4 ms·

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Basketball_Ass%27n_v._Motorola,_Inc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Basketball_Ass%27n_v..... > The district cou

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].

iaw 10y ago
I think this is a more correct case to apply. The Feist case was about the expense accrued in aggregating the information and the incentive issues that arise if those efforts are not protected. The NBA case was about the division of rights between the competition organizer and those attempting to report on it. Specifically, are the reporters required to delay their reporting efforts when the only information being reported generated by the event is factual. If I understand correctly, this ruling doesn't preclude the event organizers from banning all electronic communication devices from the premises. It just prevents them from pursuing any civil penalties from those that report on the event.
- kylecordes 10y ago
  I wonder what the effect on attendance would be, if major sporting events had a "no cell phones" rule. My guess offhand: it would be devastating to ticket sales.
  - gruez 10y ago
    But then again, of most of the people going are hardcore fans, sales might not be affected to much (although there might be outrage)
  - smackfu 10y ago
    PGA Tour banned cell phones until 2011: http://www.golf.com/ap-news/tour-allow-cell-phones-tournaments http://www.golf.com/ap-news/tour-allow-cell-phones-tournamen...
  - iaw 10y ago
    I've been trying to mull that out as well from an economic perspective but I think it's highly dependent on the existing distribution networks which adds additional complexity. Major League sports information is disseminated fairly quickly and the attendance levels make technological prohibitions a challenge. The nature of world chess championships make it a little different, as long as the globally recognized top ranked players are in attendance (preventing an organizational schism) I think the organizers could do whatever they want. In the end I think this ruling just means they can't enforce a civil penalty for violation of these rules, but there's no reason they can't expel the violator from their event. It's an interesting case.

iaw 10y ago

I think this is a more correct case to apply. The Feist case was about the expense accrued in aggregating the information and the incentive issues that arise if those efforts are not protected. The NBA case was about the division of rights between the competition organizer and those attempting to report on it. Specifically, are the reporters required to delay their reporting efforts when the only information being reported generated by the event is factual. If I understand correctly, this ruling doesn't preclude the event organizers from banning all electronic communication devices from the premises. It just prevents them from pursuing any civil penalties from those that report on the event.

kylecordes 10y ago
I wonder what the effect on attendance would be, if major sporting events had a "no cell phones" rule. My guess offhand: it would be devastating to ticket sales.
- gruez 10y ago
  But then again, of most of the people going are hardcore fans, sales might not be affected to much (although there might be outrage)
- smackfu 10y ago
  PGA Tour banned cell phones until 2011: http://www.golf.com/ap-news/tour-allow-cell-phones-tournaments http://www.golf.com/ap-news/tour-allow-cell-phones-tournamen...
- iaw 10y ago
  I've been trying to mull that out as well from an economic perspective but I think it's highly dependent on the existing distribution networks which adds additional complexity. Major League sports information is disseminated fairly quickly and the attendance levels make technological prohibitions a challenge. The nature of world chess championships make it a little different, as long as the globally recognized top ranked players are in attendance (preventing an organizational schism) I think the organizers could do whatever they want. In the end I think this ruling just means they can't enforce a civil penalty for violation of these rules, but there's no reason they can't expel the violator from their event. It's an interesting case.