| |
SINGAPORE: Day 3 of the trial between Singapore's largest broadcaster MediaCorp and an internet start-up company threw up the issue of just who is the maker of the copies of MediaCorp's free-to-air programmes available to users of RecordTV's website.
RecordTV said it makes the copies on behalf of registered users who are simply recording the programmes for their own use. However, MediaCorp said it is RecordTV which makes copies of its programmes and not the user.
RecordTV is suing MediaCorp for millions of dollars for "groundless threats" of copyright infringement. MediaCorp, in turn, claims RecordTV is infringing the copyright in its programmes and broadcasts on Channel 5, 8 and Channel NewsAsia.
RecordTV's CEO, Carlos Fernandes, maintains that the service he offers functions like a video recorder at home. He said it is the user that makes the recording of a programme and not RecordTV.
So in RecordTV's case, it is not the company that makes the copies of MediaCorp's programmes, but the registered user who requests for the copy to be made.
MediaCorp, represented by Senior Counsel Davinder Singh, shot down this argument. He said the "request remains merely a request" because the user has "no control over what he asks for".
Mr Singh said RecordTV controls the recording system. For example, the company can choose to shut down the system at any time and choose not to allow a user to playback the recording.
A RecordTV copy of Channel NewsAsia's "Amazing Asia" programme was played in court as evidence. It showed that the system had recorded 26 minutes worth of programming although "Amazing Asia" was only five minutes long.
In cross-examination, Mr Singh alleged that based on RecordTV's patent application, which had been disclosed in court on Tuesday, the system could be modified to be able to stretch or shorten the actual recording time to allow for advertisements to be inserted in between programmes.
Mr Singh said: "You (Mr Fernandes) say that the shows are recorded on behalf of users. That is not so. Users can only express the wish to watch a particular show, but what he gets depends on the system," he said.
Mr Fernandes agreed, although he added that the wrong recording timings were the result of a "system malfunction".
It also emerged that Mr Fernandes had made wholesale copies of the recorded programmes without informing the defendants or the court. The recordings of these TV programmes were back-up copies and files which would otherwise be erased during normal operations.
Mr Fernandes had said these were back-up copies for the "purpose of discovery" during trial. However, the recordings were never submitted for discovery.
Mr Singh alleged that the back-up copies were made for the purpose of creating a library of MediaCorp's programmes, which could later be used for commercial purposes such as offering Video-on-Demand.
Mr Singh said: "What has been happening on the quiet is you have been making additional copies in full knowledge that this case is all about whether copies can be made and yet suppressed that fact from this court.
"So instead of only a service where users request the recording before its broadcast and can only watch it 15 days after, you now have a library which people who want to watch may be persuaded to pay to watch for an indefinite period."
During re-examination by his lawyer, Ang Kai Hsiang, Mr Fernandes explained the social objectives of RecordTV.
He said Singaporeans are not watching TV that they are paying for and he described his service as helping consumers gain "utility from this MediaCorp content that they would otherwise not see, maybe not even hear of".
He added RecordTV has not made any revenue so far, although he pointed out, that is not to say it will not make money in future.
The trial continues. - CNA/vm
|
