Russell Brown in October 8-14 2005 wrote about this subject in the Listener
The blog Syntho also showed up in my google searches. It points out that TV3 sells the listing details (database) to people who want to publish it on there websites.
Quote from Syntho "As Frankel and McLay point out ?copyright does not protect facts or information, it does protect compilations of facts, the way particular facts are organised.? So the theory is that the compilation of the TV schedules involves enough ?originality to justify protecting the schedules as compilations of a literary work.? "
rscole86: Is there a limited time frame from when the first letter was received by raven, to when it can goto court? Eg, A business I help are considering going to court in Australia, and have been told that they have up to 6 years to take it to court. So could raven have 6 years of sweating?
Yes there are limitation periods (mostly 6 years). The time runs from when it was first discovered. Statistically, though, very few disputes ever go to court and a "first shot" isn't always something to sweat over. Many lawyers' letters are just sabre-rattling (though they try to sound very serious and demanding), and except in very urgent matters there is typically a lot more letters going back and forwards before someone decides to take it to court. Even then, it can take years after filing to actually get a hearing.
hellonearthisman: Russell Brown in October 8-14 2005 wrote about this subject in the Listener
The blog Syntho also showed up in my google searches. It points out that TV3 sells the listing details (database) to people who want to publish it on there websites.
Quote from Syntho "As Frankel and McLay point out ?copyright does not protect facts or information, it does protect compilations of facts, the way particular facts are organised.? So the theory is that the compilation of the TV schedules involves enough ?originality to justify protecting the schedules as compilations of a literary work.? "
That's kind of sad.
The IceTV case in Australia, and last month the Yellow Pages case, have now reversed that view (which was the understood law at the time). My view is a New Zealand court would find the same thing (i.e. NO copyright in Whitepages or factual TV listing data) but, as that site says, there has been a lack of NZ cases on this point (and given the high cost of litigation, could be waiting a long time).
reven: ...Kind of want this community to get behind the fight and leave the me out of it...
Sorry but I had to pick up on this comment. Don't you think it is only fair that you are involved given the takedown notice was issued to you, and because of that you started this thread?
I can fully understand that you don't want to pursue this alone, and the community as users who rely on this data should lend support. But you do need to be involved in some form, to be fair.
Well, I sent GB the link to this issue, so many thanks for getting on board. I note your comment:
"blur - it would be nice, but would be a pretty major case to run! I think it would need to wait for a MajorCorporate vs MajorCorporate case. To get to the IceTV standard, it would need to go through the High Court, then the Court of Appeal, then the Supreme Court (which would take 3+ years)."
I've sent the link to some folk I know at Microsoft. Afterall, it's their software that is being hamstrung by lack of an EPG.
Anyone know Russel Browns email to send him a headsup?
reven: ...Kind of want this community to get behind the fight and leave the me out of it...
Sorry but I had to pick up on this comment. Don't you think it is only fair that you are involved given the takedown notice was issued to you, and because of that you started this thread?
I can fully understand that you don't want to pursue this alone, and the community as users who rely on this data should lend support. But you do need to be involved in some form, to be fair.
i get where you are coming from, but if im behind it, im worried i might be actually sued or something. whereas if its a community, they wont be.
i get it, everyone is pissed off about it. but im the one under the gun.
i kinda think with xmltvnz going opensource (ive started a gbpvr code project) it will go viral, seperate the configuration file from the main program (ie someone else hosts the configuration file), and then sky (or anyone) wont be able to do much about it. xmltvnz would be safe and a third party xml file should be safe, seperate they cant do much, combined they can do something.
well i think that would be safe.... anyone want to correct me?
also i could update xmltvnz to check an rss for source updates, and someone could host a rss feed with the latest updates (not the config files themselves just a link).
so autoupdate would still work, and if someone gets a take down order for the config file, someone else just starts it up. surely they couldnt go after the person hosting the rss feed (just being a link and all). this would all be configurable, so could be changed.
reven: i get where you are coming from, but if im behind it, im worried i might be actually sued or something. whereas if its a community, they wont be.
i get it, everyone is pissed off about it. but im the one under the gun.
I'm not saying that we all stand behind you and push you into the fire, but that you be involved in any action that the community might take. Your comment made it sound like you just wanted to sit back and let everyone else do something for your benefit.
reven: ... well i think that would be safe.... anyone want to correct me?
I don't know about "safe".
But what you could do, to reduce your personal risk, is to form a company (cost $160, all online at Companies Office website), then transfer the code and website into the company. Then, as long as everything was run by the company under its name, if someone has a problem with it they would need to sue the company (which has no real assets) and is a separate legal entity from you personally.
I use your xmltvnz but don't have sky. I also have NO idea how the whole thing hangs togther. Is there any way to continue to host the config file for non-sky channels? My setup just works so well at the moment I will be gutted if I have to try and find another solution. It seems only Sky have issued the notice, so the non-sky channels are perhaps not so fussed.
wondering if there are 3 parties, all seperate party 1) xmltvnz, which is an open source project on google code party 2) a rss feed that contains links to a configuration file xmltvnz can use party 3) the host that hosts the configuration file (only the config file)
im fairly certain party1 would be fine, just wondering if party 2 and 3 would be?
Reven, first off I just want to THANK YOU for the software/website you developed that helped make open platforms a viable method of watching NZ televison.
I ditched my sky TV subscription a few months ago and reading this just makes me even happier I did it.
Is there any possibility your software could be integrated into mediaportal distributions? As far as I'm aware, this is one of the biggest open-source projects that directly benefits from your epg grabber. I'm sure if you contacted them they would be more than happy to look at a way of moving your product "off-shore" in a way that would make it much harder for Sky to find someone to actually threaten.
I'd also say that if there is one thing Sky doesn't want, it's bad publicity. For this reason alone, if there was even a hint that this could be taken to the wider media, you might find that they call off the attack dogs in spectacular fashion.
Just a thought.
ps. I've sent an email myself to the mediaportal team on this issue. This is just wrong wrong wrong. Screw Sky and the Horse they rode in on
"There is no way to Peace -Peace is the Way" (A. J. Muste)
I use your xmltvnz but don't have sky. I also have NO idea how the whole thing hangs togther. Is there any way to continue to host the config file for non-sky channels? My setup just works so well at the moment I will be gutted if I have to try and find another solution. It seems only Sky have issued the notice, so the non-sky channels are perhaps not so fussed.
Cheers ivan
His take down notice mentions the content of 'other third parties' i believe - hence why this is being discussed.
I use your xmltvnz but don't have sky. I also have NO idea how the whole thing hangs togther. Is there any way to continue to host the config file for non-sky channels? My setup just works so well at the moment I will be gutted if I have to try and find another solution. It seems only Sky have issued the notice, so the non-sky channels are perhaps not so fussed.
Cheers ivan
His take down notice mentions the content of 'other third parties' i believe - hence why this is being discussed.
yeah the third party thing is annoying, otherwise i would have just kept a trimmed down config file with tv1,tv2,tv3 etc (which i may still be able to do, just not sure)
reven: ... wondering if there are 3 parties, all seperate
You could but not necessary (and more complicated). The benefit of using a company is that it is "limited liablity", so if the company gets sued that liability cannot by itself pass through to the shareholders or directors (except in certain situations).
Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly
to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.
Trusted
