decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
The ethics of astro-turfing: sleazy or smart business? | 438 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Optus loses copyright infringement case in Australia
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 08:57 PM EDT

Optus loses TV Now appeal

This is a case I've tried to follow here in Aus. Optus is a telecommunications provider, and TV Now is an online service they provide which lets you record free to air television and play it back on your phone.

AFL is the Australian Football League, and they recently sold the broadcast rights to a free to air channel, a pay TV network and Telstra (a rival telecommunications provider) for ~$5b. Of this $5b, Telstra paid $153m for the exclusive rights to broadcast over the Internet to their customers (and hence, to mobile phones).

The argument from Telstra and the AFL are that Telstra paid for the exclusive rights to broadcast over the Internet, but Optus is stealing the broadcast from the free to air provider and selling it to its customers.

Optus is arguing that there are existing provisions in the copyright act which allow people to record television for their own personal use, and they are just facilitating it.

This result really irks me, because it gets to the crux of abusing copyright law to entrench themselves in the 20th century model of selling content. The appeal was won by Telstra and the AFL because of (what I refer to as) a technicality: Even though it is the user who makes their recording (presumably by pressing the record button on their phone), Optus is the one actually conducting the recording exercise.

My main concern is: we can currently use a Home Theater PC (HTPC) to stream TV to laptops throughout a house. You can watch TV live on different devices in the house. It is only a matter of time before somebody writes a plugin for MythTV which compresses live TV on the fly, to the point where I will be able to watch live TV (received from my own personal PC and its TV tuner) on (my own personal) mobile phone via 3G. Will they say that is illegal because I'm watching free to air TV over the Internet, but Telstra has exclusive rights to this?

Once this type of technology is available, it would be relatively easy for someone with a bit of technical knowhow to set up a HTPC which broadcasts live free to air TV to their phone over the internet. But good luck getting the average sports fan to set this up in their own home. So what about if a company goes and does it for them, but instead of in their home, they do it via some online service? It is extremely easy to deploy new servers on demand in the "cloud". They are saying that the online service is illegal. My fear is that this implies that my HTPC is illegal too.

It also means that when we get to the stage that we can implement what was previously only done on hardware, via software and online services, we are not allowed to.

Please excuse my rant, you may be able to tell that this frustrates me greatly!!!
Cheers,
pete.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Still Picture use in Movies
Authored by: complex_number on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 11:48 PM EDT
[www.techdirt. com]

My guess that the studios will start employing artists to paint pictures in the style of the artists rather than stump up $$$ from their 'loss' making enterprises (a.k.a Motion Pictures) :)

Or just use works that are out of copyright. Either way, the artists will lose a stream of income. Golden Egg and all that seems to spring to mind.

I can't help wondering if this is more of a case of 'me too' than a serious attempt to protect their members rights.

---
Ubuntu & 'apt-get' are not the answer to Life, The Universe & Everything which is of course, "42" or is it 1.618?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

The ethics of astro-turfing: sleazy or smart business?
Authored by: norahc on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 12:22 AM EDT
http://paidcontent.org/2012/04/26/the-ethics-of-astro- turfing- sleazy-or-smart-business/

Florian Mueller, a self-proclaimed patent expert funded by both Oracle and Microsoft, has been issuing a flurry of biased blog posts that don’t mention his paymasters. (His risible excuse for the shameless plumping is that he’s an “analyst”).

Seems like others are starting to notice his true colors...

---
Some battles are fought for principle & some are fought for dollars. When fighting for principles you fight until hell freezes over & then you fight on the ice

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Onion Browser for iPhone promises total web anonymity
Authored by: TiddlyPom on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 09:06 AM EDT
I have had Orbot (Tor for Android), Orweb (Tor protected browser and Gibberbot (Tor chat client) installed on both my Android Phone and Vega Android tablet (running Vegacomb) for ages now. I am surprised that:
  1. It has taken so long for Tor to be available on the iPhone
  2. The thought police controlling whether apps are allowed in Apple's store have ALLOWED a Tor application to be added!
Big news for Apple fans - old news for those of us who use Android :)

---
Support Software Freedom - use GPL licenced software like Linux and LibreOffice instead of proprietary software like Microsoft Windows/Office or Apple OS/X

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )