PaulWay said:
Yes, this is really an amazing judgement on a couple of fronts. (I'm no lawyer, I haven't read the whole thing in detail, so don't take my word for it).

The court explicitly says that facts must remain free of copyright and that the interests of the public must be weight in the balance when determining copyright of compilations of facts.

The court basically tore to shreds Nine's entire body of cases offered in defence of the proposition that where the creative effort is applied is immaterial to the compilation having copyright as a whole.

The court refers to Telstra vs Desktop Systems as an example of how not to interpret the law (as far as I can see).

And the court makes the point that it doesn't matter how Nine twists the story - whether or not it was wilful copying, whether or not it was a 'database' or a 'schedule' or a 'programme' that was copied - most of that is completely irrelevant to the judgement. So the court has basically also reduced the areas that Nine can claim that the judgement is wrong.

To me this heralds a new era where the courts in Australia look afresh at copyright and people's access to information.
 

---