[talk-au] repurcussions of IceTV decision

[edodd at billiau.net]

> On 11 February 2010 05:33, Liz <edodd at billiau.net> wrote:
>> Haven't got far through the judgement so far but this sounds quite
>> clear.
>> 7.
>> The Copyright Act does not protect facts, ideas or information contained
>> in a
>> work, to ensure a balance is struck between the interests of authors and
>> those
>> in society: IceTV [2009] HCA 14; 254 ALR 386 at [28] and the cases cited
>> therein. The Copyright Act does not provide protection for skill and
>> labour
>> alone: IceTV [2009] HCA 14; 254 ALR 386 at [49], [52], [54] and [131].
>> and 8.
>> The Copyright Act protects the particular form of expression of the
>> information:
>> (but not if it is computer generated, it must have an author)
>
> The majority of all OSM data has identifiable authors.
>
> Also there is debate over the creativity, the vector information may
> not be protected but meta information may be deemed a creative work,
> and without a court case it's merely speculation.
>
> In any case Australia is just late to the game, these sorts of
> decicions have already been made in other jurisdictions and this is
> exactly the reason why some want ODBL.
>
The judge suggested that database protection laws should be considered by
Parliament.