National Rugby League Investments Pty Limited v Singtel Optus Pty Ltd [2012] FCAFC 59

National Rugby League Investments Pty Limited v Singtel Optus Pty Ltd [2012] FCAFC 59

Optus, by designing, controlling, and operating the TV Now system that received, recorded, and stored the copies of television broadcasts, was the maker of the copies—or, in the alternative, both Optus and the subscriber were makers acting in concert. Section 111 does not extend to commercial copying by Optus for subscribers; it only covers individuals making copies for private and domestic use. Therefore, Optus was liable for copyright infringement and could not rely on the s 111 exception.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 April 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appellate Judgment (full Court of the Federal Court)
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
['copyright' 'infringement' 'television Broadcasts' 'time Shifting Exception' 'liability for Automated Copying' 'construction of Copyright Act S 86, S 87, S 111']
['intellectual Property' 'statutory Interpretation'] ['copyright' 'infringement' 'television Broadcasts' 'time Shifting Exception' 'liability for Automated Copying' 'construction of Copyright Act S 86, S 87, S 111']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appellate Judgment (full Court of the Federal Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Who makes a copy for copyright purposes when an automated system is used—the service provider, the subscriber, or both?' "Whether the s 111 exception for 'private and domestic use' applies to Optus' TV Now service or to commercial making of copies for subscribers."]

Ratio Decidendi

Optus, by designing, controlling, and operating the TV Now system that received, recorded, and stored the copies of television broadcasts, was the maker of the copies—or, in the alternative, both Optus and the subscriber were makers acting in concert. Section 111 does not extend to commercial copying by Optus for subscribers; it only covers individuals making copies for private and domestic use. Therefore, Optus was liable for copyright infringement and could not rely on the s 111 exception.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • ['The appeal be allowed.' 'The declarations and orders 1 to 5 made by the primary judge be set aside.' 'The respective appellants bring in draft minutes of consequential orders on or before 4 May 2012 to give effect to these reasons.']