Can somebody explain the Big Flap with Equibase and Bris ? [Archive] - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

Johnicard

04-21-2006, 05:39 AM

RaceIsClosed

04-24-2006, 01:11 PM

We should all file antitrust complaints with the US Department of Justice, California Attorney General, your states Attorney General, and a letter to your congressman asking their help in causing a criminal investigation for the monopoly/antitrust violation by AXCIS, Trackmaster, DRF, etc. The more complaints the better our chance of getting them indicted and subsequently have the data available without the Terms and Conditions that try to prevent using the data to develop handicapping guides. I have done all of the above and have received a response from the Illinois Attornry General notifying me they have sent my complaint to the accused. The USDOJ requested additional information, which I sent them. If anyone wants a copy of my complaint please e-mail me at: johnicard@msn.com

It is simple to file complaints and write your congressman on the internet.

US DOJ:
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/index.html (http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/index.html)

California AG
http://ag.ca.gov/antitrust/index.htm (http://ag.ca.gov/antitrust/index.htm)

Congressmen:
http://www.house.gov/writerep/ (http://www.house.gov/writerep/)

How about the problem of DRF not taking ads from touts (or so they told me), but promoting their own handicappers? Same for letting their handicappers create books from the data but not *all* outside authors? This is anticompetitive behavior, since the DRF PPs are a "language" like English or Spanish, and not being able to use their PPs is akin to having to switch languages.

I might have standing to pursue a private lawsuit over the use of data if the policies are too restrictive, but I'd need to know more specifics, and frankly, I don't feel like shelling out a ton of money to help everyone else out if they aren't pitching in.

twindouble

04-24-2006, 01:58 PM

How about the problem of DRF not taking ads from touts (or so they told me), but promoting their own handicappers? Same for letting their handicappers create books from the data but not *all* outside authors? This is anticompetitive behavior, since the DRF PPs are a "language" like English or Spanish, and not being able to use their PPs is akin to having to switch languages.

I might have standing to pursue a private lawsuit over the use of data if the policies are too restrictive, but I'd need to know more specifics, and frankly, I don't feel like shelling out a ton of money to help everyone else out if they aren't pitching in.

I wouldn't waste a nickle on such a venture.

The way I see it horse racing isn't like having a two, three, or four big corporations fighting for a share of the market or just one with a monopoly on various products. When it comes to producing past performances every track makes up the products we use, by the very nature of the game you can't cut out any track or divide them up because you wouldn't have a complete useable product. The tracks have control over what's produced so considering those facts there's nothing in the anti trust laws that would fall under what's deemed monopoly. No one else can produce the product and there's nothing to break up, if they could it would be a disaster because nothing would mesh as well as it does now.

Regardless of what kind of handicapping software you come up with, you can't just steal what others produce. Look at it this way, say you were digging on your property and you hit a spring and the water had some healing properties and there's nothing like it anywhere in the world it's yours to sell, in essence you have a monopoly on the product. Past performances fall in that category. So you have two choices, bottle the water yourself or let others do it and get paid for the water. There's nothing to break up in my opinion. Further more if the tracks allow many different outfits produce past performances it would be our undoing as handicappers, it would be a total mess compared to what we get now. I would leave well enough alone and use whatever information that's available for your own personal benefit. That's the edge we all talk about.

Good luck,

T.D.

PaceAdvantage

04-24-2006, 02:22 PM

TD,

One of the better posts on the topic recently. Thanks for bringing a bit of levelheadedness and practicality to the conversation....

As I've been trying to say recently, it isn't a very large market! If it were, the DRF wouldn't be in financial trouble every couple of years....

Can you really have a monopoly if the market isn't all that large and nobody else really wants to do the work?

If you really think it's a large market, just compare the sales of the Wall Street Journal to the DRF. Next, compare the number of online brokers to the number of US-based online wagering companies. Next compare the number of online financial info and software dealers to the number of online horseracing data sellers and software dealers....and so on....and so on....

twindouble

04-24-2006, 06:52 PM

Don't expect to much in the future, I only show a flash of brilliance once in a while. :D

Thanks PA, coming from you it's a complement.

T.D.

JPinMaryland

04-24-2006, 07:19 PM

"Regardless of what kind of handicapping software you come up with, you can't just steal what others produce. Look at it this way, say you were digging on your property and you hit a spring and the water had some healing properties and there's nothing like it anywhere in the world it's yours to sell, in essence you have a monopoly on the product. Past performances fall in that category..."

No it doesnt fall into that category and this is a ridiculous analogy.

The proper analogy in legal terms would be a newspaper breaks the story that the Japanese bombed pearl harbor on Dec. 7. That date/fact is not copyrightable.

Okay? That is bottom line on this issue, legally. You can protect like the format of the PPs. ANd you could protect a conjured up number like Beyer number. Jut dont say a past performance can be copywritten, because like "Fager ran a 1:32 at AQU" is a fact.

twindouble

04-24-2006, 09:09 PM

No it doesnt fall into that category and this is a ridiculous analogy.

The proper analogy in legal terms would be a newspaper breaks the story that the Japanese bombed pearl harbor on Dec. 7. That date/fact is not copyrightable.

Okay? That is bottom line on this issue, legally. You can protect like the format of the PPs. ANd you could protect a conjured up number like Beyer number. Jut dont say a past performance can be copywritten, because like "Fager ran a 1:32 at AQU" is a fact. Quote; JPinMaryland;

Please clarify what your saying, with the exception of "ridiculous analogy", we all know that's was meant as a put down insult.

T.D.

Ponyplayr

04-24-2006, 10:09 PM

maybe condense it down to short paragraphs :) thanks ...My learning and
reading curves are not the best at the moment. Too darn many surgeries..and when they tell you it is MINOR ..dont believe it :bang:

Just out of curiosity..what type of eye surgery did you have?

I'm assuming you had eye surgery.

MikeDee

04-25-2006, 07:52 PM

Here is the way I see your analogy. No you can't copyright the fact that Pearl Harbor was bombed. But let's go on to say that your reporter had an exclusive interview with Admiral Yamamoto.

You can copyright the interview. It is a work product.

The fact that the War Admiral won the 1st race at AQU is a fact and cannot be copyrighted.

But the way he did it with all the times, positions and calls is a work product and can be copyrighted.

I don't believe that you will win any lawsuits that try to say that this race data, this work product, is in the public domain and therefore not copywritable.

JPinMaryland

04-25-2006, 09:32 PM

Great analogy with the interview w/ Yamamoto. PRoblem is THAT scenario has already been decided in favor of not allowing the copyright!

The case was called Nation vs...someone. It had to do when Time magazine published advance copies of a Gerald Ford biography or some such. THe court said that whatever he said was a fact and that it could not be copyrwritten. The case is from 1976, I think, and maybe I have forgotten the details but I think that is what happened.

Now it would be different if Adm. Yamamoto had told his own story about the attach. In his own words. His own version of telling this story, this would be copyrightable because it goes beyond mere facts, dates, places, names, etc.

The work product theory has been tried a number of times and simply does not hold up. If the material is original and creative then it can be copywritten. Simply because you do work, does not mean it is copyrwritable. I.e. work product alone will not win the case, if there is no creativity to the work.

That is pretty basic to copyright law. It protects works that are creative. Just because work is put into somethign does not make it creative.

Good examples of stuff where work was put but did not create something: telephone books, lists of clients used by a business.

JPinMaryland

04-25-2006, 09:38 PM

Oh I think the case is called Time v Nation. I think from 1976, I tried to Google it and got nothing. If you can find a Copyright Law textbook you would find it. Or get Nimmer on Copyright! I think that is the old treatise...

The fact that the War Admiral won the 1st race at AQU is a fact and cannot be copyrighted.

But the way he did it with all the times, positions and calls is a work product and can be copyrighted.

I have to tell you again, this is just plain wrong and maybe you will not believe me until you crack open some law books. Or maybe can quote me a leagl case that says this??

The times and positions are still facts. Just because someone witnessed them does NOT Make them copyrightable, per se. You still need some creative element in there. Work product, alone, will not get you there.

If War Admiral was ahead by 3 lengths or really it was 4 does not matter. It is still a fact. I.e. let's say the chart caller was wrong and it was his impression that he was ahead by 3. Could be an incorrect fact but it is still factual in nature.

I.e. if I say "The Jap. bombed Pearl Harbor on Dec. 8." That does not make it copyrightable simply because it was my own IMPRESSION. It still factual IN NATURE.

Now, if the caller said "Proud Clarion is making a spectacular bid."

That would be creative. However it still isnt enuf for copyright under a different theory. You cant just copyright a sentence. else otherwise eventually everyone would own every possible sentence. Or so that is the theory.

What the courts came up with is that you need somewhere between a minimum of 100-200 words before a letter or a speech, etc. can be copyrightable. There was a case involving Madame Curie's letters I think and another one involving JD Salinger. The JD Salinger case went on for awhile and probably a bit complicated for this analysis.

So if you describe a race in your own words, with at least 100, or better yet 200 words, NOW you can claim copyright.

JPinMaryland

04-25-2006, 09:48 PM

Here you want to play amateur copyright attorney...?

Here's another one. Even more fun than this Bris, Equibase stuff.

What if our very own Paceadvantage website operator decided to claim copyrights in all these words of wisdom that we are spitting out.

So if I tried to put out a book called "JPinMaryland's words of internet wisdom" He could sue me.

Does he win? DOes it matter that he put work product into the web site? Does it matter if he wrote the actual post or not?

Ahh the fun....

twindouble

04-25-2006, 10:18 PM

Tracks have the product, with out them there would be no DRF or Equibase or any other extention of the product. Anyone who thinks they can offer the tracks a better contract, better past past performance, give it a try and put the money up. Then try to sell it to the public for less than what we pay now.

Everyone wants to plagerize what already at their finger tips, modify it and give it another name, not pay to create it, then profit off it. That's what this all boils down to. Go ahead, delete everything on your hard drives that relates to what DRF, Equibase and other produce and see where you stand, then ask yourself if you have anything worth selling or picking a winner. What a joke that would be.

T.D.

kenwoodallpromos

04-26-2006, 12:07 AM

[QUOTE=twindouble]Tracks have the product, with out them there would be no DRF or Equibase or any other extention of the product. Anyone who thinks they can offer the tracks a better contract, better past past performance, give it a try and put the money up. Then try to sell it to the public for less than what we pay now.

Everyone wants to plagerize what already at their finger tips, modify it and give it another name, not pay to create it, then profit off it. That's what this all boils down to. Go ahead, delete everything on your hard drives that relates to what DRF, Equibase and other produce and see where you stand, then ask yourself if you have anything worth selling or picking a winner. What a joke that would be.
____________________
The major part of what Equibase does is two-fold- compiling official track information which accounts for the large majority of what is contained in results and Past Performances; and runnignlines.
Equibase would not be needed to obtain running lines if tracks used automatic timers for splits and finish times for all thoroughbred races. Then I believe the only proprietaty information they would generate wouild be comments (pure DRF-type speed ratings and variants could be computer generated) Drf had ownership of past races, sold to Equibase, so they own that historical race information now.
Maybe that is why they do not sell whosale charts on software!

PaceAdvantage

04-26-2006, 12:25 AM

Everyone likes to cite copyright law when forming an opinion one way or the other regarding this specific case.

However, despite ecaroff's numerous posts citing court cases involving the DRF and its prior incarnations, I don't believe a judge or jury has EVER ruled on the specifics involved in the production and storage of past performance information.

There have been cases that have been SETTLED, but not ruled on. There have been cases that have ruled that a particular publisher did NOT break any copyright laws because they simply produced a publication that formed opinions and conclusions BASED on the raw data. And in that one case, the judge, in his argument, even EMPHASIZED the fact that the particular publisher in question (Sports Eye) did not reproduce any RAW DATA (ie. Past Performance data)! This to me is a red flag that indicates this judge may have considered the Past Performance data copyrightable or at the very least 'special' in some way....

So again, I will ask, where has a judge or jury ruled that past performance or chart data is not subject to copyright law? Or is not proprietary information?

I'm sure I'll be once more erroneously accused of being in Equibase's back pocket for this post, but I don't care.

Bruddah

04-26-2006, 12:44 AM

to me, general wisdom is, "He" who does the creative work or compilation of factual data, should own it for a specified period of time and reap the rewards of same. Let's say creative work 20 yrs and compilation of data 10 yrs. This would protect data (races etc) all ready compiled. However, if a new venture wanted to enter the market tomorrow, it would not exclude them from compiling new data (races etc) and becoming a competitor. (free enterprise)

In essence, put your money up, employ people and build a better mouse trap. Stop trying to profit from anothers labor, in the name of free speech and enterprise. (JMHO) :bang:

MikeDee

04-26-2006, 07:58 AM

JP I just stated my opinion. I'm not a lawyer and I'm not going to track down any case law. (I'ld rather go play golf this morining :)

Every time we watch a NFL footaball game we hear the disclaimer about how you cannot use the the video replays and accounts of the game, blah, blah, blah without their permission.

The racing industry (in my opnion) is just saying the same thing.

Dave Schwartz

04-26-2006, 09:09 AM

The topic of data in our industry always comes back to an issue of copyright when it isn't about copyright at all. It is about contractual rights.

The analogies drawn in this thread are excellent. They just don't apply to our situation.

The data providers are (essentially) saying, "Here are the conditions under which you can use our data. Agree to these conditions or do not purchase/use our data."

Is this challengable in court? Of course it is. Is it a winable position? Probably.

I would suggest that the position of the data providers includes an inferred invitation to anyone who doesn't like it to challenge them in the courts.

Just be aware that starting (and following through) on a lawsuit of anti-trust magnitude is not a small endeavor; it is not the same a hoping down to your local courthouse and filing a small claims suit.

And just so you knw, I am not a shill for the data providers. Exactly the opposite. I would be much better off if the data was not so strictly controlled. I just do not rant and rave about something that is not within my power to control or change. I made a decision years ago to run my business in a spirit of harmony and cooperation with the data providers as opposed to constantly fighting with them.

Regards to all,
Dave Schwartz

04-26-2006, 09:16 AM

So Dave, how exactly does making charts PDF instead of HTML (which won't stop anyone anyway from doing what they want with them) help the data providers? Any clown can share Past Performance files already, so what is the big deal about charts?

I am in no way advocating file sharing, I'm just curious what the big deal is about charts when the valuable data, the past performances, remains unprotected. I know Formulator has taken steps to crack down on this, but there are ways around that if one wants to look hard enough. BRIS/TSN have done nothing to stop file sharing. What am I missing here?

The amazing thing to me is the charts, in a decent format that could be used by a programmer, aren't available for purchase, at least at any reasonable price. Why not? I can buy unlimited PPs for $60 a month, or $720 a year, but nothing similar for charts. It makes no sense at all.

twindouble

04-26-2006, 10:28 AM

The topic of data in our industry always comes back to an issue of copyright when it isn't about copyright at all. It is about contractual rights.

And just so you knw, I am not a shill for the data providers. Exactly the opposite. I would be much better off if the data was not so strictly controlled. I just do not rant and rave about something that is not within my power to control or change. I made a decision years ago to run my business in a spirit of harmony and cooperation with the data providers as opposed to constantly fighting with them.

Regards to all,
Dave Schwartz

Very wise thing to do. Actually I don't belong in this conversation, just got bored and threw my two cents in. Those that find the need for this type of information, (data) are in a different world than I am when it comes to handicapping. I can understand their frustration because I know not having all the information puts limits on what they want to create, either for their own use or to market, having to pay for it adds to that frustration.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The major part of what Equibase does is two-fold- compiling official track information which accounts for the large majority of what is contained in results and Past Performances; and runnignlines.
Equibase would not be needed to obtain running lines if tracks used automatic timers for splits and finish times for all thoroughbred races. Then I believe the only proprietaty information they would generate wouild be comments (pure DRF-type speed ratings and variants could be computer generated) Drf had ownership of past races, sold to Equibase, so they own that historical race information now.
Maybe that is why they do not sell whosale charts on software! Quote; Kenwoodallpromos.

Good point but one would still have to install automatic timers at every track and maintain them and it would require a contract with the tracks. The question is, who would have control over that data? Others would be in the same boat trying to gain access to it. The other question would be, the tracks would have to honor existing contracts so what's the incentive for them to change other than offering more money and some control over the data?? How can anyone market anything if they don't have some control over the product if everyone can access it? If your suggesting the tracks install and maintain the equipment, someone would still have to bring all the data together to produce a complete product at some cost to them.

I don't know, I just don't get it. Give me the DRF and whatever current information that's available and I'm happy.

Good luck to all,

T.D.

Dave Schwartz

04-26-2006, 10:43 AM

CJ,

So Dave, how exactly does making charts PDF instead of HTML (which won't stop anyone anyway from doing what they want with them) help the data providers? Any clown can share Past Performance files already, so what is the big deal about charts?

Your guess is as good as mine.

Personally, I believe the industry, and therefore, Eqb, would be better-served by a lossening up of the data reins - it would expand the serious user base (which, I assume would be good for Eqb).

And as soon as they begin making changes based upon my opinions, the world will be a better place. <G> Alas, they are still making there own decisions.

Dave

chickenhead

04-26-2006, 10:49 AM

anyone who thinks they are entitled unfettered free access to the data from the tracks/EB must also think they are entitled to the rags or TG hand timed numbers for every race, and ground loss observations...those are facts too right?

CJ has it spot on as to what should be done. If I were running EB I would do two things:

Make cd charts available for a reasonable monthly fee. This can be used by any homegrown or commerical data provider, the more the merrier.

Make available basic PPs for free. No fancy speed figs, just the facts as EB has them. You want to boost handle, start by giving out some data to try and get the average new guy interested in playing more.

Commercial Providers can do whatever they want so far as securing their value added efforts.

Boom -- problem solved.

04-26-2006, 10:51 AM

Twin, I agree, I have no idea why you would jump in since you have already expressed your disdain for computer handicapping and can't possibly understand why we get frustrated.

Paying has nothing to do with it. I would gladly pay for the EXACT product they give away now for free. But it isn't available for purchase, so of course I am going to use what they give me. In the mean time, Equibase (and there is no doubt Equibase is behind all of this) keeps forcing changes on data formats and blocking tools which download the data. Nothing is worse for a programmer than changing data formats. The worse part is, my proram generates MORE sales for Equibase, but I have to put of with the constant bullshit I am talking about. Soon I will just say screw it, generate my own output files, and sell them. I have been asked to do it this way so many times I lost count, but I've always done the "right" thing and told people they have to buy the files themselves. Let them try and stop me, especially when I am in Belgium. I am really getting that frustrated.

Tom

04-26-2006, 11:18 AM

:jump::jump::jump::jump:

twindouble

04-26-2006, 11:39 AM

[QUOTE=cj]Twin, I agree, I have no idea why you would jump in since you have already expressed your disdain for computer handicapping and can't possibly understand why we get frustrated.

cj, I don't really have a disdain for handicapping software, that's a little to strong. I'm just trying to hang on what's been part of my life so many years, can't blame me for not capitulating to such radical changes. I don't sit here hoping you guy's fail at what your doing, as a matter of fact I think there will always be a place for guys like me in the game, unless it becomes so disconnected we can't recognize it any longer. That could happen, I'll just see how it all washes out but I think it will be quite sometime before the tools I use are totally discarded.

Even if the data providers lost any part of a suit, they would appeal to no end, heck I could be dead by the time a settlement is reached or the case is won or lost.

Good luck,

T.D.

karlskorner

04-26-2006, 01:33 PM

Someone's opinion as to how a particular race was run, nice to look at the end of a day and compare my notes to the race with the chart maker. Great for making figures ( especially if the published figures are correct ) but the figures serve little purpose, as this race was " never run before or will these same horses ever meet again " ( not in my lifetime ) so the calculations gathered serve little purpose. Of course this is just my opinion.

04-26-2006, 01:40 PM

...Great for making figures ( especially if the published figures are correct ) but the figures serve little purpose, as this race was " never run before or will these same horses ever meet again " ( not in my lifetime ) so the calculations gathered serve little purpose. Of course this is just my opinion.

To say figures serve little purpose is probably the most assinine thing I've read in a long time. Do you use no data from PAST performances? Because that is what figures do, measure how fast a horse has run in the past in a particular race that will never be run again. It is still very valuable info, but of course, that is just my opinion.

46zilzal

04-26-2006, 02:08 PM

To say figures serve little purpose is probably the most assinine thing I've read in a long time. Do you use no data from PAST performances? Because that is what figures do, measure how fast a horse has run in the past in a particular race that will never be run again. It is still very valuable info, but of course, that is just my opinion.
have to agree there. Like passing judgement for best actor after never having seen the performance from which the actor was nominated

kenwoodallpromos

04-26-2006, 03:19 PM

What is copyrightable and what is claimed is 2 different things, and what pieces of information that is on the Equibase website is actuially owned by then depends on the information.
Oviously Equibase does not own the date a race took place, or the post time, but they claim they do.
If I want to tell someone it rained at a certain time yesterday at the city Mountaineer is in do I have to get permission from Equibase, since their chart says "rainy"?
Most of the information on the charts is required by various state law to be made public by the tracks; circumstances surrounding the race and finish, and wagering information.
Let Equibase try to tell the state that the handle from which the states get their % is propietary info!
Equibase, drf, or anyone else can claim to "own" any information they want, but right now I beleive all they own is the format and information that is Original to their company and employees.
Reprinting and republisheing in the same format is totally different than taking public information and deriving figures from that.
How much is Equibase paying each track to use non-original information?
_________
As to who would own teletimer information, it depends on how the ownership is set up. If the track owns the equiptment then it is information gotten under state license and should be public.

Grifter

04-26-2006, 04:38 PM

I understand that Equibase's efforts to make their data harder to access is based on concerns about some (off-shore?) entities re-publishing their data.

If that's correct, has anyone ever run across such data? If so, where? For a price?

If a company is offering such data for a price, the question for Equibase is why not just beat them on price? As CJ points out, you cannot buy charts that give you the complete info that the free charts provide. Sounds like any company with a basic understanding of market economics would see an opportunity.

Note to all you Equibase executive that lurk om PA: Offer the good stuff for a price, and make it easy to download. We just may buy it.

04-26-2006, 04:51 PM

I understand that Equibase's efforts to make their data harder to access is based on concerns about some (off-shore?) entities re-publishing their data.

If that's correct, has anyone ever run across such data? If so, where? For a price?

That is the hilarious part. I have never seen anything on any off shore site that would come from Equibase charts. I think off shore places are just a convenient scapegoat. Results = Past. Maybe sites are downloading results to determine payouts or something. I'm pretty sure winning numbers and payouts aren't exactly proprietary information though.

Valuist

04-26-2006, 05:00 PM

Pinnacle won't grade the matchup wagers until the chart is out.

ecaroff

04-26-2006, 05:17 PM

The answer is really simple and the microsoft attorneys at the Arizona symposium in 2003 told them what to do. Put everyone under contract. A business could make a lot more money with 1,000 contracts at $100/month then 5 contracts at $5,000/month. And you wouldn't have to worry about trying to police the industry.

I think they are eventually going to "piss-off" the wrong person - like "Jess Jackson" with the Sales Industry in Kentucky and they'll get hit with some major lawsuit for antitrust, falsely claiming copyrights they don't have, etc.