Optus TV Now – Fed­er­al Court Copy­right Judg­ment Stands

In brief

Optus’ footy wars over its TV Now’ ser­vice have been brought to an end with the refusal of its appli­ca­tion seek­ing leave to appeal to the High Court. Our Com­mer­cial and IP & Tech­nol­o­gy Team looks at what this means for providers of cloud-based ser­vices in Aus­tralia and where it leaves the time-shift­ing’ excep­tion in Aus­tralian copy­right law.


Back­ground

TV in the cloud: In our pre­vi­ous arti­cle Footy Wars Con­tin­ue: Optus’ Win Reversed By Full Fed­er­al Court” we looked at the full bench of the Fed­er­al Court of Aus­tralia which over­turned the Court’s first instance deci­sion relat­ing to Optus’ cloud based TV Now’ ser­vice. The TV Now ser­vice made dig­i­tal record­ings (in numer­ous for­mats to suit a range of devices) of broad­casts of foot­ball match­es which cus­tomers could access and view at a lat­er time. Aus­tralian foot­ball codes com­plained that this was a breach of copy­right. Optus’ defence relied on the time-shift­ing’ excep­tion under the Copy­right Act, which per­mits a copy of a broad­cast to be made for pri­vate or domes­tic use for view­ing at a more con­ve­nient time.

Breach of copy­right: On appeal by the foot­ball codes, the Full Fed­er­al Court found that the TV Now ser­vice infringed copy­right in the broad­casts. The TV Now ser­vice made numer­ous record­ings in dif­fer­ent dig­i­tal for­mats and allowed cus­tomers to nom­i­nate the record­ings for repro­duc­tion on the cus­tomers’ device for sub­se­quent view­ing. The time shift­ing’ excep­tion did not apply – quite apart from the ques­tion of whether cus­tomers made copies for pri­vate use, it was found that Optus itself made copies for com­mer­cial pur­pos­es with­out the copy­right own­er’s permission.

Fol­low­ing this deci­sion, Optus applied to the High Court seek­ing leave to appeal. The High Court refused Optus’ application.

Leave refused. So where does that leave us?

Well, this means that the deci­sion of the Full Fed­er­al Court is the cur­rent lead­ing author­i­ty. How­ev­er, as pre­vi­ous­ly report­ed the mat­ter was very spe­cif­ic to the par­tic­u­lar facts and cir­cum­stances of the case so its appli­ca­tion is like­ly to be lim­it­ed to com­mer­cial repro­duc­tion of broad­casts for sub­se­quent access and use by end users on a time-shift­ed basis using tech­nol­o­gy like that used by Optus.

Tech­no­log­i­cal neu­tral­i­ty – a hot top­ic, right now

Amongst oth­er things, the deci­sion throws up the issue of tech­no­log­i­cal neu­tral­i­ty — a man­u­fac­tur­er can sell a record­ing device with which the user can select and record a broad­cast to watch at a more con­ve­nient time, but a ser­vice provider can­not offer a cloud-based tech­nol­o­gy solu­tion like TV Now to achieve a sim­i­lar result. 

Tech­no­log­i­cal neu­tral­i­ty is a very hot top­ic at the moment, par­tic­u­lar­ly with the Con­ver­gence Review being released ear­li­er this year and the Aus­tralian Law Reform Com­mis­sion’s (ALRC) Issues Paper Copy­right and the Dig­i­tal Econ­o­my’ released in August.

The ALR­C’s review looks square­ly at these very issues and the diverse inter­ests of mobile smart device hold­ing con­sumers want­i­ng access to con­tent on the one hand, and copy­right own­ers who want to earn licens­ing rev­enue on the oth­er. The review pos­es ques­tions regarding:

  • Re-trans­mis­sion of free-to-air broad­casts in the con­text of inter­net technologies

  • Whether it mat­ters who makes a copy of a broad­cast if it’s ulti­mate­ly for pri­vate or domes­tic use

  • In addi­tion to pri­vate and domes­tic use, use of copy­right mate­r­i­al in social media

  • Expand­ing the lim­it­ed sub­ject mat­ter to which the for­mat-shift­ing’ excep­tion applies

  • Whether the draft­ing of the Copy­right Act is suf­fi­cient­ly tech­no­log­i­cal­ly neu­tral to deal with devel­op­ments in inter­net and cloud technologies

Sub­mis­sions to the ALR­C’s Issues Paper are due 16 Novem­ber 2012.

So, it’s still a case of wait and see”. We will keep you informed.

If you would like to repub­lish this arti­cle, it is gen­er­al­ly approved, but pri­or to doing so please con­tact the Mar­ket­ing team at marketing@​swaab.​com.​au. This arti­cle is not legal advice and the views and com­ments are of a gen­er­al nature only. This arti­cle is not to be relied upon in sub­sti­tu­tion for detailed legal advice.

Publications

Res­i­den­tial Ten­an­cies Act 2010 (NSW) reforms and oblig­a­tions of land­lords — effec­tive from 19 May 2025

Intro­duc­tionThe Res­i­den­tial Ten­an­cies Act 2010 (NSW) (the Act) and the Res­i­den­tial Ten­an­cies Reg­u­la­tion 2019 (NSW) (the Reg­u­la­tions) have under­gone some sig­nif­i­cant…

Fail­ing to Reg­is­ter a PPSR Secu­ri­ty Inter­est on Time – Legal Risks and Options

Intro­duc­tionTime­ly reg­is­tra­tion of secu­ri­ty inter­ests under the Per­son­al Prop­er­ty Secu­ri­ties Act 2009 (Cth) (PPSA) is essen­tial for secured cred­i­tors to…

Con­struc­tion con­tracts are more than just a doc­u­ment — remove con­trac­tu­al claus­es at your peril

Your con­struc­tion con­tract will map out the path­way to your build­ing project com­plet­ing on time and with­in bud­get and detail­ing…

In the News

Press Release | New Part­ner Appoint­ment — Mark Glynn

With over two decades in the indus­try, Mark is a recog­nised front-end con­struc­tion lawyer spe­cial­ist with­in the build­ing and con­struc­tion indus­try. Mark…

Press Release | New Asso­ciate Appoint­ment — Hugo Mahony

“As we con­tin­ue to expand in line with our strate­gic vision, Hugo’s deep knowl­edge and expe­ri­ence in Com­mer­cial, Cor­po­rate, IP…

Michael Byrnes is quot­ed in the arti­cle, Police and Safe­Work are inves­ti­gat­ing MAFS, but the show keeps win­ning the rat­ings race”, pub­lished on ABC News on 6 April 2025

Michael Byrnes is quot­ed in the arti­cle, ​“Police and Safe­Work are inves­ti­gat­ing MAFS, but the show keeps win­ning the rat­ings…

Sign up for our Newsletter

*Mandatory information