Supreme Court Refuses To Hear Baseball Appeal; MLB Still Doesn't Get To Own Facts

from the good-news dept

Mon, Jun 2nd 2008 5:56pm — Mike Masnick

Good news from the Supreme Court this week, as it has decided not to take up Major League Baseball's appeal over the question of whether it gets to "own" player names and stats. As you may recall, Major League Baseball had created a lucrative side business for itself "licensing" out player names and stats to fantasy baseball providers. This actually made them quite a bit of money, until one of those fantasy baseball companies put two and two together and realized that player names and statistics are public information and not subject to copyright (you can't copyright "facts"). MLB flipped out at the possibility of losing this revenue stream and sued, claiming ownership of all game data.

As MLB realized that claiming ownership of game data was never going to cut it in court, it changed the story somewhat, saying that it was really about the players' right of publicity, which also (somehow) included owning their stats. A district court quickly saw through this argument and told MLB that it had no case. Rather than admitting defeat (and recognizing that more widespread use of baseball info should bring more fans into the game), MLB appealed. The appeals court wasted little time in again telling MLB it had no case. But those folks at MLB are nothing if not stubborn. So, they asked the full appeals court to rehear the case and were turned down

So, again, rather than recognizing that perhaps all of these courts (and common sense) had a point, MLB appealed to the Supreme Court, who (as noted) turned them down. If you're keeping score at home (and, we're not claiming ownership of the score), that now makes 4 - 0 for the courts over MLB, and I think we've pretty much hit the 9th inning, as there are no more appeals. The only thing MLB can hope for now is for a different circuit to somehow (unlikely) come to a different conclusion and the Supreme Court to revisit the issue. But that seems about as likely as, say, the Seattle Mariners somehow coming back to win the World Series this year. Stranger things have happened, but not very often.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: baseball, copyright, facts, ownership, supreme court
Companies: major league baseball, mlb

16 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Cynic, 2 Jun 2008 @ 6:20pm

I was once dragged to a baseball game by a vendor trying to impress me. Personally I'd rather watch paint dry.

But getting back on topic, it sounds like MLB is living in a fantasy world. Does the number of times a movie star attends an annual event with or without a date amount to that star's right of publicity? So the actor is supposed to say: "How dare you mention what I do in public...you have to buy that from me...even if you and everyone else sees me do it!!!" What a crock. And what lunatics the MLB folks must be for thinking any court at all would follow that line of reasoning (and calling it reasoning is being way too kind).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nelson, 2 Jun 2008 @ 6:57pm

Tunes harmonica ...

"Ha Ha"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2008 @ 7:00pm

Sounds like it's almost time to boycott baseball again, lets see how much they loose from that and see whom they try to sue.

Magusyk
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Alan, 2 Jun 2008 @ 7:47pm

Since they seem to have a little trouble recognizing a home run, the strike zone, or the effcts of drug use, maybe they should concentrate on these things first. I know I'd sleep better through the night (games) if they did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2008 @ 9:05pm

Baseball?
Who won Game 5 of Detroit/Pens?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Wilson, 3 Jun 2008 @ 7:59am
  
  Re: Baseball?
  Pens...3rd overtime period. :-)
  
  ttfn
  
  John
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2008 @ 9:48pm

It's still going on.

I don't get it though. The MLB is saying "We're looking at our next options." What is their next option? Appealing to God?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2008 @ 12:32am
  
  Re:
  Well that won't work, God's a hockey fan.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2008 @ 5:42am
    
    Re: Re:
    Rofl
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Eliot, 3 Jun 2008 @ 7:18am
    
    Re: Re:
    Haha.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thomas, 3 Jun 2008 @ 4:54am

Next Option
The next option is, of course, to appeal to (I mean pay) congress to pass a law in their favor. All they need to do is cough up enough money to the right senators/reps.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Killer_Tofu (profile), 3 Jun 2008 @ 6:16am

Re Several Points
Mike M: "(and, we're not claiming ownership of the score)"

lol, awesome.

AC #7: "Well that won't work, God's a hockey fan."

Also lol. I am loving the humor in this thread.

Re #8 Thomas
That will probably work. Just look at the Canadian DMCA a couple blog posts down. It is working for them. And we know it works here as well. $$ = laws passed by bribed "representatives"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nasch, 3 Jun 2008 @ 7:58am

Not the courts...
It's not 4-0 in favor of the courts over MLB, it's 4-0 in favor of the fantasy baseball league. But I guess as long as MLB is on the zero side maybe I shouldn't pick nits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
James, 3 Jun 2008 @ 8:07am

I agree w/Stephen Colbert
The media should give MLB what they want and never mention them again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2008 @ 8:11am

Bit of a nitpick here, but the fantasy baseball site actually brought MLB to court first, seeking a declaratory judgment. Basically, they were pretty sure they were going to get sued over this, so they decided to sue first, asking a court to rule that what they were doing wasn't against the law. While it's still David v Goliath no matter who sued first, I think the site should definitely be given credit for being aggressive in themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Baseball Handicappers, 15 Feb 2009 @ 12:30am

Baseball Picks
There was no need for the law to get involved and the judgement was 100% correct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]