Which one of you is suing MLB?

[KurtBevacqua]

Assuming this gets framed in a proper legal perspective, I think MLB is gonna lose this arguement. Several years ago in college I had to do some case studies on legal battles over data in the public domain for a computer science course, and almost always the court rule against the plaintive.

There was one case where the local phone company tried to sue an independed company that made it's own version of the phone book over their adverstising fees, saying it was a copy of their data. The court ruled the data was in the public domain that could be gathered by anyone and the phone company did not have exclusive rights.

Another more famous case was with Microsoft where they were alleged to have stolen the idea for Excel. The court agreed that Excel was indeed a copy, however it decided to legally define algorithms as scientific data that belongs to the public domain and ruled algorithms were public property because they were scientific discoveries.

If they can successfully argue big league data is public domain (boxscores are free via newspapers, magazines, and the internet) and can be gathered freely by anyone then MLB is gonna lose.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200....ap/index.html

ST. LOUIS (AP) -- A company that runs sports fantasy leagues is asking a federal court to decide whether major leaguers' batting averages and home run counts are historical facts that can be used freely or property that can be sold.

In a lawsuit that could affect the pastime of an estimated 16 million people, CBC Distribution and Marketing wants the judge to stop Major League Baseball from requiring a license to use the statistics.
ADVERTISEMENT

The company claims baseball statistics become historical facts as soon as the game is over, so it shouldn't have to pay for the right to use them.

Working mostly over the Internet, CBC and its hundreds of competitors provide player profiles and process reams of daily data for fans who pretend to be team owners, drafting players for imaginary squads and using statistics to determine a winner at the season's end.

While some leagues are just for fun, others award large cash prizes, and operating them has become a multimillion industry.

CBC, which has run the CDM Fantasy Sports leagues since 1992, sued baseball last year after it took over the rights to the statistics and profiles from the Major League Baseball Players Association and declined to grant the company a new license.

Before the shift, CBC had been paying the players' association 9 percent of gross royalties. But in January 2005, Major League Baseball announced a $50 million agreement with the players' association giving baseball exclusive rights to license statistics.

Despite being turned down for the new license, CBC has continued to operate leagues during the legal dispute.

Major League Baseball has claimed that intellectual property law makes it illegal for fantasy league operators to "commercially exploit the identities and statistical profiles" of big league players.

Jim Gallagher, a spokesman for Major League Baseball Advanced Media, baseball's Internet arm, declined comment on the lawsuit, scheduled for a hearing this summer in U.S. District Court in St. Louis.

Ben Clark, a St. Louis attorney who specializes in intellectual property rights, said a win by Major League Baseball could "send a shudder through the entire fantasy industry," he said.

On the other hand, he said, it stands to lose the rights to any royalties for use of statistics.

"You just wonder whether it's a fight Major League Baseball wants to have," he said

[Skipaway]

This story is wrong. The lawsuit is not about stats, which was already settled in that NBA v. Motorola lawsuit.

The argument is about using MLBPA member names and stats for profit. If this company is not making profit out of fantasy games, or is simply reporting the stats like baseball-reference.com, there is no need for this lawsuit.

Hence the "commercially exploit the identities and statistical profiles" argument.

[KurtBevacqua]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

This story is wrong. The lawsuit is not about stats, which was already settled in that NBA v. Motorola lawsuit.

The argument is about using MLBPA member names and stats for profit. If this company is not making profit out of fantasy games, or is simply reporting the stats like baseball-reference.com, there is no need for this lawsuit.

Hence the "commercially exploit the identities and statistical profiles" argument.

That's just lawyer spin to frame an argument around the indisputable facts the names and data are in the public domain.

Precedents abound. People write unauthorized biographies for profit all the time about public figures. Magazine articles are frequently written for profit about people in Hollywood whose names may be incorporated or licensed for some type of production. You can't monopolize names and data in the public domain. You can say use of major league trademarks or the player's union trademark is in violation. And the use of current day player names in video games appears to be respected, however I suspect if someone took that to court they could beat the union as well. Otherwise things as simple as CNN and newspapers would have to pay a fee everytime they did a story on the game of the week or published a boxscore.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by KurtBevacqua

That's just lawyer spin to frame an argument around the indisputable facts the names and data are in the public domain.

Precedents abound. People write unauthorized biographies for profit all the time about public figures. Magazine articles are frequently written for profit about people in Hollywood whose names may be incorporated or licensed for some type of production. You can't monopolize names and data in the public domain. You can say use of major league trademarks or the player's union trademark is in violation. And the use of current day player names in video games appears to be respected, however I suspect if someone took that to court they could beat the union as well. Otherwise things as simple as CNN and newspapers would have to pay a fee everytime they did a story on the game of the week or published a boxscore.

That's not lawyer spin. It's more like you bought in the lawyer spin of that fantasy baseball company. They are trying to make it something more agreeable for you, and you fell into their trap.

It's a fact websites like baseball-references don't have to pay. It's only financial fantasy baseball companies that are involved in this lawsuit. This is more close to OOTP using player names in game without paying licence fees.

[Skipaway]

And what you said was already settled in the NBA vs. Motorola case I said. Nobody is going to charge anyone licence fees for representing data.

[swampdragon]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

That's not lawyer spin. It's more like you bought in the lawyer spin of that fantasy baseball company. They are trying to make it something more agreeable for you, and you fell into their trap.

It's a fact websites like baseball-references don't have to pay. It's only financial fantasy baseball companies that are involved in this lawsuit. This is more close to OOTP using player names in game without paying licence fees.

Yes, it is. Maybe MLB will lose.

[Eckstein 4 Prez]

Skip is correct that the NBA-Motorola case already decided the issue that seems the most interesting here. I have no idea of the facts behind this case, though, so I can't comment about whether you "fell for their lawyer-speak."

[fantom1979]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

This story is wrong. The lawsuit is not about stats, which was already settled in that NBA v. Motorola lawsuit.

The argument is about using MLBPA member names and stats for profit. If this company is not making profit out of fantasy games, or is simply reporting the stats like baseball-reference.com, there is no need for this lawsuit.

Hence the "commercially exploit the identities and statistical profiles" argument.

It could be agrued that baseballreference.com is a for profit company (or at least trying to be) and they use stats, teams, and players to make that profit. What is the difference between baseballreference.com making a profit by displaying stats and a fantasy baseball website making a profit by showing the same stats but in a different format.

[KurtBevacqua]

Just wondering if The Sporting News or Baseball Almanac or USA Today pay for the rights to publish box scores and other baseball stats.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by fantom1979

It could be agrued that baseballreference.com is a for profit company (or at least trying to be) and they use stats, teams, and players to make that profit. What is the difference between baseballreference.com making a profit by displaying stats and a fantasy baseball website making a profit by showing the same stats but in a different format.

You could check the NBA v. Motorola case. Providing stats/facts is OK without licences.

Fantasy baseball websites would be a different case since they are not just reporting facts, and would represent a grey area different from your regular boxscore or stats reporting.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by KurtBevacqua

Just wondering if The Sporting News or Baseball Almanac or USA Today pay for the rights to publish box scores and other baseball stats.

As indicates in the NBA v Motorola case, they don't have to. The only reason they'd be paying MLB is not for the right to publish, but for the data collected.

There is nothing stopping anyone from collecting the facts themselves and publishing them without paying anyone licencing fees. Facts are not protected by copyright.