It's really disappointing watching various sports leagues abuse intellectual property law over and over again. Perhaps the worst offender has been Major League Baseball. MLB wants people to think that it owns absolutely everything having to do with baseball, even though the courts have shot it down repeatedly. Even when it may be legally correct, its moves tend to do more to harm the game than to help it. It's as if MLB wants to keep shooting itself in the foot. The latest example was sent in by William Jackson, who points out that MLB is threatening the guy who made a neat Baseball app for the iPhone.

MLB has its own baseball app for the iPhone, which costs $5, that shows scores and highlights -- but this free app doesn't compete with that one. Instead, it's basically a baseball encyclopedia, allowing fans to look up all sorts of interesting historical stats and information. In other words, it's the sort of thing that helps fans feel even more connected to the game. So what does MLB do? It complains that the guy has the actual logos of Major League teams in the app. MLB argues that this is trademark infringement, but that's questionable. This is helping to promote those major league teams, not harm or dilute their brand in any way.

Good news from the Supreme Court this week, as it has decided not to take up Major League Baseball's appeal over the question of whether it gets to "own" player names and stats. As you may recall, Major League Baseball had created a lucrative side business for itself "licensing" out player names and stats to fantasy baseball providers. This actually made them quite a bit of money, until one of those fantasy baseball companies put two and two together and realized that player names and statistics are public information and not subject to copyright (you can't copyright "facts"). MLB flipped out at the possibility of losing this revenue stream and sued, claiming ownership of all game data.

As MLB realized that claiming ownership of game data was never going to cut it in court, it changed the story somewhat, saying that it was really about the players' right of publicity, which also (somehow) included owning their stats. A district court quickly saw through this argument and told MLB that it had no case. Rather than admitting defeat (and recognizing that more widespread use of baseball info should bring more fans into the game), MLB appealed. The appeals court wasted little time in again telling MLB it had no case. But those folks at MLB are nothing if not stubborn. So, they asked the full appeals court to rehear the case and were turned down

So, again, rather than recognizing that perhaps all of these courts (and common sense) had a point, MLB appealed to the Supreme Court, who (as noted) turned them down. If you're keeping score at home (and, we're not claiming ownership of the score), that now makes 4 - 0 for the courts over MLB, and I think we've pretty much hit the 9th inning, as there are no more appeals. The only thing MLB can hope for now is for a different circuit to somehow (unlikely) come to a different conclusion and the Supreme Court to revisit the issue. But that seems about as likely as, say, the Seattle Mariners somehow coming back to win the World Series this year. Stranger things have happened, but not very often.

For years, we've covered Major League Baseball's ridiculous attempts to falsely claim that it has ownership of different aspects of the sport. It's been on the losing side of court battles, repeatedly, but it just keeps pushing its luck. Earlier this year, we noted that MLB was bullying the Cape Cod League, which is considered the preeminent league where the best amateur kids get to compete against each other prior to the annual draft. The problem? The Cape Cod League had the temerity to buy uniforms from local providers, and to use (in just a few cases) names similar to major league teams, such as the Chatham A's and the Harwich Mariners. Of course, no one's going to confuse a team of amateur college players with the major league teams, but MLB demanded both a licensing fee and that the teams be required to buy from a much more expensive uniform supplier approved by MLB.

It appears that this was just the beginning. MLB is doing the same to an even younger group of kids: Little Leaguers in suburban Chicago -- where the teams have similar names, but very different logos (further clarifying the lack of connection). I'm sure taking away the names they recognize will really get those kids interested in the sport. This is, as per MLB's standards, incredibly shortsighted. MLB should be doing anything to build up fans -- and one way to do that is to get kids to really identify with major league teams and players -- and that means letting them use real names. I played Little League at that age, and kids are excited to play on teams with names similar to Major League teams. It certainly doesn't take away from MLB in any way.

Of course, now that the Little Leaguers are involved, this story caught the attention of Stephen Colbert, who decided to give his own, unique, spin on the story (if you're in an RSS reader, click through to see the video): Some great lines from Colbert: "Those kids put trademarked names on their jerseys without paying. You know what we call that in this country? Theft!... You see, they don't want this kind of criminality sullying the good things about baseball. These kids aren't just stealing team names, they're ripping off all kinds of stuff from the majors. Where do these kids get the idea of using a mitt? Or wearing a cup?" He then goes on to take it to the logical extreme, explaining why the press should stop mentioned Major League Baseball altogether to avoid infringing.

We've discussed how both Major League Baseball and the National Football League have convinced the press to live with restrictions on how they can report on games online. For rather obvious reasons, this seems troubling. While both are private organizations that can set up the terms by which they hand out press passes, you would think that the media, with its strong belief in a free press, would refuse to go along with any restrictions. The NY Times is now looking into the issue, noting that a big part of the problem is still that the leagues somehow think they "own" sports content. It also points out that part of the problem was in thinking that "video" is only done by television networks who pay tremendous sums for exclusive rights. So the leagues are afraid that reporters with camera phones will put those huge contracts in jeopardy.

However, hidden down towards the end of the article is one interesting tidbit. A bunch of big media companies are actively doing legal research in preparation for bringing these restrictions into court. Specifically, they're interested in targeting Major League Baseball -- which has a special exemption from antitrust law from Congress. The media companies may use these restrictions to suggest that MLB is abusing that right. While it would definitely make for an interesting lawsuit, it's still difficult to see how the activities are, by themselves, illegal. The team gets to decide who it gives out press passes too -- and that's where the restrictions come from. If the media refused to take press passes and reported on the team in other ways (including buying tickets to the game for reporters) then it could report however it wanted -- just with a lot less access. But if all the major media started boycotting the terms of access this way, you can bet that MLB and the NFL would back down quickly.

Back in February, we noted that Major League Baseball (MLB) was following the NFL down the extremely slippery slope of putting in place restrictions concerning how reporters could report on baseball online. This included things like only very short video clips could be posted online, no more than 7 photos, and all non-text content had to be removed in 72-hours. If that all sounds like preventing reporters from doing their job, you'd be correct. As I suggested at the time, the answer should be for newspapers to simply ignore the rules and if MLB pulls their press passes to buy their reporters tickets to the games (rather than using press passes) or see how the teams feel without press coverage. While it appears that newspapers certainly were upset about these restrictions, rather than doing anything serious about it, they've apparently negotiated a "compromise." The compromise allows newspapers to now host more video and audio content than the original restrictions, but everything still needs to be removed within 72-hours unless there's a special exemption.

This is, of course, absolutely ridiculous. While it's perfectly legal (reporters don't need to get press passes, so the team can restrict them), it sets a tremendously bad precedent that journalists are allowing any outside control over how they can report on a game. This is all stemming from MLB's incorrect belief that it "owns" everything having to do with Major League Baseball -- and then wanting to artificially limit it so it can sell it to fans. Note that we're not just talking about actual game data here -- but interviews with the players that are conducted by the journalists. There's simply no legitimate reason why newspapers should allow MLB to dictate what it can do with that content or how it can report on it. All that this will do is serve to limit the kind of innovative reporting and community building that the MLB should be encouraging. It's a top down approach by an organization who thinks that only it can decide how people get access to news and info about the game. But it's going to stop newspapers from putting in place their own, perhaps more useful, services for fans, and that will only serve to limit the fanbase. It's upsetting that MLB would even try to do this and it's a travesty that newspapers acquiesced, even to the supposed "compromise" solution. It's opening the door to the MLB telling them what they can report on and any newspaper person should know better.

Major League Baseball continues to push the boundaries of what it thinks it has the right to control. For years, it's been fighting a losing battle over the obviously false idea that it "owns" the stats and game descriptions of all major league games. Earlier this year, it began putting restrictions on how reporters could report on games. Reader Chris alerts us to its latest bullying effort, as it appears MLB still believes that it's free to control just about anything that even touches Major League Baseball. The Cape Cod Baseball League is basically the premiere showcase of amateur baseball talent each summer. It's where many of the best college players go to play to show off for scouts from major league teams -- but it's still an amateur event. Major League Baseball has donated about $100,000 to the Cape Cod League each year, but that's only a small percent of the league's $1.5 to $2 million operating budget (which itself is small, since much of the league is run by volunteers donating their time).

Yet, somehow, MLB thinks it owns the rights to things in the Cape Cod League and is demanding that the six (out of 10) teams in the league that use the names of Major League teams license the names -- including buying all uniforms and merchandise through MLB itself, rather than the local vendors who have always supplied the league. Even worse, those local vendors who normally sold the uniforms and merchandise to the league were big sponsors of the league. Cutting them off may mean lost sponsorship as well. Clearly, MLB now thinks that it has total control over any team that has a name similar to Major League team, despite the fact that no one is going to confuse the Chatham A's with the Oakland A's or the Harwich Mariners with the Seattle Mariners. This would appear to be yet another abuse of trademark, and hopefully the Cape Cod League finds a lawyer who can explain to Major League Baseball the moron in a hurry test to prove that there's no trademark violation. Hell, perhaps the moron in a hurry can be a pinch runner for one of the teams. I hear he's fast...

After being smacked down multiple times by courts, Major League Baseball has continued to tilt at the windmill of copyright, claiming again that it owns the rights to players' names and stats and no one can use them without paying MLB a fee. The problem with this, of course, is that you cannot own facts. Despite the court pointing this out repeatedly, MLB's lawyers have continued to push the case forward. Kevin writes in to let us know that, once again, baseball has been smacked down, as an appeal to rehear the entire case has been denied by the appeals court meaning the only thing left to do is appeal to the Supreme Court. Given how much effort MLB has put into this lawsuit don't be surprised to see that appeal happen. However, it would be surprising if the Supreme Court actually took the case.

It's really amazing how far Major League Baseball goes towards pissing off its fans. From trying to limit fantasy sports by insisting that MLB owns facts, to deleting fan websites, to trying to stop fans from using a Sling Box to watch games, to the ridiculous blackout policies that stop fans from watching games, to the decision last year to prevent certain TV providers from showing Major League Baseball, it just seems like the sports actively tries to antagonize some of its biggest fans. The latest may be the most ridiculous. MLB.com was certainly a pioneer in offering video online, including the ability to purchase and download videos of games. Like so many content companies, MLB.com falsely believed that it needed to wrap the content in copy protection software. However, as read tijir alerts us to, the DRM that MLB chose involved having the content always check in with an MLB.com server to make sure it could be played. That's just dandy... until MLB.com changes its DRM provider and takes down the old authorization server. At that point all of the content everyone had purchased becomes totally useless. True to its fan-unfriendly nature, MLB.com's response has basically been "tough cookies." Specifically, a representative from MLB.com claims that since the products were "one-time sales" there are no refunds. Of course, if they were one-time sales... then why do they need to get approval from MLB.com every time they want to play? They're clearly not one-time sales. The sale was for a service -- which included regular authorization to play the content. MLB has now failed to live up to their end of the deal and should provide at least some kind of refund.

Major League Baseball has been tilting at windmills for years, claiming ownership of facts -- even though facts cannot be covered by copyright. This resulted in a lawsuit over whether or not companies that provide fantasy baseball services online needed to pay MLB for a license to use player's names and stats. While such licenses have been very lucrative for MLB over the years, one popular fantasy baseball company, CBC, decided to stop paying the license and keep offering the service -- which resulted in the lawsuit. It didn't take long for the courts to tell MLB that it doesn't own facts and anyone is free to use stats and player names. Of course, rather than realizing that fantasy baseball helps promote the real thing, bringing in a lot more money to the league, MLB could only focus on the short term licenses it was about to lose, and appealed. This was a waste of everyone's time, because the law is quite clear and an appeals court has now ruled (again) that Major League Baseball does not own the names and data associated with the game and anyone is free to use that factual information for other things, such as fantasy baseball games. It's highly likely that the folks at MLB will appeal again, though it's equally likely that they'll get smacked down again. MLB had shifted strategies as these cases wore on, trying to get away from focusing on ownership of facts and claiming it was more about the "right to publicity," but the appeals court ruled that a right to publicity does not trump the First Amendment.