CBS Goes To Court To Let The NFL Know That You Can't Copyright Player Stats

from the and-it's-correct dept

Over the past few years, there have been a series of lawsuits concerning whether or not fantasy baseball operators need to license player info from Major League Baseball. Major League Baseball lost at every level and an eventual appeal to the Supreme Court was turned down. However, it appears that the National Football League wanted to ignore these rulings, and has still been trying to get fantasy sports sites to pony up to use stats and player info -- despite the fact that you cannot copyright facts. CBS is now challenging the NFL on this, and has gone to court to get a declaratory judgment that it doesn't need a license. It's difficult to see this case turning out any differently than the MLB cases, considering the facts of the case are almost identical.

Filed Under: facts, fantasy football, football, sports, stats
Companies: cbs, mlb, nfl

Recording Industry Now Making Up Facts To Support Having ISPs Police File Sharing

from the please-try-again dept

A whole bunch of folks have sent in the "debate" that was held on the BBC website last week, starting with regular columnist Bill Thompson trashing Virgin Media, a UK-based broadband provider, for agreeing to send out warning "notices" to folks that the entertainment industry claims are file sharing. Thompson explains that he's been known to use BitTorrent to get a copy of a TV show he missed on TV and forgot to record on his DVR, wondering why this should be a problem. He also mentions: "Evidence that heavy downloaders are also heavy music purchasers doesn't seem to have made any difference to the BPI's approach either, and instead of finding new business models they hold on to the old ways of working."

The response came from BPI's chief exec Geoff Taylor, who responds by suggesting that Thompson's column is ill-informed, and thus, supports this "education" effort by Virgin Media. He also suggests that the entertainment industry is wholeheartedly embracing new business models and its folks like Thompson who are the dinosaurs. Finally, he completely contradicts Thompson when he claims: "Independent research has shown time after time that people who download illegally generally spend less on music than people that don't, which undermines investment in new music."

Well, as the joke goes, everyone's entitled to their own opinions -- but not their own facts. And, in this case, it would appear that it's BPI's Geoff Taylor who's got his facts screwed up. The "new" business models that he talks about were hardly the result of a forward-thinking entertainment industry, but one that was dragged kicking and screaming into a new era, and has resisted every innovation at every turn -- and is still doing so. The real kicker, though, is his claim that independent studies say that those who use file sharing spend less on music. That's simply untrue. Study after study after study after study after study after study has shown the exact opposite -- noting that people who file share tend to be bigger music fans, and are more likely to spend on music.

Most of those studies were easily found doing a basic Google search. So how about a Google search in order to find all that research insisting that file sharing makes people spend less on music? The only result I could find was to BPI's own page where it claims "The overwhelming majority of reputable third party research shows that illegal file-sharing has been a key factor in the recording industry's 22% worldwide sales declines between 1999 and 2004" and then quotes the IFPI as its source (hardly an unbiased party). That page then does link to other research. Amusingly, though, it includes some of the same research mentioned above -- and either twists the results or claims that the research was "debunked," when in most cases it had not been.

In some cases, the results are positively hilarious. Take, for example, the way the BPI spins one study that says the exact opposite of what it claims: "EMR concluded that heavy music buyers are also heavy filesharers. In other words, filesharing threatens the music business' biggest customers." See how that works? When the study says that fileshares are the biggest music buyers, BPI uses it to note that file sharing "threatens the music business' biggest customers," rather than realizing that perhaps file sharers are also spending more money on music. Many of the other studies it quotes are the long-debunked stories that count every download as a "loss," which then are used to show huge "losses" in CD sales that never would have happened in the first place. The BPI is making up its own facts here. This round goes to Bill Thompson.

Filed Under: bill thompson, debates, facts, geoff talor, music industry, recording industry, studies
Companies: bpi, virgin media

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

from the good-news dept

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.

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

Australian Court Says Creating Your Own TV Program Listing Is Copyright Infringement

from the fine,-then-we-won't-watch-tv dept

William Patry points us to a court ruling in Australia that says, in effect, that television program guides are copyrighted material and anyone producing their own program guide needs to license that information from the TV networks. On this, it would appear that Australian law differs from US law, which doesn't consider factual information by itself to be copyrightable. However, the Australian ruling basically found that program guide information isn't quite "factual" information, but "created." Thus the copyright is on the creative decisions the TV network execs made in choosing when to show each show (yes, they're apparently serious about this). If that sounds a bit extreme (and a bit ridiculous), you're not the only one who thinks so. While the court didn't directly address the question, from this ruling it certainly sounds like you could be found to have violated copyright if you just sat in front of your TV and wrote down what played when -- and then predicted a similar schedule going forward.

Filed Under: australia, compilations, copyright, facts, tv guides

Reliability Requires Redundancy

from the peer-review dept

Slate has an interesting column by Jacob Leibenluft that compares the relative reliability of Yahoo! Answers and Wikipedia. He notes that unlike Google Answers, which was shuttered last year, Yahoo's answers site has become quite popular. Google paid its contributors to answer questions, but Yahoo! only offers contributors points that entitle them to ask questions of their own on the site. Unfortunately, even the service's own users acknowledge that Yahoo! Answers isn't very reliable. Often a question will attract a dozen or more answers. Some of them will probably be right, but others will be wrong, and it might be hard to tell which is which. Leibenluft contrasts that to Wikipedia which, while far from perfect, tends to have accurate information the vast majority of the time. He zeroes in on three important characteristics that give Wikipedia the edge. First, whereas Yahoo! Answers lets each user to give his or her own answer, the Wikipedia process is geared toward producing a single article that represents the consensus of all contributors. Second, Wikipedia has a strong norm of citing outside sources when contributors disagree. Usually, when there's a factual disagreement, someone will go out and find a citation in a reliable source to demonstrate the correct answer. Finally, Yahoo! Answers closes a question after about a week, whereas a Wikipedia article is open for editing indefinitely. This is important because Wikipedia articles tend to get more accurate over time, as more and more readers visit them and fix mistakes. It would be interesting for Yahoo! to experiment with a wiki-based format for Yahoo! Answers, where users collaborate on a single collective answer to the question rather than giving a bunch of individual answers. The major difficulty would be that the site's point-based reward system would be difficult to apply, since several users would have contributed to the final answer.

Techdirt's own Insight Community is similar in some ways to the Yahoo! and Google Answer programs. The failure of Google Answers might be a reason for pessimism, but I think there are a few key differences that make TIC more likely to succeed. First, the community is sharply focused on a fast-changing industry where expertise is especially valuable. Second, TIC is focused on providing insight and analysis, not just plain facts. With factual questions, a customer will typically be seeking a single correct answer. But with strategic business questions, there usually isn't one right answer; companies are often interested in hearing about several different approaches, and there can be a lot of value in seeing the arguments that experts marshal for various options. Finally, Techdirt is much more selective about the experts it brings onboard, using experts' blogs and other writings as a way of identifying those who know what they're talking about and can communicate it clearly. That gives the TIC a great signal-to-noise ratio.

Filed Under: facts, google answers, insight, redundancy, wikipedia, yahoo answers
Companies: google, techdirt, yahoo

Yet Again: Court Tells MLB It Doesn't Own Facts

from the just-let-people-play dept

After being smacked down multiple times by courts, Major League Baseball has continued to tilt at the windmill of copyright, claiming again that it owns the rights to players' names and stats and no one can use them without paying MLB a fee. The problem with this, of course, is that you cannot own facts. Despite the court pointing this out repeatedly, MLB's lawyers have continued to push the case forward. Kevin writes in to let us know that, once again, baseball has been smacked down, as an appeal to rehear the entire case has been denied by the appeals court meaning the only thing left to do is appeal to the Supreme Court. Given how much effort MLB has put into this lawsuit don't be surprised to see that appeal happen. However, it would be surprising if the Supreme Court actually took the case.

Filed Under: baseball, copyright, facts, fantasy baseball, ownership, right of privacy

Once Again (With Feeling!): Court Tells Major League Baseball It Does Not Own Facts

from the real-names,-here-we-go... dept

Major League Baseball has been tilting at windmills for years, claiming ownership of facts -- even though facts cannot be covered by copyright. This resulted in a lawsuit over whether or not companies that provide fantasy baseball services online needed to pay MLB for a license to use player's names and stats. While such licenses have been very lucrative for MLB over the years, one popular fantasy baseball company, CBC, decided to stop paying the license and keep offering the service -- which resulted in the lawsuit. It didn't take long for the courts to tell MLB that it doesn't own facts and anyone is free to use stats and player names. Of course, rather than realizing that fantasy baseball helps promote the real thing, bringing in a lot more money to the league, MLB could only focus on the short term licenses it was about to lose, and appealed. This was a waste of everyone's time, because the law is quite clear and an appeals court has now ruled (again) that Major League Baseball does not own the names and data associated with the game and anyone is free to use that factual information for other things, such as fantasy baseball games. It's highly likely that the folks at MLB will appeal again, though it's equally likely that they'll get smacked down again. MLB had shifted strategies as these cases wore on, trying to get away from focusing on ownership of facts and claiming it was more about the "right to publicity," but the appeals court ruled that a right to publicity does not trump the First Amendment.

Filed Under: baseball, copyright, facts, fantasy baseball, ownership, right of privacy
Companies: mlb

Harvard Bookstore Claims Book Prices Are Copyrighted

from the you-can-claim-it,-doesn't-mean-it's-true dept

A few years ago, we had a story about a store that was kicking people out if they caught them comparison shopping via a mobile device. Obviously, a store can kick out anyone they want to, but perhaps a better approach is to actually focus on better serving the customer so that when they're done comparison shopping, they still want to buy from you (either because you have the best price, or you offer some additional convenience or service they can't get elsewhere). This issue seems to be coming up again, but with a new twist. alex writes in to let us know that the bookstore at Harvard is kicking people out for taking too many notes about pricing (via Boing Boing). When confronted about this, the store's president actually claimed that book prices were the store's "intellectual property." Of course, just because you say something is your intellectual property, it doesn't mean it is. Unfortunately for the bookstore, the law is pretty clear that you can't copyright facts -- and whether the bookstore likes it or not, prices are facts. The store certainly has the right to refuse service to anyone, but that doesn't mean that it's smart for business or that copying down prices infringes on any kind of intellectual property. Update: To clarify, there are apparently a few different bookstores at Harvard. This particular one is the Harvard Coop, run by Barnes & Noble and the University. There is another bookstore, called The Harvard Book Store that is independent and has nothing to do with this story.

Filed Under: copyright, facts
Companies: barnes and noble, harvard

People Want Analysis Of The News, Rather Than Just Facts

from the probably-maybe dept

Last summer, Carlo wrote up a fantastic analysis of what's wrong with journalism, which highlights the false focus on objectivity. The point he makes is that there's nothing wrong with reporting the facts, but people get value from the interpretation, analysis and insight that people provide around the facts. That's what we've always tried to do around here at Techdirt. I, personally, chuckle whenever anyone complains about "bias" or a lack of objectivity here. We've never claimed to be reporters or journalists. We've never claimed to be objective. From the very beginning of this site's existence (I know, since I was there), it has always been about giving our opinion and analysis of the news. If we don't have an opinion on something, we probably are a lot less interested in writing about it. And, despite the anger by a small subset at our "non-journalism," we've found that most of our readers read us because they value that opinion and analysis. In fact, in the coming months, expect to see us dive even further into insight and analysis.

That's why it's interesting to see reporters coming to terms with new studies suggesting that opinions are exactly what younger people are looking for in their news. The editorial worries that this inevitably results in the lowest common denominator of angry commentators like those you see on the various cable news channels, but that need not be the case. The thing is, people don't value opinions for the sake of opinions -- they value opinions based on facts (which is often missing from cable news). That is, just because people want opinions, it doesn't mean that the facts go out the window. They want to know the facts, and then they want to see the interpretation of it. They mostly understand opinion for what it is, knowing that the analysis is based on the facts, and that leads to other interpretations and analysis.

In fact, despite the claims of an internet "echo chamber," one of the things that makes the internet such an interesting medium, is the idea that anyone can respond and discuss stuff. If someone disagrees with our interpretation of the facts, we want to know about it, and we want to discuss it. That's how we all learn and we all become smarter. So those in the news business shouldn't fret the value that people put on opinions these days. Those opinions still need a factual basis, and the ensuing discussion often highlights more important finer points that are missed if you're just staring at the objective facts all day. But that's only going to happen if traditional news organizations recognize the value of opinions -- and the ability for people to talkback and discuss those opinions (and the facts they're based on).

So far, though, that doesn't appear to be happening. Tim Lee points us to an LA Times editorial that gets plenty of facts wrong while trashing bloggers as being only interested in opinion. Yes, certainly, there are some folks out there who are only in it to make a point or be heard. But it's the combination of facts and opinion and analysis that has the chance to make these discussions that much more meaningful. It doesn't mean that you do one side without the other. It means, both are needed together.

Filed Under: facts, newspapers, opinion