InstantTV

Last updated
InstantTV
Developer(s) Carlos Nicholas Fernandes
Initial releaseJuly 1, 2007;17 years ago (2007-07-01)

InstantTV is a cloud software digital video recorder (DVR) operated by RecordTV Pte Ltd based in Singapore. The company was founded by Carlos Nicholas Fernandes in 2007 and previously offered services as RecordTV.com.

Contents

History

RecordTV.com was originally a US-based company that provided cloud-based recording of any and all cable TV channels its founder, David Simon, had subscribed to, by any user on the Internet. The MPAA sued Simon for copyright infringement. Simon initially hired Ira Rothken to defend against the litigation, but eventually gave up, settled [1] and decided to sell its assets. [2]

Launch in Singapore

Fernandes purchased the assets of RecordTV.com from Simon, but then invented (and patented) "A System and Method for recording television and/or radio programmes via the Internet". [3] Among other things, the RecordTV.com service was restricted to Singapore users alone and users were able to record only Singapore Free-to-Air content, which was broadcast by Singapore's state-owned broadcaster, MediaCorp. Shortly thereafter, on 24 July 2017 and 27 September 2017, RecordTV.com received two cease and desist letters [4] alleging infringement by MediaCorp.

RecordTV Pte Ltd vs. MediaCorp litigation

RecordTV Pte Ltd refused to comply with the demand to shut down its website. After the first cease and desist letter from MediaCorp, RecordTV's lawyers wrote back, alleging that MediaCorp's move was "calculated to stifle innovation and the growth of a new industry" according to an article by Singapore Press Holdings [5] that was republished. After the second, September cease and desist letter was received, RecordTV preemptively sued MediaCorp for groundless threats of copyright infringement proceedings, [4] claimed S$30.5 million in damages [6] and continued to operate its website.

One of the core legal issues that arose was whether RecordTV.com was recording content on behalf of its users or whether the users were using RecordTV.com to record TV shows they would otherwise be entitled to see. This was significant because the case would turn on the identity of the party making the copy – if it was the consumer, it could be considered for time-shifting and domestic use and therefore legal. If it was the company, then, the company was recording it for commercial use and therefore illegal. Thus, the case would turn based on the identity of the party making the copy. MediaCorp was represented by Drew and Napier CEO and Senior Counsel Davinder Singh, who cross-examined RecordTV CEO Fernandes over 3.5 days during the trial. RecordTV lost the lawsuit in the High Court of Singapore.

In the initial, adverse judgment against RecordTV, Justice Ang of the High Court cited copyright law specialist William Patry. Following the judgment, Patry stated that in his view Justice Ang had erred in a blog post called the "Singaporean Cablevision case", [7] where he asserted that the court had misread the Cablevision ruling and should have found in favour or RecordTV. David Post, a legal scholar and co-author of an amicus curiae brief in support of Cablevision, [8] also indicated through his writings [9] that the court should have found in favour of RecordTV.

RecordTV chose to appeal the ruling. In its ruling, [10] at the onset, the Court of Appeals set out the importance of the case for society:

This appeal raises an important policy issue as to how the courts should interpret copyright legislation in the light of technological advances which have clear legitimate and beneficial uses for the public, but which may be circumscribed or stymied by expansive claims of existing copyright owners. Bearing in mind that the law strives to encourage both creativity and innovation for the common good, in a case such as the present one, how should the courts strike a just and fair balance between the interests of all affected stakeholders, viz, consumers, content providers as well as technology and service vendors? If the law is not clear as to whether the use of improved technology which is beneficial to society constitutes a breach of copyright, should the courts interpret legislative provisions to favour the private rights of the copyright owner or the public’s wider interests? This is the problem that we face and have to resolve in the present case. In the normal course of events, when enacting a statute, the Legislature balances the rights and interests of all affected stakeholders after considering the social costs and the economic implications. Where the statute is not clear, however, the courts have to perform this difficult task.

The Court of Appeals ruled in favour of RecordTV, awarded costs and damages and issued an injunction against MediaCorp from issuing further threats against RecordTV. In reversing the ruling of the lower court, the Court of Appeals summarised its conclusion: [10]

To summarise our observations: in the present case, RecordTV’s iDVR service represents a significant technological improvement over existing recording methods and facilitates the more convenient enjoyment of television viewing rights by those Registered Users living in Singapore who hold valid television licences. RecordTV’s iDVR is simply a technological advance that is not addressed by the Copyright Act in the context of the copyright owner’s exclusive right to copy (ie, reproduce), communicate to the public and authorise the copying and/or the communication to the public of copyright-protected material. Since RecordTV was doing no more than making it more convenient for the aforesaid Registered Users to enjoy the MediaCorp shows (which was something that these Registered Users were entitled to do as MediaCorp had licensed them to view those shows), we are of the view that the public interest is better served by encouraging rather than stifling the use of RecordTV’s novel technology, especially given that MediaCorp has apparently not suffered any loss from RecordTV’s provision of an additional and better time-shifting service to Registered Users who are licensed to view the MediaCorp shows.

Following the victory, ZDNET quoted [11] Fernandes as saying,

"We are delighted by the ruling. After over three years of litigation, it is clear that MediaCorp's threats were unjustified. Today is a great day for entrepreneurs, consumers and innovators."

The litigation was described as a "David vs. Goliath" battle [12] that came to "its familiar conclusion", on the front page of the Business Times newspaper. Fernandes was subsequently named [13] Young Global Leader by the World Economic Forum.

Relaunch

As a result of the initial adverse ruling in the High Court, RecordTV had shut down its website. Following the reversal by the Court of Appeals, RecordTV relaunched the website. In October 2014, RecordTV launched an app called InstantTV that targeted the global market, including free channels for Thailand, Japan, Indonesia, United States and United Kingdom markets. [14] The facility to record and play Singapore channels persisted, although it continued to be geographically restricted to Singapore IP addresses. [15] The InstantTV app on the Android Play Store went from 10,000 installs on 4 November 2014 to 100,000 installs - a 1000% increase by 3 August 2015, [16] in 7 months.

See also

Related Research Articles

Kazaa Media Desktop. was a peer-to-peer file sharing application using the FastTrack protocol licensed by Joltid Ltd. and operated as Kazaa by Sharman Networks. Kazaa was subsequently under license as a legal music subscription service by Atrinsic, Inc., which lasted until August 2012.

Grokster Ltd. was a privately owned software company based in Nevis, West Indies that created the Grokster peer-to-peer file-sharing client in 2001 that used the FastTrack protocol. Grokster Ltd. was rendered extinct in late 2005 by the United States Supreme Court's decision in MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. The court ruled against Grokster's peer-to-peer file sharing program for computers running the Microsoft Windows operating system, effectively forcing the company to cease operations.

A digital video recorder (DVR), also referred to as a personal video recorder (PVR) particularly in Canada and British English, is an electronic device that records video in a digital format to a disk drive, USB flash drive, SD memory card, SSD or other local or networked mass storage device. The term includes set-top boxes (STB) with direct to disk recording, portable media players and TV gateways with recording capability, and digital camcorders. Personal computers are often connected to video capture devices and used as DVRs; in such cases the application software used to record video is an integral part of the DVR. Many DVRs are classified as consumer electronic devices. Similar small devices with built-in displays and SSD support may be used for professional film or video production, as these recorders often do not have the limitations that built-in recorders in cameras have, offering wider codec support, the removal of recording time limitations and higher bitrates.

MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court ruled unanimously that the defendants, peer-to-peer file sharing companies Grokster and Streamcast, could be held liable for inducing copyright infringement by users of their file sharing software. The plaintiffs were a consortium of 28 entertainment companies, led by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer studios.

<i>A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.</i> US legal case

A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 was a landmark intellectual property case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court ruling that the defendant, peer-to-peer file sharing service Napster, could be held liable for contributory infringement and vicarious infringement of copyright. This was the first major case to address the application of copyright laws to peer-to-peer file sharing.

Performing rights are the right to perform music in public. It is part of copyright law and demands payment to the music's composer/lyricist and publisher. Performances are considered "public" if they take place in a public place and the audience is outside of a normal circle of friends and family, including concerts nightclubs, restaurants etc. Public performance also includes broadcast and cable television, radio, and any other transmitted performance of a live song.

Network DVR (NDVR), or network personal video recorder (NPVR), or remote storage digital video recorder (RS-DVR) is a network-based digital video recorder (DVR) stored at the provider's central location rather than at the consumer's private home. Traditionally, media content was stored in a subscriber's set-top box hard drive, but with NDVR the service provider owns a large number of servers, on which the subscribers' media content is stored. The term RS-DVR is used by Cablevision for their version of this technology.

Streetdirectory.com is an online web mapping service, founded by Singapore-headquartered Virtual Map in 2000. It originally used licensed data from Singapore Land Authority under a non-exclusive agreement until July 2004. On top of providing free maps for personal use, the website also offers a variety of ad-supported services. The website has since expanded to include maps in Malaysia and Indonesia.

File sharing is the practice of distributing or providing access to digital media, such as computer programs, multimedia, program files, documents or electronic books/magazines. It involves various legal aspects as it is often used to exchange data that is copyrighted or licensed.

Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984), also known as the "Betamax case", is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which ruled that the making of individual copies of complete television shows for purposes of time shifting does not constitute copyright infringement, but can instead be defended as fair use. The court also ruled that the manufacturers of home video recording devices, such as Betamax or other VCRs, cannot be liable for contributory infringement. The case was a boon to the home video market, as it created a legal safe harbor for the technology.

In broadcasting, time shifting is the recording of programming to a storage medium to be viewed or listened to after the live broadcasting. Typically, this refers to TV programming but it can also refer to radio shows via podcasts.

In copyright law, the legal status of hyperlinking and that of framing concern how courts address two different but related Web technologies. In large part, the legal issues concern use of these technologies to create or facilitate public access to proprietary media content — such as portions of commercial websites. When hyperlinking and framing have the effect of distributing, and creating routes for the distribution of content (information) that does not come from the proprietors of the Web pages affected by these practices, the proprietors often seek the aid of courts to suppress the conduct, particularly when the effect of the conduct is to disrupt or circumvent the proprietors' mechanisms for receiving financial compensation.

<i>Cartoon Network, LP v. CSC Holdings, Inc.</i> American legal case

Cartoon Network, LP v. CSC Holdings, Inc., 536 F.3d 121, was a United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decision regarding copyright infringement in the context of DVR systems operated by cable television service providers. It is notable for partially overturning the Ninth Circuit precedent MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., regarding whether a momentary data stream is a "copy" per copyright law.

Fixation in Canadian copyright law is a threshold consideration that must be used in copyright infringement cases by courts to determine if copyright actually exists.

TiVo Inc. v. EchoStar Corp. is a case stretching from 2004 to 2011, which took place in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. TiVo Inc. sued EchoStar Corp. claiming patent infringement of a DVR technology. The issues addressed during litigation included patent infringement, wording of injunctions, infringing product redesign, contempt of court orders, and contempt sanctions. Ultimately, the court held that EchoStar Corp. had indeed infringed TiVo Inc's patent and was in contempt of court for noncompliance of an injunction. The parties reached a settlement wherein EchoStar Corp. paid TiVo Inc. a licensing fee. Further, the court replaced the established contempt test with a single step test. The simplified test makes it more difficult for patent holders to prove contempt as a result of repeat infringement.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hopper (DVR)</span>

Hopper is a line of digital video recording (DVR) set-top boxes offered by the U.S. direct-broadcast satellite television provider Dish Network. First introduced at Consumer Electronics Show in January 2012, the Hopper was released in March 2012 as a component of the provider's whole-home DVR system, which networks the main Hopper unit with smaller "Joey" set-top boxes to form a client-server architecture.

Fox Broadcasting Co. v. Dish Network, LLC is a copyright case in which the United States District Court for the Central District of California, by granting partial summary judgment, denied most parts of the copyright claims presented by Fox Broadcasting Company (Fox) against Dish Network (Dish) for its service, a DVR-like device that allowed users to record programming that could be accessed later through any Internet-connected device. The service offered by Dish also allowed users to record any or all Fox's prime-time programs and to automatically skips commercials (AutoHop).

American Broadcasting Cos., Inc. v. Aereo, Inc, 573 U.S. 431 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case. The Court ruled that the service provided by Aereo, which allowed subscribers to view live and time-shifted streams of over-the-air television on Internet-connected devices, violated copyright laws.

File sharing in Singapore relates to the distribution of digital media in that country. In January 2019, there were about 12,971,500 households connected with a broadband connection to the Internet in Singapore. There are also many public Internet access points such as public libraries and Internet cafes.

Carlos Nicholas Fernandes is an inventor, founder and CEO of InstantTV, a service that offers Cloud DVR.

References

  1. ↑ McClintock, Pamela (18 April 2001). "RecordTV.com shut down". variety.com. Retrieved 21 April 2018.
  2. ↑ "RecordTV.com to sell assets". cnet.com. 23 May 2001. Retrieved 21 April 2018.
  3. ↑ "A System and Method for Recording Television and/or Radio Programmes Via the Internet". wipo.int. Retrieved 21 April 2018.
  4. 1 2 "RecordTV Pte Ltd v MediaCorp TV Singapore Pte Ltd and Others - [2009] SGHC 287". singaporelaw.sg.
  5. ↑ "Start-up sues MediaCorp [Archive]". Singapore Rolex Club. 30 June 2009. Retrieved 21 April 2018.
  6. ↑ "Singapore Copyright Infringement Online TV show recording service sued by Broadcasting Company". mirandah.com. 13 August 2008. Retrieved 21 April 2018.[ permanent dead link ]
  7. ↑ "William Patry's Blog - The Singaporean Cablevision Case - March 23, 2010 20:23". www.goodreads.com. Retrieved 21 April 2018.
  8. ↑ "Law Professors' Amicus Brief in Cablevision case (Cartoon Network et al. v Cablevision, 2d Cir. 2007) - Copyright Law Of The United States - Copyright". Scribd. Retrieved 21 April 2018.
  9. ↑ "Copyright Action, Singapore Dep't - The Volokh Conspiracy". volokh.com. 19 March 2010. Retrieved 21 April 2018.
  10. 1 2 Neelima. "RecordTV Pte Ltd v MediaCorp TV Singapore Pte Ltd and others". www.singaporelaw.sg. Archived from the original on 7 April 2018. Retrieved 21 April 2018.
  11. ↑ Yu, Eileen. "Online company wins S'pore copyright appeal - ZDNet". ZDNet . Retrieved 21 April 2018.
  12. ↑ "Appeals court hits RecordTV's play button". www.asiaone.com. Retrieved 21 April 2018.
  13. ↑ http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_YGL_ActiveMembers.pdf [ bare URL PDF ]
  14. ↑ "With InstantTV, Singapore startup wants to be global platform for linear TV - Techgoondu". techgoondu.com. 3 January 2015. Retrieved 21 April 2018.
  15. ↑ "How to Watch Singapore Free to Air Channels Online - Stack Pointer". stackpointer.io. 8 November 2014. Retrieved 21 April 2018.
  16. ↑ "InstantTV - TV in an instant! - Androidrank profile". www.androidrank.org. Archived from the original on 3 April 2018. Retrieved 21 April 2018.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.