12 ms·

U.S. judge rejects World Chess bid to block websites from airing moves

194 points by zbik 10y ago

Lordarminius 10y ago
There is a glaring inconsistency in this ruling when compared to the status quo for other sports. In baseball, football the Olympics etc the sponsors hold the broadcast rights and do with it as they deem fit. Why is this same right denied to the organizers of the World Chess Championship?
- csmajorfive 10y ago
  Do they hold the rights to recounting what happened play-by-play without using any images or media from the event? That seems more comparable here.
  - cheald 10y ago
    They certainly claim to. The NFL loudly proclaims that "Any other use of this telecast or of any pictures, descriptions, or accounts of the game without the NFL's consent, is prohibited."
    - ambirex 10y ago
      I can claim anything I want, it doesn't make it legally enforceable
    - jdoliner 10y ago
      I have a feeling that if they ever tried to prosecute the accounts part of warning they would lose miserable. Imagine them trying to argue that a person describing a game they'd seen to a friend required their consent. Maybe it would fly, IANAL, but that seems insane to me.
    - jlgaddis 10y ago
      I hereby prohibit you from commenting on Hacker News unless you send me $10 every time you access the front page.
    - valleyer 10y ago
      No idea why you are being downvoted. Regardless of whether it's actually enforceable, this threat is definitely aired during every NFL game. MLB too: "This copyrighted telecast is presented by authority of the Office of the Commissioner of Baseball. It may not be reproduced or retransmitted in any form, and the accounts and descriptions of this game may not be disseminated without express written consent."
      - greglindahl 10y ago
        Sorry, I turned on my TV 1 minute after that was displayed. This issue is called "contract formation", and any HN reader who's shipped licensed software or had a website with terms of service should be aware that showing something that a user may or may not have seen is the worst possible way to try to form a contract. That's why creating an account on almost all websites has a checkbox that the user has to check, with text that you're agreeing to certain terms.
        matt4077 10y ago
        I'd prefer to make a more forceful case that there are limits to contracts, and not to rely on the technicality of people saw the note, or if "a meeting of minds" actually happened. What if the note is also in the actual contract that has my signature? Is the content of such contracts limited in any way? I mean – it must be. I can easily get any number of people to sign contracts that include a right for me to their firstborn child. Whatever legal doctrine courts would use to strike down such a provision should also apply to, for example, people waving their right to sue, to freely discuss the content of broadcasts, to rate the product/service being purchased etc.
        valleyer 10y ago
        Yup, I think you're looking for: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconscionability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconscionability
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- maaaats 10y ago
  Because it's not the broadcast. This is comparable to newspapers not being allowed to report on goals in a soccer match or have any kind of live coverage (but still not showing the broadcast).
  - umanwizard 10y ago
    Except the moves in a chess game are deliberately chosen in a process involving nothing but intellect and creativity. Scoring goals in a soccer match is something the players try to influence but it's ultimately outside of their control. I think publishing goals in soccer are more akin to publishing vague information like "Black lost his bishop on turn 4" but not the specific sequence of moves.
    - Scarblac 10y ago
      > Except the moves in a chess game are deliberately chosen in a process involving nothing but intellect and creativity. If that were the case, they wouldn't be allowed to repeat moves played by others either...
- freditup 10y ago
  I think your analogy is wrong. Many websites broadcast live "play-by-play" info on MLB, NFL, NBA, and NHL games. These are typically done, for example, by showing a graphic of a strike zone and where pitches are located as they are pitched. However, the actual game audio and video is not broadcasted. I don't believe you need any sort of license to display this information (correct me here if I'm wrong). As far as I can tell, that's what's going on here: websites want to broadcast the "play-by-play" of the chess game, but not the actual game footage. Now, the play-by-play for a chess game is more important than the play-by-play for a hockey game, so I can see why the organizers of the chess tournament aren't happy, but I think the correct decision was made here.
  - Lordarminius 10y ago
    > I think the correct decision was made here. No it was not. It says in the article: Organizers ... failed to persuade a federal judge to block rival website operators from broadcasting chess moves ... The defendants also said that they would not simply be copying audiovisual content generated by World Chess, but displaying the moves on their own computerized chess board while adding commentary and analysis. The ruling directly attacks the business model of the organizers and will thus reduce the chance of attracting sponsors in the future. Hence, it is not in the public interest. Chess is a peculiar game in that the visual content of any broadcast ie players actually playing, is subordinate to the moves made. Nobody watches a chess game online for 5 hours for the fun of seeing the players think. That's like waiting for the paint to dry. Take away the advantage of broadcasting the moves with commentary and analysis and your advantage as a sponsor is gone. I would have thought the judge would have understood this and taken it into account.
    - greglindahl 10y ago
      Yeah, a business model is more important than the non-copyrightable nature of facts. Good thing the judge understood the actual law, which is not concerned with business models.
      - Lordarminius 10y ago
- jdoliner 10y ago
  I'm not sure I'd agree, the moves of a Chess game aren't really analogous to a broadcast. They're a lot more like a box score a play by play summary of a sport which I think are both legal to share. A broadcast of a chess game would be the analog of the broadcast of a sporting event. Unfortunately people aren't really that interested in Chess broadcasts, they'd rather just see the moves.
- abritinthebay 10y ago
  If someone wanted to publish the plays and player movements in any of those games - they totally can. What you're referring to is video broadcast rights. That's rather different. The World Chess Championship's rights on those weren't violated. This is the equivalent of someone writing down the play-by-play in a game - and that would also be completely legal.
- Retra 10y ago
  They have a right to the artifacts of their production - their specific footage of the event. They don't have a right to all possible descriptions of those events. That would be absurd - someone could sing "old MacDonald" and have it claimed that it is a codified description of the events of a game. But of course, they only have the rights to their description of the game.
- ubernostrum 10y ago
  Plenty of third-party sites which don't hold any license from MLB, for example, will tell you "Currently 3-1, runner on 2nd, top of 8th inning, Smith, B. batting vs. Doe, J. pitching, count 1-2, last pitch 90mph called for strike on lower inside corner". And they'll update it with each pitch and each play. The facts of the game are not copyrighted and not copyrightable, which is why sites can do this. Similarly, the moves of a chess game are facts which are not copyrighted and not copyrightable, which is why sites can tell you in real time who's playing and what moves have been made.
- kevin_thibedeau 10y ago
  Broadcasters have rights to the content they create surrounding an event and by contractual agreement share those with relevant league in return for access to their facilities. Not to the factual events themselves. Nothing prevents an uncontracted source from reporting on the score at any time.
ambirex 10y ago
The main difference between this and other sports/events is the moves are facts. They wouldn't be able to broadcast a live video feed. But you can copyright facts.
- phonon 10y ago
  You mean "can't"
- logicallee 10y ago
  I agree with your conclusion but not your reasoning. (you accidentally wrote "can" for "can't" at the end though, maybe you have time to correct it.) So this is why I don't agree with your reasoning: The fact is that Ambirex's comment at 11:22 PM Friday, November 11, 2016 UTC began with a capital T as his first move. Though he could have left it at that and left his opponents to reply, this was not his complete comment. The fact is, for the second letter of his comment he chose an 'h'. And the fact is, for the third letter, he chose an 'e'. The fact is, for the fourth character he had a space. The fact is, for the fifth character he had an 'm'. The fact is... And so forth. So while these are certainly facts -- still, they are quite creative facts. More creative than the work you put into beginning your comment with "the main difference". So while I actually happen to agree with you, this idea of the moves being "facts" versus acts of creative expression is dubious -- where is the hard line that separates that from my reproducing your comment (or any other copyrighted work) by reference to facts? They are facts, true, but they are also the creative output of two masters of the field. In general for cases like this judges try to look at the pragmatics. This is why the judge is quoted as saying "He said the public interest would be served by 'robust reporting,' and analysis of the event." The fact that for him this includes fully reproducing all the moves (which of course seriously impacts the market of the organizers - as well as reproducing the whole of the 'creative output', rather than just excerpts - both of which are important standards in copyright) is one that I can probably agree with. But if he felt that the actual interests in the matter were another way, you bet that he could extend copyright protection to the creative work of playing a game. After all, it is rare for any game between grandmasters today to match one from a database. When they do, it is similar to when similar melodies are created independently. In fact, a chess game likely has waaaaaaaay more entropy (I am making quite a technical argument) than very short melodies which are clearly protected by copyright and for which many "variations" are already owned by others. Why are the "facts" of the melody more protected? So I don't really agree with your interpretation. A fact would be like "white won" or "black won" -- rather than the creative output into the moves themselves. Though more creative than mere fact, I do agree with your conclusion -- for the same reasoning quoted in the article.
scott00 10y ago
Anybody have a link to the complaint/application for a TRO? A lot of the comments here are talking about copyright law, but most protection or attempted protection of data is done with licensing agreements. I would guess FIDE could require the people viewing in person and on the FIDE website to agree to not disseminate accounts of the game as a condition of being allowed to watch. I'd be interested to learn if FIDE has actually attempted to limit it this way, or if the debate is truly over copyright issues. And also if they did ask for the TRO on licensing grounds, was it because their licensing scheme was invalid, or just because the type of harm they were likely to suffer didn't rise to the level needed to qualify for injunctive relief.
- CalChris 10y ago
  I don't have that but the judge was pretty dismissive. From chessgames.com: In a hearing late in the day prior to the first game of the match, U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero was not persuaded that organizers of the $1 million, 12-game tournament had a legal right to block the websites from disclosing the moves until after each game.(7) Rejecting virtually every argument that World Chess asserted, he said, "I know this area of the law very well." http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?tid=88069&crosstable=2 http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?tid=88069&crosstable...
  - onestone 10y ago
    There are also more details mentioned in this Chess.com article: https://www.chess.com/news/carlsen-plays-white-in-round-one-agon-s-injunction-denied-7037 https://www.chess.com/news/carlsen-plays-white-in-round-one-...
  - JadeNB 10y ago
    Just for reference, footnote (7) in your quote is a link to http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/11/10/us/ap-us-world-chess-lawsuit.html http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/11/10/us/ap-us-world-ch... .
- conistonwater 10y ago
  > on the FIDE website to agree to not disseminate accounts of the game as a condition of being allowed to watch. This is kinda off-topic here, but this might even be technically a violation of the CFAA! Orin Kerr from Volokh Conspiracy has written about it many times, but it's not a serious possibility I guess.
DrScump 10y ago
In broadcast and print media, there are "facts" which are routinely embargoed (they cannot be released before a certain date/time). Financial results from publicly-traded companies are similarly embargoed, even though they be simple facts. Why can't this mechanism be employed as a condition of being permitted to attend the event?
- mynameisvlad 10y ago
  Embargoes aren't rooted in laws, though. There's nothing stopping a news outlet from breaking embargo other than the reprecussions from the other company, like not getting news early in the future. Edit: Wow, I need some sleep. I misread the OP, and the Wikipedia article to which I linked. I'll keep the comment up for posterity, but, yes, the company itself can put limitations in place but it's incredibly difficult to enforce.
- dmurray 10y ago
  That is one of the mechanisms that they were relying on. Anyone attending the event and relaying moves is likely in breach of contract, and at least could be thrown out of the venue. Likewise, anyone who signed up for the official feed and then shared the moves is violating the website's terms and conditions and could get their account closed. But it only takes one anonymous user to sign up and report the moves to other sites.
  - kuschku 10y ago
    Not necessarily. Person A opens the stream on their PC. Unknown to them, Person B watches that stream through the window of Person A’s home, and broadcasts the information. The only possible crime Person B did was invading Person A’s privacy, but Person A does not sue them. Person A acted entirely legal, so did Person B, and you still got all the facts out.
- rayiner 10y ago
  There might be a contractual matter, but news and financial results cannot be protected under copyright or unfair competition theories. Without reading the case I imagine the "free riding" allegation is an unfair competition claim. I wrote a paper on this if you're interested in learning more: http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1157&context=njtip http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent....
CJKinni 10y ago
A lot of the comments here on copyright seem to be looking for answers to distinguish this from other copyright issues. Rather than summing up every copyright argument for or against, I thought I'd link to a fairly relevant case: Feist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._Rurwal_Telephone_Service_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._R.... Feist is a case where a phone book company stole the data in a phone book, and began reselling it. It deals with publication of facts, and is a situation where there's a reasonable public policy argument for incentivising the private company's work collection of phone number data. It's a commonly taught fundamental Copyright claim that is a great starting point for those interested in researching further.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- desdiv 10y ago
  Your link doesn't work (HN ate the last period up). Here's a working link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._Rural_Telephone_Service_Co%2E https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._R...
  - greglindahl 10y ago
    Thanks -- I edited my link to Feist from an hour ago to have the extra period, too.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- seanalltogether 10y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Basketball_Ass%27n_v._Motorola,_Inc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Basketball_Ass%27n_v..... > The district court held that Motorola and STATS did not infringe NBA's copyright because only facts from the broadcasts, not the broadcasts themselves were transmitted. The Second Circuit Court agreed with the district court's argument that the "[d]efendants provide purely factual information which any patron of an NBA game could acquire from the arena without any involvement from the director, cameramen, or others who contribute to the originality of the broadcast" [939 F. Supp. at 1094].
robryan 10y ago
From a viewers perspective this is great. For past World Chess Championships you could watch ex pros/ high level players commentate on Youtube and Twitch.
throwaway_yy2Di 10y ago
Apropos, to anyone who wants to watch the live moves, with expert commentary, they are here (this is the defendant from the Reuters story): https://chess24.com/en/read/news/chess24-win-moscow-case-announce-new-york-line-up https://chess24.com/en/read/news/chess24-win-moscow-case-ann... https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkTCNuQ2mGfW6-SpHpaze_g https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkTCNuQ2mGfW6-SpHpaze_g (direct link to livestream) If you're looking for live computer engine lines, Steinar Gunderson offers that here, with 38 cores running Stockfish: http://analysis.sesse.net/ http://analysis.sesse.net/ As well as PGN files (live-updated): http://pgn.sesse.net/ http://pgn.sesse.net/
- freditup 10y ago
  Also useful, the highlights from the first game: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Y_h3eZQ-j0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Y_h3eZQ-j0
  - conistonwater 10y ago
    In the past Daniel King and Christof Sielecki also each did really nice highlight videos, so I'm wondering if this'll discourage them this time.
- semi-extrinsic 10y ago
  Regarding "38 cores": can anyone comment on whether that's sufficient to perfectly analyse the game in near-real-time, or is it just good enough to provide interesting analysis? I.e. would Stockfish running on 38 cores be competitive with / better than World Championship players?
  - trontron 10y ago
    modern chess programs are vastly superior to human players, regardless of one or 38 cores. stockfish has a elo rating of ~3350 (probably a little higher when running on 38 cores, not sure). carlsen has 2850. that corresponds with a 95% winning probability per game (or to be more precise: stockfish is expected to win 95% of all possible points over several chess matches) it's hard to say if that's close to "perfect analysis", because we don't know what a perfect game will look like (chess is not a solved game). but compared to human level, one could say it's close to perfect.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
grondilu 10y ago
Fun fact about the first game : after 1.d4 Nf6, the World Champion played 2.Bg5, which is fairly rare at top level in classical time control, and pretty much unprecedented in world championships. Why is it fun? Because this opening is known as the Trompovsky, often nicknamed the "tromp". Magnus more or less admitted that it was a wink at the newly elected US president.
madaxe_again 10y ago
This seems a strange move. I wonder how the same judge would have ruled if it was about youtubers livestreaming NFL games.
debt 10y ago
fascinating. stats.com charges like $80k per season per sport or something like that for access to their live game data api. world chess should take this all the way, airing the moves for free is undercutting their business model. seems like it shouldn't be legal considering chess is a sport.
- Lordarminius 10y ago
  Many folks here dont seem to understand this or agree.
lordnacho 10y ago
So consider this near-future scenario: You have a soccer match in which a lot of fans show up with cameras. Either like a Go-Pro or just their phones, or like Google Glasses. From the many fan cams, you can reconstruct the state of the match. From the FIFA video games, or from image analysis, you have all the player likenesses. So then someone could "watch" the game from any vantage point, using just the "facts" of the game, without doing an actual re-broadcast of the game. What then?
- egeozcan 10y ago
  I'm not sure why this is down-voted. This what came to my mind first as well. I'm not a lawyer, so, maybe there is something fundamental that is wrong with the argument, but it would be nice if someone just explained instead of down-voting.
- Scarblac 10y ago
  Seems to me that that is allowed (if you are allowed to bring cameras into the stadium).
- riskable 10y ago
  I'm failing to see what's wrong with this. I also don't see how an organization like the NBA or FIFA or whoever can make a claim to "own" the events of a game. The sale of exclusivity rights seems like the scam: The premise that one can copyright an event itself and not just a particular recording of it. If someone is there and recording I say that should be OK. If another person aggregates the views of multiple such recorders then they would need to obtain permission from each. Reconstructing the entirety of a game with virtual players is already legal and amounts to an original work. Where's the problem?

194 points by zbik 10y ago

There is a glaring inconsistency in this ruling when compared to the status quo for other sports. In baseball, football the Olympics etc the sponsors hold the broadcast rights and do with it as they deem fit. Why is this same right denied to the organizers of the World Chess Championship?

csmajorfive 10y ago
Do they hold the rights to recounting what happened play-by-play without using any images or media from the event? That seems more comparable here.
- cheald 10y ago
  They certainly claim to. The NFL loudly proclaims that "Any other use of this telecast or of any pictures, descriptions, or accounts of the game without the NFL's consent, is prohibited."
  - ambirex 10y ago
    I can claim anything I want, it doesn't make it legally enforceable
  - jdoliner 10y ago
    I have a feeling that if they ever tried to prosecute the accounts part of warning they would lose miserable. Imagine them trying to argue that a person describing a game they'd seen to a friend required their consent. Maybe it would fly, IANAL, but that seems insane to me.
  - jlgaddis 10y ago
    I hereby prohibit you from commenting on Hacker News unless you send me $10 every time you access the front page.
  - valleyer 10y ago
    No idea why you are being downvoted. Regardless of whether it's actually enforceable, this threat is definitely aired during every NFL game. MLB too: "This copyrighted telecast is presented by authority of the Office of the Commissioner of Baseball. It may not be reproduced or retransmitted in any form, and the accounts and descriptions of this game may not be disseminated without express written consent."
    - greglindahl 10y ago
      Sorry, I turned on my TV 1 minute after that was displayed. This issue is called "contract formation", and any HN reader who's shipped licensed software or had a website with terms of service should be aware that showing something that a user may or may not have seen is the worst possible way to try to form a contract. That's why creating an account on almost all websites has a checkbox that the user has to check, with text that you're agreeing to certain terms.
      - matt4077 10y ago
        I'd prefer to make a more forceful case that there are limits to contracts, and not to rely on the technicality of people saw the note, or if "a meeting of minds" actually happened. What if the note is also in the actual contract that has my signature? Is the content of such contracts limited in any way? I mean – it must be. I can easily get any number of people to sign contracts that include a right for me to their firstborn child. Whatever legal doctrine courts would use to strike down such a provision should also apply to, for example, people waving their right to sue, to freely discuss the content of broadcasts, to rate the product/service being purchased etc.
        valleyer 10y ago
        Yup, I think you're looking for: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconscionability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconscionability
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
maaaats 10y ago
Because it's not the broadcast. This is comparable to newspapers not being allowed to report on goals in a soccer match or have any kind of live coverage (but still not showing the broadcast).
- umanwizard 10y ago
  Except the moves in a chess game are deliberately chosen in a process involving nothing but intellect and creativity. Scoring goals in a soccer match is something the players try to influence but it's ultimately outside of their control. I think publishing goals in soccer are more akin to publishing vague information like "Black lost his bishop on turn 4" but not the specific sequence of moves.
  - Scarblac 10y ago
    > Except the moves in a chess game are deliberately chosen in a process involving nothing but intellect and creativity. If that were the case, they wouldn't be allowed to repeat moves played by others either...
freditup 10y ago
I think your analogy is wrong. Many websites broadcast live "play-by-play" info on MLB, NFL, NBA, and NHL games. These are typically done, for example, by showing a graphic of a strike zone and where pitches are located as they are pitched. However, the actual game audio and video is not broadcasted. I don't believe you need any sort of license to display this information (correct me here if I'm wrong). As far as I can tell, that's what's going on here: websites want to broadcast the "play-by-play" of the chess game, but not the actual game footage. Now, the play-by-play for a chess game is more important than the play-by-play for a hockey game, so I can see why the organizers of the chess tournament aren't happy, but I think the correct decision was made here.
- Lordarminius 10y ago
  > I think the correct decision was made here. No it was not. It says in the article: Organizers ... failed to persuade a federal judge to block rival website operators from broadcasting chess moves ... The defendants also said that they would not simply be copying audiovisual content generated by World Chess, but displaying the moves on their own computerized chess board while adding commentary and analysis. The ruling directly attacks the business model of the organizers and will thus reduce the chance of attracting sponsors in the future. Hence, it is not in the public interest. Chess is a peculiar game in that the visual content of any broadcast ie players actually playing, is subordinate to the moves made. Nobody watches a chess game online for 5 hours for the fun of seeing the players think. That's like waiting for the paint to dry. Take away the advantage of broadcasting the moves with commentary and analysis and your advantage as a sponsor is gone. I would have thought the judge would have understood this and taken it into account.
  - greglindahl 10y ago
    Yeah, a business model is more important than the non-copyrightable nature of facts. Good thing the judge understood the actual law, which is not concerned with business models.
    - Lordarminius 10y ago
jdoliner 10y ago
I'm not sure I'd agree, the moves of a Chess game aren't really analogous to a broadcast. They're a lot more like a box score a play by play summary of a sport which I think are both legal to share. A broadcast of a chess game would be the analog of the broadcast of a sporting event. Unfortunately people aren't really that interested in Chess broadcasts, they'd rather just see the moves.
abritinthebay 10y ago
If someone wanted to publish the plays and player movements in any of those games - they totally can. What you're referring to is video broadcast rights. That's rather different. The World Chess Championship's rights on those weren't violated. This is the equivalent of someone writing down the play-by-play in a game - and that would also be completely legal.
Retra 10y ago
They have a right to the artifacts of their production - their specific footage of the event. They don't have a right to all possible descriptions of those events. That would be absurd - someone could sing "old MacDonald" and have it claimed that it is a codified description of the events of a game. But of course, they only have the rights to their description of the game.
ubernostrum 10y ago
Plenty of third-party sites which don't hold any license from MLB, for example, will tell you "Currently 3-1, runner on 2nd, top of 8th inning, Smith, B. batting vs. Doe, J. pitching, count 1-2, last pitch 90mph called for strike on lower inside corner". And they'll update it with each pitch and each play. The facts of the game are not copyrighted and not copyrightable, which is why sites can do this. Similarly, the moves of a chess game are facts which are not copyrighted and not copyrightable, which is why sites can tell you in real time who's playing and what moves have been made.
kevin_thibedeau 10y ago
Broadcasters have rights to the content they create surrounding an event and by contractual agreement share those with relevant league in return for access to their facilities. Not to the factual events themselves. Nothing prevents an uncontracted source from reporting on the score at any time.

ambirex 10y ago

The main difference between this and other sports/events is the moves are facts. They wouldn't be able to broadcast a live video feed. But you can copyright facts.

phonon 10y ago
You mean "can't"
logicallee 10y ago
I agree with your conclusion but not your reasoning. (you accidentally wrote "can" for "can't" at the end though, maybe you have time to correct it.) So this is why I don't agree with your reasoning: The fact is that Ambirex's comment at 11:22 PM Friday, November 11, 2016 UTC began with a capital T as his first move. Though he could have left it at that and left his opponents to reply, this was not his complete comment. The fact is, for the second letter of his comment he chose an 'h'. And the fact is, for the third letter, he chose an 'e'. The fact is, for the fourth character he had a space. The fact is, for the fifth character he had an 'm'. The fact is... And so forth. So while these are certainly facts -- still, they are quite creative facts. More creative than the work you put into beginning your comment with "the main difference". So while I actually happen to agree with you, this idea of the moves being "facts" versus acts of creative expression is dubious -- where is the hard line that separates that from my reproducing your comment (or any other copyrighted work) by reference to facts? They are facts, true, but they are also the creative output of two masters of the field. In general for cases like this judges try to look at the pragmatics. This is why the judge is quoted as saying "He said the public interest would be served by 'robust reporting,' and analysis of the event." The fact that for him this includes fully reproducing all the moves (which of course seriously impacts the market of the organizers - as well as reproducing the whole of the 'creative output', rather than just excerpts - both of which are important standards in copyright) is one that I can probably agree with. But if he felt that the actual interests in the matter were another way, you bet that he could extend copyright protection to the creative work of playing a game. After all, it is rare for any game between grandmasters today to match one from a database. When they do, it is similar to when similar melodies are created independently. In fact, a chess game likely has waaaaaaaay more entropy (I am making quite a technical argument) than very short melodies which are clearly protected by copyright and for which many "variations" are already owned by others. Why are the "facts" of the melody more protected? So I don't really agree with your interpretation. A fact would be like "white won" or "black won" -- rather than the creative output into the moves themselves. Though more creative than mere fact, I do agree with your conclusion -- for the same reasoning quoted in the article.

scott00 10y ago

Anybody have a link to the complaint/application for a TRO? A lot of the comments here are talking about copyright law, but most protection or attempted protection of data is done with licensing agreements. I would guess FIDE could require the people viewing in person and on the FIDE website to agree to not disseminate accounts of the game as a condition of being allowed to watch. I'd be interested to learn if FIDE has actually attempted to limit it this way, or if the debate is truly over copyright issues. And also if they did ask for the TRO on licensing grounds, was it because their licensing scheme was invalid, or just because the type of harm they were likely to suffer didn't rise to the level needed to qualify for injunctive relief.

CalChris 10y ago
I don't have that but the judge was pretty dismissive. From chessgames.com: In a hearing late in the day prior to the first game of the match, U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero was not persuaded that organizers of the $1 million, 12-game tournament had a legal right to block the websites from disclosing the moves until after each game.(7) Rejecting virtually every argument that World Chess asserted, he said, "I know this area of the law very well." http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?tid=88069&crosstable=2 http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?tid=88069&crosstable...
- onestone 10y ago
  There are also more details mentioned in this Chess.com article: https://www.chess.com/news/carlsen-plays-white-in-round-one-agon-s-injunction-denied-7037 https://www.chess.com/news/carlsen-plays-white-in-round-one-...
- JadeNB 10y ago
  Just for reference, footnote (7) in your quote is a link to http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/11/10/us/ap-us-world-chess-lawsuit.html http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/11/10/us/ap-us-world-ch... .
conistonwater 10y ago
> on the FIDE website to agree to not disseminate accounts of the game as a condition of being allowed to watch. This is kinda off-topic here, but this might even be technically a violation of the CFAA! Orin Kerr from Volokh Conspiracy has written about it many times, but it's not a serious possibility I guess.

DrScump 10y ago

In broadcast and print media, there are "facts" which are routinely embargoed (they cannot be released before a certain date/time). Financial results from publicly-traded companies are similarly embargoed, even though they be simple facts. Why can't this mechanism be employed as a condition of being permitted to attend the event?

mynameisvlad 10y ago
Embargoes aren't rooted in laws, though. There's nothing stopping a news outlet from breaking embargo other than the reprecussions from the other company, like not getting news early in the future. Edit: Wow, I need some sleep. I misread the OP, and the Wikipedia article to which I linked. I'll keep the comment up for posterity, but, yes, the company itself can put limitations in place but it's incredibly difficult to enforce.
dmurray 10y ago
That is one of the mechanisms that they were relying on. Anyone attending the event and relaying moves is likely in breach of contract, and at least could be thrown out of the venue. Likewise, anyone who signed up for the official feed and then shared the moves is violating the website's terms and conditions and could get their account closed. But it only takes one anonymous user to sign up and report the moves to other sites.
- kuschku 10y ago
  Not necessarily. Person A opens the stream on their PC. Unknown to them, Person B watches that stream through the window of Person A’s home, and broadcasts the information. The only possible crime Person B did was invading Person A’s privacy, but Person A does not sue them. Person A acted entirely legal, so did Person B, and you still got all the facts out.
rayiner 10y ago
There might be a contractual matter, but news and financial results cannot be protected under copyright or unfair competition theories. Without reading the case I imagine the "free riding" allegation is an unfair competition claim. I wrote a paper on this if you're interested in learning more: http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1157&context=njtip http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent....

CJKinni 10y ago

A lot of the comments here on copyright seem to be looking for answers to distinguish this from other copyright issues. Rather than summing up every copyright argument for or against, I thought I'd link to a fairly relevant case: Feist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._Rurwal_Telephone_Service_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._R.... Feist is a case where a phone book company stole the data in a phone book, and began reselling it. It deals with publication of facts, and is a situation where there's a reasonable public policy argument for incentivising the private company's work collection of phone number data. It's a commonly taught fundamental Copyright claim that is a great starting point for those interested in researching further.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
desdiv 10y ago
Your link doesn't work (HN ate the last period up). Here's a working link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._Rural_Telephone_Service_Co%2E https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._R...
- greglindahl 10y ago
  Thanks -- I edited my link to Feist from an hour ago to have the extra period, too.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
seanalltogether 10y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Basketball_Ass%27n_v._Motorola,_Inc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Basketball_Ass%27n_v..... > The district court held that Motorola and STATS did not infringe NBA's copyright because only facts from the broadcasts, not the broadcasts themselves were transmitted. The Second Circuit Court agreed with the district court's argument that the "[d]efendants provide purely factual information which any patron of an NBA game could acquire from the arena without any involvement from the director, cameramen, or others who contribute to the originality of the broadcast" [939 F. Supp. at 1094].

robryan 10y ago

From a viewers perspective this is great. For past World Chess Championships you could watch ex pros/ high level players commentate on Youtube and Twitch.

throwaway_yy2Di 10y ago

Apropos, to anyone who wants to watch the live moves, with expert commentary, they are here (this is the defendant from the Reuters story): https://chess24.com/en/read/news/chess24-win-moscow-case-announce-new-york-line-up https://chess24.com/en/read/news/chess24-win-moscow-case-ann... https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkTCNuQ2mGfW6-SpHpaze_g https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkTCNuQ2mGfW6-SpHpaze_g (direct link to livestream) If you're looking for live computer engine lines, Steinar Gunderson offers that here, with 38 cores running Stockfish: http://analysis.sesse.net/ http://analysis.sesse.net/ As well as PGN files (live-updated): http://pgn.sesse.net/ http://pgn.sesse.net/

freditup 10y ago
Also useful, the highlights from the first game: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Y_h3eZQ-j0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Y_h3eZQ-j0
- conistonwater 10y ago
  In the past Daniel King and Christof Sielecki also each did really nice highlight videos, so I'm wondering if this'll discourage them this time.
semi-extrinsic 10y ago
Regarding "38 cores": can anyone comment on whether that's sufficient to perfectly analyse the game in near-real-time, or is it just good enough to provide interesting analysis? I.e. would Stockfish running on 38 cores be competitive with / better than World Championship players?
- trontron 10y ago
  modern chess programs are vastly superior to human players, regardless of one or 38 cores. stockfish has a elo rating of ~3350 (probably a little higher when running on 38 cores, not sure). carlsen has 2850. that corresponds with a 95% winning probability per game (or to be more precise: stockfish is expected to win 95% of all possible points over several chess matches) it's hard to say if that's close to "perfect analysis", because we don't know what a perfect game will look like (chess is not a solved game). but compared to human level, one could say it's close to perfect.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

grondilu 10y ago

Fun fact about the first game : after 1.d4 Nf6, the World Champion played 2.Bg5, which is fairly rare at top level in classical time control, and pretty much unprecedented in world championships. Why is it fun? Because this opening is known as the Trompovsky, often nicknamed the "tromp". Magnus more or less admitted that it was a wink at the newly elected US president.

madaxe_again 10y ago

This seems a strange move. I wonder how the same judge would have ruled if it was about youtubers livestreaming NFL games.

debt 10y ago

fascinating. stats.com charges like $80k per season per sport or something like that for access to their live game data api. world chess should take this all the way, airing the moves for free is undercutting their business model. seems like it shouldn't be legal considering chess is a sport.

Lordarminius 10y ago
Many folks here dont seem to understand this or agree.

lordnacho 10y ago

So consider this near-future scenario: You have a soccer match in which a lot of fans show up with cameras. Either like a Go-Pro or just their phones, or like Google Glasses. From the many fan cams, you can reconstruct the state of the match. From the FIFA video games, or from image analysis, you have all the player likenesses. So then someone could "watch" the game from any vantage point, using just the "facts" of the game, without doing an actual re-broadcast of the game. What then?

egeozcan 10y ago
I'm not sure why this is down-voted. This what came to my mind first as well. I'm not a lawyer, so, maybe there is something fundamental that is wrong with the argument, but it would be nice if someone just explained instead of down-voting.
Scarblac 10y ago
Seems to me that that is allowed (if you are allowed to bring cameras into the stadium).
riskable 10y ago
I'm failing to see what's wrong with this. I also don't see how an organization like the NBA or FIFA or whoever can make a claim to "own" the events of a game. The sale of exclusivity rights seems like the scam: The premise that one can copyright an event itself and not just a particular recording of it. If someone is there and recording I say that should be OK. If another person aggregates the views of multiple such recorders then they would need to obtain permission from each. Reconstructing the entirety of a game with virtual players is already legal and amounts to an original work. Where's the problem?