DMD Posted May 26, 2006 Share Posted May 26, 2006 NY Times editorial about the fight between the MLBAM and the use of stats in fantasy baseball I think he hits the nail on the head. But I am not an attorney... Royalties on R.B.I.'s? Published: May 20, 2006 Baseball statistics are an unlikely subject for a constitutional battle. But a lawsuit between Major League Baseball and a fantasy baseball company over batting averages and on-base percentages is shaping up to be just that. The narrow question is whether Major League Baseball has a right to keep the fantasy baseball company from using statistics from its games. But the suit has much broader implications for free speech. The courts should make it clear that anyone may use baseball statistics. The company, CBC Distribution and Marketing, is a leader in fantasy baseball, a $1.5-billion-a-year industry that allows fans to become "owners" of imaginary baseball teams. Participants "draft" real-life major league players, and compete against similar teams. The teams' performance and the winners are determined by the statistics of actual major league players. Major League Baseball insists that it owns the statistics, and that CBC should pay licensing fees. CBC is suing to establish that it does not have to pay to use the statistics. The case pits the "right of publicity" against the First Amendment. Major League Baseball claims that its right of publicity allows it to control and charge for the use of its statistics. But the right of publicity is narrowly limited to commercial exploitation. The classic case is the unauthorized use of a celebrity's photograph in an advertisement. Major League Baseball's attempt to stretch the right of publicity is part of a larger trend. Corporations are becoming increasingly aggressive about locking up information. It is the same instinct that led Hollywood studios to push Congress to pass the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998, which added 20 years to every copyright. If Major League Baseball is allowed to control the use of its statistics, movie stars could demand compensation from magazines that profile them or put them on the covers. A hero who pulls a child from the path of an out-of-control car could claim that he owns the right of publicity for his act of heroism. But the First Amendment guarantees people the right to discuss public events. A movie star's career trajectory, an act of heroism and a batting average are all facts about the world and the people in it, and belong to all of us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donutrun Jellies Posted May 29, 2006 Share Posted May 29, 2006 Interesting article -- and I agree with its ultimate point that stats should belong to all of us -- but lets think this through from the other side. The article's logic seems to hinge on "a public event". Is a baseball game a public event, like a community's Memorial Day Parade in the town square -- or is it a private function put on by a private company to which private citizens must purchase admission in order to attend? It's private ... Since it is a private showing put on by a private company, aren't they within their rights (albeit being dinks at the same time) to restrict what is taken out of that event and shared? Concerts successfully (and by that I mean legally not effectively) restrict videotaping and sound recording of performers -- Does the owner-hording-of-baseball-stats argument follow the same thought process? Could they actually have a point that will hold up? :bitespinandlobsgrenadeoverwall: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loyalboyd Posted May 29, 2006 Share Posted May 29, 2006 I am worried one day I will wake up and see on the huddle that it cost to play fantasy sports. Not the 20- 100 dollars we play to gamble with pretty much to play. But 20-100 dollars we play plus a extra 50-100 to give to the basketball,football,baseball or even hockey. When some people dont know anything but their team till they play these games and then it evolves to the love of the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ravage Posted May 29, 2006 Share Posted May 29, 2006 The article's logic seems to hinge on "a public event". Is a baseball game a public event, like a community's Memorial Day Parade in the town square -- or is it a private function put on by a private company to which private citizens must purchase admission in order to attend? It's private ... Since it is a private showing put on by a private company, aren't they within their rights (albeit being dinks at the same time) to restrict what is taken out of that event and shared? Yet every stat will be reported in the paper, on ESPN, and the respective sport's sites the next day. So basically it's about nothing more than a way to make more money. I'll go back to doing it by hand before I'll pay any league for the right to use the stats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted May 29, 2006 Share Posted May 29, 2006 Yet every stat will be reported in the paper, on ESPN, and the respective sport's sites the next day. So basically it's about nothing more than a way to make more money. I'll go back to doing it by hand before I'll pay any league for the right to use the stats. 1490713[/snapback] That may end up being the deciding factor. Since the leagues release stats to facilitate potential fans it would be hard to deny them now. We'll see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMD Posted May 29, 2006 Author Share Posted May 29, 2006 Statistics have long been in the public domain in all media - radio, tv, print and now internet. Statistics are nothing more than factual numerical measurements. While they are created in a private game, they have always been part of the public domain and they encouraged all media to promote them. The MLB/NFL never cared about this supposed infringement until they saw money in it that they could try to extort. It is pure extortion in my opinion. They have no intention on limiting the use of stats in any newspaper, TV news, magazine, radio show or internet site OTHER than ones that are running a contest or a league. So while everyone is allowed (and encouraged to promote) access to stats, they want to carve out one little niche that they think they can cash in on. It is pure extortion. Nothing in return, just write them a check if they will let you and unless you are one of the big media, they are not interested in you existing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted May 29, 2006 Share Posted May 29, 2006 Statistics have long been in the public domain in all media - radio, tv, print and now internet. Statistics are nothing more than factual numerical measurements. While they are created in a private game, they have always been part of the public domain and they encouraged all media to promote them. The MLB/NFL never cared about this supposed infringement until they saw money in it that they could try to extort. It is pure extortion in my opinion. They have no intention on limiting the use of stats in any newspaper, TV news, magazine, radio show or internet site OTHER than ones that are running a contest or a league. So while everyone is allowed (and encouraged to promote) access to stats, they want to carve out one little niche that they think they can cash in on. It is pure extortion. Nothing in return, just write them a check if they will let you and unless you are one of the big media, they are not interested in you existing. 1490785[/snapback] Yeah, just write them a blank check. They'll fill in th amount later. You now they'll be fair about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vicster Posted May 30, 2006 Share Posted May 30, 2006 I had a fine life before fantasy sports and will continue to have a fine life afterwards as well. I play fantasy sports because I still enjoy watching the games and get additional enjoyment out of it when one of my fantasy players does well. Especially players that develop on one of my dynasty teams. But, I also like to compete and fantasy sports allows me to do so without killing my body anymore. I can live through the players I select for my teams by watching them on TV. This is in addition to rooting for my beloved Packers each Sunday. In saying all that, I believe I am no different than the millions of others that play fantasy sports in that, if they push me, I can walk away and be fine with it. I'll continue to watch them on TV until they make those pay-per-view as well. Then I guess I'll get used to watching the Lifetime channel with my wife. There is more to life than fantasy sports and so let them do what they want with their intellectual properties. I'll just take my remote and mouse and go home... Besides, my 3 daughters won't ever be playing football, but it sure is fun watching them play softball right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
proninja Posted May 30, 2006 Share Posted May 30, 2006 I had a fine life before fantasy sports and will continue to have a fine life afterwards as well. I play fantasy sports because I still enjoy watching the games and get additional enjoyment out of it when one of my fantasy players does well. Especially players that develop on one of my dynasty teams. But, I also like to compete and fantasy sports allows me to do so without killing my body anymore. I can live through the players I select for my teams by watching them on TV. This is in addition to rooting for my beloved Packers each Sunday. In saying all that, I believe I am no different than the millions of others that play fantasy sports in that, if they push me, I can walk away and be fine with it. I'll continue to watch them on TV until they make those pay-per-view as well. Then I guess I'll get used to watching the Lifetime channel with my wife. There is more to life than fantasy sports and so let them do what they want with their intellectual properties. I'll just take my remote and mouse and go home... Besides, my 3 daughters won't ever be playing football, but it sure is fun watching them play softball right now. 1490911[/snapback] I would like to think that I could get along just fine without it too. Yeah. Right. I'd pay, and so would most of the people here. That's the problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted May 30, 2006 Share Posted May 30, 2006 I would like to think that I could get along just fine without it too.Yeah. Right. I'd pay, and so would most of the people here. That's the problem. 1491832[/snapback] If it came down to having to move my leagues to any of the major sites I'd be out and I'm sure there would be plenty walking with me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitem0nkey Posted May 30, 2006 Share Posted May 30, 2006 MLB should realize that fantasy sports help the real sport. Before I did NFL fantasy, watched 1st bears games, then division games. And Sunday/Monday night football. now I watch so much more NFL. And this applies to MLB. O lot of people became bigger fans thanks to fantasy sports. I know people who have purchased the MLB/NFL package just because of there fantasy team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins Posted May 30, 2006 Share Posted May 30, 2006 This is an excerpt from Feist, the leading US Supreme Court case on whether facts are capable of having copyright protection (sorry for the legalese): [8] This case concerns the interaction of two well-established propositions. The first is that facts are not copyrightable; the other, that compilations of facts generally are. Each of these propositions possesses an impeccable pedigree. That there can be no valid copyright in facts is universally understood. The most fundamental axiom of copyright law is that [p*345] "no author may copyright his ideas or the facts he narrates." Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539, 556 (1985). Rural wisely concedes this point, noting in its brief that "facts and discoveries, of course, are not themselves subject to copyright protection." Brief for Respondent 24. At the same time, however, it is beyond dispute that compilations of facts are within the subject matter of copyright. Compilations were expressly mentioned in the Copyright Act of 1909, and again in the Copyright Act of 1976. [9] There is an undeniable tension between these two propositions. Many compilations consist of nothing but raw data -- i. e., wholly factual information not accompanied by any original written expression. On what basis may one claim a copyright in such a work? Common sense tells us that 100 uncopyrightable facts do not magically change their status when gathered together in one place. Yet copyright law seems to contemplate that compilations that consist exclusively of facts are potentially within its scope. [10] The key to resolving the tension lies in understanding why facts are not copyrightable. The sine qua non of copyright is originality. To qualify for copyright protection, a work must be original to the author. See Harper & Row, supra, at 547-549. Original, as the term is used in copyright, means only that the work was independently created by the author (as opposed to copied from other works), and that it possesses at least some minimal degree of creativity. 1 M. Nimmer & D. Nimmer, Copyright §§ 2.01[A], (1990) (hereinafter Nimmer). To be sure, the requisite level of creativity is extremely low; even a slight amount will suffice. The vast majority of works make the grade quite easily, as they possess some creative spark, "no matter how crude, humble or obvious" it might be. Id., § 1.08[C][1]. Originality does not signify novelty; a work may be original even though it closely resembles other works so long as the similarity is fortuitous, not the result of copying. To illustrate, [p*346] assume that two poets, each ignorant of the other, compose identical poems. Neither work is novel, yet both are original and, hence, copyrightable. See Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp., 81 F. 2d 49, 54 (CA2 1936). Thus, it seems to me, from a copyright only perspective, unless the sports leagues are organizing and compiling the "facts" of their stats, they cannot own copyright in them. The other issues, such as rights of publicity and name and likeness issues are side issues that have little bearing because sports events and figures are publicly known information and not proprietary. The position of the leagues' is a reach and will end up being a loser, IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted May 30, 2006 Share Posted May 30, 2006 The position of the leagues' is a reach and will end up being a loser, IMO. 1491986[/snapback] I hope you are right but if Alito is the decider he will cide with the NFL. If that happens thanks again Bush voters. Citizens for decades will wonder how anyone could vote for such a moron. I don't feel good about this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMD Posted May 30, 2006 Author Share Posted May 30, 2006 Thus, it seems to me, from a copyright only perspective, unless the sports leagues are organizing and compiling the "facts" of their stats, they cannot own copyright in them. The other issues, such as rights of publicity and name and likeness issues are side issues that have little bearing because sports events and figures are publicly known information and not proprietary. The position of the leagues' is a reach and will end up being a loser, IMO. 1491986[/snapback] The "litigants" are not using copyright law, their contention is that right of publicity is impinged which is why it is the players association that is involved, not the league or the team owners. While no one argues that player likenesses cannot be used in a manner that implies endorsement, they are trying to extend player rights into the use of their name and statistics and most people think it is a case they stand to lose. Then again... money and lawyers talk... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donutrun Jellies Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 It is pure extortion. Nothing in return, just write them a check if they will let you and unless you are one of the big media, they are not interested in you existing. 1490785[/snapback] Agreed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMD Posted May 31, 2006 Author Share Posted May 31, 2006 Ironic thing too is that the MLBAM/NFLPA does not capture or create the statistics, they do not certify them, they do not distribute them. They do not record, maintain or archive them. They just want you to pay for the right to get them from someone else so that they may have pure profit. No risk. Nothing in exchange. Just hand them the money for absolutely nothing. Extortion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 MLB owners and its greedy agents will never learn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 The "litigants" are not using copyright law, their contention is that right of publicity is impinged which is why it is the players association that is involved, not the league or the team owners. While no one argues that player likenesses cannot be used in a manner that implies endorsement, they are trying to extend player rights into the use of their name and statistics and most people think it is a case they stand to lose. Then again... money and lawyers talk... 1492103[/snapback] Then they have even more of a problem, because using their logic, a reporter's article in the sports page might be considered an improper use, etc. ad nauseum.... This is a dumb case. That doesnt mean it wont take hundreds of thousands of dollars and years to resolve, however. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliaz Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 There is more to life than fantasy sports 1490911[/snapback] are you nutz? what else is there besides fantasy sports? reality? Bleh, to boring if you ask me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 MLB owners and its greedy agents will never learn. 1492334[/snapback] Like the NFL and the NBA and the NHL and their player unions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vicster Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 are you nutz? what else is there besides fantasy sports? reality? Bleh, to boring if you ask me. 1492347[/snapback] I must be nuts... 'cause there are times you actually make sense to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.