Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. judge rejects World Chess bid to block websites from airing moves

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 131 posts

Re: U.S. judge rejects World Chess bid to block websites from airing moves

#11

Post by abritinthebay »

Lordarminius wrote: post #2

There is a glaring inconsistency in this ruling when compared to the status quo for other sports. In baseball, football the Olympics etc the sponsors hold the broadcast rights and do with it as they deem fit. Why is this same right denied to the organizers of the World Chess Championship?

If someone wanted to publish the plays and player movements in any of those games - they totally can.

What you're referring to is video broadcast rights. That's rather different. The World Chess Championship's rights on those weren't violated.

This is the equivalent of someone writing down the play-by-play in a game - and that would also be completely legal.

Re: U.S. judge rejects World Chess bid to block websites from airing moves

#12

Post by [deleted] »

csmajorfive wrote: post #3
Lordarminius wrote: post #2

There is a glaring inconsistency in this ruling when compared to the status quo for other sports. In baseball, football the Olympics etc the sponsors hold the broadcast rights and do with it as they deem fit. Why is this same right denied to the organizers of the World Chess Championship?

Do they hold the rights to recounting what happened play-by-play without using any images or media from the event? That seems more comparable here.

[deleted]

Re: U.S. judge rejects World Chess bid to block websites from airing moves

#14

Post by Lordarminius »

freditup wrote: post #5
Lordarminius wrote: post #2

There is a glaring inconsistency in this ruling when compared to the status quo for other sports. In baseball, football the Olympics etc the sponsors hold the broadcast rights and do with it as they deem fit. Why is this same right denied to the organizers of the World Chess Championship?

I think your analogy is wrong. Many websites broadcast live "play-by-play" info on MLB, NFL, NBA, and NHL games. These are typically done, for example, by showing a graphic of a strike zone and where pitches are located as they are pitched. However, the actual game audio and video is not broadcasted. I don't believe you need any sort of license to display this information (correct me here if I'm wrong). As far as I c…

> I think the correct decision was made here.

No it was not. It says in the article: Organizers ... failed to persuade a federal judge to block rival website operators from broadcasting chess moves ...

The defendants also said that they would not simply be copying audiovisual content generated by World Chess, but displaying the moves on their own computerized chess board while adding commentary and analysis.

The ruling directly attacks the business model of the organizers and will thus reduce the chance of attracting sponsors in the future. Hence, it is not in the public interest.

Chess is a peculiar game in that the visual content of any broadcast ie players actually playing, is subordinate to the moves made. Nobody watches a chess game online for 5 hours for the fun of seeing the players think. That's like waiting for the paint to dry. Take away the advantage of broadcasting the moves with commentary and analysis and your advantage as a sponsor is gone. I would have thought the judge would have understood this and taken it into account.

Re: U.S. judge rejects World Chess bid to block websites from airing moves

#15

Post by logicallee »

ambirex wrote: post #7

The main difference between this and other sports/events is the moves are facts. They wouldn't be able to broadcast a live video feed. But you can copyright facts.

I agree with your conclusion but not your reasoning. (you accidentally wrote "can" for "can't" at the end though, maybe you have time to correct it.)

So this is why I don't agree with your reasoning:

The fact is that Ambirex's comment at 11:22 PM Friday, November 11, 2016 UTC began with a capital T as his first move. Though he could have left it at that and left his opponents to reply, this was not his complete comment. The fact is, for the second letter of his comment he chose an 'h'. And the fact is, for the third letter, he chose an 'e'. The fact is, for the fourth character he had a space. The fact is, for the fifth character he had an 'm'. The fact is...

And so forth. So while these are certainly facts -- still, they are quite creative facts. More creative than the work you put into beginning your comment with "the main difference".

So while I actually happen to agree with you, this idea of the moves being "facts" versus acts of creative expression is dubious -- where is the hard line that separates that from my reproducing your comment (or any other copyrighted work) by reference to facts? They are facts, true, but they are also the creative output of two masters of the field.

In general for cases like this judges try to look at the pragmatics. This is why the judge is quoted as saying "He said the public interest would be served by 'robust reporting,' and analysis of the event."

The fact that for him this includes fully reproducing all the moves (which of course seriously impacts the market of the organizers - as well as reproducing the whole of the 'creative output', rather than just excerpts - both of which are important standards in copyright) is one that I can probably agree with.

But if he felt that the actual interests in the matter were another way, you bet that he could extend copyright protection to the creative work of playing a game. After all, it is rare for any game between grandmasters today to match one from a database. When they do, it is similar to when similar melodies are created independently.

In fact, a chess game likely has waaaaaaaay more entropy (I am making quite a technical argument) than very short melodies which are clearly protected by copyright and for which many "variations" are already owned by others.

Why are the "facts" of the melody more protected?

So I don't really agree with your interpretation. A fact would be like "white won" or "black won" -- rather than the creative output into the moves themselves. Though more creative than mere fact, I do agree with your conclusion -- for the same reasoning quoted in the article.

Re: U.S. judge rejects World Chess bid to block websites from airing moves

#16

Post by greglindahl »

Lordarminius wrote: post #14
freditup wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think your analogy is wrong. Many websites broadcast live "play-by-play" info on MLB, NFL, NBA, and NHL games. These are typically done, for example, by showing a graphic of a strike zone and where pitches are located as they are pitched. However, the actual game audio and video is not broadcasted. I don't believe you need any sort of license to display this information (correct me here if I'm wrong). As far as I c…

> I think the correct decision was made here. No it was not. It says in the article: Organizers ... failed to persuade a federal judge to block rival website operators from broadcasting chess moves ... The defendants also said that they would not simply be copying audiovisual content generated by World Chess, but displaying the moves on their own computerized chess board while adding commentary and analysis. The ruli…

Yeah, a business model is more important than the non-copyrightable nature of facts. Good thing the judge understood the actual law, which is not concerned with business models.

Re: U.S. judge rejects World Chess bid to block websites from airing moves

#17

Post by greglindahl »

logicallee wrote: post #15
ambirex wrote: post #7

The main difference between this and other sports/events is the moves are facts. They wouldn't be able to broadcast a live video feed. But you can copyright facts.

I agree with your conclusion but not your reasoning. (you accidentally wrote "can" for "can't" at the end though, maybe you have time to correct it.) So this is why I don't agree with your reasoning: The fact is that Ambirex's comment at 11:22 PM Friday, November 11, 2016 UTC began with a capital T as his first move. Though he could have left it at that and left his opponents to reply, this was not his complete comme…

Are you a copyright lawyer? I'm thinking not, because cases like Feist v. Rural Telephone make it pretty clear what "facts" mean in the context of things you can copyright.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._R....

Re: U.S. judge rejects World Chess bid to block websites from airing moves

#18

Post by thatcat »

Lordarminius wrote: post #14
freditup wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think your analogy is wrong. Many websites broadcast live "play-by-play" info on MLB, NFL, NBA, and NHL games. These are typically done, for example, by showing a graphic of a strike zone and where pitches are located as they are pitched. However, the actual game audio and video is not broadcasted. I don't believe you need any sort of license to display this information (correct me here if I'm wrong). As far as I c…

> I think the correct decision was made here. No it was not. It says in the article: Organizers ... failed to persuade a federal judge to block rival website operators from broadcasting chess moves ... The defendants also said that they would not simply be copying audiovisual content generated by World Chess, but displaying the moves on their own computerized chess board while adding commentary and analysis. The ruli…

The copyright applies to the recording not the abstract information related to game state. This is similar to a radio broadcasting at a baseball game simultaneously with live video owned by separate company. Courts shouldn't expand rights to protect poorly thought out business models.

Re: U.S. judge rejects World Chess bid to block websites from airing moves

#19

Post by Lordarminius »

greglindahl wrote: post #16
Lordarminius wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think the correct decision was made here. No it was not. It says in the article: Organizers ... failed to persuade a federal judge to block rival website operators from broadcasting chess moves ... The defendants also said that they would not simply be copying audiovisual content generated by World Chess, but displaying the moves on their own computerized chess board while adding commentary and analysis. The ruli…

Yeah, a business model is more important than the non-copyrightable nature of facts. Good thing the judge understood the actual law, which is not concerned with business models.

> Yeah, a business model is more important than the non-copyrightable nature of facts.

I fail to see your point. The law should be applied with a dose of common sense. The organizers are not barring anyone from the "facts" as you put it just trying to get a lead in broadcasting. The law upholds the rights of organizers of other sports eg football and boxing based on their peculiarities and in case you are not aware is frequently biased in defense of their commercial rights (one only needs recall the absurdities surrounding the olympics).

For years, chess has suffered from crises caused by lack of sponsorship for events. If this ruling serves to deter future sponsors and leads to uncertainty or cancellation of matches (which has happened before) then what good is that?

Re: U.S. judge rejects World Chess bid to block websites from airing moves

#20

Post by scott00 »

Anybody have a link to the complaint/application for a TRO? A lot of the comments here are talking about copyright law, but most protection or attempted protection of data is done with licensing agreements. I would guess FIDE could require the people viewing in person and on the FIDE website to agree to not disseminate accounts of the game as a condition of being allowed to watch. I'd be interested to learn if FIDE has actually attempted to limit it this way, or if the debate is truly over copyright issues. And also if they did ask for the TRO on licensing grounds, was it because their licensing scheme was invalid, or just because the type of harm they were likely to suffer didn't rise to the level needed to qualify for injunctive relief.
Post reply on HN