Lawsuit Over Future of Fantasy Sports

[Swiss Cheezhead]

First of all, good for the NY Times.

 

 

 

Because a number, like 3 or 88 or whatever is a much more difficult sell as a copyright violation than Tomlynson, Mannning or Alixander.  Players or clubs might win the rights to their names, logos, etc, but as long as the stats remain in the public domain, attaching a number to them doesn't violate the name copyright.

 

A court might disagree, but Fox were unpleasantly surprised to find that Fair And Balanced was not protectable - I don't see the Seahawks or SA sensibly arguing that they have exclusive rights to 37.  After all, math classes need it to bridge the gap between 36 and 38.

 

Our problem would be differentiating between the different RB 37s.

 

1394486[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

I still don't see how a court can split the hairs between "Shaun Alexander" and "Shawn Alickzander," but not "SEA RB #37." Any competent lawyer who could introduce a webpage into evidence and argue that the misspelled name is intended to be the name of Seattle's running back could also argue that "SEA RB #37" means the same thing.

[Crazysight]

I don't see where they get the right to be greedy manipulative rooster-suckers. These A-holes certainly have no problem capitalizing on the fact that these names make billions of dollars for them per year and have made each one of them filthy rich beyond anything they've ever deserved due to these names being in the public domain, and yet when somebody else takes these same names that they are already capitalizing on through the public to use in their own private business efforts suddenly the greedy screwballs want to treat it as though it were exclusive, private property. You know what? If it's so goddamned private than stop advertising it all over my TV, all over my computer, all over the billboards, magazines, newspapers and everywhere else that I look in today's already overly unprioritized and generally lost culture.

 

This is about greed and only about greed and I'm sick and tired of seeing the same type of BULLSH!T from these organizations, paricularly MLB. It sickens me that there are so many diehard MLB baseball fans despite this ongoing corrupt bulllsshhiitt, and that the sheep always seem to come back to this league no matter how many times it reminds us about what it's really all about. The greedy bastards can lap my bag.

Edited May 27, 2006 by Crazysight

[Crazysight]

roids and no salary cap..  now no fantasy..  nice way to keep your fanbase mlb.

 

1388736[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

There would be fools who would be crazy about it no matter what they did. Don't forget all their holdouts.

[broncosn05]

Here we go. I hope yet again the NFL steps up and shows the other leagues how to do things.

 

Leave the stats alone. You guys control the resources of just  about everything as it is.These guys are getting enough money, let the fans have a little fun.

 

DMD and WW if you need any help let is know what we can do.

 

1387089[/snapback]

 

 

 

The No Fun League now available for the public as well.

[Red Barons]

Before I started playing fantasy baseball and football, I was only interested in watching home team games like the Bears Cubs Sox. Now Ill turn on Espn to watch a Blue Jay-Yankee game to watch my players. Fantasy leagues are creating a bigger audience where there wasnt one before which means bigger ratings and more ad bucks for the MLB. The greedy jerks are shooting themselves in the foot.

[Ursa Majoris]

Before I started playing fantasy baseball and football, I was only interested in watching home team games like the Bears Cubs Sox. Now Ill turn on Espn to watch a Blue Jay-Yankee game to watch my players. Fantasy leagues are creating a bigger audience where there wasnt one before which means bigger ratings and more ad bucks for the MLB. The greedy jerks are shooting themselves in the foot.

 

1489457[/snapback]

 

 

 

Exactly. I watched Oakland - San Francisco recently because I had the Oakland SP on my team. There is no way I would have watched that game otherwise.

[Randall]

The No Fun League now available for the public as well.

 

1489429[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, and they need to realise most won't pay for Sunday Ticket if they quit fantasy. It will cost the NFL how many $millions if that happens.

 

What a racket. They don't even have to produce shows, they just replay existing shows for $200+ a year.

[Pope Flick]

I'm really curious as to who this might effect, bsides free league sites.

 

Do MFL, CBS etc already pay licensing fees to provide the service? And if so, isn't that already reflected in their price? If not, how much a price increase could one expect?

 

THOSE are the questions I'd like to know. The NFL has a RIGHT to control their intellectual content: it's the gold of the future. And how anyone could expect them to sit on the sidelines while millions are made off of them without receiving a cut is beyond me.

[Ursa Majoris]

The NFL has a RIGHT to control their intellectual content:

 

1491626[/snapback]

 

 

 

Intellectual content? The NFL? Great though it is, I wouldn't describe any of the NFLs content as intellectual.

 

I understand where you're coming from, but I don't agree and when me and millions like me are out mowing the lawn on Sunday afternoons instead of glued to the TV, the NFL will understand where WE'RE coming from too. All I'm gonna need if FF gets wrecked is a highlight reel in the evening.

[DMD]

I'm really curious as to who this might effect, bsides free league sites.

 

Do MFL, CBS etc already pay licensing fees to provide the service? And if so, isn't that already reflected in their price? If not, how much a price increase could one expect?

 

THOSE are the questions I'd like to know. The NFL has a RIGHT to control their intellectual content: it's the gold of the future.  And how anyone could expect them to sit on the sidelines while millions are made off of them without receiving a cut is beyond me.

 

1491626[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

MFL - no

CBS - yes

 

The only licensed companies are the big ones - Fox, ESPN, CBS, Yahoo

 

also WCOFF and NFFC

[The Irish Doggy]

Intellectual content?      The NFL?  Great though it is, I wouldn't describe any of the NFLs content as intellectual.

 

I understand where you're coming from, but I don't agree and when me and millions like me are out mowing the lawn on Sunday afternoons instead of glued to the TV, the NFL will understand where WE'RE coming from too.  All I'm gonna need if FF gets wrecked is a highlight reel in the evening.

 

1491645[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Yeah, if I have to play on ESPN or CBS or whatever other crappy site I ditched years ago, I may not play at all. Or maybe I'll just b and moan about it and sign up anyway. I dunno.

[Pope Flick]

MFL - no

CBS - yes

 

The only licensed companies are the big ones - Fox, ESPN, CBS, Yahoo

 

also WCOFF and NFFC

 

1491716[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

So Yahoo offers free leagues, but they have paying ones as well, correct/

 

 

So MFL would likely face a larger price increase than the others. Again, I don't see how that will cause the industry to collapse.

 

And Ursa, the term doesn't necessarily define what is is, only in the legal sense.

 

Basically, what they're after is control of the online mechanisms that take their public stats are convert them into points systems that some people get charged for.

[DMD]

So Yahoo offers free leagues, but they have paying ones as well, correct/

So MFL would likely face a larger price increase than the others. Again, I don't see how that will cause the industry to collapse.

 

And Ursa, the term doesn't necessarily define what is is, only in the legal sense.

 

Basically, what they're after is control of the online mechanisms that take their public stats are convert them into points systems that some people get charged for.

 

1491758[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

MFL would likely not be offered a chance to license with they way they usually work. They only want big players with millions to spend, not "little guys"

[Savage Beatings]

MFL would likely not be offered a chance to license with they way they usually work. They only want big players with millions to spend, not "little guys"

 

1491772[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Still not sure what the bottom line would be then for little guys? Would they be ignored and continue on as is? Would they start paying for licensing and raise their rates? Or would they pretty much be out of business?

 

Also, how quickly will all of this effect Fantasy Football?

[DMD]

Still not sure what the bottom line would be then for little guys?  Would they be ignored and continue on as is?  Would they start paying for licensing and raise their rates?  Or would they pretty much be out of business?

 

Also, how quickly will all of this effect Fantasy Football?

 

1491784[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

The intent would be to put all non-licensed products out of business

[Savage Beatings]

The intent would be to put all non-licensed products out of business

1491957[/snapback]

 

 

Any opinions on whether or not that could happen before the start of this coming season?

[Return Of S&B]

This kind of reminds me of EA Sports's monopoly on the Video Game Industry. They own sole licensing agreements with several professional sport leagues (NFL, NBA, NHL, NASCAR...) and virtually have no competition.

 

Dont get me wrong, I love Madden Football, but every year the price goes up to buy the new game...and why not, by completely eliminating their competition they could raise the price of the game to over $120 a pop...people would still buy it every year because right now there is no alternative.

 

If the same type of thing goes through with FF sites, I wouldnt doubt CBS, Yahoo and whoever gets locked in with licensing agreements would raise their prices because of the reduced number of alternate sites.

[DMD]

Any opinions on whether or not that could happen before the start of this coming season?

 

1492004[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I do not believe so since things rarely happen that quickly.

 

I am certain that everyone is waiting for the outcome of the MLBAM vs. Charlie Wiegert's company but last I heard it is delayed until at least late summer and maybe longer. They may settle out of court and keep everything up in the air as well.

 

The NFLPA did open a suit against a contest last year (I think) but other than that I have not seen or heard of anything yet. It is all coming down the hill but I don't know if it reaches up by this fall or next year - if ever.

[Ursa Majoris]

If the same type of thing goes through with FF sites, I wouldnt doubt CBS, Yahoo and whoever gets locked in with licensing agreements would raise their prices because of the reduced number of alternate sites.

 

1492006[/snapback]

 

 

 

CBS is already twice the price of MFL. One of the problems I have with the whole thing is that excellent sites run by people really interested in the FF game e.g. MFL will be put out of business while giant FF sites like CBS run by people with no interest in the game will charge more for even crappier service than they already deliver.

 

How is this whole farrago of nonsense compliant with any concept of a free market?

[Kid Cid]

First of all, good for the NY Times.

I still don't see how a court can split the hairs between "Shaun Alexander" and "Shawn Alickzander," but not "SEA RB #37." Any competent lawyer who could introduce a webpage into evidence and argue that the misspelled name is intended to be the name of Seattle's running back could also argue that "SEA RB #37" means the same thing.

 

1489176[/snapback]

 

 

 

There's a precedent set on this already and I can think of one specific instance. I'll make the story short. In upstate New York, there's a winery you may have heard of, Taylor Wines. It was founded by a couple of brothers who were not bad businessmen, but they made a huge mistake. When they took their company public, they didn't hold back enough stock and lost a controlling interest in the company to the Coca Cola corporation.

 

Walter S. Taylor, one of the sons of the founding fathers, didn't like the practices of Coca Cola and set off to create his own winery. It was called the Walter S. Taylor Winery. And he used the name Walter S. Taylor on his wine labels. After all, it was his own name. Coca Cola sued saying that the name was too much like Taylor Wines and that it was a trademark infringement. Coca Cola won. So he changed the name of the winery to Bully Hill Vineyards. However, he still used his name on the label as he was proud of his stand for producing quality wines and not using deception (you can goole the back story).

 

Coca Cola was still pissed and dragged him back into court because having his name anywhere on the label was a trademark infringement. Once again Coca Cola won. So rather than re-labelling the thousands of bottles of wines already to be shipped, he gave free wine to college student to come in a cross out his name with a black magic marker on these bottles of wine. This wine then went to market.

 

In the mean time, Coca Cola had sold the Taylor Winery to the Seagram's Corporation. They got their panties in a wad over the black mark on the label, stating that every one knew it said Walter S. Taylor under the mark and therefore, this was a trademark infringement. Once again Walter Taylor was dragged into court and once again the court sided with the large corporation. So now neither his name or a black mark could be used in the labeling of his wines. Oh and did I mention that this prohibition extended to anything else he produced including but not limited to wine, art (he couldn't sign his paintings), or any other venture in which one might procure a profit.

 

So if the courts can rule that a black magic marker stripe equals intent, then they certainly can rule that a deliberate mispelling of a person's name and most likely NY QB #10, also equals intent.

Edited May 31, 2006 by Kid Cid

[skins]

I remember that case, Kid Cid, and here is an article about it. Pretty interesting. I dont recall him being forced to stop using the name in connection with anything than wine, however, because that is not how trademark law operates.