Monday
Mar142016
Lawsuits, Anyone?
Monday, March 14, 2016 at 4:20AM
Agon issued a ban preventing other sites from transmitting the moves from the Candidates Tournament until an hour or so after the round finished; a ban which was essentially ignored by the parties the order was aimed against. Here's the latest develoment, from Agon.
tagged 2016 Candidates
Reader Comments (8)
Although I have no problem in principle with tuning in to the World Chess website to view the games + live commentary, I think they're being a little bit silly. Especially given the technically amateurish production they're putting on in Moscow (although it's better than Agon has managed in the past), and the fact that they seem to have exactly one advertiser (if I see that BMW commercial again, I'm going to freak out). The law appears to be on their side, though, and they have a point about professionalizing the broadcast of chess..
I don't know what terms they are offering for a broadcast license (Danish TV appears to be the only licensee at this point?), but if they are reasonable (and I fear they are not), the named "violators": ICC, Chess24, etc. take loads of our money every year and this is what they should be using it for. For better or worse, this is what professional sports looks like...
[DM: Not so for Chess24. Their video series are only available on a for-pay basis, but afaik their live commentary is typically, maybe always, open to everyone for free. (That doesn't mean they're entitled to Agon's feed - that's for the lawyers to work out. But they do give away a lot of their material, gratis.)]
I'm done with the Candidates. Already the dubious firms in the background and the various attempts to secure the moves for Agon had me alienated. Well, chess fans are used to presidential claims to alien abductions, so this seemed like just one more sad chapter of chess history. And maybe they would follow Dennis' advice and make their product excellent?
I never found out. When the official site asked for a registration, I decided against following the event. Despite WorldChess' claims, I don't think that knowing my age, location "and the whole lot", as they so laconically put it, could help to improve broadcast. This is but one more security mechanism making me feel unwanted.
[DM: Truth be told, I haven't watched the event on World Chess either, for the same reason.]
For the future, I'll rather stick with happy events like Gibraltar. The Reykjavik Open, for example, is interesting and fun to follow.
We will know soon enough who won the candidates - although in order to be told we might have to sign a confidentiality agreement not to talk about it with anyone. ;-)
It's all sound and fury: a legal bluff hoping to intimidate the other chess sites into caving. The last thing Agon wants is a real legal judgment, because it would set a precedent that they are trying to copyright that which is not copyrightable: the moves to the games themselves. They might "win" with some other legal theory, say if they somehow proved the other chess sites were colluding with or enticing World Chess's users to violate their user agreements for access to the moves in real time, but it would be a long and expensive process, probably more costly than any damages they would be able to prove - assuming they could even collect from multiple defendants in multiple jurisdictions across international borders. Even if they won, they'd lose - and thoroughly alienate the chess fans they need to be successful. They would be far better off learning from this experience and spending their money building a good, reliable website with content users actually want.
I thought Agon was tasked with the larger strategic role of increasing world-wide interest in chess. How does restricting access to the games fit into that vision? I think it is a real mistake and a bad precedent to limit access like this.
I think the theory is that, by restricting access to the games and permitting broadcasting by a single provider, they attract advertisers who would otherwise shrug and say, hey, these games are being broadcast on 12 other channels and we don't think anyone is going to see our message. Agon is, in essence, branding the broadcast, like the Super Bowl or World Cup or similar. Permission to live-broadcast the events of a football or soccer game is something which, in other sports, radio stations, news websites, etc. pay the organizer for (yes, just the events, which are essentially no different from the moves on the board).
We've been spoiled by years of leniency, which makes the abrupt policy change bitter, and probably has cost organizations like ICC and Chess24 some amount of money and trouble trying to come up with a solution. Bottom line: professionalism is about money -- if you want chess to be taken seriously as a professional sport, you have to grant event organizers the prerogative to work for more than love of the game. At least the official broadcast is free.
BMW ad is bad enough but my pet hate is the graphic sequence that goes on way to long and they've cranked up the volume for the duration. Takes almost 20 seconds each time and would be appropriate say at the start of the broadcast only and a 1 or 2 second shortened version for breaks etc
It maybe cultural but I find the commentators very dull. There are loads of good commentators as examples Svidler, Gustafsson, Short, King, Trent, Williams etc etc etc (I realise Svidler commentating may be problematic for this tournament :-))
I don't see what the hoopla is about. It is not like Agon is charging to watch the tournament on their web site. They are footing the bill for the event so they have the right to explore various ways to recoup their investment. The paid web sites should negotiate rebroadcasting rights to ensure the survival of professional chess which is in their best interest as well.
[DM: In my column on the World Chess website I offer some reasons why I think it is a big deal and bad for chess, though I agree with you that they are entitled to look for ways to recoup their investment.]
People comparing this to sports events being broadcast exclusively by one company are missing something very important. Only the live video and audio stream of a sports broadcast can be copyrighted. In no sport are other broadcasters and news organizations barred from reporting and commenting on the game live. You can't copyright facts, and the score of a game, the name of the player who scored a goal, whether the defenders look tired, etc. are all facts. Anyone has a legal right to report them in real time. Agon is claiming that nobody else has the legal right to report who played what move in real time. Unfortunately for Agon, facts like the moves in the game aren't copyrightable - only Agon's live commentary on the games is under copyright. Agon's lawyers definitely know this, but the company thinks they can intimidate other broadcasters into backing down. If this goes to court, however, Agon doesn't stand a chance.