Poll: Is Equibase DATA proprietary?

[PointsmanD]

To be clear, here are definitions according to Merriam-Webster Online:

Data:
1. factual information (as measurements or statistics) used as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or calculation
2. information output by a sensing device or organ that includes both useful and irrelevant or redundant information and must be processed to be meaningful
3. information in numerical form that can be digitally transmitted or processed

Note: Data does not include such things as speed or class figures. Also, chart comments convey data, but are not themselves data.

Proprietary:
1. one that possesses, owns, or holds exclusive right to something
2. something that is used, produced, or marketed under exclusive legal right of the inventor or maker

[njcurveball]

Some of the data is proprietary, since the chart callers are making their own comments on what happens during the race.

I do not believe anything else in the charts could not also be obtained by someone at the track.

Jim

[kenwoodallpromos]

yes some comments are subjective. I suppose they would even claim a copyright to the words "wide" and "rail"!LOL!!

[GameTheory]

I don't think they could even successfully argue that the comments were copyrightable, because they aren't editorializing, just reporting what happens as they see it. It is subjective, sure, but that doesn't matter. The point is they are reporting facts and just facts. If don't have the ability to make precise measurements and get some of the facts wrong doesn't change the substance of it.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Sorry to argue with you.
First, even court rulings on copyright cases Have to be a bit subjective, as the "substantial portion" information not in the public domain has to be copied to be an infringement. Usually the absolute proof of infringement is when the format and exact order of the work in copied- not just the facts or words rearranged. That is why they call it a "COPYright"!
For example, any material work produced by any level of any government entity- and some material from educational institutions- is not legally able to be copyrighted- they and material over a certain age are free (public domain).
You can make and sell your own bibles, govt reports, census information, old songs or writings, without fear of infringement- but only if you use the original format or make up your own "arrangement". That is why the exact format of the DRF is copyrighted- but reporting the results data is not, unless interpretation like "near rail" or "well in hand" is used. Lengths behind are free info because the DRF has on its website a glossary cantaining the exact definition of a "length"!
Note- Brisnet is givng away condensed PP's in March using data from results- but it does not contain comments, because they are propretary!

[kenwoodallpromos]

Daily Racing Form - Glossary of Horse Racing TermsDaily Racing Form offers horse racing past performances, free handicapping software, ..."LENGTH- Length of a horse from nose to tail, about 8 feet"
Of course, the actual definition of the Length" of a horse is from the withers to rump, but the "lengths behind" put out by quibase /DRF are claimed to be "facts" or they would have to admit they are merely opinion and totally unreliable, therefore by their own definition they are facts and NOT Copyrightable!LOL!!! It is a catch-22 that DRF catches itself in- if they want lengths behind information propietarily protected they would have to claim they are Not accurate!!LOL!! :bang: :blush: :D :confused: :cool:

[kenwoodallpromos]

From the U.S. Copyright Office:
"What does copyright protect?
Copyright, a form of intellectual property law, protects original works of authorship including literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, such as poetry, novels, movies, songs, computer software, and architecture. Copyright does not protect *****facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section "What Works Are Protected."
1 length= 1/5 second is a "method". This qoute was public domain, and not protected- but since I changed the arrangement by adding *****, it is copyrighted by Pace Advantage.com as a part of a periodical work, and I automatically retain a personal authorship copyright as the arranger! :cool:
If you want to buy a handicapping methos that really works,l see if the inventor holds a patent on it!!!

[PaceAdvantage]

Proprietary:
1. one that possesses, owns, or holds exclusive right to something
2. something that is used, produced, or marketed under exclusive legal right of the inventor or maker

Does the 2nd definition of proprietary cover what Equibase does with the result charts? They bill themselves as the OFFICIAL source of racing information. Does this not imply that they have some sort of exclusive right to produce this data? If this is so, does this not give them certain protections under copyright law?


Equibase Company LLC is a general partnership between the Thoroughbred Racing Associations of North America (TRA) and The Jockey Club (http://www.jockeyclub.com/). The company was formed in 1991 to provide the Thoroughbred racetracks of North America with a uniform, industry-owned database of racing information and statistics.

That goal was achieved in 1998 when Equibase became the sole data collection agency and provider of racing data to the Daily Racing Form.

Through a network of chartcallers, Equibase collects past performance information from all Thoroughbred racetracks in North America. The information is processed and stored in the company's state-of-the-art database in Lexington, Ky. where it is made available for retrieval in support of the day-to-day operations of the more than 100 tracks and 1,100 simulcast outlets across the continent; the industry's two daily publishers, Daily Racing Form and Sports Eye; a host of electronic value-added resellers; and the industry's major interactive wagering services.

[GameTheory]

That just means that the racetracks agree to have Equibase collect the data for them in a standardized way instead of each track doing it for themselves. And once they got DRF on-board that meant they were the only one collecting data. That doesn't preclude anyone else from collecting data, although the tracks probably wouldn't be obligated to make it easy for you by giving you the teletimer and photo data, or providing a vantage point to record races from. Then again, if you pushed the issue maybe they would be obligated because of anti-trust issues, just like the people that own telephone lines are obligated to lease them to other companies...

[JohnNUtah]

Big deal, who cares

[hurrikane]

Unfortunatly, whether the data is proprietary is secondary to who has the most money.

In these situations what would likely happen is, someone decides the data is not proprietary and resells it. Equibase then has their attorneys implement a lawsuit against you.
You then talk to your attorney who promptly tells you it will cost a minimum of 50K to defend you. Mind you this is done under an agreement of flat fee or hourly fee, not a contingency as you are not sueing. Nor do you likely have grounds to sue. So, pony up the 50K. (excuse the pun)

next thing that happens is it is likely Equibase will get an order for you to cease and desist until the courts rule on the case. So, what little income you may have been scraping from the sale of the data to pay goes away.

2-3 yrs later, and a few $100K later, the court rules you are in the right and can use the data. You are estatic. You hold out your cup, bum a quarter, call the wife that left you and tell her hoping she and the kids will come back to you. Not happening. so there you sit on the corner, a homeless, broken, wretch of a man that defeated the mighty Equibase.

Likely easier to pay the 3 bucks a day...

[TravisVOX]

If five of us wanted to chart races near the press box, would we be allowed? I think that is part of the problem with monopolistic-control. Additionally, as the sole provider, we're forced into one source. However, DRF vs. Brisnet provides some flexibility, yet they still pay a price and we get gouged. A single PP for over ten cents is murder if you ask me. I think all the data should be free, much like baseball/basketball/football stats... why do people not become interested? Because we're nickel and dimed left and right.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Definition of official or exclusive=
Wanna buy my Unofficial data? it is still legal! Would you but it somewhere else if it was Exclusive? There is a reason why they do not say it is exclusive- and they would have to sue a lot of news sources who reported on who won the Ky derby and by how much!
Does DRF or Equibase claim exclusive rights to the payoff prices?
When Equibase claims the copyright to "the conents", they are saying ALL the contents, including their and other logos, the Entire information on the webpages, not all the sepeate bits of data.
When a member posts results of a race on this forum, do you or they claim exclusive rights to it? Or does your copyright cover the entirety of all the information? That is usually the way it is.
What is being protected is mainly the format and arrangement so no one sells other person's labor of compiling (or Gleaning) the information.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Rule No. Rule Title
1462 Duty to Maintain Record of Races.
Rule Text The association shall maintain a complete record of all races of all authorized race meetings ofthe same type of racing being conducted by the association, and such records shall bemaintained and retained for a period of ten years. This requirement may be met by chart booksof Triangle Publications, the U.S.T.A., or the American Quarter Horse Association.
______________
In other words, racing data, including the program information and results charts, era the official state-required PUBLIC information kept about the races, so the bits of data are not exclusive to DRF (triangle), but rather become official Ca govt information and is public domain.
Everything that takes place at a public-invited event is public information and can be reported by anyone. That is called free speech! The exact format in the form of printed or electronically communicated information is proprietary and can be controlled.

[ecaroff]

Rule No. Rule Title
1462 Duty to Maintain Record of Races.
Rule Text The association shall maintain a complete record of all races of all authorized race meetings ofthe same type of racing being conducted by the association, and such records shall bemaintained and retained for a period of ten years. This requirement may be met by chart booksof Triangle Publications, the U.S.T.A., or the American Quarter Horse Association.
______________
In other words, racing data, including the program information and results charts, era the official state-required PUBLIC information kept about the races, so the bits of data are not exclusive to DRF (triangle), but rather become official Ca govt information and is public domain.
Everything that takes place at a public-invited event is public information and can be reported by anyone. That is called free speech! The exact format in the form of printed or electronically communicated information is proprietary and can be controlled.

This is really good thinking - I hadn't considered that - but you're entirely correct................... GOOD JOB!

[hurrikane]

This is really good thinking - I hadn't considered that - but you're entirely correct................... GOOD JOB!

I'm not so sure. Not sure a horse race qualifies as a public-invited event. It is a commercail enterprise for profit. Not state owned. Not open to the public. It is open to someone that is willing to play the entry fee. Try walking into Del Mar and say I'm not paying 10 bucks to get in because it is a public-invited event.
The rule says that the racing association will keep and maintain records for 10 yrs and that charts are acceptable records. It does not say they own the rights to redistribute the charts or that they are in the public domain. Everyone in a fiduciary position to the public from and insurance agent to a stock broker to a gambling enterprise has to keep their records for 10 yrs. It doesn't make the public information for redistribution.

You could say that because someone plays a song and I hear it it is in the public domain. I think napster will tell you something different.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Try walking into a National, State, or County park and saying "I'm not paying the entrance fee"! At the Alameda, Ca city owned golf course they must be violating my rights by charging for a round of golf!
Why have I been pay to go to my county or state fair? I have ahd top pay to park at airport and downtown city-owned "Public Parking" (and at the curbside meters!).
If you ever run for office in my area I will vote for you! In Ca we even have to pay for handicapped parking decals!!

[kenwoodallpromos]

"1st Race - AQUEDUCT - Saturday, March 18, 2006


Value of race $32,000
Winner $19,200
Second $6,400
Third $3,200
Fourth $1,600
Fifth $960
Mutuel Pool $391,099
Distance: Six Furlongs (Inner track)

CLAIMING: Purse $32,000. For Four Year Olds and Upward. Weight, 123 Lbs Non-winners Of Two Races Since January 18 Allowed 2 Lbs. A Race Since Then Allowed 3 Lbs. Claiming Price $25,000, if for $22,500, allowed 2 lbs. (Races where entered for $20,000 or less not considered)."
_________________
All runners are listed, but I am only copying 2.
This is from the NYRA Aqueduct website; it is in a different format than the DRF or Equibase formats.
If you look on the NYRA website homepage at the bottom it says that the information was provided by Equibase- it also lists as the copyright holder NYRA but does not list Equibase as having the copyright to any of the information, or that any of the information is used ny the permission of Equibase who retains the rights to it, because they do not.
So is the NYRA trying to claim copyright to information that is already copyrighted by Equibase, even though Equibase is the one providing the information? No, only the formats are copyrighted.
__________________

Last St Track Horse A Wt. E/M Jockey Odds PP St 1/4 1/2 3/4 St Fin
26Feb06 Aqu2 Catch My Cat 5 120 b-L J L Espinoza 8.30 6 4 3hd 211/2 21/2 1ns
05Feb06 Aqu6 It's a Monster 7 *115 L P Morales 6.50 4 1 63 41/2 31/2 2nk
25Feb06 Aqu1 Beat the Chalk 4 120 cf-L M J Luzzi 4.40 3 2 11/2 11/2 1hd 31

[ecaroff]

Kenwood you are correct again. I stated this before in other posts. Case law goes back to the 1970 when DRF filed suit for copyright infringement and LOST.

I feel that the people on this board who want to argue this point either just don't know the law or else they have some invested interest in one of these companies and are simply trying to create doubt.

[kenwoodallpromos]

WHAT IS NOT PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT?
Several categories of material are generally not eligible for federal copyright protection. These include among others:

Works that have not been fixed in a tangible form of expression (for example, choreographic works that have not been notated or recorded, or improvisational speeches or performances that have not been written or recorded)

Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents

Ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, discoveries, or devices, as distinguished from a description, explanation, or illustration

Works consisting entirely of information that is common property and containing no original authorship (for example: standard calendars, height and weight charts, tape measures and rulers, and *******lists or tables taken from public documents or other common sources)
_________________
tables from common sources include DRF or Equibase charts that are the official records of races in CA! Brisnet as far as I know never kept them in DRF format.

[PaceAdvantage]

I think you're stretching things if you are equating Equibase result charts to calendars, height and weight charts, and tape measures.

I'm not even sure just what the hell the argument is anymore. I don't believe anybody is arguing that Kenwoodall can't go out and start a rival company to Equibase. Of course he can go out and start charting races and create his own database. Good luck to him and anyone like him that shares this dream.....

The DRF case that ecaroff loves to cite is totally out of touch with today's reality....it doesn't even really apply to the argument at hand. The DRF case from the 70s was a case where Sports Eye hired chart callers and installed them at racetracks. They were charting their own races and creating their own data, much like Equibase does today. Somewhere along the line, the DRF and various tracks like Hollywood conspired to not allow the SE employees access to the track so they could do their job.

Like I said, nobody is claiming that it would be unlawful to start a rival company to Equibase or the DRF, like Sports Eye attempted to do years ago. The courts pretty much decided as much.

That case has little to do with what you guys are talking about now, which is electronically distributed information that many of you feel is not proprietary to Equibase. How is it not proprietary to them when they are the ones who pay their employees to collect and produce this information, as well as store it and distribute it to the consumer? It takes effort and $$$ to produce the data that Equibase sells.

It's almost like saying the oil company that spends $$$ to drill oil out of the ground has no rights to that oil after it splashes to the earth's surface, because really, it was just down there all along, available to anyone with a shovel.....

I don't work for Equibase and you don't currently see any ads for Equibase on this site, so don't come back at me and tell me I'm being a shill for Equibase.

What have I missed in this argument that makes my comments moot?

[Tom]

Try walking into Finger Lakes wtihout paying the $0 entry fee, and you'll end up in the lower grandstand! :D

Admission can't be the criteria.

If you go to the track, record the race times and postitions, then sell your own PP's in your own format, I think EB has no case against you.
But if you download thier charts, copy the info, then re-sell it, you are probably going to get a phone call.

[ecaroff]

The DRF case that ecaroff loves to cite is totally out of touch with today's reality....it doesn't even really apply to the argument at hand. The DRF case from the 70s was a case where Sports Eye hired chart callers and installed them at racetracks. They were charting their own races and creating their own data, much like Equibase does today. Somewhere along the line, the DRF and various tracks like Hollywood conspired to not allow the SE employees access to the track so they could do their job.

NOT TRUE, Pace Advantage - this is a separate case dealing with the Copyright Issue ONLY. Once again you are WRONG.

[ecaroff]

If you go to the track, record the race times and postitions, then sell your own PP's in your own format, I think EB has no case against you.
But if you download thier charts, copy the info, then re-sell it, you are probably going to get a phone call.

People like you just don't get it. Read the Copyright Law, Read the Cases, Look at Case Law, Read the Arizona Symposium where the Microsoft attorneys talked about this. I guess you know more than they do. Once again, the data is NOT copyrightable, only the Format and even then a prior legal case said that there is really only one way to logically display it so one may not even really have to change it much.

[Tom]

People like YOU don't read very well.

Where did Isay it was right or wrong - I said you would get a phone call and probably sued - do you deny that?
I thought you were some kind of dectective, now you're a lawyer as well? :rolleyes:

Man, that tree must've been shook real hard!

[ecaroff]

People like YOU don't read very well.

Where did Isay it was right or wrong - I said you would get a phone call and probably sued - do you deny that?
I thought you were some kind of dectective, now you're a lawyer as well? :rolleyes:

Man, that tree must've been shook real hard!

You sound like you know - when did you get THAT call?

Maybe I am a lawyer.

[Tom]

Uh huh......

[JPinMaryland]

The data is not copyrightable since it is a fact or factual in nature. The format is what is protected.

THe fact that equibase hires people to do this work does not really create more copyright protection. THis is called the "sweat of the brow" argument but it really doesnt wash although such attempts have been made in cases involving phone books and proprietary lists e.g. business clients. (these proprietary lists are different case, racing data is not proprietary since no on is attempting to keep it secret).

So you are confusing sweat of the brow argument here. It is a fair argumetn where data is kept secret not where it is public.

Getting back to the original premise, i.e. factual data. SImply because equibase paid someone to observe Secretariat running KY dby in 1:59 and change does not make that fact copyrightable. Any more than saying, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor on 12/7/41. It is still a fact no matter how you slice. No matter who you paid to run a newsreel.

Imagine if Life magazine or NBC tried to say "Hey you cant write a book on WWII giving the date of Pearl Harbor. We were there, we recorded it and it is our material."

Its the very same argument it doesnt work. That material is factual.

THe public access/paid admission is also distorted argument. Most public events are paid admission. Paying for admission doesnt make something private. It's not allowing certain types in that might make it private.

[takeout]

Question:

There was a thread some time ago in which a reseller mentioned that there were stipulations/restrictions on what could be done with the Equibase data. IOW, if you wanted to do something new or different with your product you had to get Equibase’s approval even though you were already paying them for their data. Can someone give me an example of something that Equibase would not approve of? Is it formatting only or are there other things involved as well?

[GameTheory]

One thing this discussion is missing is that Equibase doesn't use the copyright argument when they claim their restrictions. They have their TERMS OF USE, which you supposedly agree to when you view or download their data (from them, from DRF, or whoever). They are using CONTRACT LAW, not copyright law, to tell you that you can't do such-and-such with the data IF YOU GOT IT FROM THEM (which is currently the only source besides collecting it yourself). I don't believe Equibase has ever made the argument (at least publicly) that you can't go collect data from the source yourself. They are saying you are bound by what you agreed to in their terms of use, and therefore what is or is not copyrightable is not relevant. The question is, therefore, "Are their terms of use legally binding?" And the real problem is, even if they are not, they are still within their rights to make any data that they collected hard for you to obtain for any arbitrary reason. You can't argue that they are obligated to give it to you. So the ultimate solution is, and can only be, an alternative source that also collects the data directly -- another company willing to jump into the waters (unlikely) or maybe a collective of volunteers willing to collect the data at each track and make it "open source"...

[ecaroff]

One thing this discussion is missing is that Equibase doesn't use the copyright argument when they claim their restrictions. They have their TERMS OF USE, which you supposedly agree to when you view or download their data.

There is a lot of case law regarding posting things like "Terms of Use" on web sites and the courts have ruled that is simply not enforceable.

[GameTheory]

There is a lot of case law regarding posting things like "Terms of Use" on web sites and the courts have ruled that is simply not enforceable.Which only means that if push comes to shove and too many people blatantly ignore their terms, they will simply put more restrictions in place, i.e. force you to register and agree in writing to the terms before you have access, etc etc. There is simply no way to win as long as they have the control, because there is no way you can COMPEL them to give you the data unless an anti-trust suit could force them (or at least make it available to competitors), a very very very long shot that simply isn't going to happen....

[PaceAdvantage]

NOT TRUE, Pace Advantage - this is a separate case dealing with the Copyright Issue ONLY. Once again you are WRONG.

So which case involved kicking Sports Eye employees out of Hollywood Park?

[PaceAdvantage]

An interesting upcoming case that may have some bearing on what is being debated in this thread:

http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/ny-bzball0322,0,739251.story?coll=ny-sports-headlines

[ecaroff]

Which only means that if push comes to shove and too many people blatantly ignore their terms, they will simply put more restrictions in place, i.e. force you to register and agree in writing to the terms before you have access, etc etc. There is simply no way to win as long as they have the control, because there is no way you can COMPEL them to give you the data unless an anti-trust suit could force them (or at least make it available to competitors), a very very very long shot that simply isn't going to happen....

Sorry, "forcing" one to register and agreeing to terms ("shrink-wrap") for Internet has also failed to hold up in most cases. Instead of guessing, you need to read the Arizona Symposium (someone posted the link a few weeks ago) and this will show you what the Intellectual Propery attorneys (including Microsoft) told them. There is a solution that would make everyone happy. (how about QUIT BETTING THE PONIES)

[ecaroff]

An interesting upcoming case that may have some bearing on what is being debated in this thread:

http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/ny-bzball0322,0,739251.story?coll=ny-sports-headlines

If you read it:

Rudolph Telscher, a lawyer in the St. Louis office of Harness and Dickey representing CBC, said the First Amendment allows CBC to publish the statistics for free. He also said the statistics are historical facts in the public domain.

Gallagher agreed the statistics are in the public domain but added, "If you're going to use Alex Rodriguez's name and picture and number and team logo to go along with those stats, then you have to pay a licensing fee."

I don't think people here are talking about posting pictures of the horses, etc.

[ecaroff]

So which case involved kicking Sports Eye employees out of Hollywood Park?

Here is case you asked about. It was settled with DRF and Hollywood paying Sports Eye $10 million.

SPORTS EYE, INC., Plaintiff, v. DAILY RACING FORM, INC.,
Hollywood Park Operating Company, and Hollywood Park Realty
Enterprises, Inc., Defendants

Civ. A. No. 83-43

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE


565 F. Supp. 634; 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16662; 1983-2
Trade Cas. (CCH) P65,647

May 26, 1983

[GameTheory]

Sorry, "forcing" one to register and agreeing to terms ("shrink-wrap") for Internet has also failed to hold up in most cases. Instead of guessing, you need to read the Arizona Symposium (someone posted the link a few weeks ago) and this will show you what the Intellectual Propery attorneys (including Microsoft) told them. There is a solution that would make everyone happy. (how about QUIT BETTING THE PONIES)I said "in writing" -- if you had to actually sign on the dotted line that would hold up, wouldn't it? In any case, it doesn't matter if it holds up or not. The point is they have the data and they don't have to give it to you if they don't want to.

[PaceAdvantage]

Ecaroff, I went back and re-read that 1970s case where the DRF sued Sports Eye....I found this opinion by the judge to be interesting:

It is at the second step, however, where plaintiff stumbles. Plaintiff's publication details a mass of raw data. Defendant's paper gives no raw data but rather has selected certain categories which may be of interest to the horse-racing fan and has shown which horses fall into those categories. Plaintiff does not attempt to make any comparisons or judgments about the horses entered in a given race beyond that available in the raw data; defendant's publication is in essence a comparison of the horses in any one race. Both in visual and factual apprehension, as an examination of the appendix demonstrates, the two papers differ substantially. n10 In saying this we reject plaintiff's argument that defendant does nothing more than translate the numbers and symbols in Past Performances. While defendant uses the information in Past Performances to prepare its charts, an examination of the two makes it evident that Fast Performances is not merely a translation of Past Performances. Adoption of plaintiff's [**9] position would mean that every time a copyrighted work is copied, there would be an infringement. This view would render the requirement of substantial similarity meaningless and nugatory. n11 Cf. Affiliated Hospital Products, supra, at 1188-89.

In this quote, doesn't the judge seem to be saying that the raw data is somehow protected? He rules that the defendant did NOT re-distribute the raw data, but simply interpreted the data and categorized it.....

Can you point me to the meat of this case and the ruling? From what you posted in the past (in another thread), it is difficult to get to what the actual ruling was in this case. I am finding it difficult to conclude, from this case, that Equibase's data is not proprietary, whereas you seem to be saying that this case makes the "non-proprietary" argument a slam dunk.....

[kenwoodallpromos]

I found in a book: NBA vs. Motorola (2nd circuit, 1996)- Gathering scores of games from commercial broadcasts was deemed legal because the informatin was available to the public and the exact format was not copied, but them info was "gleened".
The court found that ALL 4 of the following had to be the circumstances in order to violate copyright laws regarding use of facts contained in another's copyright (for "unfair competition"):
1) The information must be time-sensitive (Brisnet's original gleening was not).
2) Original copyright holder must have spent costly efforts to collect the information (As far as track program and basic finishing order with names and payoffs, it is not- the tracks dispense that information).
3) Infringer must use the information in direct competition with copyright holder (brisnet is not)(public handicappers are in copmpetition with Trackmaster, but they do not use running lines).
4) Original copyright holder would lose the ability to stay in business (anybody think Equibase or DRF is in danger of going under?).
_______
In other words, direct copying and use to directly compete on an equal footing is required for a copyright violation.
I also found- government entities smaller than the uS govt may gain copyright protection for many things they publish.

[ecaroff]

Ecaroff, I went back and re-read that 1970s case where the DRF sued Sports Eye....I found this opinion by the judge to be interesting:



PA - it really doesn't matter in this case - it is well documented if you look that DRF and Hollywood Park settled for $10 million - DRF paid $7 million and Hollywodd $3 million.

There is another case in which DRF v xxxxxx (can't remember off hand) in regard to copyright in the 70's. In this case DRF lost. I will post this later.

[ecaroff]

PA - there are other documents associated with this but this should give you a start.......................................... This was in June 1976

2 of 2 DOCUMENTS
>
> TRIANGLE PUBLICATIONS, INC. v. SPORTS EYE, INC.
>
> CIVIL ACTION No. 76-533
>
> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
> PENNSYLVANIA
>
>
> 415 F. Supp. 682; 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14834; 193
> U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 50
>
> June 1, 1976
.
.
.
.

> This action centers around two elusive and uncertain processes,
>handicapping
>horse races and application of the copyright law. Plaintiff, publisher of
>the
>Daily Racing Form (hereafter "Form"), claims that defendant's publications
>infringe upon its copyrights and violate state unfair competition laws.
>Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction to stop the alleged infringements.
.
.
.
.
.

I. Copyright Infringement
>
> The first hurdle which plaintiff must clear before it can obtain a
>preliminary injunction is a clear showing of probability of success on the
>merits. Robert Stigwood Group Limited v. Sperber, 457 F.2d 50, 55 (2d Cir.
>1972); L. Batlin & Son, Inc. v. Snyder, 394 F. Supp. 1389, 1390 (S.D.N.Y.
>1975),
>aff'd, 536 F.2d 486, 44 U.S.L.W. 2502 (2d Cir. 1976) (en banc). Generally,
>once
>a copyright holder has made such a showing, there is a presumption of
>irreparable harm. American Metropolitan Enterprises, Inc. v. Warner Bros.
>Records, 389 F.2d 903, 905 (2d Cir. 1968). While the most recent Third
>Circuit
>decision would [*685] appear to require some affirmative showing of
>irreparable injury even in copyright cases, Kontes Glass Co. v. Lab Glass,
>Inc.,
>373 F.2d 319, 320 (3d Cir. 1967), n8 we need not resolve this issue because >we
>have concluded that plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a sufficient
>probability
>of success on the merits.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Some statements I have seen in racing and others' "terms of use" are just silly and others totally invalid according to copyright law itself. "Any use of Any statistics in Any form" is unenforceable- that is why the disclaimer "If anything found unenforceable the rest is enforceable". Much hot air.
If Equibase is owned by non-profits Jockey Club and NTRA, it is even harder to argue a big loss of income from data put on their site without payment or limited access, like resultd charts.
Since Equibase has taken over chart calling from DRF, does selling to resellers pay for most of that? and when resellers like DRF, Brisnet and the like buy Equibase's data, is it tax deductible?