[LINK] TV Now
stephen at melbpc.org.au
stephen at melbpc.org.au
Mon Feb 13 02:34:24 AEDT 2012
A reasonable article, and editorial, regards TV Now technology ..
Playing By New Rules
Colleen Ricci Feb 13, 2012. <http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/playing-by-
new-rules-20120210-1sijv.html#ixzz1mBHyKb5f>
In a landmark copyright decision on internet broadcasting rights, the
Federal Court has ruled in favour of telecommunications company Optus and
against the Australian Football League (AFL), the National Rugby League
(NRL) and rival "telco" Telstra.
At the centre of the dispute was a new service provided by Optus, called
TV Now, which the AFL, NRL and Telstra argued was in breach of their
copyright.
What is TV Now?
Launched last year, TV Now allows customers to record free-to-air
television programs including AFL football and NRL rugby matches on a
mobile phone or computer, and then watch the recordings with only a two-
minute delay.
Just months before the Optus launch, Telstra announced that it had paid
$153 million for "exclusive" internet broadcasting rights to AFL games.
The fact that Optus was able to provide these free-to-air matches to its
customers without paying for the rights meant that Telstra's AFL deal
was no longer "exclusive" or, according to Telstra, as valuable. Lawyers
for the AFL, NRL and Telstra argued that Optus was in breach of the
Copyright Act and sought an injunction against its TV Now service.
Why did the ruling favour Optus?
According to the Copyright Act, which was amended in 2006, viewers are
permitted to "time-shift" their individual viewing. This means they can
record programs for their private use and watch them when convenient. The
question of who was responsible for the recordings the individual user
or Optus was an important factor in the court's decision.
Federal Court judge Steven Rares found that using the TV Now service was
the equivalent of using a video recorder and that individual users were
responsible for the recordings. "By clicking the play button, the user
caused the recording to be streamed from his or her device and only he or
she could watch it," he said. Justice Rares ruled that Optus was not in
violation of the Copyright Act.
Justice Rares acknowledged his ruling was commercially and legally
sensitive and offered parties the right to appeal. The AFL and NRL will
now have the decision reviewed by a full bench of the Federal Court. If
the Optus ruling is upheld, the decision may be appealed in the High
Court. The chief executives of the AFL, Cricket Australia, NRL and Tennis
Australia held talks with the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, and senior
ministers in Canberra to propose an amendment to copyright legislation.
Will sport be affected?
Sporting bodies such as the AFL rely on the income they generate through
the sale of broadcasting rights, covering free-to-air TV, pay TV and the
internet. The AFL's most recent five-year media deal was worth $1.5
million. The NRL hopes to match that success, with a similarly
significant portion coming from the sale of internet rights. Some say
that the court decision has undermined the value of online content and,
if upheld, is likely to affect the future income for numerous sporting
codes.
Others say the court decision, though unsettling for the sporting bodies,
highlights the changing nature of the book, music and film industries.
Over recent years, these industries have grappled with the challenges
presented by the internet as they attempt to establish where ownership
begins and ends, and the extent to which "piggybacking" should be
tolerated. Communications Minister Stephen Conroy suggests that the
ruling "could significantly change the way sporting rights are allocated
and whether it is possible to protect content online".
What are others saying?
While sporting bodies were angered by the decision, mobile carriers Optus
and Vodafone hailed it as a "breakthrough for mobile content services".
Some say it represents a triumph of the individual's rights to online
content as opposed to the broadcaster's right to exclusivity.
Others predict that the ruling will have serious financial implications
for all sporting bodies with broadcasting rights to sell, including V8
Supercars, soccer, cricket and tennis. They say there will be less money
available to clubs and players in future.
Many lament the inadequacy of copyright legislation. They say it is ill-
equipped to deal with ground-breaking technologies, such as cloud
technology (internet data-storage, used by TV Now), and has failed to
keep pace with the rapidly changing media environment. Others say
sporting bodies will simply have to adapt: new business models will have
to supplant the old, which are fast becoming outmoded.
Recent Headlines
"Decision renders TV deals worthless" Sydney Morning Herald, February 2
"Rivals to copy Optus plan if appeals fail" The Australian, February 3
"Sports chiefs lobby PM for change in copyright law" Sydney Morning
Herald, February 7
"Optus succeeds in bid to air sport via new mobile TV service" Herald
Sun, February 1
What The Age (Editorial) says
"Strictly speaking, Optus has observed the letter of the law, while the
law itself has become relatively nebulous. This fact was emphasised by
Justice Steven Rares, who ruled last week that the company's TV Now
service was indeed legal because of 'time-shifting' provisions in the
Copyright Act, which were adopted in 2006 to permit recordings of free-to-
air television for private and personal use. But, while Optus maintains
it is keeping 'well within the intention and spirit' of the act, at least
one prominent intellectual property lawyer has asked: should a law
designed for private individuals include businesses with clear commercial
motives? It is at this stage difficult to fathom which side is right. But
one thing is certain: technology has leapt ahead of the legislation
designed to control it."
Editorial opinion, February 9
What people say
"Even though Optus provided all the significant technology for making,
keeping and playing the recording, I considered that in substance this
was no different to a person using equipment or technology in his or her
own home or elsewhere to copy or record a broadcast. I noted that a
similar result had been reached by appeal courts in the United States and
Singapore."
Federal Court judge Steven Rares, February 1
"What this will now do is force changes to copyright law which date back
to the 17th century ... It's going to be a whole new world for the
television industry from now onwards."
Telecommunication analyst Paul Budde, The Daily Telegraph, February 1
"This has been a win for Australians, for innovation and for the law.
This is a product similar to things that you can do today. So we see this
no different from any other personal video recording device."
Optus spokeswoman Clare Gill, ABC's Lateline, February 1
"We are a business where money comes in the door and gets distributed out
the door, and if there's less money coming in then all the game's
stakeholders miss out to varying degrees. And that would include the
clubs and the players... As it stands, the decision has the potential to
seriously devalue the ability of sports like ours to sell exclusive
content across the various platforms."
NRL chief executive David Gallop, The Age, February 3
"The technology has now jumped ahead of the law
so we've got to try and
find a way to get it back in balance."
Communications Minister Stephen Conroy, The Sydney Morning Herald,
February 3
"We are absolutely entitled to protect our content and exploit our
content
What we do as a not-for-profit organisation is reinvest [the
revenue] back into our code. But we will do everything within our power
everything to make sure that we protect our content, because that's
what it is it's ours."
AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou, The Sydney Morning Herald, Feb 3
Web Links
Copyright Amendment Act 2006 Recording Broadcasts
http://austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/num-act/caa2006213/sch6.html
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/playing-by-new-rules-
20120210-1sijv.html#ixzz1mBJHVcZn
--
Cheers,
Stephen
More information about the Link
mailing list