The ABC has found itself caught up in a copyright debate after it forced the removal of an application that enabled people to download and watch programs offered on its iview service.
The Python-iview application, which had been available for more than two years, allowed people using Android devices not supported by iview, or people with a slow internet connection, to download and playback later, programs offered via the ABC’s iview streaming video application.
The ABC wrote to application developer Jeremy Visser last month, advising the application breached its iview terms of use, and requesting Mr Visser cease distributing the application or risk further action. The application has since been removed from Mr Visser’s website.
Systems administrator Robert Mibus yesterday wrote an open letter to the ABC, arguing the Python-iview application was no different to a VCR, Fetch TV or Tivo recording service.
“If you can do it on the box attached to your old fashioned TV, but not in the cloud, people will be arguing that’s not technology neutral,” said Bruce Arnold, lecturer in law at the University of Canberra.
The debate comes after Optus was refused leave to appeal its copyright case against Telstra, the AFL and NRL. The High Court found Optus’ TV Now service breached broadcast deals between Telstra and the football codes, despite Optus arguing its service simply allowed Optus mobile subscribers to record matches on their mobile device and play them back at their convenience.
Currently there is an exception for private and domestic recording in the Copyright Act, but the ABC wrote in its letter that Python-iview breached section 101(1) of the Copyright Act by providing the means to allow users to permanently download and store ABC iview content without permission.
“When the ABC produces content from scratch it’s not going to be an issue, but licensing often ties it up and there are some underlying issues here people are just starting to come to grips with,” Mr Arnold said.
He added that content middlemen, including the BBC, have become savvy in repackaging, redistributing, and reusing content, and seeking money in each instance.
With the Australian Law Reform Commission now considering amendments to the Copyright Law to address such issues, Mr Arnold said various groups would continue to make their case.
“A lot of copyright law happened when a particular interest group got in and lobbied well.”
He said while it’s likely exceptions for non-commercial personal use of content would remain, people would be “squeamish” about commercial uses.
“It’s conceivable that there will be calls for some sort of statutory revenue collection scheme like CAL.”
The Copyright Agency (CAL) is a rights management organisation that enables the use of text and images by collecting payments for writers, visual artists and publishers.
Mr Arnold said the Australian Law Reform Commission would most likely deliver a good report when it responds to the government in November as part of the Inquiry into Copyright and the Digital Economy.
“The nice thing about the ALRC is it does very good work. The sad thing about this is the government typically takes about five years to respond. By that stage the world has moved on.”
ALRC
logged in via Twitter
Thanks for the article and comments regarding the ALRC inquiry into Copyright and the Digital Economy. Last month we released an Issues Paper (http://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/copyright-ip42) that provides background material on our research to date and asks questions about the issues we have identified so far. We invite individuals and organisations to make submissions in response to the issues paper by 16 November 2012. The final report will be delivered next year.
Robin Bell
Research Academic Public Health, at University of Newcastle
Sadly, the author fails to note that the ABC refuses to provide an android iview app for the less well off Australians with cheaper android mobile devices, but supplies dedicated iview apps for iOs regularly updated for all iOs devices.
The elitist culture of the ABC leaves android users no effective access to this great service, and sees no bias in this attitude. ABC management flipantly suggest low income Aussies should use the flash web compatability of the android os to watch iview via web browsers. Again failing to note that the web iview pages are not mobile device friendly, and can not be used in this way.
It is clear that the ABC has a deep rooted bias for iOS devices and is now actively stopping low income viewer from having equitable access to services, even thru 3rd party software.
I suspect the copyright issue here may be the continued use of the name "iview".
Stephen Prowse
CEO at Wound CRC
Its not just the ABC, quite a few other media organisations (News Ltd and Fairfax) do not provide android apps. Since this is not complicated or that expensive, is it, as you suggest, deliberate? Just another conspiracy?
Sean Manning
Physicist
It's not just low income Australians. It's any Australian wanting to avoid being indoctrinated into the iDouchbag Army.
Karl Schaffarczyk
Law Student at University of Canberra
Robin,
I think you'll find that it's not an elitist culture, rather a butt-covering culture. The open nature of Android means that making an app for this platform would open too many security holes.
The ABC seems unconcerned about Australians downloading and retaining ABC made content, but quite worried about the same with content produced elsewhere.
Donncha Redmond
Software Developer
Perhaps it's a numbers game?
e.g: the ATO doesn't provide eTax software for Mac or Linux users, only Windows users.
Also, building and testing an app for iOS is probably a lot cheaper than doing the same for Android given all the permutations of OS version and hardware.
Robin Bell
Research Academic Public Health, at University of Newcastle
Thanks Karl, but your expanation is inconsistent with the facts.
The ABC provides iview software access for the following devices (not exclusive): PC,Mac,Linux,Sony Bravia TVs, Samsung TVs, Blu-Ray Players, LG TVs, Blu-Ray Players, TV Upgraders, Panasonic TVs , Blu-Ray Players, Humax Set Top Boxes, Topfield Set Top Boxes, Sony PlayStation 3 (unmetered with certain ISPs), Microsoft Xbox 360, iPad (1), iPad 2, iPad (3rd Gen with Retina Display), via Flash-supported browser (Lauren Crozier, ABC Audience & Consumer Affairs).
Its simply not reasonable to suggest that an android app would provide a greater risk to copyright or DRM security, given the wide range of access available for recording devices with known security hacks, currently approved by the ABC.
The omission of and android app appears deliberate, as it is the only popular platform not provided with some form of effective assess.
Robin Bell
Research Academic Public Health, at University of Newcastle
Might be so, but oh..... one guy has already done it with very few resources. Mr Visser.
I'm didn't know the ATO had a thing about MACs. Linix I understand ;). That needs addressing too. The era when net access was novel and any access could be considered better than nothing is way way in the past. Access to government net services must be provided without bias for particular platforms.
Karl Schaffarczyk
Law Student at University of Canberra
So, given the wide ranging support for all of the devices you have mentioned, how exactly is the ABC "elitist"?
How can you justify your position that "the ABC has a deep rooted bias for iOS devices"?
Robin Bell
Research Academic Public Health, at University of Newcastle
If you check the devices Karl, the only mobile platform provided with access is iOS (iphones, ipads, ipods etc). The rest of the devices are non-mobile.
So while its reasonable to argue that the security and copyright issue is not consistent with the facts, its unreasonable to argue that the number of devices in total shows a lack of bias. Security is an issue for both fixed and mobile platforms, but restricting services to one mobile platform used by less than 50% of users is a clear bias.
Karl Schaffarczyk
Law Student at University of Canberra
So it's clearly a bias?
Not a lack of resources?
Not a matter of challenges in dealing with the multitude of devices which run Android?
Not the ABC grappling with the wide variations in screen sizes?
Not the ABC worried about breaching the security requirements of the content owners due to the wide open nature of Android?
Not something else?
Karl Schaffarczyk
Law Student at University of Canberra
From Auntie's mouth:
http://www.abc.net.au/technology/articles/2012/06/26/3533474.htm
With every new platform release comes complaints of apps not appearing on other platforms. Bruce Collier, iview's technical lead, said the following:
"We understand the demand for an Android app, and are working towards achieving official Android support following a planned redevelopment of iview in HTML5. We are approaching wider Android availability in this way for a few important reasons: it will make…
Read moreRobin Bell
Research Academic Public Health, at University of Newcastle
Thanks Karl,
As to the problems associated with production of an android app, Mr Visser has addressed these with very few resources. Thus the original fact in the Article today, about the ABC making him remove his app. So these problems are not really unresolvable, but excuses.
The message from Bruce Collier has been the same (with different names attached) going back over the last 2 years, since the iOS dedicated app was implimented.
In August 2010 Arul Baskaran, the then Controller for Multiplatform for ABC TV who supervised the iPad implementation of iView, noted that the ABC had a limited team with limited resources and picked platforms to provide services to (obviously iOS/Apple) without auditable selection processes or providing opportunities for tender.
What we end up with is a bias in provision of service.
Craig Read
logged in via LinkedIn
Are you willing to pay extra tax for that Linux and OSX support?
Everything the government does in IT costs time and money, and often more than it should. That time and money has to be paid for by higher taxes, or redirected from something else.
As much as I love Linux and OSX (I have several systems running each, as well as Windows), there's a lot of other things I'd prefer my tax dollars go towards.
Jeremy Visser
logged in via Twitter
If anyone is interested, here is a blog post I wrote in response to the ABC's iPhone announcement that I linked:
https://jeremy.visser.name/2012/06/iview-a-sign-of-the-times/
Kelly Schofield
Intern
Given that I can use a personal video recorder under s111 of the Copyright Act to record ABC TV, and ABC TV do not use any method to stop me doing this (eg Macrovision etc).
Why doesn't s111 apply when I download the Internet-based broadcast using python iview?
The Optus case knocked out the TV now service because what Optus was doing was not "private and domestic".
Jeremy Visser is not making money from this product. He has nothing to gain commercially. If I use his product, I am not making money from it.
Can anyone tell me how python iview is anything but "private and domestic"?
Zvyozdochka
logged in via Twitter
What a surprise; users want to control their experience with content.
Any attempt to push back or place obsticles in the path of said users will result in a percentage finding creative alternatives.
As I see it, irrespective of technology, the quality of content will determine if users ultimately purchase from the artist. The republishers, movie studios and broadcasters have limited time to be the middle men, skimming off the top.
Craig Read
logged in via LinkedIn
I'd argue it's a function of price versus quality.
I watch zero commercial TV at the moment. Our antenna isn't even connected, and I'm not willing to pay for the ads on Foxtel. But one of the few shows I like to watch is Doctor Who. We've been watching it on iView.
Just 2 weekends ago, we went and purchased several hundred dollars worth of TV series on DVD from JB-HiFi. One series I wanted to purchase was Doctor Who, but there was no way I was going to pay the exorbitant prices BBC are dictating. $90 for a single series, when I can get a series of Big Bang Theory for $25 from the same store is patently absurd.
Make it cheap and convenient enough, and we'll pay. Don't and we won't.
tqft
logged in via Twitter
This will not be news to anyone who can use a search engine but the software in question is in the wild.
Give that many of the devices someone listed above actually are based on linux (I know I have Panasonic gear and have gone to the website listed in the manual and downloaded the kernel & others bits supplied as per the GPL simply because I can), it is crazy to say things don't work on linux.
The ATO should hire better suppliers to get their tax app running on Android (limux kernel) or…
Read moreR_Chirgwin
logged in via Twitter
A couple of points.
First, a small detail: Ptyhon-iView and other such grabbers aren't "in the cloud". It's software that runs on a specific end user's computer.
I'm not so sure the ARL/NRL versus Optus case is relevant - in as much as there's no active service provider involvement.
In any case, the ABC's effort to extirpate the software has already drawn a response from users, who are creating Github mirrors independently of the author.
Tim Connors
System Administrator
Hopefully the version I downloaded (pirated, hah! arrgh, I missed talk like a pirate day by one day) will continue to work.
I pirate (arrrr!) iview content because the flash app pauses every few minutes for up to about a minute at a time (not buffering - I have plenty of bandwidth with a good ISP (not Helstra), and tracing the app shows it just waiting on an internet socket. Probably just a flash on linux foible). And it's flash, so inherently sucks. Also, fullscreen is unwatchable jerky because…
Read moreCraig Read
logged in via LinkedIn
I think you're a day behind.
Talk like a Pirate day was yesterday.
http://www.talklikeapirate.com/