RecordTV v MediaCorp: Copyright Infringement, Groundless Threats, and Time-Shifting Technology
RecordTV Pte Ltd appealed against the High Court's decision dismissing its claim against MediaCorp TV Singapore Pte Ltd and others for making groundless threats to bring legal proceedings for copyright infringement. MediaCorp had counterclaimed that RecordTV infringed its copyright by allowing users to record MediaCorp's free-to-air broadcasts using an Internet-based digital video recorder (iDVR). The Court of Appeal allowed RecordTV's appeal, finding that RecordTV did not copy or communicate the MediaCorp shows to the public, nor did it authorize users to do so, thus rendering MediaCorp's threats unjustifiable.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed
1.3 Case Type
Intellectual Property
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Court of Appeal allowed RecordTV's appeal, finding MediaCorp's threats of copyright infringement action unjustifiable. The case concerned copyright law, time-shifting, and technological innovation.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RecordTV Pte Ltd | Appellant | Corporation | Appeal Allowed | Won | |
| MediaCorp TV Singapore Pte Ltd | Respondent | Corporation | Threats to bring an action for copyright infringement are unjustifiable | Lost | |
| MediaCorp TV12 Singapore Pte Ltd | Respondent | Corporation | Threats to bring an action for copyright infringement are unjustifiable | Lost | |
| MediaCorp News Pte Ltd | Respondent | Corporation | Threats to bring an action for copyright infringement are unjustifiable | Lost | |
| MediaCorp Studios Pte Ltd | Respondent | Corporation | Threats to bring an action for copyright infringement are unjustifiable | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chan Sek Keong | Chief Justice | No |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| V K Rajah | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- RecordTV operated an Internet-based service allowing registered users to record MediaCorp's free-to-air broadcasts.
- RecordTV's iDVR functioned like a traditional DVR, allowing users to select, record, play back, and delete programs.
- Recordings were made at RecordTV's premises, with users operating the iDVR remotely.
- MediaCorp alleged RecordTV's iDVR service infringed its copyright in its free-to-air broadcasts.
- RecordTV commenced an action against MediaCorp for making groundless threats of legal proceedings.
- MediaCorp counterclaimed for copyright infringement.
- Access to the iDVR was restricted to users legally entitled to view and record the MediaCorp shows.
5. Formal Citations
- RecordTV Pte Ltd v MediaCorp TV Singapore Pte Ltd and others, Civil Appeal No 6 of 2010, [2010] SGCA 43
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| RecordTV introduced its time-shifting service via iDVR. | |
| RecordTV's iDVR operated in 'Mixed' mode for Channels 5 and 8, and in 'Multiple Copy' mode for Channel NewsAsia. | |
| RecordTV's iDVR was reconfigured to operate solely in 'Multiple Copy' mode for all channels. | |
| Appellant’s Core Bundle of Documents dated. | |
| Report by Assoc Prof Roger Zimmermann dated. | |
| Respondents’ Case dated. | |
| MediaCorp’s Supplemental Core Bundle dated. | |
| Judgment reserved. | |
| Court of Appeal delivered its decision. |
7. Legal Issues
- Copyright Infringement
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal found that RecordTV did not infringe MediaCorp's copyright by copying or communicating the MediaCorp shows to the public, nor did it authorize users to do so.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Copying
- Communication to the public
- Authorisation of copyright infringement
- Groundless Threats of Legal Proceedings
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal found that MediaCorp's threats to bring an action for copyright infringement against RecordTV were unjustifiable.
- Category: Procedural
- Authorisation of Copyright Infringement
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal found that RecordTV did not authorise the Registered Users to do in Singapore any act comprised in MediaCorp’s copyright in the MediaCorp shows.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Declaration that the threats are unjustifiable
- Injunction against the continuance of the threats
- Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Copyright Infringement
- Groundless Threats of Legal Proceedings
10. Practice Areas
- Copyright Infringement
- Intellectual Property Litigation
11. Industries
- Media
- Telecommunications
- Technology
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RecordTV Pte Ltd v MediaCorp TV Singapore Pte Ltd and others | High Court | Yes | [2010] 2 SLR 152 | Singapore | Cited as the decision from which the appeal arose and for the Judge's detailed reasons. |
| The Cartoon Network LP, LLLP v CSC Holdings, Inc | US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit | Yes | 536 F 3d 121 (2nd Cir, 2008) | United States | Cited for its interpretational and policy approach regarding remote-storage digital video recording services and copyright infringement. |
| Ong Seow Pheng and others v Lotus Development Corp and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1997] 2 SLR(R) 113 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of 'authorise' in the context of copyright infringement. |
| ABKCO Music & Records Inc v Music Collection International Limited and Another | Unspecified | Yes | [1995] RPC 657 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that 'authorising' is a tort only if the act authorised is an act restricted by the copyright. |
| Ash v. Hutchinson and Co. (Publishers) Ltd. | Unspecified | Yes | [1936] Ch. 489 | United Kingdom | Cited as authority that the doing of an act restricted by copyright and its authorisation are separate torts. |
| The University of New South Wales v Moorhouse and another | High Court | Yes | (1975) 133 CLR 1 | Australia | Cited for the principle that a person cannot be said to authorize an infringement of copyright unless he has some power to prevent it. |
| Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Limited (No 3) | Federal Court of Australia | Yes | [2010] FCA 24 | Australia | Cited for recognizing the obligation to consider the extent of the alleged authorizer's power to prevent the act concerned. |
| CBS Inc and Another v Ames Records & Tapes Ltd | Unspecified | Yes | [1982] Ch 91 | United Kingdom | Cited as an English case that takes into account the first authorisation liability factor. |
| CBS Songs Ltd and Others v Amstrad Consumer Electronics Plc and Another | House of Lords | Yes | [1988] AC 1013 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that without the power to control how its tape-recording machines were used after they were sold, Amstrad could not be held liable for authorising copyright infringement. |
| Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation and others v Newzbin Limited | High Court of Justice | Yes | [2010] EWHC 608 (Ch) | United Kingdom | Cited as an English case that takes into consideration the first authorisation liability factor when deliberating on authorisation liability. |
| Cooper v Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd | Unspecified | Yes | (2006) 237 ALR 714 | Australia | Cited for the consideration of whether the alleged authoriser took any other reasonable steps to prevent or avoid the doing of the infringing act. |
| Nationwide News Pty Ltd and Others v Copyright Agency Ltd | Unspecified | Yes | (1996) 136 ALR 273 | Australia | Cited for the principle that a person does not authorise an infringement merely because he or she knows that another person might infringe the copyright and takes no step to prevent the infringement. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Copyright Act (Cap 63, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Internet-based digital video recorder (iDVR)
- Time-shifting
- Groundless threats
- Copyright infringement
- Communication to the public
- Authorisation
- Registered Users
- Free-to-air broadcasts
- Volitional acts
- Single Instance Storage (SIS)
- Multiple Copy
- Streaming
15.2 Keywords
- Copyright
- Infringement
- Time-shifting
- iDVR
- MediaCorp
- RecordTV
- Groundless threats
- Singapore
- Technology
- Innovation
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Copyrights | 90 |
| Commercial Litigation | 10 |
| Administrative Law | 5 |
16. Subjects
- Copyright
- Telecommunications
- Technology
- Media Law