CARLOS FERNANDES

www.recordtv.com

Networth $4.7 million

According to RecordTv’s website:

“RecordTV.com is simply an Internet-based DVR (Digital Video Recorder) or VCR. The functionality is identical to a DVR or VCR, except that the storage is on a remote server. RecordTV has consulted with the Infocomm Development Authority (IDA) and Media Development Authority of Singapore (MDA) and accordingly obtained all necessary regulatory licenses for online storage services from the Government of Singapore.”

Carlos Fernandes, 33, CEO RecordTV.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.

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.

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”.

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.

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 Fernandes had said these were back-up copies for the “purpose of discovery” during trial. However, the recordings were never submitted for discovery.