For those who don't know, this is the case where a fantasy website couldn't get a licence by the MLB to use the players names on it's site. The website sued and said that it should be allowed to use them anyway as it is News and Statistics, which courts have seen as the domain of the public, and also claimed free speech.
The MLB players union countersued and said that the website was trying to make money off of the players names, and this required the players permission (hence the licence).
A lower appeals court sided with the website, and said it was free speech. By not hearing the case, the supreme court is essentially saying that the lower court was correct.
that's good. I'm not going to get into a big argument about file sharing and intellectual property, but my feeling is that a lot of people don't and haven't taken it seriously in thinking about it, but a lot of these issues are coming home to roost for the common person. Just because a big corporation or league says it's something, doesn't make it so. I find the argument that they are "profiting from the player's names" to be a stretch myself.
well, not explicitly, but it refused to hear an appeal against a lower court ruling in favor of CBC.
The Associated Press
Mon, Jun 2, 2008 (7:37 a.m.)
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to step into a dispute between a fantasy sports business and professional baseball.
Without comment, the justices declined to hear the case involving a segment of the $1.5 billion fantasy sports industry in the United States, in which participants manage imaginary teams based on the real-life performances of professional players.
The lawsuit involves C.B.C. Distribution and Marketing Inc., a Missouri company unable to obtain a license from a subsidiary of Major League Baseball to use players' names in C.B.C.'s fantasy baseball games.
The Missouri company sued, saying it did not need a license to continue to sell its fantasy baseball games on its Web site.
The baseball players' union jumped into the case on the league's side, alleging a state law violation of the players' publicity rights _ the ability to profit from the commercial use of a person's name.
A federal court and the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis ruled in favor of the fantasy baseball business, saying that enforcing state law rights would violate C.B.C.'s right of free speech protected by the First Amendment.
The National Football League Players Association supported professional baseball's request that the Supreme Court hear the case.
The case is Major League Baseball Advanced Media v. C.B.C., 07-1099.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by The Balanced Man » Mon Jun 02, 2008 10:59 am 
