<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR>Legal battle between Net start-up and MediaCorp
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><TR>RecordTV sues over 'unjustifiable threats'; MediaCorp counter-sues for 'copyright violation' </TR><!-- Author --><TR><TD class="padlrt8 georgia11 darkgrey bold" colSpan=2>By Selina Lum
</TD></TR><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->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.
RecordTV director Carlos Fernandes yesterday told the court the valuation came from investors in his company.
If it wins its suit, a separate hearing will be held to assess damages.
MediaCorp is being represented by Senior Counsel Davinder Singh, Mr Dedar Singh Gill and Mr Paul Teo.
RecordTV's lawyers, setting out their case, said in their opening statement that under the law, TV audiences can record free-to-air TV broadcasts for their private use.
A user can do so with a video cassette recorder, a digital video recorder, a set-top storage box such as StarHub's HubStation, or a personal computer.
RecordTV is merely an alternative to these traditional recording methods, its lawyers said. It essentially works like a digital video recorder, except that recordings are stored outside the user's premises. The question for the court to decide, RecordTV's lawyers contended, is who made the recording - RecordTV or the user?
In their opening statement, MediaCorp's lawyers accused RecordTV of quietly changing its system after last August in a bid to deceive the court.
Initially, only a single recording was made, no matter how many users asked for a particular programme. After the tweak, as many recordings of a programme were made as there were requests for it.
Mr Fernandes, who took the stand yesterday, is the start-up's sole witness.
Under questioning by Mr Davinder Singh, he said RecordTV started out as a free service, but that the company would eventually make money from subscription, licensing the recording software to other countries and from advertising.
Noting that Mr Fernandes bought the software from RecordTV USA, Mr Singh asked how he could consider RecordTV a 'new' or 'innovative' idea if it had been in use since 2000.
Mr Fernandes replied that modifications were made, namely, to introduce geographical restrictions to Singapore programmes and a security feature.
RecordTV's site has been inaccessible for the last few days.
[email protected]
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><TR>RecordTV sues over 'unjustifiable threats'; MediaCorp counter-sues for 'copyright violation' </TR><!-- Author --><TR><TD class="padlrt8 georgia11 darkgrey bold" colSpan=2>By Selina Lum
</TD></TR><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->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.
RecordTV director Carlos Fernandes yesterday told the court the valuation came from investors in his company.
If it wins its suit, a separate hearing will be held to assess damages.
MediaCorp is being represented by Senior Counsel Davinder Singh, Mr Dedar Singh Gill and Mr Paul Teo.
RecordTV's lawyers, setting out their case, said in their opening statement that under the law, TV audiences can record free-to-air TV broadcasts for their private use.
A user can do so with a video cassette recorder, a digital video recorder, a set-top storage box such as StarHub's HubStation, or a personal computer.
RecordTV is merely an alternative to these traditional recording methods, its lawyers said. It essentially works like a digital video recorder, except that recordings are stored outside the user's premises. The question for the court to decide, RecordTV's lawyers contended, is who made the recording - RecordTV or the user?
In their opening statement, MediaCorp's lawyers accused RecordTV of quietly changing its system after last August in a bid to deceive the court.
Initially, only a single recording was made, no matter how many users asked for a particular programme. After the tweak, as many recordings of a programme were made as there were requests for it.
Mr Fernandes, who took the stand yesterday, is the start-up's sole witness.
Under questioning by Mr Davinder Singh, he said RecordTV started out as a free service, but that the company would eventually make money from subscription, licensing the recording software to other countries and from advertising.
Noting that Mr Fernandes bought the software from RecordTV USA, Mr Singh asked how he could consider RecordTV a 'new' or 'innovative' idea if it had been in use since 2000.
Mr Fernandes replied that modifications were made, namely, to introduce geographical restrictions to Singapore programmes and a security feature.
RecordTV's site has been inaccessible for the last few days.
[email protected]
