Can we change the "Players"in the title to "Soccer Players"? Otherwise, I'd guess most people would think of videogame players.
*footballers
Players to sue for hundreds of millions over use of their statistics
81–90 of 99 posts
Re: Players to sue for hundreds of millions over use of their statistics
#82The belief that information and ideas should be "owned" as if they are physical property is insidious, was always going to lead to absurd lawsuits like this, and will lead to worse in the future. Information is non-rivalrous. It cannot be "stolen" in the same way that, say, an apple can. If I take your apple, you no longer have it. If someone repeats your information, you haven't been deprived of it. These athletes a…
We live in a knowledge economy. If I spend $200M making a movie and you start showing it in your theaters without paying me, saying that you aren’t depriving me of my copy is irrelevant. The property you’re talking about is orthogonal to questions about who has the right to control what information.
The economy we've created that transacts in information is the direct result of laws that support it. If, for example, anybody could copy your movie, then spending $200M to make it would be a very bad business decision, so people would prioritize other business models and endeavors. Hollywood would be weaker, and Broadway would be stronger. There'd be a much larger emphasis on live, interactive, and/or customizable entertainment experiences.
I fail to see a problem here. "But that's not how it works today," isn't a problem imo.
Let's say we made recipes broadly patentable. I'm sure that would change the restaurant industry into something unrecognizable over time. 100 years from now we'd see all sorts of massive businesses profiting in ways that are unimaginable today. Those businesses' existence wouldn't imply the laws were good. However I'm sure somebody might say, "But how is MegaPizzaWorld ever going to justify its $10 billion investment into monopolizing pizza if anybody can just copy it?"
Re: Players to sue for hundreds of millions over use of their statistics
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can demonstrate harm without showing specific damages. Damaging someone’s reputation for example isn’t acceptable. It’s the same basic principle as speeding or drunk driving being illegal even if nobody was actually harmed, putting people at significant risk of harm is not acceptable.
Isn't the harm to the players' reputations coming from their own quality of play in publicly viewed matches? In my opinion a third party would only be liable for harming their reputation if the statistics being published were untrue.
It’s a team sport so they don’t optimize for fantasy leagues. If they are pulled to avoid risk of injury on a blowout their stats look worse. Essentially, a 2:0 win could look worse than a 2:3 loss.
In effect their a RNG that happens to make people dislike them.
Re: Players to sue for hundreds of millions over use of their statistics
#84I'm not a lawyer, and I'm especially not a British lawyer, but I do have an Athletic subscription. The article discusses a lawsuit on behalf of Primer League and mostly lower league soccer players in England around their "personal data." > More than 400 current and former players have signed up to pursue gaming, betting and data-processing companies who utilise their personal statistics without consent or compensatio…
Facts are not subject to copyright in the U.S. However, there are other forms of intellectual property. In Illinois, where I am barred, there is a right of publicity - exclusive ownership over your identity when used for a commercial purpose. Could that extend to your name and unique statistical data when used as part of a for-pay entertainment endeavor? Maybe. I'm not aware of any case law one way or another, as I d…
[deleted]
Re: Players to sue for hundreds of millions over use of their statistics
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
> facts are not copyrightable This is the nail in the coffin. Imagine the lengths lawyers would go if they could monetize any abstract reference to something.
There are patents on large portions of the human genome as it exists in nature
Where? Certainly not the US.
https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/understanding/testing/genep...
"On June 13, 2013, in the case of the Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that human genes cannot be patented in the U.S. because DNA is a "product of nature." The Court decided that because nothing new is created when discovering a gene, there is no intellectual property to protect, so patents cannot be granted. Prior to this ruling, more than 4,300 human genes were patented. The Supreme Court's decision invalidated those gene patents, making the genes accessible for research and for commercial genetic testing."
Re: Players to sue for hundreds of millions over use of their statistics
#86I'm not a lawyer, and I'm especially not a British lawyer, but I do have an Athletic subscription. The article discusses a lawsuit on behalf of Primer League and mostly lower league soccer players in England around their "personal data." > More than 400 current and former players have signed up to pursue gaming, betting and data-processing companies who utilise their personal statistics without consent or compensatio…
> facts are not copyrightable
Yeah, but there are trade secrets, for example, or illegal numbers. I brought them up because thought they are related. There is also medical history or psychiatric history.
Re: Players to sue for hundreds of millions over use of their statistics
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
are you saying that if i happen to stumble onto a data leak of those private facts, i can use them to create a non-blackmailing (non-profit?) business?
IANAL, but if you "stumble" onto data that is legally published, then you are free to use it in your business. It is on you to check that you are obtaining the data in a legal manner.
What if it was not intended to be legally published, but you still got access to it because they could not protect it well?
Someone I know actually got access to some stuff this way before; got access to a gold mine that was supposed to be private but someone misconfigured the webserver.
Re: Players to sue for hundreds of millions over use of their statistics
#88I'm not a lawyer, and I'm especially not a British lawyer, but I do have an Athletic subscription. The article discusses a lawsuit on behalf of Primer League and mostly lower league soccer players in England around their "personal data." > More than 400 current and former players have signed up to pursue gaming, betting and data-processing companies who utilise their personal statistics without consent or compensatio…
> facts are not copyrightable This is the nail in the coffin. Imagine the lengths lawyers would go if they could monetize any abstract reference to something.
> facts are not copyrightable
Facts compiled into a database of some kind, whether in a book or online, have been copyrightable in the US for several years.
Re: Players to sue for hundreds of millions over use of their statistics
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
are you saying that if i happen to stumble onto a data leak of those private facts, i can use them to create a non-blackmailing (non-profit?) business?
IANAL, but if you "stumble" onto data that is legally published, then you are free to use it in your business. It is on you to check that you are obtaining the data in a legal manner.
if by legally published you mean that the publisher got a legally binding agreement with the patients to publish those 'facts', sure.
but the parent was not putting constraints on how i obtain it ('somehow learns those facts'). if the publisher makes a mistake and i hit the URL and the data is automatically downloaded, i didn't do anything wrong. doubt i can then just use that information though?
Re: Players to sue for hundreds of millions over use of their statistics
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are patents on large portions of the human genome as it exists in nature
Where? Certainly not the US. https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/understanding/testing/genep... "On June 13, 2013, in the case of the Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that human genes cannot be patented in the U.S. because DNA is a "product of nature." The Court decided that because nothing new is created when discovering a gene, there is no intel…
You're right, I was behind the times. Glad to see this was finally corrected!