
U.S. judge rejects World Chess bid to block websites from airing moves - zbik
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-chess-world-lawsuit-idUSKBN13600V
======
grondilu
Fun fact about the first game : after 1.d4 Nf6, the World Champion played
2.Bg5, which is fairly rare at top level in classical time control, and pretty
much unprecedented in world championships. Why is it fun? Because this opening
is known as the Trompovsky, often nicknamed the "tromp". Magnus more or less
admitted that it was a wink at the newly elected US president.

------
CJKinni
A lot of the comments here on copyright seem to be looking for answers to
distinguish this from other copyright issues. Rather than summing up every
copyright argument for or against, I thought I'd link to a fairly relevant
case: Feist.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._R...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._Rurwal_Telephone_Service_Co).

Feist is a case where a phone book company stole the data in a phone book, and
began reselling it. It deals with publication of facts, and is a situation
where there's a reasonable public policy argument for incentivising the
private company's work collection of phone number data. It's a commonly taught
fundamental Copyright claim that is a great starting point for those
interested in researching further.

~~~
seanalltogether
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Basketball_Ass%27n_v....](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Basketball_Ass%27n_v._Motorola,_Inc.).

> The district court held that Motorola and STATS did not infringe NBA's
> copyright because only facts from the broadcasts, not the broadcasts
> themselves were transmitted. The Second Circuit Court agreed with the
> district court's argument that the "[d]efendants provide purely factual
> information which any patron of an NBA game could acquire from the arena
> without any involvement from the director, cameramen, or others who
> contribute to the originality of the broadcast" [939 F. Supp. at 1094].

~~~
iaw
I think this is a more correct case to apply.

The Feist case was about the expense accrued in aggregating the information
and the incentive issues that arise if those efforts are not protected.

The NBA case was about the division of rights between the competition
organizer and those attempting to report on it. Specifically, are the
reporters required to delay their reporting efforts when the only information
being reported generated by the event is factual.

If I understand correctly, this ruling doesn't preclude the event organizers
from banning all electronic communication devices from the premises. It just
prevents them from pursuing any civil penalties from those that report on the
event.

~~~
kylecordes
I wonder what the effect on attendance would be, if major sporting events had
a "no cell phones" rule. My guess offhand: it would be devastating to ticket
sales.

~~~
iaw
I've been trying to mull that out as well from an economic perspective but I
think it's highly dependent on the existing distribution networks which adds
additional complexity.

Major League sports information is disseminated fairly quickly and the
attendance levels make technological prohibitions a challenge. The nature of
world chess championships make it a little different, as long as the globally
recognized top ranked players are in attendance (preventing an organizational
schism) I think the organizers could do whatever they want.

In the end I think this ruling just means they can't enforce a civil penalty
for violation of these rules, but there's no reason they can't expel the
violator from their event.

It's an interesting case.

------
lordnacho
So consider this near-future scenario:

You have a soccer match in which a lot of fans show up with cameras. Either
like a Go-Pro or just their phones, or like Google Glasses.

From the many fan cams, you can reconstruct the state of the match. From the
FIFA video games, or from image analysis, you have all the player likenesses.

So then someone could "watch" the game from any vantage point, using just the
"facts" of the game, without doing an actual re-broadcast of the game.

What then?

~~~
riskable
I'm failing to see what's wrong with this. I also don't see how an
organization like the NBA or FIFA or whoever can make a claim to "own" the
events of a game.

The sale of exclusivity rights seems like the scam: The premise that one can
copyright an event itself and not just a particular recording of it.

If someone is there and recording I say that should be OK. If another person
aggregates the views of multiple such recorders then they would need to obtain
permission from each.

Reconstructing the entirety of a game with virtual players is _already_ legal
and amounts to an original work. Where's the problem?

------
throwaway_yy2Di
Apropos, to anyone who wants to watch the live moves, with expert commentary,
they are here (this is the defendant from the Reuters story):

[https://chess24.com/en/read/news/chess24-win-moscow-case-
ann...](https://chess24.com/en/read/news/chess24-win-moscow-case-announce-new-
york-line-up)

[https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkTCNuQ2mGfW6-SpHpaze_g](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkTCNuQ2mGfW6-SpHpaze_g)
(direct link to livestream)

If you're looking for live computer engine lines, Steinar Gunderson offers
that here, with 38 cores running Stockfish:

[http://analysis.sesse.net/](http://analysis.sesse.net/)

As well as PGN files (live-updated):

[http://pgn.sesse.net/](http://pgn.sesse.net/)

~~~
semi-extrinsic
Regarding "38 cores": can anyone comment on whether that's sufficient to
perfectly analyse the game in near-real-time, or is it just good enough to
provide interesting analysis? I.e. would Stockfish running on 38 cores be
competitive with / better than World Championship players?

~~~
trontron
modern chess programs are vastly superior to human players, regardless of one
or 38 cores. stockfish has a elo rating of ~3350 (probably a little higher
when running on 38 cores, not sure). carlsen has 2850. that corresponds with a
95% winning probability per game (or to be more precise: stockfish is expected
to win 95% of all possible points over several chess matches)

it's hard to say if that's close to "perfect analysis", because we don't know
what a perfect game will look like (chess is not a solved game). but compared
to human level, one could say it's close to perfect.

~~~
kachnuv_ocasek
I'm not saying Stockfish isn't stronger than any human player (even the world
champion), but you can't compare ratings in two different systems like that.
Magnus has never played a FIDE-rated game with Stockfish, nor has Stockfish
played any rated games with a human opponent.

------
scott00
Anybody have a link to the complaint/application for a TRO? A lot of the
comments here are talking about copyright law, but most protection or
attempted protection of data is done with licensing agreements. I would guess
FIDE could require the people viewing in person and on the FIDE website to
agree to not disseminate accounts of the game as a condition of being allowed
to watch. I'd be interested to learn if FIDE has actually attempted to limit
it this way, or if the debate is truly over copyright issues. And also if they
did ask for the TRO on licensing grounds, was it because their licensing
scheme was invalid, or just because the type of harm they were likely to
suffer didn't rise to the level needed to qualify for injunctive relief.

~~~
CalChris
I don't have that but the judge was pretty dismissive. From chessgames.com:

In a hearing late in the day prior to the first game of the match, U.S.
District Judge Victor Marrero was not persuaded that organizers of the $1
million, 12-game tournament had a legal right to block the websites from
disclosing the moves until after each game.(7) Rejecting virtually every
argument that World Chess asserted, he said, "I know this area of the law very
well."

[http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?tid=88069&crosstable...](http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?tid=88069&crosstable=2)

~~~
onestone
There are also more details mentioned in this Chess.com article:
[https://www.chess.com/news/carlsen-plays-white-in-round-
one-...](https://www.chess.com/news/carlsen-plays-white-in-round-one-agon-s-
injunction-denied-7037)

------
DrScump
In broadcast and print media, there are "facts" which are routinely
_embargoed_ (they cannot be released before a certain date/time). Financial
results from publicly-traded companies are similarly embargoed, even though
they be simple facts. Why can't this mechanism be employed as a condition of
being permitted to attend the event?

~~~
dmurray
That is one of the mechanisms that they were relying on. Anyone attending the
event and relaying moves is likely in breach of contract, and at least could
be thrown out of the venue. Likewise, anyone who signed up for the official
feed and then shared the moves is violating the website's terms and conditions
and could get their account closed. But it only takes one anonymous user to
sign up and report the moves to other sites.

~~~
kuschku
Not necessarily.

Person A opens the stream on their PC.

Unknown to them, Person B watches that stream through the window of Person A’s
home, and broadcasts the information.

The only possible crime Person B did was invading Person A’s privacy, but
Person A does not sue them.

Person A acted entirely legal, so did Person B, and you still got all the
facts out.

------
ambirex
The main difference between this and other sports/events is the moves are
facts. They wouldn't be able to broadcast a live video feed. But you can
copyright facts.

~~~
logicallee
I agree with your conclusion but not your reasoning. (you accidentally wrote
"can" for "can't" at the end though, maybe you have time to correct it.)

So this is why I don't agree with your reasoning:

The fact is that Ambirex's comment at 11:22 PM Friday, November 11, 2016 UTC
began with a capital T as his first move. Though he could have left it at that
and left his opponents to reply, this was not his complete comment. The fact
is, for the second letter of his comment he chose an 'h'. And the fact is, for
the third letter, he chose an 'e'. The fact is, for the fourth character he
had a space. The fact is, for the fifth character he had an 'm'. The fact
is...

And so forth. So while these are certainly facts -- still, they are quite
creative facts. More creative than the work you put into beginning your
comment with "the main difference".

So while I actually happen to agree with you, this idea of the moves being
"facts" versus acts of creative expression is dubious -- where is the hard
line that separates that from my reproducing your comment (or any other
copyrighted work) by reference to facts? They are facts, true, but they are
also the creative output of two masters of the field.

In general for cases like this judges try to look at the pragmatics. This is
why the judge is quoted as saying "He said the public interest would be served
by 'robust reporting,' and analysis of the event."

The fact that for him this includes fully reproducing all the moves (which of
course seriously impacts the market of the organizers - as well as reproducing
the whole of the 'creative output', rather than just excerpts - both of which
are important standards in copyright) is one that I can probably agree with.

But if he felt that the actual interests in the matter were another way, you
bet that he could extend copyright protection to the creative work of playing
a game. After all, it is rare for any game between grandmasters today to match
one from a database. When they do, it is similar to when similar melodies are
created independently.

In fact, a chess game likely has waaaaaaaay more entropy (I am making quite a
technical argument) than very short melodies which are clearly protected by
copyright and for which many "variations" are already owned by others.

Why are the "facts" of the melody more protected?

So I don't really agree with your interpretation. A fact would be like "white
won" or "black won" \-- rather than the creative output into the moves
themselves. Though more creative than mere fact, I do agree with your
conclusion -- for the same reasoning quoted in the article.

~~~
primitivesuave
Why was this downvoted? I found it to be a pretty interesting perspective,
although I do think the equation of letters in a sentence to moves in a chess
game is pretty weak. Moves made in a chess game are events that factually
happened in the past - copyrighting them would be akin to copyrighting a
certain historical event, such that only a copyright holder is given privilege
to state information about it. Letters, words, and sentences are in a creative
space of expression that has its own rules and regulations.

~~~
umanwizard
It's a historical fact that "primitivesuave" wrote down the sequence of
letters "Why was this downvoted? I found it to be a pretty interesting
perspective...", but if I published it, I'd still be violating your copyright.

What's the difference between that and a chess game (which takes significantly
more intellectual effort than a messageboard comment)

~~~
Scarblac
The difference is that they are playing a sports match, not writing a comment.
The current score/position of the match is just a fact, not an artistic
creation.

------
Lordarminius
There is a glaring inconsistency in this ruling when compared to the status
quo for other sports. In baseball, football the Olympics etc the sponsors hold
the broadcast rights and do with it as they deem fit. Why is this same right
denied to the organizers of the World Chess Championship?

~~~
freditup
I think your analogy is wrong. Many websites broadcast live "play-by-play"
info on MLB, NFL, NBA, and NHL games. These are typically done, for example,
by showing a graphic of a strike zone and where pitches are located as they
are pitched. However, the actual game audio and video is not broadcasted. I
don't believe you need any sort of license to display this information
(correct me here if I'm wrong).

As far as I can tell, that's what's going on here: websites want to broadcast
the "play-by-play" of the chess game, but not the actual game footage. Now,
the play-by-play for a chess game is more important than the play-by-play for
a hockey game, so I can see why the organizers of the chess tournament aren't
happy, but I think the correct decision was made here.

~~~
Lordarminius
> I think the correct decision was made here.

No it was not. It says in the article: _Organizers ... failed to persuade a
federal judge to block rival website operators from broadcasting chess moves
..._

 _The defendants also said that they would not simply be copying audiovisual
content generated by World Chess, but displaying the moves on their own
computerized chess board while adding commentary and analysis._

The ruling directly attacks the business model of the organizers and will thus
reduce the chance of attracting sponsors in the future. Hence, it is not in
the public interest.

Chess is a peculiar game in that the visual content of any broadcast ie
players actually playing, is subordinate to the moves made. Nobody watches a
chess game online for 5 hours for the fun of seeing the players think. That's
like waiting for the paint to dry. Take away the advantage of broadcasting the
moves with commentary and analysis and your advantage as a sponsor is gone. I
would have thought the judge would have understood this and taken it into
account.

~~~
greglindahl
Yeah, a business model is more important than the non-copyrightable nature of
facts. Good thing the judge understood the actual law, which is not concerned
with business models.

~~~
Lordarminius
> Yeah, a business model is more important than the non-copyrightable nature
> of facts.

I fail to see your point. The law should be applied with a dose of common
sense. The organizers are not barring anyone from the "facts" as you put it
just trying to get a lead in broadcasting. The law upholds the rights of
organizers of other sports eg football and boxing based on their peculiarities
and in case you are not aware is frequently biased in defense of their
commercial rights (one only needs recall the absurdities surrounding the
olympics).

For years, chess has suffered from crises caused by lack of sponsorship for
events. If this ruling serves to deter future sponsors and leads to
uncertainty or cancellation of matches (which has happened before) then what
good is that?

~~~
smallnamespace
Your argument can be summarized as that we should ignore what copyright law
says because the consequence of the law is bad in this particular case for
certain chess companies.

That's neither a sane or reasonable way to make legal judgments. Can you show
a sound _legal_ argument why the judge's ruling was wrong?

FYI, there used to be a 'hot news' doctrine that might have protected the
chess moves (and the FIDE made this their argument), but it's been largely
superseded or overturned [1].

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_News_Service_v._...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_News_Service_v._Associated_Press#.22Hot_news.22_cases)

~~~
greglindahl
"Hot news" is a good time to remember that copyright is shaped not only by US
copyright law, but also by common law and the 1st Amendment.

------
robryan
From a viewers perspective this is great. For past World Chess Championships
you could watch ex pros/ high level players commentate on Youtube and Twitch.

------
debt
fascinating.

stats.com charges like $80k per season per sport or something like that for
access to their live game data api.

world chess should take this all the way, airing the moves for free is
undercutting their business model. seems like it shouldn't be legal
considering chess is a sport.

~~~
Lordarminius
Many folks here dont seem to understand this or agree.

------
madaxe_again
This seems a strange move. I wonder how the same judge would have ruled if it
was about youtubers livestreaming NFL games.

