Is this RecordTV the same with the one ZDNet Asia article mentioned in 24 May 2001? In that article, RecordTV (RecordTV.com, to be precise) was quoted to be selling its assets as a result of legal and financial troubles.
In the same article, RecordTV was said to have "settled a lawsuit with the Motion Picture Association of America that charged the company with copyright violations for recording movies and streaming them online without permission. RecordTV agreed to pay $50,000 and said it would not record or showcase any of the works owned by the big studios without first gaining permission".
If it's the same RecordTV company, I'm very confident MediaCorp will have a great day suing this defiant company...
An internet start-up is suing Singapore's largest broadcaster, MediaCorp, for millions of dollars in a case that places web-based recording services under the spotlight.
MediaCorp in turn claims RecordTV is infringing the copyright laws in its programmes and broadcasts by allowing users to record programmes shown on Channel 5, 8 and Channel NewsAsia.
At the crux of the matter is whether a company can offer recording services of free-to-air TV programmes to internet users who want to view them online. Is the company infringing copyright laws by doing so?
MediaCorp, represented by Senior Counsel Davinder Singh, alleges that RecordTV makes unauthorised copies of MediaCorp's programmes. RecordTV users, who have to be based in Singapore, then have up to 15 days to view the programmes.
RecordTV has been operating the internet-based service since July 2007. RecordTV's CEO, Carlos Fernandes said the service is just like having a video recorder at home.
The company is suing MediaCorp for groundless threats of copyright infringement. It said the copies of MediaCorp's programmes are simply made by the consumers and are for private use.
Day One of the trial on Monday saw Mr Singh alleging that RecordTV was out to make money from the service. Although free for now, Mr Singh said the company had a projected revenue of S$12.3 million from the time it started till now.
Streams of potential revenue included subscription, advertising and licensing fees.
Mr Fernandes agreed during cross-examination that RecordTV's business model does have the potential to "grow exponentially" and if taken to its fullest potential, the company could be worth more than S$30 million.
The company is seeking damages for loss of value or business potential amounting to S$23 million and a loss of S$7.5 million in funding among other things.
The defendants also challenged Mr Fernandes' credibility pointing to information he had sent to potential investors. Mr Fernandes agreed that some of these were "exaggerated and stretched" to "show the potential" of his company.
Mr Fernandes had claimed in emails to investors that RecordTV had 100,000 registered users. But it was found that these users were, in fact, not based in Singapore and were inherited from a US-based company that sold off its assets.
On RecordTV's accusation that MediaCorp is making a groundless threat to "stifle innovation and the growth of a new industry", Mr Singh said Mr Fernandes had in fact taken "false credit for the work of someone else" as the idea for a web-based recording service had been around in the US since the year 2000.
Mr Singh added: "These are serious allegations made of the defendant who is a national broadcaster, we are entitled to challenge and debunk them."
Record TV's website is currently temporarily unavailable. The trial continues on Tuesday.
From Channel NewsAsia, "Web-based recording services under spotlight as MediaCorp & RecordTV go to trial".
An Internet start-up here has taken national broadcaster MediaCorp to court for making purportedly groundless threats of legal action.
Hearing for RecordTV's pre-emptive lawsuit began in the High Court yesterday.
The case has its seeds in 2007. That July, the start-up launched its website which allowed registered users to ask for MediaCorp's free-to-air programmes to be recorded for viewing.
That month, MediaCorp's lawyers sent RecordTV a letter asking it to stop its service and threatening to sue it for copyright infringement.
RecordTV's lawyers wrote back, alleging that MediaCorp's move was 'calculated to stifle innovation and the growth of a new industry'.
Their letter added that the Media Development Authority had confirmed that RecordTV did not need a licence to run its service - then free - as it was neither a video-on-demand service nor a broadcaster.
MediaCorp sent a second lawyer's letter in September 2007. Days later, RecordTV fired the first salvo, suing MediaCorp for making unjustifiable threats.
MediaCorp has counter-sued the start-up for copyright infringement.
RecordTV, represented by Mr Koh Chia Ling and Mr Ang Kai Hsiang, is seeking a court order to stop MediaCorp from making any more of such threats. It is also seeking damages.
The current trial deals only with liability and not the quantum of damages, but RecordTV claims to have suffered $30.5 million in losses - $23 million in revenue and $7.5 million in loss of funding.
From Straits Times, "Start-up sues MediaCorp".
Web VCR service RecordTV.com said that it is selling its assets as a result of legal and financial troubles.
The Los Angeles-based company, which briefly offered consumers the ability to record TV shows and play them back online, said it plans to sell its intellectual property, including trademarks, domain names and technologies.
The announcement provides the latest cautionary tale for companies seeking to marry television and the Internet, a troubled relationship that has led to numerous legal tangles. Although RecordTV hoped to avoid courtroom battles, the company soon followed the path of Canadian start-up iCraveTV.com, which aimed to put live broadcast TV on the Web in 1999. iCraveTV was hit with massive lawsuits from U.S. and Canadian broadcasters. As a result, its efforts fell into ruins.
Last month, RecordTV settled a lawsuit with the Motion Picture Association of America that charged the company with copyright violations for recording movies and streaming them online without permission. RecordTV agreed to pay $50,000 and said it would not record or showcase any of the works owned by the big studios without first gaining permission.
"We were kind of in a catch-22," said RecordTV Chief Executive David Simon. "We couldn't raise funding because of the legal issues...but we couldn't also fight the lawsuit without raising funding."
Founded in November 1999, RecordTV set out to create a Web-based VCR through its technologies, dubbed One-Click Recording and Useit. One-Click Recording let people record content from local TV and basic cable programs and stream it via their computers; Useit is a digital rights management technology that prevents unauthorized copying and downloading.
Since its inception, the company has been plagued with controversy, drawing backlash from major movie and TV studios.
"We gave up and couldn't keep fighting," Simon said. "Maybe one of the movie studios itself who own the content and has the ability to do it and the rights to do it can do something with (our technologies)...but at this point, I guess I've got to give up the ghost."
From ZDNet Asia, "RecordTV.com faces a sell-off".
Update on 01/07: See what Day 3 of the trial reveals...
Day 3 of the trial between Singapore's largest broadcaster MediaCorp and an internet start-up company threw up the issue of just who is the maker of the copies of MediaCorp's free-to-air programmes available to users of RecordTV's website.
RecordTV said it makes the copies on behalf of registered users who are simply recording the programmes for their own use. However, MediaCorp said it is RecordTV which makes copies of its programmes and not the user.
RecordTV is suing MediaCorp for millions of dollars for "groundless threats" of copyright infringement. MediaCorp, in turn, claims RecordTV is infringing the copyright in its programmes and broadcasts on Channel 5, 8 and Channel NewsAsia.
RecordTV's CEO, Carlos Fernandes, maintains that the service he offers functions like a video recorder at home. He said it is the user that makes the recording of a programme and not RecordTV.
So in RecordTV's case, it is not the company that makes the copies of MediaCorp's programmes, but the registered user who requests for the copy to be made.
MediaCorp, represented by Senior Counsel Davinder Singh, shot down this argument. He said the "request remains merely a request" because the user has "no control over what he asks for".
Mr Singh said RecordTV controls the recording system. For example, the company can choose to shut down the system at any time and choose not to allow a user to playback the recording.
A RecordTV copy of Channel NewsAsia's "Amazing Asia" programme was played in court as evidence. It showed that the system had recorded 26 minutes worth of programming although "Amazing Asia" was only five minutes long.
In cross-examination, Mr Singh alleged that based on RecordTV's patent application, which had been disclosed in court on Tuesday, the system could be modified to be able to stretch or shorten the actual recording time to allow for advertisements to be inserted in between programmes.
Mr Singh said: "You (Mr Fernandes) say that the shows are recorded on behalf of users. That is not so. Users can only express the wish to watch a particular show, but what he gets depends on the system," he said.
Mr Fernandes agreed, although he added that the wrong recording timings were the result of a "system malfunction".
It also emerged that Mr Fernandes had made wholesale copies of the recorded programmes without informing the defendants or the court. The recordings of these TV programmes were back-up copies and files which would otherwise be erased during normal operations.
Mr Fernandes had said these were back-up copies for the "purpose of discovery" during trial. However, the recordings were never submitted for discovery.
Mr Singh alleged that the back-up copies were made for the purpose of creating a library of MediaCorp's programmes, which could later be used for commercial purposes such as offering Video-on-Demand.
Mr Singh said: "What has been happening on the quiet is you have been making additional copies in full knowledge that this case is all about whether copies can be made and yet suppressed that fact from this court.
"So instead of only a service where users request the recording before its broadcast and can only watch it 15 days after, you now have a library which people who want to watch may be persuaded to pay to watch for an indefinite period."
During re-examination by his lawyer, Ang Kai Hsiang, Mr Fernandes explained the social objectives of RecordTV.
He said Singaporeans are not watching TV that they are paying for and he described his service as helping consumers gain "utility from this MediaCorp content that they would otherwise not see, maybe not even hear of".
He added RecordTV has not made any revenue so far, although he pointed out, that is not to say it will not make money in future.
The trial continues.
From Channel NewsAsia, "RecordTV controls its web recording system, says MediaCorp in trial".
Update on 03/07: We'll soon be able to know the outcome of this case. Who shall win? MediaCorp or RecordTV?
The civil suit between RecordTV and MediaCorp drew to a close on Friday after a five-day hearing.
Among those on the stand was MediaCorp's senior vice-president for Network Programming and Promotions, Khiew Voon Kwang.
He told the court that the two "cease and desist" letters sent to RecordTV should not be viewed as threats as they "merely stated the consequences" of alleged copyright infringements.
Mr Khiew agreed with RecordTV lawyer Koh Chia Ling's suggestion that legal proceedings was one of the consequences.
RecordTV, which provides an online facility to record television broadcasts, had sued MediaCorp for making "groundless threats" of copyright infringements.
The two "cease and desist" letters were sent on July 24 and September 21, 2007, after consultations with MediaCorp's in-house counsel and external law firms.
The second letter gave RecordTV till September 28, 2007, to comply. But RecordTV "pre-emptively" commenced the current proceedings. MediaCorp responded by filing a counterclaim, alleging copyright infringements.
When asked by MediaCorp's lawyer how the alleged copyright infringements were committed, Mr Khiew said RecordTV made unauthorised copies of MediaCorp's free-to-air television broadcasts and films.
Two other witnesses were also called on Friday. MediaCorp News vice-president for corporate services Han Chuan Quee had submitted her affidavit of evidence on the subsistence and ownership of copyright for the company's films.
She was not cross-examined on the subsistence and ownership issues.
The other witness, private investigator Wilfred Nathan – who was hired by MediaCorp – testified on investigations conducted on RecordTV's website.
Mr Nathan's company had recorded six programmes in October 2007 using RecordTV's website.
Both sides will return to court on Monday as MediaCorp wants to amend its counterclaim.
This is after RecordTV's managing director Carlos Fernandes revealed for the first time during his testimony earlier this week that the company had made back-up copies of MediaCorp's television programmes.
Lawyers for both companies will then file written submissions, with the judge giving his judgement at a later date.
From Channel NewsAsia, "Civil suit between MediaCorp, RecordTV draws to an end".
Update on 21/12: The verdict is out and the winner is MediaCorp!
Singapore multi-media company MediaCorp has succeeded in its counter claims of copyright infringement against Internet start-up RecordTV.
The company was held by the High Court to have infringed copyright laws by allowing users to record programmes shown on MediaCorp's Channel 5, Channel 8 and Channel NewsAsia.
RecordTV had initially sued MediaCorp for millions of dollars for groundless threats of copyright infringement.
In giving his decision on Monday, High Court Judge Andrew Ang said MediaCorp had made out its case against RecordTV and he will issue his grounds of decision shortly.
Justice Ang also ruled that damages in favour of MediaCorp would be assessed by the Registrar.
Responding to the judgement, MediaCorp's deputy CEO for TV, Chang Long Jong, said the broadcaster was delighted with the verdict. It is also an important precedent for intellectual property owners operating in the new media space.
Mr Chang said as Singapore's national broadcaster and Southeast Asia's largest content producer, MediaCorp is proud of the pivotal role it plays in nation building and community cohesion through its programmes.
The court's ruling is affirmation for MediaCorp to continue to produce quality programmes that will entertain, educate and inform viewers.
From Channel NewsAsia, "MediaCorp wins counter claims of copyright infringement against RecordTV".
Update on 01/12/10: it's unbelievable but MediaCorp is reported to lose its suit?!?!
A SMALL start-up offering an online service that allowed consumers to watch national broadcaster MediaCorp's programmes online will be able to resume service, after the Court of Appeal ruled in its favour.
The decision, which is a stunning reversal of a High Court ruling last year, also sets precedents here in the controversial intersection between copyright and online media.
The long-running case began in 2007 when MediaCorp sent the start-up, RecordTV, letters demanding that it halt its free service - which allows consumers to record the broadcaster's free-to-air television shows and watch them online at a later time.
MediaCorp had yet to sue for any copyright infringement then, but RecordTV decided to launch a pre-emptive strike, suing MediaCorp first on grounds that these threats were 'groundless'.
It argued then that the letters dampened consumer interest in the service, and also crimped its ability to raise funds from investors.
The case, which remains the only reported one of this nature here, was heard in the High Court last year and ended in a defeat for RecordTV - with Justice Andrew Ang ruling against it.
From Straits Times, "MediaCorp loses suit".
