4 ms·

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

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.

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.