Metal Gear Solid fans on the PS Vita will be pleased to know that the Metal Gear Solid HD Collection – essentially a remake of previous games, just now in HD and now portable – is coming to Australia on July 5.

The game will take full advantage of the touchscreen and touchpad on the Vita, with gamers zooming in to the game’s cut-scenes, peek around corners, interrogate enemies, cycle through weapons and perform quick actions with their knives.

Players can also transfer save data from the PS3 version of the HD Collection so they can start at where they left off from the PS3 – thanks to the Transfarring system made by Kojima Productions.

No pricing has been announced.

Nokia’s Lumia 900 and Lumia 610 heading to Australia, as confirmed by Nokia. Both phones come just months after their sister phones, the Lumia 800 and 710, were launched in Australia – and surprisingly, Nokia Australia took a few months to get the Lumia 900 and Lumia 610 out the door to Australians. Both phones were only announced back in February.

The Lumia 900 is heading to Optus, and will be $0 upfront on its $60 Optus plan. This is a stark difference to the Lumia 800, which is currently available on all carriers. The phone, however, can still be purchased without a contract for $699 (still far cheaper than the iPhone 4S).

The Lumia 900, which has a large 4.3-inch display and a 1.4GHz processor, is not the LTE version that is on AT&T’s network, but rather the high-speed 3G version announced back in February. The phone also features an 8-megapixel camera with dual LED flash and Carl Zeiss optics, and a 1-megapixel front-facing camera.

The Lumia 610, labelled as the “most affordable” Windows Phone will be available via retail channels in July for a price tag of $329. It will be also available via carriers Boost Mobile in June, and Vodafone in July. No pricing details have been announced by Nokia, or the two carriers. The phone will have 8GB of storage, 5-megapixel camera, a 3.7-inch display and runs on a cheaper processor.

And I’ve said before:

But with that price tag, it’ll make a good pre-paid phone, or a phone if you simply want to try Windows Phone without signing a contract and if you have money to throw around (and if you don’t like it, you can simply return it within 14 days – win-win!)

GAME Australia’s administrators PwC has outlined what will happen during its period of administration. It has said that all trade will continue, and all existing gift cards will be honoured. If you have pre-orders, however, you’ll have to wait and see.

“We are still working to clarify the status of pre-orders. At this stage we are intending on honouring certain pre-orders placed on the Diablo III and Max Payne new releases.We will provide clarity on these and other new releases in due course,” its advisory said.

“We are not able to refund customer deposits and customers who have paid a deposit for a pre-ordered item at this stage should continue to monitor the website for further updates.”

On gift cards, it will honour all commitments for most products – but can only be used for 25% of the total price. Meaning that if you have a $15 gift card, then you have to spend at least $60 to redeem it. At least they are honouring it, unlike Borders when it shut down and filed for receivership. Customers are unable to claim refunds, but can claim – if they don’t want to follow the above criteria – can fill out a form. No new gift cards will be issued.

The stores will operate as usual until PwC get a clearer picture of what is the current state of GAME Australia. However, trade-ins and returns will be rejected.

If you work at GAME or know anyone who works for GAME, feel free to contact us: tips (at) techgeek.com.au. Anonymity will be guaranteed.

GAME Australia’s franchise operator has gone into administration, just months after its UK counterpart also filed to be taken under receivership. News of the company’s demise was broken by Kotaku Australia, and filings with ASIC have also confirmed the reports.

ASIC’s filings note that GAME Australia’s owners – TGW Pty Ltd – filed today a document of “Notification of Appt of Administrator Under S.436a, 436b, 436c, 436e(4), 449b, 449c(1), 449c(4) or 449(6) (505U)”. Kotaku also notes that emails were sent to all its stores across Australia about the latest developments, after the company had trouble getting Diablo 3 into stores.

As reported by many, it is said that PriceWaterhouseCoopers will be the administrator of the company.

GAME Australia’s demise follows its UK counterpart, who also faced similar problems. Lower sales and unable to secure products saw GAME in the UK going into administration. New owners were soon brought in, and are hoping to turn GAME back into profit.

However while it has been cited that digital distribution of games that saw the demise of GAME, it might be a different case in Australia. I think it could be lower sales due to strong competitors in Australia with JB Hi-Fi and EB Games, and games being brought overseas since the regions in Europe and Australia are essentially the same (PAL).

However, that’s not to say that digital distribution did not have an impact on its bottom line – it did, but also to many other game stores. Especially with many games now being offered via Xbox Live, Steam or Origin – just to name a few. In addition, there has been a rise with small, arcade-like games with mobile devices or on your Xbox 360 and PS3 – which are only offered in those stores, rather than physical retail stores.

We’ll keep you updated on what is happening with GAME Australia.

Update: The following is a statement from PwC in relation to GAME Australia

PwC partners Kate Warwick and Greg Hall have been appointed Voluntary Administrators of TGW Pty Limited – trading as GAME.

GAME is a retailer of video games, games consoles and PC software & accessories and operates 92 stores across Australia, employing c.500 staff.

TGW Pty Limited is a subsidiary of The GAME Group Plc, a UK public company which was placed into administration on 26 March 2012.

Kate Warwick, PwC partner, said, “Initially we will continue to trade all stores, operating these on as close to a ‘business as usual’ mode as possible whilst we get a clearer understanding of the current state of the business and actively pursue options to secure its future.”

Ms. Warwick added “Prior to our appointment, the company’s management had been exploring interest in investing in the business with a number of parties and we will look to see whether this interest can be harnessed to continue the business or part of it through the voluntary administration process.”

TGW Pty Limited’s UK based parent company faced serious cash flow and profit issues. “While we are still investigating the causes behind the Australian administration; the impact of the administration of its parent, an ambitious national roll-out combined with the current soft retail environment appear to be key factors,” said Ms. Warwick.

Further updates will be made to creditors as soon as more information becomes available.

Ms. Warwick also noted that the company’s customers hold various claims against the company under loyalty cards, gift cards and vouchers. Ms. Warwick said “We are working on schemes aimed at giving customers some return on these claims if they are used to make additional purchases.” Further details will be available to customers on-line or in store from appointment.

Apple has quietly removed any mention of 4G’s support on the iPad in its promotional material and in its store in several countries, including Australia, after regulators complained that suggesting that it has the feature when it doesn’t even work in the country is a tad misleading.

It has replaced the name of its ‘Wi-Fi + 4G’ model to the ‘Wi-Fi + Cellular’. In Australia, it has also made sure to say that “It is not compatible with current 4G LTE networks and WiMAX networks”. The move is more likely to appease consumer watchdog bodies Australia’s ACCC and UK’s Advertisement Standards Authority – with the ACCC already having a legal battle over its use of 4G in promotional material.

It is in fact true that the iPad does support 4G. However, it only supports the bands that Verizon, AT&T and some Canadian mobile operators have chosen to serve 4G through. It does not support ones used in Europe and Australia – meaning that both Optus and Telstra will not be able to push through their 4G services through the iPad (unless you use methods to work around that problem, such as creating a Wi-Fi hotspot).

But 4G is such a tricky term to grapple around – there are two definitions, a more technical definition and a marketing definition. Australia’s LTE networks, and most 4G networks around the world, do not fit within the technical definition of 4G, outlined by an international body called the ITU. However, marketing it as 4G is allowed because no one decided to follow the ITU’s more strict definition on what 4G services are.

According to ZDNet Australia, the ACCC’s case against Apple is to go ahead next month, but it could be Apple’s way in trying to settle out of court.

Image: Steve Johnson/Flickr (Creative Commons)

The US Postal Service is about to make those who live outside the US that wants an iPad or an Amazon Kindle a bit more expensive after it has decided to ban all international shipments that has lithium ion batteries – which are present in many electronics.

This means that those who want to get video cameras, GPS devices, the aforementioned iPad and Kindles, smartphones, laptops, electric shavers, MP3 players and scanners – among others which can be found below (via Fast Company) – from the US to their home in, let’s say, Australia will now have to use expensive shipping services from UPS, DHL and FedEx.

However, it would be far more quicker as well.

The USPS has decided to stop shipments after fears of the batteries exploding or catch fire under certain conditions – but that is only if it is fully charged, or improperly stored or packed. Many electronics companies tend to ship products with little charge so the safety risk is lowered.

Another reason for the ban was because of international mail rules do not permit lithium batteries. However, the USPS notes:

International standards have recently been the subject of discussion by the International Civil Aviation Organiza­tion (ICAO) and the Universal Postal Union (UPU), and the Postal Service anticipates that on January 1, 2013, cus­tomers will be able to mail specific quantities of lithium bat­teries internationally (including to and from an APO, FPO, or DPO location) when the batteries are properly installed in the personal electronic devices they are intended to operate.

However, according to Fast Company, the other major postal service that has similar restrictions on lithium batteries is us – Australia Post. The UK’s Royal Mail lets you ship smartphones, Kindles and iPads while not letting you ship computer batteries; while Germany’s Bundespost lets you ship products with lithium batteries within their safety requirements. Japan’s own mail service also let you ship lithium batteries – but only via the sea.

For Australians, this is more bad news for online shopping. The Age is reporting that Australians will have to pay more for fashion brands with local importers reaching agreements with international brands to stop their clothes being sold to Australians – and just only Australians. So basically, as they have put it, “it means shoppers will no longer be able to save up to 50 percent by buying labels from overseas”.

Half a dozen distributors have reached agreements to set prices or even limit the supply online to Australians. In some cases, it has resulted in geoblocking.

But if there is a will, there will be a way to circumvent this restriction.

BUDGET 2012: Little things tend to be disregarded when we have major projects announced. However, hidden in the budget is that the Bureau of Meteorology will soon have ads on its website for a one-year trial.

“The trial will assist the Government to determine the long‑term feasibility of advertising, potential revenue and the level of public acceptance,” budget papers say. “Revenue from the trial will contribute to meet the costs of the services provided by the Bureau.”

“The Bureau’s website is one of the top ten visited websites in Australia, with more than 3.3 billion page views recorded in 2011,” it also added.

Currently, SBS is the only government service that has advertising – but it is allowed to do so, mainly because it supplements its government funding (especially since it is mandated to be a multicultural broadcaster).

One positive is that online advertising could be a way to partially fund certain parts of the government. But should the Bureau of Meteorology have ads?

The BBC has advertising, despite being funded by a licence fee. However, this affects only international viewers, rather than domestic. A similar thing could be done by the ABC, if it really, really wants to do so. But the Bureau of Meteorology is predominantly used by Australians not internationally, so its a big ask to accept a government website to have ads.

Photo: Kainet/Flickr (Creative Commons)

BUDGET 2012: The budget has revealed the cost of cancelling the $36 billion National Broadband Network would see a $1.8 billion black hole -  something that the Coalition needs to accommodate in its budgets if it does go through and scrap the entire project.

This stems from an agreement between NBN Co and the Australian Government that sees the government “in the event of a termination of the NBN roll out, to provide sufficient funds to NBN Co to meet its direct costs arising from the termination.”

“As of 31 March 2012, NBN Co’s termination liabilities were estimated at $1.8 billion,” according to budget papers.

As well, the Government could owe Telstra up to $500 million if the NBN is cancelled. This comes after an $11 billion agreement with the telco that gave it access to its infrastructure – including its ducts, pipes and exchanges – and a deal to migrate its customers over to the NBN. Currently, the budget says that this is at $209 million.

The Coalition have said that they would renegotiate the deal to scale it back to a fibre-to-the-node network, as opposed to the fibre-to-the-home it is being built as. The difference is that the current system will put a fibre connection to your home, as opposed to the fibre-to-the-node where it will simply create a fibre network with the exchanges, then the standard copper wire from your nearest exchange to your home.

BUDGET 2012: SBS is about to get $158.1 million over five years in funding – something long overdue after only getting a measly $20 million three years ago – which also includes plans to launch a brand new digital channel for Indigenous Australians,

“This represents the most significant funding boost SBS has ever had, and will ensure SBS can continue to provide a unique broadcasting service that includes comprehensive television, radio and online services,” Senator Stephen Conroy, Communications Minister, said in a statement.

“Like other broadcasters, SBS operates in a rapidly changing broadcasting landscape, which is being affected by the introduction of digital multi-channels, new digital platforms, and changing audience expectations.”

$95.2 million of the additional funding will be given straight to SBS to “maintain the quality and delivery of existing services [and]… allows the SBS to increase expenditure on commissioned and acquired content,” according to budget papers.

Another $63 million will be given to fund a new digital channel that will provide a new Indigenous television service. This service will essentially duplicate the National Indigenous Television service, which is currently on satellite and on pay television. Both SBS and NITV have been in discussions on what to do because of the similarities of the two services.

The channel is expected to be launched in the second half of 2012, and will also be available on satellite on VAST.

Optus and Vodafone have announced an expansion of its mobile network joint venture agreement that will see both sides access additional sites, with Optus claiming wider coverage to nearly 1,000 more towers across Australia.

The new deal will see more 3G, and now 4G coverage, throughout the major capital cities on the mainland, in addition to Geelong, the Central Coast and Gold Coast; and will also see Optus becoming the ‘exclusive’ roaming partner in regional cities – replacing Telstra in many areas, after its deal ended. Also included as reasons of its extension were “cost efficiencies” – which, for Optus, could be a pretty significant reason why the telco is shedding 750 jobs.

“Optus is committed to delivering what matters most to our customers – a network that strives to provide better services every day,” the Chief Executive Officer of SingTel’s Consumer Australia division – which is essentially Optus – said in a statement.

“We will bring quicker data speeds, better call quality and improved performance in more places to ensure Optus customers stay closer to family and friends though the latest mobile services,” he added.

We’ll see – and hopefully, this means that they don’t continue pushing that femtocell device.

The agreement is subject to approval by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.

Image: dailyinvention/Flickr (Creative Commons)

I’m looking forward to the next few days.

The Convergence Review’s key recommendation to introduce a new body to “regulate” the activities of our major 15 media operators – including newspapers – is significant.

I expect the major media ownership groups, particularly those primarily invested in newspapers, will vehemently oppose this move given newspapers have been the one part of the media landscape that has, to date, operated with only the self-regulatory “toothless tiger” of the Australian Press Council to monitor their quality.

To a large extent this recommendation is an expected outcome given the changing nature of the media industry and the convergence that has occurred. We are overdue for a body that can regulate all news media, not just broadcast as the Australian Communications and Media Authority has done.

And as the review correctly points out, despite the great deal of hype about the diversity that new technology offers, in fact it is just the media through which the information is received that is changing, not the source or content.

The review report notes: “News and commentary consumed by Australians across all platforms is still overwhelmingly provided by the news outlets long familiar to Australians. What has changed most dramatically is how Australians access their news — the source largely remains the same. For example, someone may read a news story on Facebook, but the originator of the article is a newspaper publisher.”

Another issue which will also feed the controversy stands out. The recommendation to introduce a “public interest test” for any future media acquisitions and mergers.

The issue will further raise the ire (and indeed already has) of major media ownership groups. This recommendation was alluded to in the Review Committee’s interim report released in December so has already attracted some comment.

Media owners have always, in response to inquiry recommendations, run campaigns against any suggestion that their right to carry out their business as and how they see fit should be tampered with.

Their key complaint this time, suggested in News Ltd’s submission to the Convergence Review, is that the application of a public interest “test” may be difficult to immediately define – in News Ltd’s words, the proposed public interest test is “flawed, entirely subjective, impossibly imprecise, vague and lacking in objective rigour”.

Too often, news media companies use the “public interest” claim when it suits them – when they discover an MP leaving a brothel late at night for example; or when they get wind that an ex-footballer might be having an extra-marital affair. Exposing such information is, apparently, “in the public interest”. It is also, of course, in their own commercial interests.

News Ltd stands by its coverage in recent years, for example, of the Brisbane Courier-Mail’s infamous pursuit of historian Manning Clark as a communist; and also of the organisation’s publication of photographs of Pauline Hanson which have since been proven (and it was obvious at the time), to be false.

These were great commercial decisions, as they spiked News Ltd’s newspaper sales – but terribly flawed, entirely subjective, impossibly imprecise, and certainly lacking in objective rigour.

These incidents raised significant questions about news media standards, but also about the public interest and what it comprises. The introduction of a public interest test on mergers will trigger significant discussion about this very issue.

The related debate about the establishment of a large regulator to cover all media platforms will also give rise to a more careful consideration of this most crucial democratic issue – and will be well worth the cost of the Convergence Review.

As a final point, the Review identifies another key point that focuses on the desperate need for more local content and “community” voices, something delivered increasingly by not-for-profit community and public broadcasters.

If we need one reminder of the need for a strong not-for-profit media sector which prioritises local information and strong journalism over business concerns, the abandonment of rural and regional communities by commercial radio over the past 10-15 years is evidence enough.

As expected, the Convergence Review doesn’t go far enough. It does not recommend measures which would see a strong independent media emerge and take an important place in our mediascape.

It softly recommends community broadcasting have “access to funding to drive innovation” in delivery of radio and television on digital platforms but offers no substantial policy recommendations to properly support more concrete development of these important local media.

This should be the next step in reviving Australia’s public sphere.

The growth of the internet and the “convergence” of media forms may make cross-media ownership regulation less of a priority now, but it does not remove the need for our news media to provide the public with informed, rigorous, responsible, quality news and current affairs.

This can only be achieved with a broad-ranging and diverse news media sector which has an overriding responsibility to serve the public interest.

The Convergence Review’s suggestion for a new regulator encompassing all media, and the introduction of a public interest test, will go some way towards achieving this provided the legislation developed properly reflects the reality and aims of these recommendations.

We now have months to wait to see the government’s response to this important document which will shape Australian media structures and content into the future.

This article was originally published at The Conversation. Read the original article.

Image: espensorvik/Flickr (Creative Commons)

Buried in the Convergence Report is a plan that could enable Australian television to be more crowded than the 18 channels already available on digital. While ruling out the possibility of a fourth commercial network, the review wants to use the ‘sixth multiplex’ to be used to launch a number of new channels.

Currently, the ‘sixth multiplex’ has been “temporarily allocated” to the community channels in mainland state capital cities so they can broadcast in digital. It is also marred with numerous restrictions on what it can be used for.

“The Review has concluded that the sixth multiplex should not be allocated to create a full forth commercial television network operated by a single [company]. The review considers that allocating individual channel capacity to a range of providers will maximise diversity,” it noted.

It also said that current commercial broadcasters, the ABC and SBS should not be allowed to gain access to this multiplex.

But what should the government be looking for when allocating channel space? Well, the services should “not simply replicate services provided by the three existing commercial free-to-air television networks”; be original and distinctive and add to the “creative diversity” of the sector; and have a viable business model.

This technically could see some Foxtel channels launching on free-to-air. While FOX8 won’t be able to buy channel space – since they replicate commercial free-to-air television; BBC World News, CNN International and Sky News Australia being able to launch on free-to-air television if they want to compete with ABC News 24; among other potential niche broadcasters.

And, if you are a political nerd, Parliament – just saying, it would be much more accessible than Parliament’s own crappy system.

However, some people might not be able to see the new channels. It’s not because of location, but because of the technology used. The report notes, “The new communications regulator could consider requiring new services operating… to be transmitted from the outset in MPEG-4 format. Using the MPEG-4 format would almost double the number of multichannels available and enable more efficient use of spectrum.”

But while it does recognise MPEG-4 capable devices are not everywhere, most devices in use are MPEG-4 capable. It cities data from Broadcast Australia that said that from July 2004 to June 2011 that 63.9 percent of integrated televisions and HD set-top boxes were already capable, and in July 2011, nearly 91 percent of units sold were MPEG-4 capable.

Currently, digital channels are being broadcast using the MPEG-2 format. Internationally, it varies – some use MPEG-2 only for SD broadcasts and MPEG-4 for HD channels since they don’t take up much spectrum; while some use MPEG-4 or MPEG-2 for all stations. Though, if we do switch to MPEG-4 after the switchover, then you could potentially have your HD simulcast of the main channel back – according to Trevor Long.

The Government hasn’t made their call on whether it will fully implement or partially implement the review – so, the use of the ‘sixth multiplex’ might not go ahead. But, it is still something to consider of launching channels that broadcast more niche content, as opposed to constant ads like what’s on EXTRA and 4ME.

You can read the full report below.

Image: chispita_666/Flickr

Small bloggers and publishers have avoided being regulated in the Convergence Review, despite another inquiry wanting those to be part of a ‘News Media Council’ body that would regulate news content’s accuracy.

The ‘News Media Council’ body was supported by the Convergence Review. However, instead of being government-funded but independent of it – as called by the Finkelstein Report – it should be majority or fully funded by its members. In addition, the requirements (again called by the Finkelstein Report) of 15,000 hits per year for bloggers and more than 3000 copies for small publishers have been dismissed.

“The Review considers that this threshold would be far too low and would require a very resource-intensive complaints and enforcement system,” the Convergence Review noted.

The Convergence Review wants large news and commentary providers to be part of this new body – so publishers like Crikey could find themselves under the body, but The Kangaroo Court probably won’t (unless it’s audience is similar to Crikey in reach). However, also noted is that:

Major media organisations should be required to participate in any scheme regardless of platform and not be able to ‘opt out’.

That clause will make sure large media groups such as News Corporation, Fairfax Media, PBL Media, and Seven West Media are not allowed to leave the self-regulation body. This point is particularly important as Seven West Media left the Australian Press Council before the report was made public. In effect, the new body would force them to rejoin.

The report also said that the body is expected to have powers to sanction its members, and to “prominently and appropriately” publish its findings on relevant media platforms – i.e. print, television, online and radio. It should also have powers to refer it to the communications regulatory body if a member repeatedly breach rules, or refused to comply with its ruling.

You can read the full report below.

Image: Luc De Leeuw/Flickr (Creative Commons)

The Australian Government has released the full report of its Convergence Review – and for those who did not know what that was, it was to evaluate the future of Australia’s media and communications laws. Some of the key findings include a new regulatory framework for spectrum, media ownership and – as noted by a leak by The Australian – news standards.

“The Gillard Government decided to undertake the Convergence Review in recognition that our media and communications regulatory framework needs refreshing at a time of significant change,” Senator Stephen Conroy, the Communications Minister, said in a statement.

The full text of the report can be found below.

Image: Mark Pegrum/OzMark17 via Flickr (Creative Commons)

Apple and Microsoft, among other tech companies, have been called to Canberra to explain why Australians are being charged much more on software, music and games in comparison to other nations, according to a new report.

Wait, Parliament doing something? (Okay, that might not be fair, they have done some good work – such as the R18+ laws)

According to the Sydney Morning Herald, the Minister for Communications, Senator Stephen Conroy, has already signed off on a parliamentary inquiry that will examine the pricing policies of software and “other IT-related materials”. The exact terms of reference on the inquiry have not been finalised, but the price of e-books could be examined if any issues of price differences between Australia and other markets are raised.

Leading the charge for such an inquiry has been Ed Husic, a Labor MP in Sydney, who took issue with the “price discrimination” – citing Adobe’s pricing structure where a digital download for Photoshop CS5 Extended cost $999 in the US, but $1,671 in Australia.

Adobe hasn’t helped itself when it was revealed that the latest edition of Adobe’s Creative Suite programs would see Australians also being charged more – this is despite the fact that the Australian dollar is basically on parity with the United States dollar.

“From my perspective, the most commonsense approach would have been for the companies to set out in their own terms why they price their products in Australia differently from other parts of the world. Instead of doing that, IT vendors have not only remained mute, they keep aggravating Australian consumers,” he said in a parliamentary speech in March.

“Let us be clear about this: IT vendors are demonstrating they will price differently here because we will cop it or they think we will keep quiet about it.”

Talking to SMH, Choice’s spokeswoman Ingrid Just said that they welcomed the move.

“The excuses overseas technology companies used to justify the higher prices, such as the small size of the market, the cost of setting up support centres and the imposition of local taxes and duties, were not acceptable,” she said.

Well, if nothing is resolved, then we can all look forward in many Australians continuing to pirate the software that is overpriced. And trust me, if Australians are fed up of waiting for new series because broadcasters air them later than their American counterparts, or end up pulling them to air in the summer; then they’re sort of fed up with the overcharging as well.

Image: steakpinball/Flickr (Creative Commons)

The Federal Court has today overturned a previous decision that found Optus’ TV Now service not in breach of copyright by showing the matches on free-to-air on a short delay of two minutes. It now means that it will most likely go to the High Court for a final decision.

The three judges have noted two areas that the appeal will be looking at: first was who was the maker of the footage being recorded. The previous court decision allocated the maker to the subscriber to the Optus TV Now service – the appeal court, however, saw a different conclusion.

It said, “the maker was Optus or, in the alternative, it was Optus and the subscriber.”

“Optus could be said to be the maker in that the service it offered to, and did, supply a subscriber was to make and to make available to that person a recording of the football match he or she selected. Alternatively Optus and the subscriber could be said to be the maker for Copyright Act purposes as they acted in concert for the purpose of making a recording of the particular broadcast which the subscriber required to be made and of which he or she initiated the automated process by which copies were produced. In other words, they were jointly and severally responsible for the act of copying,” it continued.

The second point in contention was if Optus’ act constitutes as infringement, could Optus invoke the “private and domestic use” defence in the Copyright Act. The original judge did not rule due to his answer on the first question above. The appeal court found that if Optus was the maker – either alone or with the subscriber – it would not be able to use this defence.

Telstra and the AFL has welcomed the decision. A spokesman for Telstra said, “It’s vindication for Telstra and the sporting bodies who have negotiated content rights and what it means is the certainty for the content providers and sporting bodies in their incomes.”

The AFL‘s CEO Andrew Demetriou told 3AW that it is “a great win” and a sensible decision.

“Optus must now suspend offering a service they didn’t pay for,” he said. “[Telstra] charge $50 for the whole season, while Optus was trying to jump in and not pay for it.”

The landmark decision by the court – before it was overturned today – was seen by many media analysts as making multi-million (and for the AFL, billion) exclusivity rights to broadcast the games online and on television worthless. Telstra joined the lawsuit in order to protect its exclusive deal with the AFL and NRL.

The decision also saw calls for copyright reform – and with AFACT crying foul after the High Court rejected its appeal in its iiNet court case, we could potentially see the Government acting on those calls. And while copyright law should be updated to meet new technologies, it should go overboard like SOPA in the United States or force other companies to do the policing, as opposed to the judicial system.

Optus’ awaited 4G network is taking shape, with the telco announcing that it will start 4G coverage in the Newcastle and Hunter Valley regions from next week. This announcement comes after Telstra’s announcement that it will be expanding its 4G network to the region.

According to its media release, Optus will be offering these services for free to its customers residing in the areas. They will be used to provide feedback on the network’s performance and how will the devices work with Optus’ LTE network. Customers will be given 4G wireless dongles, while business customers will be getting mobile Wi-Fi adapters.

Following up from Newcastle will be the launch of 4G services in Sydney, Melbourne and Perth – using the spectrum bought by vividwireless (from Seven) in the middle of the year. The first half of next year will see services expand to Brisbane and Adelaide. As previously mentioned, Optus will be changing vividwireless’ 4G network from Wi-Max to LTE.

Newcastle’s 4G network will be on the 1800MHz spectrum band – which is also what Telstra is using for its own 4G network. Optus also owns the 2.3GHz and 700MHz bands in some areas as part of its acquisition of vividwireless.

As of now, Optus has no announced devices to run on the 4G network. Telstra already has a few, including a 4G version of the Samsung Galaxy S II and the HTC Velocity 4G. It is also rumoured to get the HTC Titan II, the first Windows Phone on 4G. Optus could potentially get some phones from HTC and Samsung – but more likely ZTE.

Speeds have also not been confirmed by Optus, only saying that the network would mean “customers can do more of the things they love; whether that’s uploading photos to Facebook more quickly, watching videos on YouTube and Vimeo, or streaming their favourite podcasts while on the move” – according to Gunther Ottendorfer, Optus Managing Director Networks said.

Image: steakpinball/Flickr (Creative Commons)

So, if you have been living under a rock, iiNet has won its three year long case against the movie industry, sparing itself being liable for any copyright infringement of movies and music by users on its network.

The High Court, in Perth, dismissed the case brought against iiNet by AFACT, saying in a summary, “The High Court held that the respondent, an internet service provider, had not authorised the infringement by its customers of the appellants’ copyright in commercially released films and television programs.”

This is the final blow to Hollywood – after the Federal Court, and its appeal failed last time. The High Court’s decision was a unanimous decision, according to the summary. It explains:

The Court observed that iiNet had no direct technical power to prevent its customers from using the BitTorrent system to infringe copyright in the appellants’ films. Rather, the extent of iiNet’s power to prevent its customers from infringing the appellants’ copyright was limited to an indirect power to terminate its contractual relationship with its customers. Further, the Court held that the information contained in the AFACT notices, as and when they were served, did not provide iiNet with a reasonable basis for sending warning notices to individual customers containing threats to suspend or terminate those customers’ accounts. For these reasons, the Court held that it could not be inferred from iiNet’s inactivity after receiving the AFACT notices that iiNet had authorised any act of infringement of copyright in the appellants’ films by its customers.

In other words: iiNet has no control over BitTorrent, unless it terminated its contract with customers. It also ruled that its notices provided by AFACT were not sufficient enough to send threats to suspend or terminate accounts.

iiNet is pleased with the news. iiNet’s Michael Malone said in a statement, “Today’s High Court five-nil ruling confirms that iiNet is not liable for ‘authorising’ the conduct of its customers who engaged in online copyright infringement.”

Talking to ZDNet Australia, managing director for AFACT Neil Gane said “The message is very clear: it is time for the government to act. The decision shows that Australian law has been left behind in overseas development in online copyright protection.”

iiNet has been awarded damages by the court, which could be up to $9 million.

Image: Shaun Greiner/Flickr (Creative Commons)

In a radio interview with 891 ABC Adelaide, South Australia’s Attorney-General John Rau has outlined his new classification laws, declaring that he will scrap not only the MA15+ rating, but the M15+ and PG ratings as well.

The proposal would see any game classified MA15+, M15, and PG-rated games move up to R18+ territory only in South Australia – where people over the age of 18 can buy the game legally.

SA Attorney-General John Rau

“I’ve now come to the conclusion that having two distinct ratings would make it easier for parents to decide what games are suitable for children,” he said in an interview with host Ashley Walsh. “It makes it clear what is child-safe and what is not.”

He said that he has had several consultations with parents and different organisations before coming to his conclusions to scrap three classification ratings. Rau has also noted that he has full cabinet support for the proposal.

“I’ve been alerted to video games such as, um, We Dare that has been rated PG,” he continued. “After hearing about the game, and seeing some footage, I think that it was inappropriate for the Classification Board to have rated it as such.”

“Children need to be protected from this kind of sexualisation. The current rules make it easy for children to access very inappropriate content.”

We can only guess what kind of footage he saw for We Dare – if there is any. Let’s say, the trailer?

The new laws are expected to be introduced in the state’s Parliament in May, following federal legislation being passed in the Senate.

Note: To the best of our knowledge, Rau isn’t planning to introduce such a thing. Happy April Fools Day!

Image: Kim Davies/Flickr (Creative Commons)

EXCLUSIVE: Senator Stephen Conroy could be out of the cabinet with Prime Minister Julia Gillard already looking for someone to replace him as Communications Minister.

According to sources close to Gillard, Conroy’s ousting is due to a threat from the Greens that it would revoke its deal to support the Government. “The Greens want someone more competent,” according to one source – listing his support for a mandatory filter as one of the reasons why they feel he is not up for the job as Communications Minister.

“They see it as a way to renegotiate a deal – especially since they see a weak Gillard because of Queensland.”

The same source also note that Gillard is pushing Conroy to resign from the Senate “under the pretense of family reasons” in order to appease demands of the Greens. Conroy, a staunch supporter of the Prime Minister, is refusing to do so and has also not backed down from his controversial mandatory internet filter.

Conroy’s resignation would mean that Gillard would see a reshuffle – just less than a month from the previous reshuffle that saw Bob Carr replace Kevin Rudd as Prime Minister. However the source has said that they are not lining up any candidates until Conroy agrees to resign.

Another source has hinted that there is a possibility

Both the Prime Minister’s and Senator Stephen Conroy’s office could not be contacted for comment.

Note: April Fools! Conroy isn’t being sacked because of the Greens. Unfortunately, that means that we’re stuck with the damn mandatory filter plan – darn reality.

The ACCC has announced that it will sue Apple over the iPad being promoted as having 4G in the model with Wi-Fi and mobile data connectivity, alleging that such claims are breaking the Australian Consumer Law.

“The ACCC alleges that Apple’s conduct contravenes sections 18, 29(1)(a), 29(1)(g) and 33 of the ACL,” it said in a statement. It is also seeking an order that would see Apple correct its advertising, advising that the iPad 4G + Wi-Fi does not have 4G.

I should point out that, technically, the iPad 4G + Wi-Fi does have a 4G chip inside. However, the radio frequencies supported for full 4G connectivity aren’t compatible with Australia (or most of the world for that matter). The 4G + Wi-Fi model only supports 4G on the 700MHz and 2100MHz bands, while Telstra has put their 4G network on the 800MHz bands.

However, the ACCC does have some point – Apple hasn’t explicitly made it clear that 4G support is not available in Australia. When you do order, it does say “You can also connect to the 4G LTE networks of AT&T in the U.S. and Bell, Rogers, and Telus in Canada” while also mentioning the fact that it can connect on 3G networks as well – but for an average consumer, most of the jargon means nothing.

The case will be filed in the Federal Court in Melbourne tomorrow at 9:30am.

Photo: Kainet/Flickr (Creative Commons)

The Australian Government reportedly stopped Chinese mobile equipment maker Huawei Technologies from bidding to become a major supplier to the National Broadband Network, over fears of cyber attacks from China and its CEO’s links to the army.

According to The Australian Financial Review, the Attorney-General’s office told the company that they were banned – despite a reported endorsement by NBN Co’s technology department. That advice was given to the Gillard government by intelligence ASIO.

Huawei has rapidly grown to become a big player in telecommunications equipment, and has already won contracts to assist Vodafone’s network upgrades and Optus’ rollout of a 4G network in Newcastle – in addition to several telcos internationally.

However, there have been some concerns on the part of Huawei over its CEO, who was formerly part of the People’s Liberation Army in China. In addition, with China has become a major technological threat due to spates of cyber attacks – including those against Google, the company has sparked fears that it could provide a back door for hackers.

As noted by the AFR:

Because of its perceived links to the Chinese government, the company has encountered criticism in the United States, amid allegations it violated sanctions by supplying the Iranian government with equipment used for censorship.

Huawei recently scaled back its activities in Iran and privately dismisses the criticism as the product of lobbying of US lawmakers by its competitors.

Huawei has rejected the criticism and accusations. It’s Australian director of corporate and public affairs, Jeremy Mitchell, told ZDNet Australia back in 2010 that it was “upsetting and disappointing that these sort of faceless accusations get made.”

“But we know that those in the telecom industry know us, they know our reputation, and as I said, you know, you don’t get to the position that we get — number one in fixed networks across the globe — unless you deliver,” he said.

The HTC One X smartphone has been confirmed to be on Optus’ network, and now we know when. Optus has announced that users can preorder the smartphone today on its website, and will start selling the device in April.

If users preorder it before March 29, then users will get the phone on April 2 for metro users and April 4 for those in regional Australia.

In terms of plans, Optus is having no handset repayments on its $59 Optus Cap plan and Business Complete plan. In addition, users will get two months free access – three if you are a business customer. Under the $59 plans, you get 2GB of mobile data, unlimited SMS and $750 worth of calls. Business customers get free intra-fleet calls and unlimited voicemail access.

The HTC One X features a polycarbonate unibody, a Tegra 3 Mobile Processor with a 1.5GHz Super 4-PLUS-1 quad-core processor. It also includes a 4.7-inch, Gorilla Glass-coated screen. It will also include BeatsAudio, promising to deliver an “authentic sound experience” and will run Ice Cream Sandwich.

You can preorder the phone from its website.

Image: Shaun Greiner/Flickr (Creative Commons)

The House of Representatives have passed the R18+ classification amendment for video games, meaning that the law reaches its final hurdle – passing the Senate. However, as seen by the support in the House, then it will most likely pass without any hitches.

All political parities – including the Coalition – voted in favour for the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Ammendment (R18+ Computer Games) Bill 2012 this evening, after the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs unanimously supported the bill. A Senate Committee is due to publish its report on Wednesday on whether it will also support the bill.

Currently, video game classification is limited to MA15+ – so anything above that automatically gets a “RC” rating, or Refused Classification. Any form of media, such as video games and DVDs, that receive that rating cannot be legally sold in Australia. Australia is the only country in the Western world that does not have an adults-only classification for video games, and the bill’s passage to law will rectify that.

If passed in the Senate, then Australians will have to wait until the start of 2013 for it to become active. It is unknown whether games previously banned will be released in Australia, such as Mortal Kombat and Syndicate – despite it already being passed.

The full bill can be found below.