STAR sues Cricbuzz - says they have rights to cricket scores

[G_B_]

We are thinking like a court here. Freedom of information is paramount and so are business interests. There shouldn't be any delay on ball-by-ball updates. I can understand TV feeds having some delay like IPL but definitely not ball-by-ball updates. A broadcaster buys copyrights for the media and doesn't own the content.

no your not. You dont have the details of the contract signed in front of you. No doubt that if star India do win, it will open a pandora's box all over the world. Other Rupert Murdoch companies will do the same in England and Australia for eg. Its not something i support. The Delhi high court for example has already ruled in favour of the BCCI against news channels who exceeded the guidelines of fair use for content in the IPL. There is a good chance that cricinfo will be asked to maintain those fair use guidelines. In england for example. talksport a radio station got sued by the BBC for providing commentary on the radio by watching it on TV. BBC won that.

[Crookbond]

no your not. You dont have the details of the contract signed in front of you. No doubt that if star India do win, it will open a pandora's box all over the world. Other Rupert Murdoch companies will do the same in England and Australia for eg. Its not something i support. The Delhi high court for example has already ruled in favour of the BCCI against news channels who exceeded the guidelines of fair use for content in the IPL. There is a good chance that cricinfo will be asked to maintain those fair use guidelines. In england for example. talksport a radio station got sued by the BBC for providing commentary on the radio by watching it on TV. BBC won that.

I am and I do have the contract. Contracts don't supersede common sense. You can sign a contract saying "It is OK for Dexter to kill G_B_" but that doesn't make it legal in court. Delhi HC has not ruled in favor of BCCI but MSM - it has just granted an interim injunction. Star India is not the only one - MSM also has started suing people and in fact this injunction is bought by MSM and not Star. Link me to the BBC case - in any case, England aren't known for being Internet friendly. Their laws are archaic and it is no surprise. Recently, one of the person who designed the policy for the UK porn filter was himself caught for child porn. :cantstop: UK has little or no knowledge about wrapping their heads around the Internet.

[Sachinism]

Vishal Mishra is keeping this blog for updates - http://savethelivecard.wordpress.com/ Also please sign this petition - https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/Supreme_Court_of_India_Dismiss_injunction_that_prevents_Live_coverage_of_Cricket_on_the_Internet/?copy

[Crookbond]

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/cricket/series-tournament/india-in-new-zealand-2014/top-stories/How-can-facts-be-anybodys-property/articleshow/29971424.cms

LISTEN TO THE REST OF WORLD NBA VS MOTOROLA (1997, US) | National Basketball Assn claimed Motorola and STATS infringed on NBA's copyright by distributing scores to users with a "SportsTrax Pager". Court ruled that sports events are not 'authored' and therefore cannot be copyrighted. It did state that 'broadcast of event' is different from 'facts of the event', and that the broadcast could be protected by copyright. It added that "defendants 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" VICTORIA PARK RACING AND RECREATION GROUNDS CO. LTD VS TAYLOR (1937, AUSTRALIA) | Court rejected the notion of 'quasiproperty', which claims that ownership of the property entitles you to ownership of the facts of the event of the property.