Long: Horseracing Data Cannot Be Copyrighted? Part I [Archive] - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

View Full Version : Long: Horseracing Data Cannot Be Copyrighted? Part I

PointsmanD

03-28-2006, 01:51 PM

There appears to be some confusion among handicappers regarding this question. Hopefully, this will help clear it up.

At the 30th Annual Symposium on Racing in 2003, Alan Marzelli, head of Equibase, described, perhaps inadvertently, what sounds like the horseracing industry’s equivalent of the Spanish Inquisition:

MR. MARZELLI: You know, I don't know what the examples might be in terms of racetrack IP, but I know on the data side of the equation, Equibase and Daily Racing Form have partnered up to form a small compliance committee where we go out and work together to seek to shut off illegal uses of our data or data usages that breach our respective agreements. So we actually have a situation where the two main distributors of information and the collection entity have come together to create that compliance coalition, if you will. (p132 of Transcript; see end of this post for details)

Below is a resource kit designed to help clear the air of the fear surrounding the notion of sharing horseracing data. (It should not, however, be taken as advocating any illegal activities.) Equibase has a monopoly on the gathering of horseracing data. The result is monopoly pricing, especially for older data. Recently on this board a newbie posted a query about obtaining a database. This was his reaction to a quote for a complete three year database: “$15,000??? You must be taking pot.”

(http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26025&page=4&pp=15&highlight=database (http://showthread.php?t=26025&page=4&pp=15&highlight=database))

The price of horseracing data is higher than it would be without Equibase’s and the Racing Form’s monopoly control of the data. Handicappers can help break up this monopoly by sharing their racing data, especially non-current data. Why don’t they? Fear is part of the answer. Fear of Mr. Marzelli’s “compliance coalition.” They accept Equibase’s claim that their data is proprietary, and fear Equibase’s and the Form’s legal might should they trespass on this proprietary claim.

But is this data really proprietary? Below I’ve collected excerpts from the key court cases relevant to horseracing data which will help us determine if this data is truly proprietary under United States law.

Equibase claims that their data is proprietary in their Terms of Use:

“Proprietary: This website and all systems, programs, records, statistics, data, documentation, and any other material utilized or developed by EQUIBASE in connection with this Agreement and the PRODUCTS and information supplied hereunder shall be and remain the sole property of EQUIBASE or its third party licensors.”

http://www.equibase.com/about/terms.cfm

Here are some definitions:

Proprietary:

adj : protected by trademark or patent or copyright; made or produced or distributed by one having exclusive rights

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=proprietary

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

information in numerical form that can be digitally transmitted or processed
http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=data

To answer the question of whether horseracing data is proprietary, we first need to determine what constitutes horseracing data. Here’s a list from the Triangle Publications, Inc. v. Sports Eye, Inc. opinion (June 1, 1976) written by the judge, Joseph S. Lord III:

Excerpt:

“The Form, which is published either six or seven days per week, contains, inter alia, a section entitled Past Performances. …This section contains a wealth of information about horse races which are to be run at various tracks around the country. The information compiled in Past Performances includes certain facts about each race, (included in the facts about each race are the distance of the race, location of the start and finish, maximum weight, type of race, purse and qualifications for entry), a mass of
biographical data for each horse entered in the race (among this data are the owner, pedigree, age, sire, dam, grandsire, breeder, trainer and birthplace of the horse. Also included are the amount the horse has earned for the present and previous year, and the number of finishes in the money by the horse over the two-year span), and, in horizontal rows, detailed information concerning up to the ten most recent races in which the horse
has been entered (this information includes, for each race, the date of the race, track, track condition, length and type of race, jockey, weight carried, position of the horse at various checkpoints and how far behind the leaders it was. Also given is information about which horses led at various stages in the race, their times, and the top three finishers. The return on a $2 bet on the winner is given along with a one or two word description of the horse's performance in the race. Finally, at the bottom of the ten or fewer races so covered, certain data is given about the horse's latest workouts.)”

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26025&highlight=historical+database (http://showthread.php?t=26025&highlight=historical+database) (scroll down to one of ecaroff’s posts at this link to read the full opinion)

End excerpt

Note the words used to categorize this information: facts, data, information. These are, of course, synonyms. All the above is factual according to this court opinion.

Several decades earlier, the Racing Form sued another newspaper for copyright infringement. In Triangle Publications, Inc., et al. v. New England Newspaper Pub. Co. et al. In the opinion dated July 8, 1942, District Judge Wyzanski wrote:

Excerpt:

“Plaintiffs' daily periodicals carry ‘race result charts’ for every race run on the previous day on each licensed track in North America, and also carry for every horse scheduled to run the next day a ‘past performance’ table. A race result chart shows, with respect to a race already run, these among other facts: the track where the race was run; the condition of the track; the distance; the horses racing; the weights they carried; the jockeys; the post position of the horses; their relative position at the start of the race, at the finish and at four intermediate stages of the race; the distances separating the horses at the six stages of the race; the time of the race; and several staccato sentences commenting in race track parlance on the showing of the horses in that race.

“A past performance table shows with respect to a horse scheduled to run, these among other facts: when the horse last raced, where, the distance, the condition of the track that day, the winner's time, the type of race, the purse, his relative place at half a dozen stages of the race, his jockey, his equipment, the weight he carried, the odds, the names of the best performers is that race and a one or two word summation of this particular horse's form in that race.”

End Excerpt

Note that all of this is described as “facts.” In this, it agrees with the 1976 opinion. However, the opinion later states:

Excerpt:

“…there may be a copyright, even in the case of a single chart, upon so much of the writing as shows the position of the horses at the start of the race, the position of the horses at intermediate stages of the race, the position at the finish of those horses whose finish is not shown on the public board and the distance between the horses at all stages of the race.”

Also: “There may also be a copyright … on the staccato sentences or narrative chart comment, since the former is an original contribution.”

End Excerpt

Why can these facts be copyrighted, but not the other facts? According to this judge: “there may be a separate copyright on those parts of a single chart which could not be observed and recorded by one person but which require the combined skill, judgment and effort of several highly trained persons working in unison.”

This is known as the “sweat of the brow” argument. The 1976 opinion was not based on this argument. It stated:

“…it must be remembered that while the form or mode of expressing an idea (or in this case data) may be copyrighted, the data or ideas may not be.”

and

“…it is only the method or form for expressing the data that is copyrightable.”

This opinion made no distinction for between facts based on the manner in which they were compiled. All facts are equally facts.

If there was still any doubt about the validity of the “sweat of the brow” argument, the Supreme Court put an end to it in the 1991 opinion for Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. The complete Supreme Court decision is here:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/499_US_340.htm

That case was about a publisher copying a pre-existing telephone book without providing compensation to the original publisher who claimed copyright infringement.

Here are some key passages from the decision:

“Making matters worse, these courts developed a new theory to justify the protection of factual compilations. Known alternatively as ‘sweat of the brow’ or ‘industrious collection,’ the underlying notion was that copyright was a reward for the hard work that went into compiling facts.”

“…The ‘sweat of the brow’ doctrine had numerous flaws, the most glaring being that it extended copyright protection in a compilation beyond selection and arrangement -- the compiler's original contributions -- to the facts themselves.”

“…That there can be no valid copyright in facts is universally understood. The most fundamental axiom of copyright law is that ‘no author may copyright his ideas or the facts he narrates.’”

“…The mere fact that a work is copyrighted does not mean that every element of the work may be protected. Originality remains the sine qua non of copyright; accordingly, copyright protection may extend only to those components of a work that are original to the author.”

“…Even if a work qualifies as a copyrightable compilation, it receives only limited protection. This is the point of § 103 of the Act. Section 103 explains that ‘the subject matter of copyright . . . includes compilations,’ § 103(a), but that copyright protects only the author's original contributions -- not the facts or information conveyed: ‘The copyright in a compilation . . . extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material.’§ 103(b).”

“…As § 103 makes clear, copyright is not a tool by which a compilation author may keep others from using the facts or data he or she has collected. ‘The most important point here is one that is commonly misunderstood today: copyright . . . has no effect one way or the other on the copyright or public domain status of the preexisting material.’ H. R. Rep., at 57; S. Rep., at 55. The 1909 Act did not require, as ‘sweat of the brow’ courts mistakenly assumed, that each subsequent compiler must start from scratch and is precluded from relying on research undertaken by another. See, e. g., Jeweler's Circular Publishing Co., 281 F., at 88-89. Rather, the facts contained in existing works may be freely copied because copyright protects only the elements that owe their origin to the compiler -- the selection, coordination, and arrangement of facts.”

End Excerpt

So, most of the information that Equibase claims to be proprietary is in fact not copyrightable. They have a right to copyright stuff such as their chart comments, speed figures and class figures, but not the data, and they have no right to act as if they own the copyright.

(Note: Chartcallers’ comments, what the 1942 opinion (referred to above) called “the staccato sentences or narrative chart comment,” may be copyrightable, but even here it is important to realize that it is only the precise wording, and then only in so far as the wording is original and not stock chartcaller phrases, that can be copyrighted, not the facts that are conveyed by the comments.)

I’m going to be posting more on this and related matters over the coming weeks, but let me end with a quote from the transcript of a seminar at the 30th Annual Symposium on Racing in 2003. All of it is worth reading. I quote this passage in particular because sometimes in law it’s necessary to prove knowledge of the law. This passage is from a seminar on Wednesday, December 10, 2003, on intellectual property hosted by Alan Marzelli, who is listed in the transcript as the President and C.O.O. of the Jockey Club, the company that owns Equibase. According to the Jockey Club’s website, Marzelli was appointed president of Equibase in 1996 and is currently chairman of the Equibase management committee. The speaker is a lawyer named Randy Foster:

“Racing information, handicap information, at its core all it is is data. Stuff that happened, facts; Foster Slew last 10 racing events, how it did, how fast track conditions? Under U.S. law, copyright law the sweat of the brow work of collecting those facts is not subject to copyright protection, is not subject to copyright protection.”

Quoted from page 120 of the full transcript for the symposium:

http://ag.arizona.edu/rtip/Symposium/2003%20Symposium/2003%20transcripts/03sympwelcome.html

To be continued:

kingfin66

03-28-2006, 02:02 PM

surfdog89

03-28-2006, 02:28 PM

Is there any case law (court citations) that you have found to support Equibase position...... the data is proprietary.. that the race data is Equibases property and subject to copyright laws... if so I would like to read the case law. I have read the sweat of the brow doctrine.... thanks for this thread enjoy reading more about this issue..

kev

03-28-2006, 03:14 PM

Why doesnt someone else come up and start their own bizz off of PP's and racing data. Or will Equibase just buy them right up. Is it a big profit bizz??

kenwoodallpromos

03-28-2006, 03:38 PM

From the lawyer Foster:

"Let's just talk about that for a second. Racing information, handicap information, at its core all it is is data. Stuff that happened, facts; Foster Slew last 10 racing events, how it did, how fast track conditions? Under U.S. law, copyright law the sweat of the brow work of collecting those facts is not subject to copyright protection, is not subject to copyright protection"
"Now, what becomes more problematic is if you permit a customer to make available, put into the public domain data and leave it out there for all the world to copy and use, it's not subject to copyright protection, then you've basically given all that work, you've made it available to all the world."

Doc

03-28-2006, 04:06 PM

So, most of the information that Equibase claims to be proprietary is in fact not copyrightable. They have a right to copyright stuff such as their chart comments, speed figures and class figures, but not the data, and they have no right to act as if they own the copyright.

Great post! One of my biggest pet peeves is having to pay for data on which Daily Racing Form and Equibase claims to have a "copyright." In what other sport do you have to pay to get statistics on players? Want the career stats on Barry Bonds? Easily obtained! My fondest desire would be to have a court strip the "proprietary" or "copyright" tag from Equibase's data - let them lop out their lousy speed and pace ratings, and let DRF delete those worthless Beyer figures - and make them available to the public, FREE. Paying for past performance information is the biggest rip-off in the sporting world.

Doc :ThmbDown:

PaceAdvantage

03-28-2006, 04:50 PM

Well Doc, this would take something on the order of the tracks + NTRA coming together to subsidize the production of data. It costs money to produce the data....chart callers ain't gonna work for free.....neither are the guys who design and maintain the database....plus all the other people who work to put that data on the market....

There is no Equibase as far as harness and dog racing PPs are concerned, and yet, one also has to pay for that data, AFAIK....

03-28-2006, 05:14 PM

Dave Schwartz

03-28-2006, 05:41 PM

... the thing is they can sue you even if you're right. Have you ever received a threatening letter from an attorney? I have - very recently. It is not a pleasant experience. The attorney I spoke with said that I am in a very strong legal position, but that guarantees nothing. I can still get sued. I can still lose. If you get sued, you can either fight or have a default judgment entered against you. If you win, you still get to pay legal fees. Either way, you lose. In the long run it is much cheaper to pay that $15k for a database than to pay much more than that defending a lawsuit where there is no guarantee that you will prevail. Equibase and DRF have much more money than most, if not all horseplayers. and can make life very unpleasant.

This really gets to the heart of the matter, doesn't it?

(1983) Let's say you do a computer project for a car leasing company and they give you a 5-year lease on a new 280-Z as partial payment. You have a written contract to this effect. (Value: About $20k)

You finish the project, take possession of the car and life is good. A few months later you move out of state. Three months after that the scumbag car guy (Okay, so you may notice a slight tone here indicating that this story is a bit close to home.) repossess the vehicle. When confronted (by phone) he says, "Yes, I know we had a contract. So, sue me. I'm in court all the time."

I was absolutely in the right. But can I afford to prosecute the case? Well, back then I certainly couldn't. But even today I doubt that it would be worthwhile. Try to get an attorney to go to trial without a $40k retainer. (I mean a real trial here... not just making a court appearance.)

And don't for a second think that just because you win you will get your costs back. Most of the time you don't.

So, is it worth (say) $40k to win a $50k judgement? And do you have the money to play? And if you do win, can you collect?

All of this is it copyrightable? stuff is just not the issue. The issue is are you really prepared to fight a legal battle with real money? (Is anyone prepared to do so? Apparfently not or we would have seen some lawsuits aimed at the data providers already.) And make no mistake... after the initial posturing by both sides is finished you move directly to the real money phase.

Regards,
Dave Schwartz

ecaroff

03-28-2006, 06:01 PM

All of this is it copyrightable? stuff is just not the issue. The issue is are you really prepared to fight a legal battle with real money? (Is anyone prepared to do so? Apparfently not or we would have seen some lawsuits aimed at the data providers already.) And make no mistake... after the initial posturing by both sides is finished you move directly to the real money phase.

Wait a minute. Did you forget:

http://www.thoroughbredtimes.com/todaysnewsarchive/ttodaysnewsviewarchive.asp?ArchiveDate=1/4/2004#41105

Hollywood Park and Daily Racing Form were sued by Cohen in an antitrust lawsuit about 20 years ago. The out-of-court settlement figure was reported at $10-million, with the Form forking over a reported $7-million.

The question really is - how many people here would be willing to put up a little money, get the same lawfirm that Cohen used, file a class-action, anti-trust suit and settle for a cool $10 million - that was 20 years ago which is probably more like $50 million now?

Tom

03-28-2006, 06:20 PM

Well, someone has to pay the chart callers and the database people, that is for sure. However, time will tell if it will be bettors, or the tracks paying the people.

Imagine the business a track could garner by merely giving out free PPs online every day...

These guys haven't a clue, they only worry about today, rather than next year, and ten years from now.

When is the last time you went out to eat and BOUGHT a menu? :eek:
No other industry illustrates the Peter Principle as well as this one!
I am truly suprised most race track managers find their way to work every day - maybe they get picked up by a "little bus."

PaceAdvantage

03-28-2006, 06:26 PM

When is the last time you went out to eat and BOUGHT a menu? :eek:

How is this an appropriate analogy? The collection of racing data is a little more labor-intensive than just sitting at a PC and typing out a menu....:bang:

I see where you are going though....PP data should be a cost of doing business for a racetrack, and distributed freely to patrons....but how do you get all the racetracks together to produce compatible data? Answer: Equibase!

Two Bucks To Win

03-28-2006, 06:34 PM

What if someone used the replays either from the track's website or racereplays.com to make their own charts?

the_fat_man

03-28-2006, 06:52 PM

I see where you are going though....PP data should be a cost of doing business for a racetrack, and distributed freely to patrons....but how do you get all the racetracks together to produce compatible data? Answer: Equibase!

It's interesting that tracks needs basic data as a course of business yet
the bettor, patronizing the track, paying taxes (takeout) just to bet, and more taxes if he/she wins, needs to also pay for basic data.

What other industry has it so good? Compare what's offered by tracks in the US with the offerings by the Hong Kong Jockey Club.

I pay through the nose to bet; and if I get good enough to win, I need to pay some more. Why?

The problem, PA, is not the compatibility of basic data, consensus here is not very difficult to achieve. Provide date, distance, jockey, trainer, basic running line info, etc. Tracks should at least provide basic data of this sort to their patrons (PP and result charts). If they can't afford the 'extra' cost, they shouldn't be in business. Talk about inefficiency.

And there's a market for BRIS and DRF as well. They can offer pace and speed figs, trainer tracking, trips, etc. They still make their money.

Tom

03-28-2006, 07:39 PM

How is this an appropriate analogy? The collection of racing data is a little more labor-intensive than just sitting at a PC and typing out a menu....:bang:

I see where you are going though....PP data should be a cost of doing business for a racetrack, and distributed freely to patrons....but how do you get all the racetracks together to produce compatible data? Answer: Equibase!

Labor intensive or not, a PP is worthless without a race to bet on. Drinks cost money to make and serve, but casinos have long gotten the point that their business is not bartending - it is gambling. Most racetrack still don't understand this. I believe even the great NYRA charges admission? Get a life, man! Admission to get into a gambling hall - that is pretty small thinking, which may be why NYRA is ever under attack by others;)
Progressive track, like FL, abandoned parking charges and admnission YEARS ago and focused on their real market.:D

Doc

03-28-2006, 07:43 PM

Here's how the Atlantic City casinos do business: They comp meals, rooms, shows, bus trips, drinks...and in return their enthusiastic, satisfied customers pump fistfuls of quarters through the slot machines and drop wads of money at the poker tables.

Here's how casino management would handle things if they ran American racetracks: Treat the customer like king. Give him everything he needs to make a bet, including free programs with past performance information. Post free past performances on the track's web site. Abolish admission, parking and seating charges. Lower takeout. Have girls in low-cut outfits come around to simulcast customers with free drinks.

Sigh. I can dream, can't I?

Doc :)

Dave Schwartz

03-28-2006, 07:46 PM

Wait a minute. Did you forget:

I guess I miss your point here.

Are you suggesting that someone enter into an anti-trust lawsuit for profit?

I think you are.

I actually made that suggestion to my attorney (who specializes in copyright law, btw). He said that to get an anti-trust case started in this age will likely cost $400k or more. If you win you might be able to recover costs but that you couldn't count on it.

He also said that if the other side cares to really do battle, the case will cost as much as they are willing to spend. Frankly, he lost me at $400k.

He said that the prime purpose of anti-trust law is to right-the-wrong and return what has been lost more so than to inflict punishment for opportunities that were lost. As such, it is entirely possible that one could spend a great deal of money to win and the end result being just a change of the way things are done rather than getting money back.

(I think I am going to bow out of this thread. No sense beating a dead horse, so-to-speak.)

Regards,
Dave Schwartz

PaceAdvantage

03-29-2006, 12:14 AM

Here's how casino management would handle things if they ran American racetracks: Treat the customer like king. Give him everything he needs to make a bet, including free programs with past performance information. Post free past performances on the track's web site. Abolish admission, parking and seating charges. Lower takeout. Have girls in low-cut outfits come around to simulcast customers with free drinks.

Sigh. I can dream, can't I?

Doc :)

What is the differential between what your average casino pays to the state and what your average racetrack pays to the state in percentage terms of what they take in on a daily basis?

Is it really fair to compare a racetrack to a casino? Sure, they both rely on gamblers as their customer base, but that's about where the similarities end....

Murph

03-29-2006, 12:45 AM

What if someone used the replays either from the track's website or racereplays.com to make their own charts?

The individual race tracks produce the facts that Equibase is hired to document for distribution to the customers of racing. When any said track decides to provide the same information to customers via an external or additional source, which party is determined to hold "copywrite" to the same information?

I am entitled to all or any of Hoosier Park race information, per invitation, via credentials for reporting on events at Hoosier Park. This represents my permission to use the data as I see fit in reporting to the public. (This representation may or may not reflect a legal position on the matter .. et al legalese)

My "contract" with Hoosier Park appears to preclude any agreement I may OR may not have had previously with any information provider, other than Hoosier Park. I will extend this privedlege to any "contract" I make to provide racing coverage from any racing venue in the United States of America.

I presuppose that I am entitled to this right by the constitution of our great nation.
Murph

mikekk

03-29-2006, 01:25 AM

1. A century ago, (back in the 80's!), Bill James of Baseball Abstract fame started something called Project Scorecard. His point was that the normal boxscores did not give the type of in-depth information necessary for a sabremetrician (sp?) to manipulate to come up with the kinds of theories that eventually made him famous. So he asked that, when anyone who had read his Abstract attended a Major league ballgame, they keep acore and send him the scorecard. He ended up with a complete year's record...and I don't believe anyone asked him for recompense. Is there anything stopping a group of people from duplicating that kind of co-operative effort at the track?

2. At least one harness track offers free PP's. The Fraser Downs website has a free .pdf download every time they run live events. Which is probably why, every time I've been there, it's been much more crowded than Hastings Park, the local thoroughbred venue.

Mikekk

Steve 'StatMan'

03-29-2006, 01:49 AM

Hawthorne and Arlington both offer free programs for the live card with paid admission. Grandstand at Haw is only $2, $4 clubhouse, and you get the program free (curiously, their program sells for $2.50 at the stand). Arlington's General Admission (no clubhouse, very nice place) is $6 with a free 'Racing Guide' (guide bought separately runs somewhere from $3-4, has items and PPS for both the beginner/casual fan, and PPS for the advanced fan, and analysis). Both programs contain Equibase PPS.

tahoesid

03-29-2006, 01:55 AM

So what you are saying is basically that I should be able to take any information that any of you publish for a fee and relay it to any amount of my friends for free?

JPinMaryland

03-29-2006, 03:42 PM

factual information is simply that, it's a fact. It's no more different than saying Pearl Harbor happened Dec. 7 1941. YOu want to copyright that?

03-29-2006, 03:44 PM

GameTheory

03-29-2006, 03:49 PM

Since racing refuses to implement modern technology, another thing the tracks don't want to pay for, one could argue that running lines are far from factual.

How many year's of a chartcaller's salary/benefit package would it take to pay for a state of the art timing system that tracked horses at all parts of the tracK?Inaccuracy of the measuring device (even if it is person) does not make something proprietary. It is still a "fact" legally because it is an attempt to record/report a fact. I don't think Equibase could argue that their running lines, or even the chart comments, are "editorializing"...

03-29-2006, 03:50 PM

That was tongue in cheek :)

The second part was not.

GameTheory

03-29-2006, 04:30 PM

The only answer is competition. And since no company is going to jump into the fray, that leaves us with the "horde of volunteers" approach -- people at each track willing to take measurements. (The very successful basketball site 82games.com uses this approach for some of its innovative stats.) If you had several people hand-timing races and then comparing notes you'd probably get very accurate times (from the gate, no less). Same with other observations at the track. Is the track going to outlaw "observing" the races? (Don't the sheets already hand-time and take wind readings even?) Maybe then they'd implement that modern technology so they could market it as being more accurate than the competition. Until competition exists, they don't have much incentive...

twindouble

03-29-2006, 05:01 PM

All I can say is, the DRF put out a good product, not perfect but dam good. Don't matter to me who owns it now as long as they don't change the format. To me it's cheep by today's standards, plus technology has put it at my finger tips and I'm very happy with that. Further more I see no need for data base that goes back many years, plus you can get most all important historical facts and breeding information free or for peanuts. Sure it's a monopoly but I don't see where they are putting the screws to us at all. I look at it this way, the gas I save at today's price more than pays for my PP's that's not taking into account the time saved. Not only that, the online wagering site provide a program with no cost and my beer, soda, snacks are cheaper at home.

Don't get me wrong, I would still love to have a track close by.

T.D.

Indulto

03-29-2006, 05:07 PM

Originally posted by cj:

How many year's of a chartcaller's salary/benefit package would it take to pay for a state of the art timing system that tracked horses at all parts of the tracK?CJ,
I’m impressed by your figures, but disturbed by your vision of automation.

I can see it all now:

- Horses ridden by robots, are tracked by electronic chartcallers, and rated by vendor computers

- Data is reformatted by vendor computers, downloaded to player computers, interpreted by betting programs operated by robots programmed to simulate a specific individual player.

- Wagers are automatically structured and uploaded to account wagering vendor computers, accessing funds transferred from debit card accounts, which in turn are funded through direct deposit

- Results are automatically recorded in logs on player computers (as well as the wagering account computers) for strategy revisions and enhancements.

- Losing player robots are continually reprogrammed whose costs inexorably approach those of salaries and benefits for human employees.

- Rider robots always break simultaneously from the gate, save optimal ground, and maintain optimal pace for their horses, are incapable of deliberately fouling another entry, never get angry with one another, and can provide no justification for being jocked-off by trainers/owners. Jockey’s Guild, Workman’s comp, Clerks of Scales, and agents become irrelevant. Robots are purchased and serviced by track operators and maintained as neutral, equally competent (or incompent, but blameless) interchangeable entities.

- Eventually, player robots are replaced by apps on player computers and/or mainframes.

- Declining human attendance enables tracks to simulate racing on computers using computer generated video, randomly generating victories and purse awards with increasingly lower payoffs and elimination of rebates.

- Human players die of ennui.

PaceAdvantage

03-29-2006, 05:19 PM

What is the deal with the big fonts? Sometimes you use them, and sometimes you don't....I don't know why, but it's disconcerting....

ecaroff

03-29-2006, 05:40 PM

Equibase is non-profit with the revenue going back to the tracks. But - how does the track make their money? We the $2 bettor. So my argument is simply since I am paying for the tracks existence and the chartcallers and the collection of the data then I should have access to this data FREE. Afterall, I already paid for it. For people like Equibase to say who should get this data like DRF or BRIS, etc. is nonsense. This is public data paid for by the bettor and we should all have access to it. In fact, the telecommunication lines that the tracks have to feed their information to Equibase should he open to all of us.

Where am I going wrong here?

Tom

03-29-2006, 07:46 PM

Where am I going wrong here?

You got out of bed this morning! :rolleyes:

Tell the tracks you will take your business elsewhere and see how quick they bow to your demands. Welcome to the real world. they are under obligation to collect data or provide it to anyone. If it were an easy venture, why don't you do it instead of complaining about in three different threads? You start cellecting and I'll sign up to buy from you. Call me. :sleeping:

ecaroff

03-29-2006, 08:15 PM

You start cellecting and I'll sign up to buy from you. Call me. :sleeping:

YOu complain too much - I wouldn't sell them to you!

Tom

03-29-2006, 09:28 PM

Touche!:lol:

ezpace

03-30-2006, 04:18 PM

Well, someone has to pay the chart callers and the database people, that is for sure. However, time will tell if it will be bettors, or the tracks paying the people.

Imagine the business a track could garner by merely giving out free PPs online every day...

These guys haven't a clue, they only worry about today, rather than next year, and ten years from now.
8888888888888888

HONG KONG does that ...of course the handle is real small ;)

traynor

03-30-2006, 07:02 PM

Dave Schwartz wrote: <All of this is it copyrightable? stuff is just not the issue. The issue is are you really prepared to fight a legal battle with real money? (Is anyone prepared to do so? Apparfently not or we would have seen some lawsuits aimed at the data providers already.) And make no mistake... after the initial posturing by both sides is finished you move directly to the real money phase.>

In a nutshell, the issue is whether or not you choose to acquiesce to bullying in the form of "threatening legal action." Almost anyone in this country can sue almost anyone else, at any time, for anything. Relegating it to the status of "you are weak, powerless, and helpless against the possibility of lawsuits, so you better snap into line" is not especially useful, and in this area, almost comical.

Every business entrepreneur or business person in the US is subject to spurious lawsuits from disgruntled (or, occasionally, just bored) clients or customers. By the same token, aren't you afraid that someone might lose the family farm using your application, blame you, and sue you? Probably not, because somewhere you probably have some collection of words that you believe "protects" you.

Whether they do or not is an issue that only courts and judges can decide; the bottom line is the very fact that you offer your application and peripheral material to the public for wagering purposes ("Only for informational purposes" statements do not appreciably alter reality), that some court somewhere may decide you "enticed" your customers and are therefore liable for whatever. On a good day, it goes your way and you are only out legal fees. You are as likely to be sued for "bad results" as any other entrepreneur or business person is likely to be sued for whatever reason. Any time, by anyone, for almost any reason.

"Product liability" is a HUGE legal issue, that may be more relevant than minor issues of whether or not someone can "own" data.
Good Luck

traynor

03-30-2006, 09:40 PM

Before someone accuses me of "developer bashing," I want to clarify that I have been in business for a number of years as a contract developer. I am aware, from first hand experience, how little "protection" is provided by clever word structures in the fine print. I am also very much aware that anyone in business can be sued at any moment, for real or imagined "damages." I have no axe to grind with Dave Schwartz, BRIS, or anyone else. It is just that when I perceive someone is trying to manipulate me with the "fear card" I tend to react more than I do otherwise. If anyone took offense, I apologize. Such was not my intent.
Good Luck

PointsmanD

03-31-2006, 12:37 PM

The example you give applies more to the case of Equibase suing us, not the other way around. My point is that Equibase is wrong to say we cannot share the data, that they have proprietary rights over the data. We may have to sue them to get them to stop saying this, but they need to sue us to stop sharing the data.

Are they likely to do this, especially when the law is not on their side? Even if they do sue, it's not going to cost $40,000 to defend yourself. Where'd you get this figure? You could probably get away without even hiring a lawyer. A much less expensive legal aide can help you fill out the paperwork, if you need help. You will be required to pay filing fees, but even these can be waived in cases of economic hardship.

This really gets to the heart of the matter, doesn't it?

(1983) Let's say you do a computer project for a car leasing company and they give you a 5-year lease on a new 280-Z as partial payment. You have a written contract to this effect. (Value: About $20k)

You finish the project, take possession of the car and life is good. A few months later you move out of state. Three months after that the scumbag car guy (Okay, so you may notice a slight tone here indicating that this story is a bit close to home.) repossess the vehicle. When confronted (by phone) he says, "Yes, I know we had a contract. So, sue me. I'm in court all the time."

I was absolutely in the right. But can I afford to prosecute the case? Well, back then I certainly couldn't. But even today I doubt that it would be worthwhile. Try to get an attorney to go to trial without a $40k retainer. (I mean a real trial here... not just making a court appearance.)

And don't for a second think that just because you win you will get your costs back. Most of the time you don't.

So, is it worth (say) $40k to win a $50k judgement? And do you have the money to play? And if you do win, can you collect?

All of this is it copyrightable? stuff is just not the issue. The issue is are you really prepared to fight a legal battle with real money? (Is anyone prepared to do so? Apparfently not or we would have seen some lawsuits aimed at the data providers already.) And make no mistake... after the initial posturing by both sides is finished you move directly to the real money phase.

Regards,
Dave Schwartz

Dave Schwartz

03-31-2006, 02:20 PM

ecaroff

03-31-2006, 02:37 PM

Pointsman,

Sir, your obvious naivete on this topic tells me that you have never been involved in a lawsuit of any significance.

I challenge you to go speak with an attorney and ask him how much it would cost to pursue an anti-trust lawsuit against (say) BRIS. He will laugh you out of the office if you bring up "legal aid."

I am going to bow out of this now.

Regards,
Dave Schwartz

Mr Schwartz - He was not talking about an anti-trust suit against (Bris). This is a simple proprietary rights (Copyright Issue) and there is enough case law out there to make the research aspect of this rather simple. Afterall DRF lost this suit once already. With the information he has provided on this site as a good start, a legal aid could put this all together in a couple of days. Interrogatories, depositions, etc. would be miniminal. A good litigator in Intellectual Propery with some of a knowledge of the horse industry for a few days in court and I would say your total bill would be substantially less than you say.

I think for you to say he naive is totally out-of-line.

xfile

03-31-2006, 03:20 PM

Lawyers in these type of cases take the anti-trust on the arm. Look hard enough and you'll find one....total gratis :cool:

traynor

03-31-2006, 04:35 PM

Dave Schwartz wrote: <I am going to bow out of this now.>

I am surprised that you would withdraw from such a literate, challenging commentary on a topic you are obviously very passionate about (considering the tone and content of your previous postings on the issue).
Good Luck

Tom

03-31-2006, 04:40 PM

Mr Schwartz - He was not talking about an anti-trust suit against (Bris). This is a simple proprietary rights (Copyright Issue) and there is enough case law out there to make the research aspect of this rather simple. Afterall DRF lost this suit once already. With the information he has provided on this site as a good start, a legal aid could put this all together in a couple of days. Interrogatories, depositions, etc. would be miniminal. A good litigator in Intellectual Propery with some of a knowledge of the horse industry for a few days in court and I would say your total bill would be substantially less than you say.

I think for you to say he naive is totally out-of-line.

When will you be doing this? You have posted enough about it here, surely you must someting more in mind, like, say, action?
Keep us posted.
We are all rooting for you.
Really.
:rolleyes:

Dave Schwartz

03-31-2006, 04:49 PM

Traynor,

Give me a break.

Obviously, we have a difference of opinion on this. I say that prosecuting a lawsuit is a very expensive deal and several of you say that it isn't.

I am not looking for meaningless challenges,

Let's leave it at that and agree to differ.

Dave Schwartz

PaceAdvantage

03-31-2006, 05:46 PM

Afterall DRF lost this suit once already.

Did they lose, or did they settle? Big difference.

Also, you failed to comment on my post a while back which expressed some questions as to whether the judge in one of those cases was actually leaning towards the fact that the DATA itself WAS protected.

And I quote:

It is at the second step, however, where plaintiff (DRF) stumbles. Plaintiff's publication details a mass of raw data. Defendant's (Sports Eye) 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.

Does the above quote not indicate that the judge considers the actions of Sports Eye to be OK because they are NOT duplicating the RAW DATA? That's the way I read it. And if that is the case, then your argument doesn't seem all that strong.

ecaroff

03-31-2006, 07:18 PM

PA - I've come to the conclusion that it really doesn't matter what I say or how the courts have ruled for you're going to try to protect your employer and deceive and mislead people on this blog know matter what.

However, if you care to do some reading, read:
1. The Arizona Symposium that pointsman posted at the start of the web.

2. Read this case:
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

where Sports Eye received a $10 million settlement from DRF and Hollywood.

3. Read this case:
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

where: "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."

and the judge rules:
"We conclude that plaintiff has not made the requisite showing of
likelihood of success on the merits. Since there is no place or show window in federal court, the request for a preliminary injunction must be denied."

JOSEPH S. LORD, III, CH. J.

PA, if you are still not convinced then I can give you other case law but the basic US Copyright laws are based on the Feist ruling that pointmand mentoned in the start of this blog.

PaceAdvantage

03-31-2006, 07:49 PM

PA - I've come to the conclusion that it really doesn't matter what I say or how the courts have ruled for you're going to try to protect your employer and deceive and mislead people on this blog know matter what.

If you keep accusing me of something I am not, then I will be forced to kick you off this board. If I were a plant, or if I were out to protect anyone, you and your REPETITIVE notes would have been GONE a long time ago.

I suggest you back off of me with your bullshit.

Now, back to the matter at hand. Why do you refuse to comment on the judge's own words that seem to imply some sort of protection of the DATA in the DRF? The judge ruled in one of the cases that Sports Eye did not reproduce ANY DATA...what they did was interpret and categorize the horses in a race based on the data. Does this not imply that the data is somehow in a separate category?

I don't have time to read through tons and tons of legal mumbo-jumbo. Just point me to the damn paragraph that says (in oh so many words) "the data in the DAILY RACING FORM is not protected under copyright law, and can be reproduced by anyone, anywhere, anytime, in any form"

Thanks. And stop taking this personally. I love to play devil's advocate. I defend D. Wayne Lukas when everyone else loves to bash him. I defend various trainers at times when others call them "super trainers" or "cheats." That's who I am. It helps me get to the bottom of the story so that I can decide for myself what the truth really is.....

If you had been a longtime member of this board (back to 1999, when Equibase and the DRF gave me my initial funding....fd..s.df..#####>....**&###$> /.4 .cfe ERROR .... BEEP.. DELETE FUNCTION INOPERABLE .... ERROR ....

df

h
erww

PaceAdvantage

03-31-2006, 07:52 PM

Oh, and by the way, don't ever, ever call this website a blog....thanks....

Tom

03-31-2006, 08:11 PM

Nutscratch????? :eek:

ecaroff

03-31-2006, 08:30 PM

There goes the First Amendment................

lsbets

03-31-2006, 08:48 PM

There goes the First Amendment................

First Amendment? I believe this is a privately owned and operated board, which means you have no rights, only the posting privelages granted to you (and I and everyone else) by the owner of this board.

PaceAdvantage

03-31-2006, 09:17 PM

Why won't ecaroff address my question? Has he answered me already, and I've just missed it? I read that judges opinion, and that paragraph sticks out at me like a sore thumb. The judge clearly states that he considered what Sports Eye did with their "Fast Performances" to be AOK PRECISELY BECAUSE THEY DID NOT REPRODUCE RAW DATA. Am I reading it wrong? Does that not strike anyone as quite germane to the argument at hand?

ecaroff

03-31-2006, 09:52 PM

A judge will argue several points within a specific case but it is the final conclusion "THE ORDER" that is the only thing that matters.

traynor

04-01-2006, 12:44 AM

PaceAdvantage wrote: <Why won't ecaroff address my question? Has he answered me already, and I've just missed it? I read that judges opinion, and that paragraph sticks out at me like a sore thumb. The judge clearly states that he considered what Sports Eye did with their "Fast Performances" to be AOK PRECISELY BECAUSE THEY DID NOT REPRODUCE RAW DATA. Am I reading it wrong? Does that not strike anyone as quite germane to the argument at hand?>

The key issue is reproducing. If you copy or download data, then re-sell it, it is a problem. If you use that data to create something else (an output in which the data is one of the inputs) that something else is a new entity. As far as I can determine from several graduate classes in international management, corporate law, and similarly obscure topics is that you cannot directly copy and re-sell the data. If you use it or change it--regardless of "contractual threats" to the contrary--what you have is yours, not the data producers.
Good Luck

traynor

04-01-2006, 12:47 AM

Dave Schwartz wrote: <Let's leave it at that and agree to differ.>

Totalmente de acuerdo.
Good Luck

Tom

04-01-2006, 01:05 AM

A judge will argue several points within a specific case but it is the final conclusion "THE ORDER" that is the only thing that matters.

So go find the actual written ORDER by the judge and post it here. Not the entire thing, just the sentence or two where a JUDGE orders something.

Tom

04-01-2006, 01:08 AM

Wait a minute. Did you forget:

http://www.thoroughbredtimes.com/todaysnewsarchive/ttodaysnewsviewarchive.asp?ArchiveDate=1/4/2004#41105

Hollywood Park and Daily Racing Form were sued by Cohen in an antitrust lawsuit about 20 years ago. The out-of-court settlement figure was reported at $10-million, with the Form forking over a reported $7-million.

The question really is - how many people here would be willing to put up a little money, get the same lawfirm that Cohen used, file a class-action, anti-trust suit and settle for a cool $10 million - that was 20 years ago which is probably more like $50 million now?

This is a quote right off the page you linked.....
"Hollywood Park and Daily Racing Form were sued by Cohen in an antitrust lawsuit about 20 years ago. The out-of-court settlement figure was reported at $10-million, with the Form forking over a reported $7-million. "

YOU need to read better - this means, the parties arrived at an agreement without a judicial ruling.

PaceAdvantage

04-01-2006, 12:25 PM

The key issue is reproducing. If you copy or download data, then re-sell it, it is a problem.

But isn't this what some are advocating on this thread? They feel the data can be resold or passed freely amongst many different people? They are arguing this data is "factual" and therefore public domain. That's what I thought many were arguing in this thread, and others like it....

04-01-2006, 01:06 PM

I don't think that is what people are talking about. Noone is talking about file sharing that I am aware of anyway.

I think what bugs the hell out of people is tactics being employed by Equibase currently to stop an individual from collecting free and data they themselves have paid for.

I have a couple unlimited PP subscriptions from different companies. Both have implemented a policy where I can't use an auto grabber to go and download the data each day. I have to sit there and manually click every link. This is total bullshit. Some days you have 25 or 30 tracks running. I'm told it has to do with offshore outfits using stolen the data, but the more I think about it, the less sense it makes. What does me downloading PPs that are part of my subscription with an auto file grabber have to do with an offshore book?

You can't download free charts anymore without the same thing. I would gladly pay for charts, IF they were available at a reasonable rate. They are not. Now, it is easier to access all the free porn you want to see (so I've heard) then it is to download an accurate chart of yesterday's 3rd at GP? Does Equibase think there is some vast empire out there making their own PPs from HTML charts? I know a few people do it, and the measures they are taking will NOT stop them.

Like I've said before, the industry should be bending over backwards to GIVE the information, all racing information, to anyone that might make a bet. However, racing chooses to remain in the 1950s.

Tom

04-01-2006, 01:50 PM

CJ,

The off shores, if they were of a mind to collect ALL the charts every day for horrible purposes, would be in a far better postion to have some clerk/grunt download each one by hand than the poor suvker who plays by the rules, buys his data, and then for some unknown reason, actually expects to use it!
That's were my "data-whore" label comes from, and I find it applies to everyone except HDW - who sets the standard in data delivery and accuracy.
As far as the rest go, who really has any sympathy if people are stealing from them en masses? Persoanlly, I hope they area! HDW treats me with respect and I return the gesture. The rest are just out there to use as anyone sees fit, IMHO.

the_fat_man

04-01-2006, 02:10 PM

the_fat_man

04-01-2006, 02:47 PM

Some clarification is in order, I believe.

The free charts at TSN have the following disclaimer:

'Data provided or compiled by Equibase Company, which includes data from The Jockey Club, generally is accurate but occasionally errors and omissions occur as a result of incorrect data received by others, mistakes in processing and other causes. Equibase Company and Thoroughbred Sports Network disclaim responsibility for the consequences, if any, of such errors, but would appreciate being called to their attention.'

They're copyrighted, all rights reserved.

The free charts on the NYRA website have the following disclaimer:

Copyright (c) The New York Racing Association Inc. & Equibase Company LLC

What exactly does copyrighting the data (or deeming it copyrighted) entitle them to? Clearly, the same data can't be displayed on another site, as is.
How about the data minus the logo?
How about partial data?
Data that includes the original in part or total but that has been augmented?

A number of additional questions:

What data comes from the Jockey Club?

Hard to believe that a given horse, ridden by a particular jockey, on a certain day, in a given race, on a particular track would be proprietary.

Probably would be legally, as this info would be the property of the track and Equibase.
Does the Daily News purchase result information from NYRA?
If not, then why is that data proprietary rather than the NEWSs (if it is)?

Sort of like being the NBA and expecting people to come to games/watch them on TV but insisting that they purchase your boxscores.

I understand that there's a cost in preparing these charts. But why would names, dates, races, etc, be lumped together with running lines, speed figures, pace figures, etc.

BRIS' pace/speed ratings are proprietary.

What, legally, would be considered 'RAW DATA' in this case?

Any reason why we're not all playing Hong Kong?:bang:

PointsmanD

04-01-2006, 10:16 PM

The key issue is reproducing. If you copy or download data, then re-sell it, it is a problem.

Read the Feist Telephone book case which I quoted extensively. That's the key case here. Data is not protected. The presentation of the data is what's protected, IF it is original. This would mean that you would be violating the copyright if you sold copies of the Racing Form or Equibase charts, assuming that their format is original. Paceadvantage is right that the reason that Sports Eye was not in violation was because it did not copy the format of the Form. But the format has to be original in some way.

That question, whether or not the format is original, is another question whose answer is not obvious. Here is what Steven Crist said in his bio Betting on Myself, regarding the startup on The Racing Times:

“We were fully expecting the Form to try to restrain our publication just before launch by claiming that we were violating their copyright on past performances. It was the opinion of Maxwell’s (the publisher’s) lawyers, however, that the past performances themselves could not be copyrighted—almost every one of the dozens of pieces of information in each running line was public information. The only proprietary data were the chart callers’ comments and estimations of the margins separating each horse at intermediate points of call, and we would be getting our own such information through Equibase.

“The attorneys believed, however, that there was a potential copyright challenge on the arrangement and presentation of all the data if it looked too much like a Form. I didn’t agree with them—harness and greyhound racing used a very similar presentation in track-produced programs, and there were only a few logical ways to arrange the numbers.”

Please note: it is not that the data is public information that it cannot be copyighted, as Crist argues about the margins separating the horses, but that it is fact. The Feist case was about a company that copied an existing telephone book and sold it. The court held that it was not a violation for two reasons: 1. data cannot be copyrighted; 2. the format of the original book was not original. The copied both the data and the format.

We need to determine if the chart format is original enough to be copyrighted when simply rearranging a column or two. The answer to this question is not as clear cut as it is with the data, but it is possible that, for example, the Equibase results charts is not original enough to be copyrighted.

As for file sharing: isn't it ironic that millions of people are illegally downloading music and movies files right now, but horseplayers are afraid to share data that is legal to share?

PointsmanD

04-01-2006, 10:22 PM

'...Equibase Company and Thoroughbred Sports Network disclaim responsibility for the consequences, if any, of such errors, but would appreciate being called to their attention.'

I actually used to bring errors to their attention. No more, I'm afraid. At least not until they adopt a more customer friendly orientation.

04-02-2006, 06:31 AM

I actually used to bring errors to their attention. No more, I'm afraid. At least not until they adopt a more customer friendly orientation.

I no longer point out chart errors or missing charts. I'm afraid I'm going to be marked as a chart thief rather than someone trying to help.

xfile

04-02-2006, 08:00 AM

twindouble

04-02-2006, 09:23 AM

2 of you in a row with the "I'm afraid" stance. No offense meant but please grow a pair and dig in. Be firm on what you believe in. You can't live life nor be a part of this game with "fear" on the back of your mind. I mean no disrespect. Guess what happens when people start running scared? The same thing when an animal smells fear - he attacks. Stand up, put your shoulders back and be proud of what you stand for. :cool:

xfile, we all told that when we were kids. :D The truth is with no fear your not prepared to fight. I'm afraid when it comes to adults is just a manor of speech reconizing what has to be over come. In other words know when the risk is to high and not be foolish.

Over confidence, is a weakness.

T.D.

xfile

04-02-2006, 09:41 AM

xfile, we all told that when we were kids. :D The truth is with no fear your not prepared to fight. I'm afraid when it comes to adults is just a manor of speech reconizing what has to be over come. In other words know when the risk is to high and not be foolish.

Over confidence, is a weakness.

T.D.

What planet are you from?

twindouble

04-02-2006, 09:45 AM

What planet are you from?

From the planet of the sane. :lol:

T.D.

twindouble

04-02-2006, 09:58 AM

Just to be clear, I'm not totally off topic here becuse I think taking on this in the courts is foolish and from a handicapping perspective it's even more so. Most of the data that some are looking to capture is just history nothing more. Current data is more important and that's provided to all of us. How we use it will never be challenged unless you try to sell it. At one time my spare room what my data base, racing charts stored in boxes in order. When I purchace a product it's mine to do what I please, I could even sell tip sheets using that information like many do.

T.D.

xfile

04-02-2006, 10:20 AM

You make my point exactly. There is nothing to fear on this topic especially.

twindouble

04-02-2006, 10:38 AM

You make my point exactly. There is nothing to fear on this topic especially.

I'm afraid your correct. :D

Tom

04-02-2006, 11:40 AM

xfile

04-02-2006, 01:30 PM

The tallest blade of grass is the first mowed, Weedhopper! :kiss:

Wow - if you handicap as well as you throw anecdotes together you might actually cash a few tickets. :cool:

PaceAdvantage

04-02-2006, 03:37 PM

Get back on topic, please.

traynor

04-02-2006, 05:50 PM

PointsmanD wrote: <Please note: it is not that the data is public information that it cannot be copyighted, as Crist argues about the margins separating the horses, but that it is fact. The Feist case was about a company that copied an existing telephone book and sold it. The court held that it was not a violation for two reasons: 1. data cannot be copyrighted; 2. the format of the original book was not original. The copied both the data and the format. >

Thanks for the clarification. I am surprised by the lack of "you can't do that!!!" responses from others on this forum, apparently representatives of the various data services. Is this the first statement that the emperor does not--in fact--have a new set of clothes? In short, is the perpetuation of "fear of lawsuits" the primary issue that keeps the system in place?
Good Luck

Indulto

04-02-2006, 09:43 PM

Originally posted by traynor:

I am surprised by the lack of "you can't do that!!!" responses from others on this forum, apparently representatives of the various data services. Is this the first statement that the emperor does not--in fact--have a new set of clothes? In short, is the perpetuation of "fear of lawsuits" the primary issue that keeps the system in place?traynor,

I don’t disagree with you, but the advice of those advocating weighing the consequences before proceeding shouldn’t be ignored. I am reminded of similar discussion between a certain President and his former Secretary of State. ;)

highnote

04-03-2006, 03:57 AM

This thread has generated several thoughts:

1.) If anyone here wants to take a stand and sell some racing data and then gets sued by a racing industry entity, please make it publicly known here. If it looks like what you are doing is legal then I would be happy to make a small donation to your legal defense fund. I'm not fabulously wealthy by any stretch, but I can spare a few dollars.

2.) If anyone wants to talk about setting up a company that collects racing data from video replays I would be happy to work on that with you. I'm sure there are plenty of volunteers who would be willing to key in data into a software template that would be used to generate charts and past performances. In return, those volunteers could have shares in the company. Then our little company could sell our "proprietary", "copyrighted" :D data for a reasonable price and the volunteer/shareholders could be compensated from the proceeds. I doubt the shareholders would make enough money to make a living, but in time, the value of the company would grow and the shares could become very valuable.

3.) I think it is perfectly fine to make this company as transparent as possible. No secrets here.

4.) So where to get video replays? I think I read somewhere that the Wizard (AKA Micheal Kipness) gets videotapes of the races sent to him directly from the tracks. I don't know about digital technology too much, but I do know that using videotapes would make it easy to time the races. All you do is run the video signal from the VCR through an inexpensive device called a time code generator. A time code generator will "burn" the elapsed time in a little box on your TV screen over the race signal. The time is shown in hours/minutes/seconds and frames per second. In video there are 29.97 frames per second. So with a time code generator you can accurately judge the time of any section of a race down to about 1/30 of a second -- close enough for handicapping work and a helluva lot better than 1/5 of a second. Plus the times would be from the gate rather than from the first electronic beam, Why thoroughbred racing chose not to time from the gate is a mystery. Why a run-up?

5.) About 8 or 9 years ago a friend of mine had a brilliant idea -- an online condition book database. Trainers and owners could go online and search out races according to some search criteria. Say you wanted to find a list of Non-winners of one allowance races running on April 15. Just fill out a little form, submit it, and voila -- about 2 seconds later a whole list of races was displayed on your screen. I set up a template that the condition book data could be entered into. Then that data went into a flat file database that was easy to use on the internet. It didn't have to be big, because the data was purged everytime a new condition book came out. We started going to all the available racing websites and with the help of a couple of volunteers started entering data. It was brain-dead boring. So he decided it would be better to approach a racing organization about doing this. He reasoned they would be better able to deal with the various racetracks and standardize their condition book format for easy entry into a database. Well, this organization liked the idea so much they did do it -- and cut him out of the deal. They just took his idea and gave him nothing. That experience taught me one thing -- If it's a good idea, it's worth doing. I think making result charts from race replays with the help of a network of volunteers is a good idea.

6.) I don't think the racing data that is currently available is all that expensive, but as a businessman who loves startup companies with low startup costs, I'm always on the lookout for good opportunities. I think there is room for competition. The key is keeping expenses low. I don't know how much Equibase pays their executives, but I'm sure they don't work cheaply. Same with DRF. Now that a new company owns them, they have to earn a lot of money to make sure the new owners get a decent ROI -- which they should. They took a risk and bought them. They deserve to make a profit. But I also think that competition is healthy. Everyone benefits. Even DRF would benefit. Competition would make them put out a better product. We race horses for competition. Why not compete in business? Plus, anytime you lower costs and improve quality, the consumer benefits -- and ultimately the industry benefits. Lower cost of data means higher handle for racetracks.

So that's my 2 cents worth. I look forward to any replies.

traynor

04-03-2006, 04:31 AM

swetyejohn wrote: < So where to get video replays? I think I read somewhere that the Wizard (AKA Micheal Kipness) gets videotapes of the races sent to him directly from the tracks. I don't know about digital technology too much, but I do know that using videotapes would make it easy to time the races. All you do is run the video signal from the VCR through an inexpensive device called a time code generator. A time code generator will "burn" the elapsed time in a little box on your TV screen over the race signal. The time is shown in hours/minutes/seconds and frames per second. In video there are 29.97 frames per second. So with a time code generator you can accurately judge the time of any section of a race down to about 1/30 of a second -- close enough for handicapping work and a helluva lot better than 1/5 of a second. Plus the times would be from the gate rather than from the first electronic beam, Why thoroughbred racing chose not to time from the gate is a mystery. Why a run-up?>

Interesting ideas. A few suggestions. Buying the videos is a good option, if a group effort. Tab at a lot of tracks is high; on the order of $10 a race. Alternative is to use your own video camera (complete with onscreen timer in 100ths of a second). You would be pleasantly surprised at how easy that is, and how inexpensive, compared to a year or two ago. By digitizing everything initially, manipulation of the data stream is a LOT simpler.

You would also be surprised at how dedicated and precise graduate students can be when paid a reasonable amount in exchange for that dedication and precision. For most, it is as close to a paid vacation as they will get until they graduate. It helps if you pick those who have no interest in racing; they focus on videotaping, not rooting for SlowAsMolasses to make up 31 lengths in the stretch so they can cash a $2 ticket.

You have some really great ideas.
Good Luck

Indulto

04-04-2006, 02:39 AM

traynor,
Assuming you could locate a viewing position as good as Equibase’s, it’s hard to imagine track management ignoring a crew of patrons filming the races day after day.

SJ,
If and when Equibase starts using the automated location tracking system which supposedly will exactly measure the speed, acceleration, and path for each horse at any point during a race, (and presumably also lead changes), will the fruits of a video-based data collection effort still be worthwhile?

highnote

04-04-2006, 03:47 AM

traynor,
Assuming you could locate a viewing position as good as Equibase’s, it’s hard to imagine track management ignoring a crew of patrons filming the races day after day.

Who cares if they notice. The whole idea is to be transparent. There is nothing to hide.

SJ,
If and when Equibase starts using the automated location tracking system which supposedly will exactly measure the speed, acceleration, and path for each horse at any point during a race, (and presumably also lead changes), will the fruits of a video-based data collection effort still be worthwhile?

Good. I hope they do start electronic tracking. I won't hold my breath, though. And I hope they start it because a bunch of people decide to get together and make their own datasets that are just as good or better than what Equibase is currently offering. If that happens, I would consider our project a success. As I wrote in my earlier post, competition will make everyone try harder.

Every once in awhile the powers that be need a good swift kick in the ass to keep them from getting complacent. Could you imagine how our telephone service would be if AT&T was never broken up? Telephone service didn't get innovative until there was competition.

Indulto

04-04-2006, 04:11 AM

Originally posted by swetyejohn:

Who cares if they notice. The whole idea is to be transparent. There is nothing to hide.I wasn’t suggesting they hide, only that I doubt the tracks would permit it.

Every once in awhile the powers that be need a good swift kick in the ass to keep them from getting complacent. Could you imagine how our telephone service would be if AT&T was never broken up? Telephone service didn't get innovative until there was competition.I totally agree.

traynor

04-04-2006, 01:51 PM

Indulto wrote: <Assuming you could locate a viewing position as good as Equibase’s, it’s hard to imagine track management ignoring a crew of patrons filming the races day after day.>

First, I think you may be caught in the myth of adversarial relationships with track management. Racetracks in general ignore the vast majority of the betting public as if they were non-entities. In short, track management doesn't really care one way or the other if you live or die, as long as you bet. The flip side is that a number of studies on racetrack management have concluded that the Pareto Principle is alive and well, and even more specific to racetracks; the majority of their profits come from a handful of major bettors, rather than the "faceless majority." That leads to interesting practices by management.

Second, "a crew of patrons filming the races day after day" is not necessary; given the current level of technology, videotaping is no more "obvious" than an occasional fan taking a snapshot of his or her favorite horse. The restrictions on camera use at tracks, in general, apply only to flash cameras.

Third, we have never encountered any attempt by management to impede, restrict, or interfere with our videotaping of races in several years of videotaping paddocks, warmups, and races. On the other hand, we never interfere with other patrons, never restrict anyone's view, and never strut around like Very Important People on a mission. In short, we exercise a reasonable level of professionalism. While I cannot address the issue on the behalf of track management at every track, everywhere, our experiences at more than 20 different tracks, at different times, have all been positive. No one has indicated in any way that they objected to our activities.

Fourth, the confusion may come in because of the "every race, every day" mindset. We are only interested in specific tracks, specific races, and specific time periods that generate "positive expectation opportunities." That restricts our interest to something like 10-15% of the races on a given day. We have no interest in which entry wins a NW1 at Fort Erie or Atokad Park or wherever, or any of the thousands of races every week that are so overbet that they generate a loss over time--even with a high win percentage.

Finally, I don't want to create the impression that a "competitor" to Equibase should be developed (as interesting as the idea may seem). I am suggesting that a group of handicappers interested in specific tracks can gather videotapes of the races at those tracks fairly easily, fairly inconspicuously, with minimal fuss, bother, and interference from track management. Those videotapes may be used by the group to gain a substantial competitive advantage over the other racing fans.

Good Luck

the_fat_man

04-04-2006, 02:16 PM

While the merits of paddock and warmup inspection (and a track presence) are obvious and alone would keep me very busy,

I wonder about the benefits of videotaping select races.

If I tape the NYRA feed, which includes the headons (gate, backstretch, turn, and stretch) what do I gain by physically taping the races.

With all due respect to the many professionals on this site,

if I keep good notes (paddock and warmup), assuming I can distinguish between fit, fat, and sore horses and can tell when a horse is physically getting fitter from race to race, view the replays closely (and here I mean alot more than once) while having a basic notion of what is and what isn't a good trip, then not only do I have more than enough work to keep me very busy during the week (following a single track only)
but I also have an advantage over most.

This advantage can be gained by using resources currently in place.

I ride fixed gear against roadies; that's enough torture for me (especially in the winter).

traynor

04-04-2006, 10:30 PM

the_fat_man wrote: <If I tape the NYRA feed, which includes the headons (gate, backstretch, turn, and stretch) what do I gain by physically taping the races.>

If you already have access to videos, then it is a non-issue. Not all tracks have videos available (to record). Some of the tracks are very profitable. If you only bet one track, or one circuit, it is also a non-issue, because you can watch the track replays multiple times, as well as watching the races live.

What you DON'T get are times in hundredths of a second at whatever point in the race you select for viewing, and any other number of other aids to analysis. A further benefit is that a lot of very serious bettors are engaged in other fields; some even refer to it as "work." That activity imposes a time constraint that prevents them from spending the four, five, or six hours a day at the track (plus another two hours or so traveling to and from) that serious analysis requires (without your own videos).
Good Luck