Re: The Rights of Major League Baseball

From: David Post <Postd[_at_]erols.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 15:45:05 -0500

At 08:35 PM 11/30/2003 Sunday -0500, you wrote:
>Interesting article in Wired, at this link:
>
>http://www.wired.com/news/games/0,2101,61119,00.html
>
>In my opinion, the following statement by MLB is just plain wrong:
>
>"'If someone is communicating information about a game in real time, on a
>pitch-by-pitch basis, that's an exhibition of that game," said Bob Bowman,
>the CEO of MLB Advanced Media. "There's no difference, in our eyes, between
>exhibiting a game using text and graphics and doing it on radio or
>television."
>
>"Using that argument, MLB says that it is entitled to a license fee, or that
>some other accommodation needs to be reached regarding gamecasts. What it is
>sure of is that anyone doing a gamecast needs to secure the rights to do so
>from MLB."
>
>Any other opinions?
>
>Thanks,

I agree (with the 'just plain wrong' part). The game's not a work of authorship -- see the NBA case that Terry Carroll referred to (though there's an earlier, and badly written/reasoned, 7th Cir. case somewhat to the contrary: Baltimore Orioles, Inc. v. Major League Baseball Players Association, 805 F.2d 663 (7th Cir. 1986)). So maybe Bowman is correct after all: there's no difference between exhibiting a game using text and exhibiting it on radio or TV; neither requires a license fee (absent some contractual restriction .
David

---

David G. Post
Professor, Temple University Law School and Senior Fellow, The Tech Center, George Mason Univ. Law School
http://www.temple.edu/lawschool/dpost/writings.html

"The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it." Bertrand Russell

---

Received on Wed Dec 03 2003 - 01:45:05 GMT