• Great articles on other sites
  • RSS Great articles on other sites

  • Intellectual Property, News - Written by on Friday, April 27, 2012 15:30 - 13 Comments

    NRL, AFL win appeal in Optus TV Now case

    news The full bench of the Federal Court has ruled that Optus’s TV Now online television recording service is in breach of the Copyright Act, in the next stage of a closely watched lawsuit seeing the National Rugby League (and eventually the AFL and Telstra) pitted against the telco for its attempt to make TV broadcasts more readily available to customers online.

    The Optus TV Now service allows customers to have free to air television programs recorded when broadcast, using Optus’ centralised systems, and then played back at the time of a customers’ choosing on their Optus mobile device or PC. This technique is known as “time-shifting”, and attracted the legal ire of the NRL and other groups such as the Australian Football League, which had granted Optus rival Telstra an exclusive licence to make their broadcasts available online.

    Late in 2011, Justice Steven Rares of the Federal Court had found in Optus’ favour in the case which the telco had filed against the NRL (later joined by Telstra and the AFL), stating that Optus’ technology was similar to recording a TV show using a video recorder in a loungeroom. However, in a new judgement after an appeal, the full Federal Court found today that Optus’ technology could not come under the auspices of the Copyright Act.

    In its judgement, available online here, the Federal Court wrote that there were two issues at the heart of the case — who recorded the TV shows, and if Optus’ act in recording the device constitutd an infringement of the copyright of the NRL, AFL or Telstra, could Optus invoke the “private and domestic use” defence under Section 111 of the Copyright Act, which allows limited recording of content for personal use.

    The initial judgement had found that customers made the recording. “Ours is a different conclusion,” wrote the full Federal Court. “The maker was Optus or, in the alternative, it was Optus and the subscriber. It is unnecessary for present purposes to express a definitive view as between the two. Optus could be said to be the maker in that the service it offered to, and did, supply a subscriber was to make and to make available to that person a recording of the football match he or she selected.”

    “Alternatively Optus and the subscriber could be said to be the maker for Copyright Act purposes as they acted in concert for the purpose of making a recording of the particular broadcast which the subscriber required to be made and of which he or she initiated the automated process by which copies were produced. In other words, they were jointly and severally responsible for the act of copying. That is our preferred view.”

    Following on from this determination, the court found that Optus could not use the Section 111 defence under the Copyright Act.

    The case has been viewed as a test of such services in Australia. However, the Federal Court warned against taking its implications too broadly. “We should emphasise that our concerns here have been limited to the particular service provider-subscriber relationship of Optus and its subscribers to the TV Now Service and to the nature and operation of the particular technology used to provide the service in question,” it wrote. “We accept that different relationships and differing technologies may well yield different conclusions to the “who makes the copy” question.”

    Optus has reportedly suspended the TV Now app. It is unclear yet whether the telco will appeal the issue.

    The weight of public opinion (at least in the technology community of which I am a part of) appears to be clearly behind Optus on this one. People want more options to view the content that they love and all Optus was doing in this case was giving them these options. Why should we be locked in to using a Telstra connection if we want to use the Internet to watch NRL or AFL games? The answer: Ideally, we shouldn’t.

    However, as far as I can see, the Federal Court made the right decision here, on the basis of the information which it had and the available legal structure currently in place.

    The reason I feel this way is that it would be much, much more efficiently technologically if Optus didn’t record every free to air broadcast that each of its consumers requested, but instead simply recorded all free to air broadcasts by default and then provided them on-demand style to consumers. I’m sure this is the way the Optus TV Now system would end up working, if it doesn’t already. You don’t want to record every AFL game ten thousand times for ten thousand consumers. You want to record it once and then provide that copy to each consumer.

    This style of system goes beyond the personal use doctrines in the Copyright Act, because it becomes a systematised method for Optus to make money using other people’s content. And that, I think, is what the Court has found today, accurately. It’s not a bad thing to record a few shows for personal consumption. But when a major corporation starts recording, eventually, thousands of shows it doesn’t own and providing them on-demand to subscribers, that goes too far — even if the ads are still included.

    What I would like to see, which I don’t think we have seen yet in Australia, is some deeper thinking around what copyright could and should look like in 2012 and beyond. Clearly Optus is trying to provide a service which consumers want, and just as clearly, legislation is prohibiting it from doing so. Innovation is being stifled here, by the law. And that’s never a good situation.

    We have a good chance to do just this through the review currently under way into the digital sections of the Copyright Act. Let’s hope we get some good submissions and some good deep thinking in that process. And, above all, let’s hope that the Attorney-General’s Department steers Australia through the right path in that vein.

    Image credit: Flying Cloud, Creative Commons

    submit to reddit


    You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

    1. Bob.H
      Posted 27/04/2012 at 4:49 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I am not a lawyer and am just another mug who finds the internet a great source of information, entertainment and communication.

      The Optus case and the iiNet case if nothing else demonstrate to my mind that the current copyright system is a bit of a mess.

      My understanding of what copyright law is intended to achieve is to allow a person who produces intellectual property to be rewarded for their efforts and not have that material used by others for profit without them still receiving their just reward. In this sense it is a means of recognising that artists, authors, etc., are entitled to “a fair days pay for a fair days work”.

      However there are things that exist in the current copyright arrangements that I find very puzzling and consider that they are not designed for the benefit of the person who produced the intellectual property or the final consumer.

      Why should copyright be exclusive to one particular access device?
      Why should copyright be restricted to a particular geographical location?
      Why should copyright last beyond the lifetime of the creator of the property?
      Why should I be restricted in providing my friends or family, at no cost, with my copy of a copyrighted work?
      Why should rights holders be able to buy the outright copyright in a work cheaply and then manipulate its distribution to maximise their profits?
      Why doesn’t the copyright in a hard copy book I have purchased also extend to having it on an e-reader?

      Both the iiNet case and the Optus case were about the rights of middlemen in the copyright equation to wring as much profit as possible out of the copyright they have bought to my way of thinking. Neither case considered or needed to consider the rights of the consumers or those who created the content. A pretty strange thing this copyright law.

    2. Posted 27/04/2012 at 5:27 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I think I might just copy and paste my comment post from ZDNet on whether this was a good or bad decision, covers my opinion pretty well.

      “Bad, the full ruling means that cloud based recording of free to air broadcast media (not talking TV Now specifically, but generally for anyone who wants to provide a service like that) is against the copyright act. This is going to stifle innovation especially moving into an “NBN World” where the benefits of being able to record something and then play it back wherever you are on whatever device would have been a key benefit.

      A far better solution would have been either to enforce a blackout on cloud based services being able to record events already covered by a specific broadcast agreement, or to enforce that the event must be recorded and watched on delay once the recording is complete. Yes these would require an amendment to the copyright act, but at least it wouldn’t put hold a genuinally beneficial product idea.”

    3. Gordon Edwards
      Posted 27/04/2012 at 5:28 pm | Permalink | Reply

      The copyright system was built and intended to do one thing, and only one thing: protect an entity’s Intellectual Property.

      It does not matter that thousands of people want to view/listen to/watch that IP. If they want to be involved, they pay for the privilege to some organisation (A) which provides the means of involvement.

      But if some other organisation (B) then forwards that content to the masses at B’s profit without remunerating A, then THAT is theft.

      I am not one of Telstra’s admirers. But it sealed a deal with the NRL and AFL and deserve to receive the benefit for which it paid. How much was Optus paying Telstra? Anything? How much does Optus give the NRL and AFL? Anything?

      The Full Bench’s decision is the right decision.


      • Tezz
        Posted 27/04/2012 at 5:57 pm | Permalink | Reply

        Did Telstra sign a deal for the recording and subsequent streaming of “every” program broadcast on free to air television? Because that is what the decision ultimately covers.

        You can argue all you want about the how this great for the AFL, NRL, etc, and ultimately I will agree with you, but I won’t agree that the benefit gain there outweighs the cost by making this type of service (that being an online PVR) a breach of copyright and making it illegal across the board.

        • Gordon Edwards
          Posted 27/04/2012 at 6:23 pm | Permalink | Reply

          “Did Telstra sign a deal …? Because that is what the decision ultimately covers.”

          You have to do better than that. “Every program…”? Even those broadcast by 7? Or 9? Or…

          Whatever I write is there ultimately to be challeged by others if they disagree. But, detail.

          BTW, what does the acronym “PVR” mean?


          • Posted 27/04/2012 at 7:14 pm | Permalink | Reply

            Yes, every program on every free to air channel. Go read the full decision, it’s all I’m there.

            PVR = Personal Video Recorder

        • Gordon Edwards
          Posted 29/04/2012 at 4:27 pm | Permalink | Reply

          OK Tezz, I had it wrong.

          The Full Bench’s decision is the WRONG decision.

          I was not aware of the “global” nature of TV Now, that it was intended as a “cloud”-based recording repository rather than simply a delayed re-broadcast mechanism.

          It is interesting that the appellants are not recorded in the judgement as having their own “time-shift” technology — which is the primary reason for recording a broadcast in the first place.

          Para 4 of the Reasons For Judgement–>Introduction is particularly scary. If Optus is held to be co-liable with the subscriber, then an extension of this judgement could spell the end of all personal recording of any streamed content, and/or a successful assault on entertainment downloads via any form of P2P networking by holding the maufacturer or provider of recording equipment co-liable.

          Such an extension would be in line with and to the same extent as the Bench’s interpretation of the Optus TV Now process outlined in Para 51 of Reasons For Judgement–>Appeal Issues by using the last sentence of Para 51.

          Para 51 supports Para 4, which is directly informed by Paras 89 through 93 of Reasons For Judgement–>Appeal Issues. These seven paragraphs can in my mind be used (most likely) to force ISPs to deliver up any of their subscribers who are detected using P2P for downloading copyrighted material.

          Their Honours have given AFACT the victory it missed out on in the iiNet court battle.


    4. Glenn
      Posted 27/04/2012 at 10:38 pm | Permalink | Reply

      “But if some other organisation (B) then forwards that content to the masses at B’s profit without remunerating A, then THAT is theft.”

      Its not considered theft if the organization you stole from still has, and always had what you are accused of stealing. It cant legally be considered theft unless the process was transitive.

      What you describe is called copyright infringement.

      • Gordon Edwards
        Posted 29/04/2012 at 2:37 pm | Permalink | Reply

        “…is called copyright infringement.”

        The unclothed King is till the King, no matter how ridiculous he appears.


    5. SMEMatt
      Posted 28/04/2012 at 11:25 am | Permalink | Reply

      Maybe the broadcast networks should chase the AFL for diminishing the Value of their broadcast rights by being involved in this case. After all less people watch their broadcast and their advertising reduces the value of the rights.

      The main issue a number of people have with copyright is the seeming disconnect between the people who actually produce the content, the people who benefit from copyright and the audience.

    6. Duke
      Posted 28/04/2012 at 7:42 pm | Permalink | Reply

      “let’s hope that the Attorney-General’s Department steers Australia through the right path in that vein”

      I dunno Renai, they appear to be steering us into the arms of TPP et al, which will effectively pass the buck for any independent decision making by the government about copyright and hand our butts to the yankee corporate minders… it always was a bit hard for the pollies to make calls there… given the ‘contributions’ the rights holders make to them.

    7. Tom
      Posted 28/04/2012 at 8:37 pm | Permalink | Reply

      This is the completely wrong decision and it’s unlikely the High Court will uphold it based on the decision of more superior courts in o/s jurisdictions that settled this argument years ago (US and Singapore). Even the US government (DOJ) agreed cloud PVRs are within the realm of fair use.

      Essentially, they found that moving a hard drive from your living room to a cloud server was a logical extension of the PVR concept.

      This just further demonstrates the immaturity of our judicial system in understanding technology, and fortunately the High Court isn’t populated with luddites…

    8. Muso1
      Posted 29/04/2012 at 3:09 pm | Permalink | Reply

      The judgement is right if you want major sports to be funded through broadcasting rights contracts.
      No one like Fox or Telstra is going to pay millions, if Optus can show the same content a few minutes later without paying for it.
      If Optus believe they are serving the consumer, then we need to find a new funding model for professional sports.

    Leave a Comment


  • Get our 'Best of the Week' newsletter on Fridays

    Just the most important stories, one email a week.

    Email address:

    Follow us on social media

    Use your RSS reader to subscribe to our articles feed or to our comments feed.

  • Most Popular Content

  • Enterprise IT stories

    • Super funds close to dumping $250m IT revamp facepalm2

      If you have even a skin deep awareness of the structure of Australia’s superannuation industry, you’ll be aware that much of the underlying infrastructure used by many of the nation’s major funds is provided by a centralised group, Superpartners. One of the group’s main projects in recent years has been to dramatically update and modernise its IT platform — its version of a core banking platform overhaul. Unfortunately, the $250 million project has not precisely been going well.

    • Qld’s Grant joins analyst firm IBRS peter-grant

      This week it emerged that Peter Grant, the two-time former Queensland Whole of Government CIO (pictured), has joined well-regarded analyst firm Intelligent Business Research Services (IBRS). We’ve long had a high regard for IBRS, and so it’s fantastic to see such an experienced executive join its ranks.

    • Westpac dumps desk phones for Samsung Android mobiles samsung-galaxy-ace-3

      The era of troublesome desk phones tied to physical locations is gradually coming to an end in many workplaces, with mobile phones becoming increasingly popular as organisations’ main method of voice telecommunications. But some groups are more advanced than others when it comes to adoption of the trend. One of those is Westpac.

    • Ministers’ cloud approval lasted just a year reverse

      Remember how twelve months ago, the Federal Government released a new cloud computing security and privacy directive which required departments and agencies to explicitly acquire the approval of the Attorney-General and the relevant portfolio minister before government data containing private information could be stored in offshore facilities? Remember how the policy was strongly criticised by Microsoft, Government CIOs and Delimiter? Well, it looks like the policy is about to be reversed.

    • WA Govt can’t fund school IT upgrades oops key

      In news from The Department of Disturbing Facts, iTNews revealed late last week that Western Australia’s Department of Education has run out of money halfway through the deployment of new fundamental IT infrastructure to the state’s schools.

    • Turnbull outlines Govt ICT vision turnbull-5

      Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull has published an extensive article arguing that the Federal Government needed to do a better job of connecting with Australians via digital channels and that public sector IT projects needn’t cost the huge amounts that some have in the past.

    • NZ Govt pushes hard into cloud zealand

      New Zealand’s national Government announced a whole of government contract this morning for what it terms ‘Office Productivity as a Service’ services. This includes email and calendaring services, as well as file-sharing, mobility, instant messaging and collaboration services. The contract complements two existing contracts — Desktop as a Service and Enterprise Content Management as a Service.

    • CommBank reveals Harte’s replacement whiteing

      The Commonwealth Bank of Australia has promoted an internal executive who joined the bank in September after a lengthy career at petroleum giant VP and IT services group Accenture to replace its outgoing chief information officer Michael Harte, who announced in early May that he would leave the bank.

    • Jeff Smith quits Suncorp for IBM jeffsmith4

      Second-tier Australian bank and financial services group Suncorp today announced that its long-serving top technology executive Jeff Smith would leave to take up a senior role with IBM in the United States, in an announcement which marks the end of an era for the nation’s banking IT sector.

    • Small business missing the mobile, social, cloud revolution iphone-stock

      Most companies that live and breathe the online revolution are not tech startups, but smart smaller firms that use online tools to run their core business better: to cut costs, reach customers and suppliers, innovate and get more control. Many others, however, are falling behind, according to a new Grattan Institute discussion paper.

  • Blog, Enterprise IT - Jul 5, 2014 13:53 - 0 Comments

    Super funds close to dumping $250m IT revamp

    More In Enterprise IT

    Blog, Telecommunications - Jul 5, 2014 12:12 - 0 Comments

    What should the ACCC’s role be in guiding infrastructure spending?

    More In Telecommunications

    Analysis, Industry, Internet - Jun 23, 2014 10:33 - 0 Comments

    ‘Google Schmoogle’ – how Yellow Pages got it so wrong

    More In Industry

    Blog, Digital Rights - Jun 30, 2014 22:24 - 0 Comments

    Will Netflix launch in Australia, or not?

    More In Digital Rights