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.
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.
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?
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news' doctrine that might have protected the chess moves (and the FIDE made this their argument), but it's been largely superseded or overturned [1].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._...
I would imagine that the websites that give play-by-play info may have paid for the right to publish information about the game, or they may be able to just watch it on TV (or live) and update their info that way. As another commenter noted, the organizers could have set up the competition to forbid the audience from disseminating info, but they didn't for whatever reason.
In my experience (lawyer in Palo Alto for 7 years), parties can agree by contract to do or not do many many things. Even provisions that limit legal recourse, like the much-decried mandatory arbitration clauses [1] have held up all the way to the US Supreme Court. I would be very interested to know what legal basis there would be to invalidate a license agreement that says: you can have access to this content but only if you promise not to tell other people about it.
1: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/business/dealbook/arbitrat...
And "there are no limits to the content of contracts people freely enter" is obviously an untenable position – we'd all agree that a provision giving me your kidneys, hidden somewhere deep in the ToS is unenforceable.
The facts of the game are not copyrighted and not copyrightable, which is why sites can do this. Similarly, the moves of a chess game are facts which are not copyrighted and not copyrightable, which is why sites can tell you in real time who's playing and what moves have been made.
Scoring goals in a soccer match is something the players try to influence but it's ultimately outside of their control. I think publishing goals in soccer are more akin to publishing vague information like "Black lost his bishop on turn 4" but not the specific sequence of moves.
If that were the case, they wouldn't be allowed to repeat moves played by others either...
This issue is called "contract formation", and any HN reader who's shipped licensed software or had a website with terms of service should be aware that showing something that a user may or may not have seen is the worst possible way to try to form a contract. That's why creating an account on almost all websites has a checkbox that the user has to check, with text that you're agreeing to certain terms.
What if the note is also in the actual contract that has my signature? Is the content of such contracts limited in any way?
I mean – it must be. I can easily get any number of people to sign contracts that include a right for me to their firstborn child.
Whatever legal doctrine courts would use to strike down such a provision should also apply to, for example, people waving their right to sue, to freely discuss the content of broadcasts, to rate the product/service being purchased etc.
What you're referring to is video broadcast rights. That's rather different. The World Chess Championship's rights on those weren't violated.
This is the equivalent of someone writing down the play-by-play in a game - and that would also be completely legal.