• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Napster

The Horse with no Name⭐
Joined
Oct 27, 2003
Messages
35,449
Location
The wilds of Kent
this has some bearing as to whether we can publish the fixtures- can someone translate into plain English?

THE EUROPEAN IP BULLETIN > ISSUE 18, JANUARY 2005

HOT TOPICS

1. THE ecj Interprets the Database Sui Generis Right
On the 9 November 2004, the ECJ handed down its decisions in four cases dealing with the database sui generis right (Fixtures Marketing v Veikkaus, Fixtures Marketing v OPAP, Fixtures Marketing v Svenska Spel and The British Horseracing Board v William Hill).

Fixtures is a company retained by the English and Scottish football leagues to handle the exploitation of fixtures lists outside the UK. Fixtures has the right to represent the holders of intellectual property rights in the lists. The defendants organise betting games, and took all information from Fixtures’ lists. Fixtures brought actions in the Greek, Swedish and Finnish Courts alleging that the defendants had infringed the sui generis right in the lists under article 7 of the Database Directive.

A factually similar situation arose in the British Horseracing Board (‘BHB’) case. BHB organises horse races and maintains a database which comprises a lot of information including the names of the horses, the date, place and time of each race. William Hill (‘WH’), a UK bookmaker, took information from BHB’s database for use on its betting web site. BHB brought an action in the English Courts for infringement of its sui generis right in its database and the Court of Appeal referred questions to the ECJ.

The ECJ held that the definition of a database should be construed widely. A database’s materials will be independent when the materials are separable from each other without their informative, literary, artistic, musical or any other value being affected. The Court found that a football fixtures list was a database under article 1 of the Directive.

The Court also held that the substantial investment, which is the requirement that must be fulfilled in order to be protected by the database right, must be in the obtaining, verification or presentation of the contents of a database and not in the creation of the data. This substantial investment can be evaluated quantitatively or qualitatively. The quantitative assessment refers to quantifiable resources. The qualitative assessment means the efforts which cannot be quantified, such as intellectual effort or energy. The Court found that neither a football fixture list nor a list of competitors, dates, places and times of races require a substantial investment because the investment was in the creation of the data. There was no subsequent substantial investment in obtaining, verifying or presenting the data either.

However, in relation to infringement, the ECJ construed the rights of the sui generis right holder of extraction and re-utilisation (article 7(2) of the Directive) widely to include an indirect act. Extraction and re-utilisation will not cover mere consultation of the database, rather the test of infringement is whether the defendant has extracted or re-utilised a substantial part of the contents of the database. The Court held that the substantial part evaluated quantitatively refers to the volume of the data extracted or re-utilised from the database and it must be assessed in relation to the volume of the contents of the whole of the database. The expression ‘a qualitatively substantial part’ refers to the scale of investment in the obtaining, verification or presentation of the contents of the act of extraction and/or re-utilisation, regardless of whether that subject (or part) represents a quantitatively substantial part of the contents. The Court found that the data taken by WH was too small to be a quantitatively substantial part and was not a qualitatively substantial part either.

In other words, the meaning of article 7(5) is that extractions and re-utilisations which, because of their repeated and systematic character, would reconstitute the database as a whole or at least a substantial part of the database are prohibited.

Whereas the ECJ construed the subject-matter and rights rather widely, it construed the scope of the right and the test of infringement restrictively. The consequence is that BHB’s and Fixtures’ databases are not protected by the sui generis right and therefore the betting companies do not need to pay licences to extract or re-utilise the data. The Court appears to have exceeded its jurisdiction by applying its ruling to the facts of the case. The Court has clarified a lot of the vague terms used in the Directive but some aspects remain unclear such as the scope of the exceptions and what exactly in a database is protected when there is a renewal of the term.
 

Kenny

Thailand Shrimper
Joined
Oct 28, 2003
Messages
3,584
Location
Bangkok
You've put the subject as "any lawyers present?", when in reality you would have been better off just putting "Matt, please translate this"
biggrin.gif
 

Matt the Shrimp

aka Harry Potter
Joined
Oct 27, 2003
Messages
19,929
Location
Lewisham, London
I'll PM you, Naps.

Alas, I can't leave myself open to criticism and/or suit by posting an opinion on here which the likes of FLPTV may disagree with.

Sorry folks.

I'll tell you one thing, though... I've remembered why I didn't really like EU Law. Jeez...

tounge.gif


Matt
 

McNasty

Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2003
Messages
16,197
Location
Otley, West Yorks
I just find it strange that you are not allowed to copy stuff that is highly important to us mere mortals, eg where we are going on any given day to support our favorite team, but you can copy pornographic photos of young ladies and show all your friends.(Obviously not from the same web-site , I hasten to add).
 

Hong Kong Blue

Guest
The mystery is why the football league would want to keep their fixture list a secret. They should be paying to advertise their games, not try and charge people for the privelege.
 

Napster

The Horse with no Name⭐
Joined
Oct 27, 2003
Messages
35,449
Location
The wilds of Kent
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Hong Kong Blue @ June 23 2005,16:55)]The mystery is why the football league would want to keep their fixture list a secret. They should be paying to advertise their games, not try and charge people for the privelege.
beats me.
 

W4 Shrimper

Guest
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Hong Kong Blue @ June 23 2005,16:55)]The mystery is why the football league would want to keep their fixture list a secret. They should be paying to advertise their games, not try and charge people for the privelege.
We've a similarly daft case going on in the betting industry.

Real Madrid are trying to take Ladbrokes, Hills and a few other firms to court for using the images of their players (eg on our website or in our adverts and promo material) and also the names of their players (eg the name 'David Beckham' in our first goalscorer betting)

The nub of the issue appears to be that we are profiting from their 'products' which they have paid big money for.

Surely they should be happy for all the exposure they, their brand and their products can get?
 

Hong Kong Blue

Guest
Do betting companies actually pay anything to the clubs/football league?

I remember the Pools use to, but there was a big argument about it and one year the fixtures were shrouded in mystery in an attempt to stop the Pools companies using the fixture list. Can't remember the outcome of it.
 

AmericanShrimper

Guest
whoops! Look out W4! You may have to pay to use aforementioned midfielder's name on this site! You're intellectually profiting from using it! C'mon, that case should be thrown out...
 
Joined
Oct 25, 2003
Messages
1,145
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Napster @ June 23 2005,11:01)]this has some bearing as to whether we can publish the fixtures- can someone translate into plain English?

THE EUROPEAN IP BULLETIN > ISSUE 18, JANUARY 2005

HOT TOPICS

1.  THE ecj Interprets the Database Sui Generis Right
On the 9 November 2004, the ECJ handed down its decisions in four cases dealing with the database sui generis right (Fixtures Marketing v Veikkaus, Fixtures Marketing v OPAP, Fixtures Marketing v Svenska Spel and The British Horseracing Board v William Hill).

Fixtures is a company retained by the English and Scottish football leagues to handle the exploitation of fixtures lists outside the UK. Fixtures has the right to represent the holders of intellectual property rights in the lists. The defendants organise betting games, and took all information from Fixtures’ lists. Fixtures brought actions in the Greek, Swedish and Finnish Courts alleging that the defendants had infringed the sui generis right in the lists under article 7 of the Database Directive.

A factually similar situation arose in the British Horseracing Board (‘BHB’) case. BHB organises horse races and maintains a database which comprises a lot of information including the names of the horses, the date, place and time of each race. William Hill (‘WH’), a UK bookmaker, took information from BHB’s database for use on its betting web site. BHB brought an action in the English Courts for infringement of its sui generis right in its database and the Court of Appeal referred questions to the ECJ.

The ECJ held that the definition of a database should be construed widely. A database’s materials will be independent when the materials are separable from each other without their informative, literary, artistic, musical or any other value being affected. The Court found that a football fixtures list was a database under article 1 of the Directive.

The Court also held that the substantial investment, which is the requirement that must be fulfilled in order to be protected by the database right, must be in the obtaining, verification or presentation of the contents of a database and not in the creation of the data. This substantial investment can be evaluated quantitatively or qualitatively. The quantitative assessment refers to quantifiable resources. The qualitative assessment means the efforts which cannot be quantified, such as intellectual effort or energy. The Court found that neither a football fixture list nor a list of competitors, dates, places and times of races require a substantial investment because the investment was in the creation of the data. There was no subsequent substantial investment in obtaining, verifying or presenting the data either.

However, in relation to infringement, the ECJ construed the rights of the sui generis right holder of extraction and re-utilisation (article 7(2) of the Directive) widely to include an indirect act. Extraction and re-utilisation will not cover mere consultation of the database, rather the test of infringement is whether the defendant has extracted or re-utilised a substantial part of the contents of the database. The Court held that the substantial part evaluated quantitatively refers to the volume of the data extracted or re-utilised from the database and it must be assessed in relation to the volume of the contents of the whole of the database. The expression ‘a qualitatively substantial part’ refers to the scale of investment in the obtaining, verification or presentation of the contents of the act of extraction and/or re-utilisation, regardless of whether that subject (or part) represents a quantitatively substantial part of the contents. The Court found that the data taken by WH was too small to be a quantitatively substantial part and was not a qualitatively substantial part either.

In other words, the meaning of article 7(5) is that extractions and re-utilisations which, because of their repeated and systematic character, would reconstitute the database as a whole or at least a substantial part of the database are prohibited.

Whereas the ECJ construed the subject-matter and rights rather widely, it construed the scope of the right and the test of infringement restrictively. The consequence is that BHB’s and Fixtures’ databases are not protected by the sui generis right and therefore the betting companies do not need to pay licences to extract or re-utilise the data. The Court appears to have exceeded its jurisdiction by applying its ruling to the facts of the case. The Court has clarified a lot of the vague terms used in the Directive but some aspects remain unclear such as the scope of the exceptions and what exactly in a database is protected when there is a renewal of the term.
or as Lionel Hutts said on the Simpsons, "just imagine a world without lawyers"

Cue Beethoven's Patoral with children dancing in idyllic countryside smiling and happy......................

This fixtures madness is a complete crock of $%&*e. How can anyone have property rights over something like that is completely beyond me.
 

W4 Shrimper

Guest
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Hong Kong Blue @ June 23 2005,17:48)]Do betting companies actually pay anything to the clubs/football league?
Yes, we have to pay a fair whack to the Premier and Football Leagues for use of their data.

To be fair, I don't think we pay the Spanish football authorities anything, but I may be wrong.
 

Xàbia Shrimper

Spanish Shrimpers
Joined
Oct 24, 2003
Messages
13,803
Location
Xàbia, España
[b said:
Quote[/b] (W4 Shrimper @ June 24 2005,10:06)]To be fair, I don't think we pay the Spanish football authorities anything, but I may be wrong.
That's 'cos Spanish football is "da best"!!

You can drink in the stands and no-one bats an eyelid.

You can stand in front of your seat all game, singing and shouting and cheering i.e. "enjoying yourself" and no-one bats an eyelid.

You can lob rolled up bits of tin foil that your ham bocadillo was wrapped in at the opposition player taking a corner and no-one bats an eyelid.

You can squeeze 300 people into a 200 seater area of the ground, jump around the lunatics, waving flags and having a bloody good time at a football match and no-one bats an eyelid.

You can bring in a trumpet, snare drum, bass drum, or complete jazz quintet to accompany you when you sing and no-one bats an eyelid.

You can make paper aeroplanes out of the team sheet and lob 'em at the opposition players or (better yet) at the directors / VIP area and no-one bats an eyelid.

You can even have a good old punch-up in the ground, shake hands afterwards and commend each other for "standing your ground" and no-one bats an eyelid.

Now compare all that with the police state in England that turfs you out of grounds just because you dared to stand up and get "all passionate" about the game. I know where I'd prefer to be these days ...

WS

tounge.gif
 
tounge.gif
 
wink.gif
 

Xàbia Shrimper

Spanish Shrimpers
Joined
Oct 24, 2003
Messages
13,803
Location
Xàbia, España
So long as you are happy to be sitting in a sanitised corporate-sponsored soulless stadium and watched by CCTV for the entire game just in case you decide to stretch your legs a little to ease the discomfort in your knees and then removed because you dared to enjoy yourself, then so be it. Roll your eyes all you like, fella, 'cos I know where I'd prefer to be!

WS

biggrin.gif
 

Ron Manager

Guest
How stupid is this? So if I post that...'On 6th August I will be going to Roots Hall to see Southend United play Port Vale (which kicks off at 3pm) and then on the 9th I will travel to see Southend United play Bradford City away (kick off 7:45pm)...' and so on through the whole season I will be in breach of copyright?

If true then the law is an ***! How can I be doing anything wrong by stating what my plans are for the year ahead? Especially if my plans are to attend football matches that will be advertised and publicised both locally and nationally over the coming months?

Just plain daft if you ask me.

mad.gif
 

W4 Shrimper

Guest
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Xàbia Shrimper @ June 25 2005,13:35)]
[b said:
Quote[/b] (W4 Shrimper @ June 24 2005,10:06)]To be fair, I don't think we pay the Spanish football authorities anything, but I may be wrong.
That's 'cos Spanish football is "da best"!!
That may be so. I've been to a couple of games in Spain and enjoyed them greatly. Similarly in Germany (although why they feel the need to sing songs to the tune of Sailing by Rod Stewart is beyond me!).

However, that doesn't quite address the issue of Real Madrid getting ants in their pants about Ladbrokes daring to price up first goalscorer betting for their games...
 

Barmy Army

Director
Joined
Oct 27, 2003
Messages
2,208
Location
Shoebury
Okay the stadiums may be better, but I'd much rather be here in the "sanitised corporate-sponsored soulless stadium being watched by CCTV" being able to watch Southend, then be where you are watching some two-bobbed Manuel and Pablo that I feel nothing towards.
 

Xàbia Shrimper

Spanish Shrimpers
Joined
Oct 24, 2003
Messages
13,803
Location
Xàbia, España
[b said:
Quote[/b] (W4 Shrimper @ June 25 2005,14:48)]However, that doesn't quite address the issue of Real Madrid getting ants in their pants about Ladbrokes daring to price up first goalscorer betting for their games...
That's because Real Madrid are a corporate entity, not a football team and are therefore generally despised outside of the capital city. However the emergence of the "galacticos" as a way and means of selling more and more replica shirts in Asia has coincided with the Madrileño's complete inability to win anything so the rest of Spain laugh heartily into their cañas. I was at the Valencia v Real Madrid match last March and witnessed just how much Madrid are despised in our neck of the woods. You could have filled a small reservoir with the amount of sputum aimed their way when the boys in white ran onto the pitch. And it's much the same in Barcelona, Pamplona, Bilbao, La Coruna, San Sebastián ... well, I think you get the point ...

WS
 

Xàbia Shrimper

Spanish Shrimpers
Joined
Oct 24, 2003
Messages
13,803
Location
Xàbia, España
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Barmy Army @ June 25 2005,14:50)]Okay the stadiums may be better, but I'd much rather be here in the "sanitised corporate-sponsored soulless stadium being watched by CCTV" being able to watch Southend, then be where you are watching some two-bobbed Manuel and Pablo that I feel nothing towards.
Fine. But at least I can enjoy myself at football these days ...

WS
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top