German High Court Says That TV Schedule Info Is Covered By Copyright; TV Listings Sites Have To Pay
from the copyrighting-facts? dept
I still can't comprehend arguments in favor of allowing copyrights on facts. However, over in Europe they do allow copyrighting of facts if they're in a database, using so-called database rights. Of course, there's a big problem with such things. Contrary to the claim that database rights encourage a bigger database industry, the evidence (just like copyright and patents) points out that the opposite is true. And yet, Europe keeps believing in database rights. techflaws.org points us to a recent High Court ruling in Germany claiming that TV listings are covered by copyright and thus websites that display the factual information of what the TV schedule is have to pay up. In other words, it's going to become harder to find out what time shows are on TV, meaning that fewer people will watch TV. How does this help anyone?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, germany, tv listings
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Geht Lost
Ich kann Ihnen nicht sagen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I doubt people will watch tv less just because they have less information as to whats on the box. They may just be a bit more lost when it comes to finding something they wanna watch when they are watching tv and this will increase channel surfing but it will not decrease tv viewing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Two words: derivative work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
perhaps...
It would appear that these websites are taking informtion from another site and republishing it. I can see where that would run into a copyright issue, not for the material itself, but rather for the collection of material being republished.
What is on TV is a fact, but collecting those facts into one place isn't just a "fact", is would at some point become an actual product of value. Otherwise, it could be said that a school textbook should be free, because it contains nothing but knowledge that already exists. Yet textbooks are copyright (the presentation and product, not facts contained within).
Mike, I think you need to think harder on this one, I think you are missing the point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: perhaps...
Not necessarily. It does depend on the specific laws. Some do say independent collection of the same data is allowed, others aren't so fond of it. But, yes, that could make a difference.
It would appear that these websites are taking informtion from another site and republishing it. I can see where that would run into a copyright issue, not for the material itself, but rather for the collection of material being republished.
Again, that depends on where you are and if you have a database right. The US has explicitly rejected such things, and Europe has not. However, as pointed out in the post, studies have shown that contrary to the claims of those supporting such rights, database industries tend to be smaller in areas where such a right exists -- and there is no evidence of increased database output when such laws are strengthened (there is *some* initial increased investment soon after such laws are passed, but the end result is not seen in the output).
What is on TV is a fact, but collecting those facts into one place isn't just a "fact", is would at some point become an actual product of value.
Copyright is not designed to cover "products of value." They are designed to promote progress, and, as such are only designed to protect new creative works.
Otherwise, it could be said that a school textbook should be free, because it contains nothing but knowledge that already exists. Yet textbooks are copyright (the presentation and product, not facts contained within).
Yes, it's the overall presentation, but it's the creativity within that presentation, not the specific facts, as you note. So a TV listing company absolutely could have a copyright on their *design* but so long as the site in question changed the design and merely reprinted the facts, it should be allowed. But it was not.
That's the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: perhaps...
That's the problem.
It's also about how that information is sourced. If tvtv.de has no staff, and is entirely dependent on taking content from the other site and reformatting it, there is an issue. Clearly one party is doing work to collection information,and the other party is just using their efforts for profit with minimal expense.
Copyright is not designed to cover "products of value." They are designed to promote progress, and, as such are only designed to protect new creative works.
You almost got it, but you missed. Is TV guide just a guide, or is it a a work product? Much of the information inside isn't specifically copyrighted (the listing information as individual items), but as a block source, it crosses the line from raw data to a finished product. Do you not think that a company taking the listing sections of a TV guide and replacing the ads with their own and republishing it would not get in trouble?
and there is no evidence of increased database output when such laws are strengthened
Raw output of anything isn't a very good indication of an effecient or effective system, especially in this case. Nothing would be stopping tvtv.de from making all the contacts and creating their own database to work from. What is an issue is that they appear to be allowing someone else to do the expensive work (gathering data) and then profiting from that effort at no cost.
I cannot understand why you don't see that this is an issue. The company that collects the data has the expense, and is effectively supplying their competition at no cost. I cannot see how that would be considered fair or just.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: perhaps...
For me, the stink test is this: If the database operator shut down tomorrow, would tvtv.de be able to continue as a going concern? Would the be able to provide the same service under the same costs sturctures?
My feeling is the answer would be "no", and that makes it clear that they are entirely dependant on obtaining something for nothing from others to stay in business. That certainly isn't a fair business situation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: perhaps...
If tvtv.de is truly dependent on a single public source for their data, that single source actually has all the power. They can change their format or even explicitly block requests from specific requestors (IP's). Heck, you could probably even set up something to determine the requestor and send requestor specific content back to them.
Yes, it means that VG Media (I think that's the source) will have to do a bit of extra work, but since when has a successful company ever been able to remain stagnant and profitable at the same time? The two just don't fit together because consumers are always looking for the next best thing (app, service, product, etc).
/software developer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: perhaps...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: perhaps...
It appears that in Germany now the facts within may also be copyrighted. Not being able to reuse the information contained within doesn't seem to me like much of an incentive to buy a textbook in Germany.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Internet TV
That way they don't need listings they just need to call miro up and subscribe to channels they like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's also about how that information is sourced. If tvtv.de has no staff, and is entirely dependent on taking content from the other site and reformatting it, there is an issue. Clearly one party is doing work to collection information,and the other party is just using their efforts for profit with minimal expense.
Collecting facts does not give you the right to deny anyone else's use of them. I can freely distribute the voting numbers from a given election, despite a single group being responsible for the collection and release of that information. The same can be said about any survey, poll, statistics, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What is amazing is that you typed this and didn't even realize you are making the point. The results of an election are released as news. TV listings are not news.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They are when they're new.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Crowdsourcing listing.
I imagine that and app that put train and buses schedules would be forbidden too.
An example of a crowd-sourced database is thetvdb.com :)
There are many others.
Lets see what OpenStreetMap have done to databases:
- openseamap.org
- informationfreeway.org
- topo.geofabrik.de
- yournavigation.org
- free-map.org.uk
- yournavigation.org
- openrouteservice.org
- öpnvkarte.de
It is even used by the monopoly game.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/171610/monopoly_city_streets_online_game_will_buying_park_plac e_be_any_easier.html
TV.com is making a lot of money started as a fan source database and was bought damn and have various competitors that keep it real.
Some websites have to scrap 3 or more to find other relevant data. Besides all databases are scrapes of information from others what makes people think they have ownership on facts?
Is ridiculous how the german court interpreted the thing.
http://www.unc.edu/courses/2006spring/law/357c/001/projects/dougf/node13.html#SECTION00032 100000000000000
What the court did in fact was extend something that was not envisage in the initial law.
Wanna bet that schools in germany are suffering because of this kind of interpretation of the law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Crowdsourcing listing.
Protecting that database causes more harm then good.
First that database would have to have been made anyway it was already made for and have to be distributed and TV stations do it for free or else TV sets manufactures don't even bother to list them.
The reasoning behind such a law was not to make easier to maintain databases and it has the opposite effect with fewer using it and very little exposure and at the same time posing a great risk to education and society.
Yah only the stupid would think that this law is any good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Correction
While open initiatives proves that not only databases can be maintained with little to no cost they spin innovative uses and even commercial opportunities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It Helps
It helps those of use thinking TV had ended up as a simply propaganda box designed to keep people on their couches instead of thinking. The more people that stop watching it and turn to the internet for their entertainment and information, the better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Other Means
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Charge viewers for the privilege.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Intellectual/creative - really?
Can it really be called an "intellectual creation" to just gather information for TV schedules? To me it doesn't seem any more intellectual than delivering people's mail or something like that. Although there are some challenges in doing it efficiently there isn't room for much creativity in relation to the end result.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Intellectual/creative - really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Got it all wrong
This is necessary as there is no real consistent standard in Europe for this. DVB-SI is not structured enough and non existent in some countries.
If it wasnt for tvtv, set top box makers and companies like Elgato (Eye TV) would have to either aggregate the 1200 channels themselves or find another company that can do it....which would then also be liable for copyright infringement.
Also, VG Media claimed copyright only on the synopsis and images of the programs produced by the VG media companies (Private broadcasters). They suggested that the description of the program contained a creative element and for this reason it was copyrightable. Not on the schedule (times) which are facts and NOT SUBJECT TO COPYRIGHT. tvtv has been operating like this since the first judgement and looking at their website there has been little noticable change.
Generally, the reaction from most folks has been supportive of tvtv. Some have even suggested that tvtv should remove the channels completely from their database so no set top box EPG powered by tvtv would be able to tune to those channels ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hulu
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Incidently
There is also a complaint lodged with the European court...interesting times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]