed sweat at that. The way to put the question to rest is where was the alleged originality in the schedules (not the programming) once you take off the table the form of the schedules?<BR/><BR/>I take the 5th amendment on how many kicks I have, but here is a link that answers the riddle of the profile picture:<BR/>http://www.freshnessmag.com/v4/2008/04/09/adidas-x-gilbert-arenas-x-undercrown-gil-ii-zero-ice-cold/William Patryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12987498082479617363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-74975165242772899532008-05-12T19:13:00.000-04:002008-05-12T19:13:00.000-04:00Hmmm. Love the 'deemed sweat' idea. But then if ...Hmmm. Love the 'deemed sweat' idea. But then if the court could have been convinced to see it as sweat, maybe we wouldn't have got the same kind of analysis. the problem is that they call it 'originality' and more importantly, creative - which gives them the in to the substantial part analysis that means that taking facts, if important enough, is sufficient (as I outlined in my post in more detail).<BR/><BR/>Love the profile picture. How many pairs you up to now? I still get comments on the pair I bought when we went shopping in NYC.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-72560571058360240392008-05-12T18:16:00.000-04:002008-05-12T18:16:00.000-04:00YoKimbo, I think we should call the court's theory...YoKimbo, I think we should call the court's theory "deemed sweat," by which sweat from one activity is deemed to be sweat for the second. P.S. did you solve the riddle of the profile picture?William Patryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12987498082479617363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-17243675730248742682008-05-12T18:13:00.000-04:002008-05-12T18:13:00.000-04:00Interesting comments, Bill, and ta for the link-lo...Interesting comments, Bill, and ta for the link-love.<BR/><BR/>A couple of additional thoughts. First, I think the Full Court tried to draw a distinction between a 'true' 'sweat of the brow' type case - a phone book type case like <EM>Desktop</EM>, and the TV program guide case. They tried, in other words, to say that the programming guide wasn't just about 'sweat', it was about selection and the 'creativity' of the programming decisions. Now, I think there are serious problems with that attempted distinction: after all, this isn't like, say, producing an anthology of 'Australia's Greatest Poems', where you might say that if someone else comes along and selects exactly the same poems, copying wholesale, then they are infringing. If it were, then the equivalent in the programming sense would be for another broadcaster to come along and copy the programming choices in their own programming. In short, I think that the 'creativity' that the court has focused on is the wrong kind of creativity for copyright protection.<BR/><BR/>And that is what gets them into trouble at the 'substantial part' stage. Having decided 'originality' is in the programming selections, they then try to say that copying down the names and times of those selections is infringement - because this is the heart of the value that copyright is protecting (just as copying expression and story in a literary work would be taking the heart of that work). But again, it doesn't really work, because IceTV wasn't copying 'what was valuable' about the guide, because it wasn't doing the same thing - it was producing a guide, not television programming.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com