Interesting Supreme Court Ruling

[OTM Al]

This is an interesting ruling concering fantasy baseball players.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3422138

The question is, can this ruling be applied to the use of data compiled on races to be freely used by handicapping concerns? I can see some similarities and of course I am sure there are some differences. Anyone have any more knowledge in this matter?

[Dave Schwartz]

My best guess would be that such case law would benefit anyone who chooses to fight against the giants of our industry. The question is, who will step up with the big $$ to challenge?


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[Norm]

So, the lower courts have said that freedom of speech is more important than your right to earn a living from your profession ? . . . and the Supreme Court won't disagree.

Wow ! . . . that's a mind-numbing decision.

[OTM Al]

I'm not sure where you are getting that idea Norm. What I'm seeing is that the ruling says MLB (and NFL for that matter) cannot block the fantasy leagues from using information and names that have been made publicly available. Since racing results are regularly printed in newspapers, just as boxscores are, I am seeing some potential parallels here.

[BCOURTNEY]

This is an interesting ruling concering fantasy baseball players.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3422138

The question is, can this ruling be applied to the use of data compiled on races to be freely used by handicapping concerns? I can see some similarities and of course I am sure there are some differences. Anyone have any more knowledge in this matter?

Would be pretty hard to prove that commercial handicapping products factor in the horse's name as part of the process. Unless of course they are selling t-shirt's with the names on them.

[OTM Al]

Its more than just the name. It also regards information about that player. Here is the actual appeals court brief

http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/10/063357P.pdf

Can you see the parallel yet?

[Pace Cap'n]

So, the lower courts have said that freedom of speech is more important than your right to earn a living from your profession ? . . . and the Supreme Court won't disagree.

Wow ! . . . that's a mind-numbing decision.

Freedom of speech is a right specifically guaranteed in the Constitution.

Earning a living is not a right. It is optional.

And those ballplayers are doing quite well as it is.

[jcrabboy]

Its more than just the name. It also regards information about that player. Here is the actual appeals court brief

http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/10/063357P.pdf

Can you see the parallel yet?

Hi OTM Al: After reading through the decision I definitely see the parallels and would think it is a positive ruling. If it is publicly available data you can own a method of transmitting the data, but not the data itself.

If I go to the track and watch the races I can make all the notes I want and share them with others for free or for a fee.

MLB was trying to expand the umbrella in a negative way for smaller business concerns. This ruling narrowed down the definition of publicly available information ownership in a way that was favorable to the little guy, relatively speaking.

Is this right? I am no Legal Eagle for sure.

Jimmie

[Kelso]

Perhaps an initial project for the new horseplayers association?

Start buying/selling data (for profit or at token prices, depending on perceived value) among ourselves and countersue, as a class, against the Jockey Club (?) if and when they come after us?

Offer 100% of the settlement dough, if any, to the lawyer who takes the case on contingency.

[HUSKER55]

This should be interesting. Some of you, I am sure, will remember this. Johnny Carson, TV Late Night host, sued a guy whose "God given birth name" was Johnny Carson for selling his own "custom designed and tailored" suits because he, (TV host) claimed his name had value and he did not want to risk his name getting smeared even though he had no animosity towards the gentleman.

It held. The tailor had to go by a different name. I would guess that the players and their stats would enjoy the same status.



husker55
:)

[BCOURTNEY]

If the information in question was transformed in a novel way to a new format and data type such that it was hidden from the original format, such as the creation of a new "type" of number perhaps equivalent to a beyer speed figure that provided a horse ranking the original information would be kept in tact and it could hardly be argued that a new derived work or format provided is the original one. Republication of data would be a no-no, but transformation into something new and novel would likely be ok. Additionally, the horses are placed into the public's view for wagering, this is known at entry time that a portion of the public at large will bear witness to the race iteself, where would expectation of privacy be reasonable in respect to the number of observers present make any sense.

Also someone mentioned we do not have a right to work clause in our constitution. This is incorrect, most states have amended to their state constitutions laws that are deemed "right to work" laws, which roughly frown about companies be able to enforce non-compete agreements and what not.

[Norm]

I have now read the entire brief and, of course, the parallel is clear, but I have not changed my opinion that this is a stunningly bad decision. That 'freedom of speech' should supercede contract law or even have anything to do with contract law at all, places uncountable numbers of contracts in jeopardy of being rendered uninforceable. Freedom of speech is you or I expressing our opinions without fear of repercussions from government, it does not give us the right to steal for profit the properties of others.

With regards to just one aspect of the parallel with racing, here is an excerpt from a standard contract between every owner/trainer and a racetrack at which he will enter races. This is taken from the Stall Application which every owner/trainer must sign before bringing any horse onto the grounds. This particular clause is from an east coast racing association contract, however, most major circuit tracks have a very similar clause.


In receiving permission to use (Racetrack) facilities or in making an entry· in or participating in any race on (Racetrack) Premises, the undersigned Licensee on behalf of himself/herself and as agent of the owners, hereby grants consent to be photographed and to have the owners' horses photographed in a motion picture, television program or other image without remuneration to him/her or to the owners and agrees to obtain such written consent of jockeys, employees, agents or associates, and hereby grants to (Racetrack) permission to use and exhibit such motion pictures, television or other images and names for advertising purposes, purposes of trade or other use as (Racetrack) shall determine in its sole and exclusive discretion.

Can we now say, in the wake of this court decision, that this clause is invalid ?? Is it now o.k. for you or I or any horse trainer/owner to copy videos, cite names and display racetracks published photos in a manner for our own commercial use because it is our right of freedom of speech to do so ?? If we can all do it for free, why should a TV network have to pay for broadcasting rights, after all, they have freedom of speech, too.

Information about the results of a game or race might be regarded as "news" but the re-publishing of game statistics or complete racing charts, first published and copyrighted by others, falls outside that category. It sounds like there will be a lot of nit-picking legal battles in the future. Maybe we should become lawers and get rich from this.

[InControlX]

I agree with Norm. Further, should an activist court decide that Equibase's data can be resold without license the end result would be an end to Equibase. Then we'd be back in the days of "no form" handicapping. Making their product free by mandate will gaurantee a short availability.

If any firm or group wants to they can negotiate with tracks for data acquisition and lawfully enter into competition with Equibase, rough as it would be.

ICX

[srdnaty]

How is that any different than video games? How come video game publishers need to get licenced where as fantasy sports leagues dont? Is it because the video game players bear their likeness?

[kenwoodallpromos]

The court said the info and names were for public use; that is different than saying the format can be copied.
As I opined prior, I believe the horseracing info sellers have the copyright to the format and their lengths behind and other propietary info derived from using their own methods, like commercial speed ratings, but nothing else. info, but nothing else.
If I wanted to sell/use info, I would devise my own ratings (and also use 75% of current lengths behind info, after rounding down to 1/2 of 1 length measurements).

[Kelso]

the end result would be an end to Equibase. Then we'd be back in the days of "no form" handicapping.Not if the industry wants to retain the action of all the pace/speed/class handicappers who have long since grown accustomed ... and kept the track managers fat 'n happy ... using all that INDUSTRY-OWNED data.

It's what they should be giving away free now, anyway; and I think that's what they'll wind up doing.

Data sales don't keep the industry afloat. Handle makes the profits, and data makes the handle.

[InControlX]

Kelso: Not if the industry wants to retain the action of all the pace/speed/class handicappers who have long since grown accustomed ... and kept the track managers fat 'n happy ... using all that INDUSTRY-OWNED data.
It's what they should be giving away free now, anyway; and I think that's what they'll wind up doing.


I think this would be a disaster for players. With no Equibase to standardize the data formats and maintain history data bases, each track would do what individually? Produce their individual track data omitting others? I can see it now... "We regret we have no Past Performances from the ____ (fill in blank) group of tracks because we can't agree on a revenue sharing agreement, thus the holes in your form and electronic data." I hope nobody ships any horses. Consider also that the "Industry" you mention does not have any common business structure to manage data records or a server of this magnitude, and if they created one they'd just duplicate Equibase anyway. This structure has to be funded somehow, if not through data cost would you prefer higher takeout?

We may not be happy with the data price (I'm with you there), but let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.

ICX

[Kelso]

Kelso:


I think this would be a disaster for players. With no Equibase to standardize the data formats and maintain history data bases,

<snip>

let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.
Don't believe I suggested or inferred anything of the sort.

My guess is that the Jockey Club or NTRA would become a clearing house for raw data, and the Equbases of the world will continue to turn that data into proprietary derivatives for profit. No new funding source required.

Furthermore, I would expect any track that produced poor or insufficient data for its own races ... races primarily populated from their respective resident backstretches ... to soon find nobody but the locals betting into their pools. ADW/OTB handle is generated by, I believe, people who use data they consider reliable. No data for a track, no wagers at that track.

The base data would be freely available to all.

[InControlX]

KELSO,

I apologize if I misrepresented your comments.

Given your response I don't understand how the Jockey Club and NTRA, which created Equibase to manage the acquisition of the data and sell various custom format subscriptions, is going to pipe off the raw data to the public for free. I think most of us need a lot of what Equibase manages (Charts, PPs, Workouts, Trainer/Jockey Histories) and sells. What would be spun off for free?

You're probably right that free data would promote the handles, but the cost of producing the data would need to come from somewhere.

ICX

[Kelso]

Given your response I don't understand how the Jockey Club and NTRA, which created Equibase to manage the acquisition of the data and sell various custom format subscriptions, is going to pipe off the raw data to the public for free. I think most of us need a lot of what Equibase manages (Charts, PPs, Workouts, Trainer/Jockey Histories) and sells. What would be spun off for free?The cost of collecting/disseminating free ... meaning raw ... data would be paid by the tracks that already support the two organizaions.

That is to say, those tracks that are able to remain in business ... in large part because they provide free, accurate and useful information to their customers ... would, through whatever financial arrangements that are already in place, pay for the Equibase data activities. (Much, I imageine, as the cost of MLB's stat operation is indirectly funded by the teams.)

Equibase would, of course, continue to collect revenues from whatever derived (proprietary) information ... or graphic presentations of free information ... they are able to develop that players determine to be of value.

[ranchwest]

If the information in question was transformed in a novel way to a new format and data type such that it was hidden from the original format, such as the creation of a new "type" of number perhaps equivalent to a beyer speed figure that provided a horse ranking the original information would be kept in tact and it could hardly be argued that a new derived work or format provided is the original one. Republication of data would be a no-no, but transformation into something new and novel would likely be ok. Additionally, the horses are placed into the public's view for wagering, this is known at entry time that a portion of the public at large will bear witness to the race iteself, where would expectation of privacy be reasonable in respect to the number of observers present make any sense.

Also someone mentioned we do not have a right to work clause in our constitution. This is incorrect, most states have amended to their state constitutions laws that are deemed "right to work" laws, which roughly frown about companies be able to enforce non-compete agreements and what not.

Actually, "right-to-work" laws give workers the "right" to work non-union. It is a union busting law.