5 ms·

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 showi

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
    > Yeah, a business model is more important than the non-copyrightable nature of facts. I fail to see your point. The law should be applied with a dose of common sense. The organizers are not barring anyone from the "facts" as you put it just trying to get a lead in broadcasting. The law upholds the rights of organizers of other sports eg football and boxing based on their peculiarities and in case you are not aware is frequently biased in defense of their commercial rights (one only needs recall the absurdities surrounding the olympics). For years, chess has suffered from crises caused by lack of sponsorship for events. If this ruling serves to deter future sponsors and leads to uncertainty or cancellation of matches (which has happened before) then what good is that?
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - smallnamespace 10y ago
      Your argument can be summarized as that we should ignore what copyright law says because the consequence of the law is bad in this particular case for certain chess companies. That's neither a sane or reasonable way to make legal judgments. Can you show a sound legal argument why the judge's ruling was wrong? FYI, there used to be a 'hot news' doctrine that might have protected the chess moves (and the FIDE made this their argument), but it's been largely superseded or overturned [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_News_Service_v._Associated_Press#.22Hot_news.22_cases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_News_Service_v._...
      - greglindahl 10y ago
        "Hot news" is a good time to remember that copyright is shaped not only by US copyright law, but also by common law and the 1st Amendment.
- thatcat 10y ago
  The copyright applies to the recording not the abstract information related to game state. This is similar to a radio broadcasting at a baseball game simultaneously with live video owned by separate company. Courts shouldn't expand rights to protect poorly thought out business models.
- jdoliner 10y ago
  Fortunately, the U.S. legal system does not afford corporations the right to a business model.
- belorn 10y ago
  Take a sport like snooker and replace the footage with animated board which perfectly represent how the match is played. Would it be interesting enough to compete with the actually broadcast with video of the players and commentators?
- 1_2__3 10y ago
  You seem to think that business is the public interest. You are incorrect.
123jay7 10y ago
The sports apis I think you need a licence or they're very expensive for some other reason. This one is $1200+ /month. https://fantasydata.com/pricing/mlb-data-api.aspx https://fantasydata.com/pricing/mlb-data-api.aspx
gnicholas 10y ago
When I watch MLB games streamed from mlb.tv, there is a warning at the end that says you may not reproduce or transmit the game or descriptions thereof (or something like that). I don't remember the exact language, but I do remember being struck by the fact that it extended beyond the game itself. I would imagine that the websites that give play-by-play info may have paid for the right to publish information about the game, or they may be able to just watch it on TV (or live) and update their info that way. As another commenter noted, the organizers could have set up the competition to forbid the audience from disseminating info, but they didn't for whatever reason.
- ChicagoBoy11 10y ago
  You are correct, but there is also a distinction between the posturing of sports giants like the MLB and the NFL and what would actually hold up in court in a possible legal challenge. My media law professor seemed pretty sure that, in a vast majority of these cases, those "prohibitions" would not hold up.
  - gnicholas 10y ago
    I'd be curious to know why they wouldn't hold up—did your professor give a reason or mention any particular cases that led him/her to reach this conclusion? In my experience (lawyer in Palo Alto for 7 years), parties can agree by contract to do or not do many many things. Even provisions that limit legal recourse, like the much-decried mandatory arbitration clauses [1] have held up all the way to the US Supreme Court. I would be very interested to know what legal basis there would be to invalidate a license agreement that says: you can have access to this content but only if you promise not to tell other people about it. 1: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/business/dealbook/arbitration-everywhere-stacking-the-deck-of-justice.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/business/dealbook/arbitrat...
    - greglindahl 10y ago
      "parties can agree", but I turned on my TV after the legalese was broadcast. The average website or software shrinkwrap has a lot better contract formation than that.

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
  > Yeah, a business model is more important than the non-copyrightable nature of facts. I fail to see your point. The law should be applied with a dose of common sense. The organizers are not barring anyone from the "facts" as you put it just trying to get a lead in broadcasting. The law upholds the rights of organizers of other sports eg football and boxing based on their peculiarities and in case you are not aware is frequently biased in defense of their commercial rights (one only needs recall the absurdities surrounding the olympics). For years, chess has suffered from crises caused by lack of sponsorship for events. If this ruling serves to deter future sponsors and leads to uncertainty or cancellation of matches (which has happened before) then what good is that?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - smallnamespace 10y ago
    Your argument can be summarized as that we should ignore what copyright law says because the consequence of the law is bad in this particular case for certain chess companies. That's neither a sane or reasonable way to make legal judgments. Can you show a sound legal argument why the judge's ruling was wrong? FYI, there used to be a 'hot news' doctrine that might have protected the chess moves (and the FIDE made this their argument), but it's been largely superseded or overturned [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_News_Service_v._Associated_Press#.22Hot_news.22_cases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_News_Service_v._...
    - greglindahl 10y ago
      "Hot news" is a good time to remember that copyright is shaped not only by US copyright law, but also by common law and the 1st Amendment.
thatcat 10y ago
The copyright applies to the recording not the abstract information related to game state. This is similar to a radio broadcasting at a baseball game simultaneously with live video owned by separate company. Courts shouldn't expand rights to protect poorly thought out business models.
jdoliner 10y ago
Fortunately, the U.S. legal system does not afford corporations the right to a business model.
belorn 10y ago
Take a sport like snooker and replace the footage with animated board which perfectly represent how the match is played. Would it be interesting enough to compete with the actually broadcast with video of the players and commentators?
1_2__3 10y ago
You seem to think that business is the public interest. You are incorrect.

123jay7 10y ago

The sports apis I think you need a licence or they're very expensive for some other reason. This one is $1200+ /month. https://fantasydata.com/pricing/mlb-data-api.aspx https://fantasydata.com/pricing/mlb-data-api.aspx

gnicholas 10y ago

When I watch MLB games streamed from mlb.tv, there is a warning at the end that says you may not reproduce or transmit the game or descriptions thereof (or something like that). I don't remember the exact language, but I do remember being struck by the fact that it extended beyond the game itself. I would imagine that the websites that give play-by-play info may have paid for the right to publish information about the game, or they may be able to just watch it on TV (or live) and update their info that way. As another commenter noted, the organizers could have set up the competition to forbid the audience from disseminating info, but they didn't for whatever reason.

ChicagoBoy11 10y ago
You are correct, but there is also a distinction between the posturing of sports giants like the MLB and the NFL and what would actually hold up in court in a possible legal challenge. My media law professor seemed pretty sure that, in a vast majority of these cases, those "prohibitions" would not hold up.
- gnicholas 10y ago
  I'd be curious to know why they wouldn't hold up—did your professor give a reason or mention any particular cases that led him/her to reach this conclusion? In my experience (lawyer in Palo Alto for 7 years), parties can agree by contract to do or not do many many things. Even provisions that limit legal recourse, like the much-decried mandatory arbitration clauses [1] have held up all the way to the US Supreme Court. I would be very interested to know what legal basis there would be to invalidate a license agreement that says: you can have access to this content but only if you promise not to tell other people about it. 1: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/business/dealbook/arbitration-everywhere-stacking-the-deck-of-justice.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/business/dealbook/arbitrat...
  - greglindahl 10y ago
    "parties can agree", but I turned on my TV after the legalese was broadcast. The average website or software shrinkwrap has a lot better contract formation than that.