Beckett suing COMC over database

[MansGame]

I need to read this entire thread tomorrow.


---
Buying Albert Belle cards! PM me!

 

[digicat]

Is anyone spooked enough to think about cashing out their COMC "store credit" as a result of all this? If things get bad, that store credit can go "poof".

 

[mrmopar]

Remember when dealers would NOT sell something that was new because Beckett had not applied their magical pricing to it? That used to piss me off to no end. I was collecting Frank Thomas at the time and a dealer would pull something like the 1 per box inserts and they couldn't price it because they didn't know what to use for pricing. I knew what to expect, based on the past years issues of the same type. I didn't understand how they could't know, being dealers!!

Then, the next thing that really bugged me was that the Hi value was always 50% more than what cards actually sold for. The common practice was the see Beckett price and cut it in half! Why then shouldn't the Beckett value be half and sell cards at the price values???

It was my understanding that Beckett used to solicit pricing from various dealer throughout the nation. They would then take that small sample along with past pricing and extrapolate. Beckett is a statistician after all.

I have never really used Beckett for pricing. i know what I am willing to pay for cards. In fact, I have no idea what new cards are "worth". It has always been about the catalogs and checklists and set identification. I don't know what will become of COMC, but not sure I'd care for a price structure based on what people on their site are selling cards for either. At least not until they get the traffic that ebay sets. The best gauge for pricing right now is ebay, period.

 

[rsmath]

They're just pissed because COMC can start and finish an update to their site in under a year while they're working on year.........6. I think?

that's what I"m starting to believe. COMC took away too much marketplace sales and OPG subscriptions from beckett, and especially at times when Beckett can't keep their own web site up!

I hope part of COMC winning this suit is that they can claim the checklists are well known to the collecting universe since they are released by the manufacturers and that COMC is adding attributes that can't be found in Beckett checklist material so that means COMC checklist info was not taken from Beckett.

As for pricing, I don't know how one can claim COMC pricing history is Beckett-owned material. Just because a seller got to see a Beckett value for the card doesn't mean the card was absolutely sold at that price. The value was just a pricing "guide" for the seller, not a must-sell price. If the card sold, it was because a COMC buyer accepted that price, not because they were forced to pay that price because Beckett and their pricing for that card said so.

 

[Therion]

Crazy (just marking this thread for the inevitable updates)

 

[DaClyde]

Another thought. Why isn't beckett suing Zistle

Looks like they are now.

http://www.cardboardconnection.com/news/law-cards-beckett-sues-zistle-checklists

I think Beckett will have a case against sites copying their checklists, where they had no case against COMC. I'm worried I am about to see a few years worth of effort go up in smoke in the next few months when more of these kinds of lawsuits hit. All those international, minor league and oddball checklists I spent so much time posting to various sites (checklists Beckett doesn't have or has incorrect) will be lost when the sites are forced to shutdown.

The issue will not be simply that these other sites have checklists, it is that they are using the exact same checklists that were obviously copied & pasted directly from Beckett's system, character-for-character, flaws and all.

 

[BenG76]

Looks like they are now.

http://www.cardboardconnection.com/news/law-cards-beckett-sues-zistle-checklists

I think Beckett will have a case against sites copying their checklists, where they had no case against COMC. I'm worried I am about to see a few years worth of effort go up in smoke in the next few months when more of these kinds of lawsuits hit. All those international, minor league and oddball checklists I spent so much time posting to various sites (checklists Beckett doesn't have or has incorrect) will be lost when the sites are forced to shutdown.

The issue will not be simply that these other sites have checklists, it is that they are using the exact same checklists that were obviously copied & pasted directly from Beckett's system, character-for-character, flaws and all.

I looked at Zistle a bit but I have not used it much. If Beckett would make a decent website that would work. Plus if they wouldn't over charge for the information they have they might see more business.

I purchased the baseball and Football guides for one month to update my checklists for the players I collect. Some guy with an accent called me recently from Beckett trying to sell me a subscription or whatever. He asked me why I had only purchased one month and was trying to sell me more. I told him that the website is super slow and the pricing information is mostly useless. I told him I would be glad to have a subscription for the information on Beckett if it was priced within reason and if the site worked as it should. I also said the same thing in a survey they sent me.

I read the article that was linked and I don't see how Beckett can claim a copyright to this information. The writer of the article compared this to information in a phone book. Card numbers and the players listed on them are facts. I hope they lose honestly, but I wouldn't be surprised if they shut Zistle down. Its all about who has the most money for lawyers anymore.

 

[RStadlerASU22]

Looks like they are now.

http://www.cardboardconnection.com/news/law-cards-beckett-sues-zistle-checklists

I think Beckett will have a case against sites copying their checklists, where they had no case against COMC. I'm worried I am about to see a few years worth of effort go up in smoke in the next few months when more of these kinds of lawsuits hit. All those international, minor league and oddball checklists I spent so much time posting to various sites (checklists Beckett doesn't have or has incorrect) will be lost when the sites are forced to shutdown.

The issue will not be simply that these other sites have checklists, it is that they are using the exact same checklists that were obviously copied & pasted directly from Beckett's system, character-for-character, flaws and all.

I've never used Zistle , but can you download and store the info you have created so it doesn't go away should something happen to the site. I have a project in progress , where I am going to need CLs and would love CLs of stuff not published elsewhere

Ryan

 

[olerud363]

Yes that's one of the good things about Zistle. They've always maintained that the info belongs to the collectors who've built the database, so you're always free to download stuff.

 

[IUjapander]

Looks like they are now.

http://www.cardboardconnection.com/news/law-cards-beckett-sues-zistle-checklists

I think Beckett will have a case against sites copying their checklists, where they had no case against COMC. I'm worried I am about to see a few years worth of effort go up in smoke in the next few months when more of these kinds of lawsuits hit. All those international, minor league and oddball checklists I spent so much time posting to various sites (checklists Beckett doesn't have or has incorrect) will be lost when the sites are forced to shutdown.

The issue will not be simply that these other sites have checklists, it is that they are using the exact same checklists that were obviously copied & pasted directly from Beckett's system, character-for-character, flaws and all.

Jeez, called that a year ago. The COMC stuff was strong arm tactics and glad to see them survive.

I agree that Zistle unfortunately will probably go away as they have little to no revenue (guessing) and there is an actual claim since people were/are just copying Beckett and pasting there.

 

[VizquelCollector.com]

Beckett's website has been an absolutely miserable for YEARS.

If they really want to succeed they should try adapting instead of anchoring their business to the past. Do something amazing or just settle for simply interesting. Claiming they somehow own those checklists smacks of greed and pride over the hobby. It'd be pretty revolutionary to release the checklists to the world, in an effort to access more collectors and better the hobby. Lock yourselves in a room for however long it takes and focus on how to truly help collectors. The money will happen.

If they had somehow added to the checklists, they should clearly own that material. For instance something like detailed explanations or anecdotal research about the cards/sets. However owning the list of cards that the manufacturers themselves printed on cards and included in boxes, packs, published on their website, etc???? I don't care what anyone says. That's silly. Screw Beckett.

 

[Brewer Andy]

If they had somehow added to the checklists, they should clearly own that material. For instance something like detailed explanations or anecdotal research about the cards/sets. However owning the list of cards that the manufacturers themselves printed on cards and included in boxes, packs, published on their website, etc???? I don't care what anyone says. That's silly. Screw Beckett.

Agreed. I don't understand how their "reporting" of checklist information makes that information proprietary in the least. I'm sure there are a handful of sets they actually had to research and assemble lists for but far and away this information came long before them or was available in later years to anyone who requested it. It may be a matter of doing away with some of Beckett's lame "naming conventions". There's really have no use for that company in the modern card world. I suppose it's for lawyers to decide but it's just more bad press for Beckett. If they're losing business to places like COMC and Zisstle it's their own damn fault for slipping into irrelevancy

 

[AUTaxMan]

Beckett's website has been an absolutely miserable for YEARS.

If they had somehow added to the checklists, they should clearly own that material. For instance something like detailed explanations or anecdotal research about the cards/sets. However owning the list of cards that the manufacturers themselves printed on cards and included in boxes, packs, published on their website, etc???? I don't care what anyone says. That's silly. Screw Beckett.

They used to do that but stopped providing any worthwhile set information a decade ago.

 

[DaClyde]

I'm curious whether the ruling will just result in the removal of the offending Beckett-copied checklists and a financial penalty, or whether the entire site will be forced offline. In any case, a couple other sites had better be doing some MAJOR cleanup right now to avoid the same fate.

Something that has occurred to me is that at least one online sports card storefront also used Beckett's checklists as the basis for their database. Given that the complete checklists can only be seen in the back end of the system, or only in the front end when inventory is present, I wonder if they would also be a target.

 

[AUTaxMan]

I'm curious whether the ruling will just result in the removal of the offending Beckett-copied checklists and a financial penalty, or whether the entire site will be forced offline. In any case, a couple other sites had better be doing some MAJOR cleanup right now to avoid the same fate.

Something that has occurred to me is that at least one online sports card storefront also used Beckett's checklists as the basis for their database. Given that the complete checklists can only be seen in the back end of the system, or only in the front end when inventory is present, I wonder if they would also be a target.

Zistle's problem is likely going to be their legal fees in defending the lawsuit, regardless of its merit.

 

[KLARNOLD]

Can collectors sue Beckett for using pictures of cards that collectors uploaded to the site?

 

[AUTaxMan]

Can collectors sue Beckett for using pictures of cards that collectors uploaded to the site?

You can sue anyone for anything. Whether you can win is another story. I am almost certain that in Beckett's TOS, it has rights to any photos you upload. Thus, you probably wouldn't prevail in a suit over their using photos that you uploaded.

 

[DaClyde]

Can collectors sue Beckett for using pictures of cards that collectors uploaded to the site?

But...the only reason for a user to upload a card image to Beckett is for Beckett to use it.

A few pages into the complaint, Beckett uses this phrase, or something similar:

Defendant’s access to Beckett’s Copyrighted Works was unauthorized and without effective consent from Beckett.

The problem there is that by making all of their checklist data available to the public on the web, technically Beckett has implicitly granted a blanket authorization to the entire world to access "Beckett's Copyrighted Works".

Then...

48. The checklists offered by Defendant on its website have been directly copied from Plaintiff’s Copyrighted Works.

This broad declaration is demonstrably false simply by Zistle's inclusion of any checklist that did not come from Beckett.

But when you boil everything down to its essence, this is the root problem:

40. Defendant offers the same card checklist data that has been copyrighted by Plaintiff. Despite never requesting, nor receiving permission from Beckett, Defendant copied verbatim and published significant portions of the Copyrighted Works.

At least this document seems to have been written by actual attorneys (or legal clerks) rather some random 5th grader, as was the case with the COMC lawsuit. So clearly Beckett has learned something. I'm interested to see how the copyrights of their printed materials are applied to data that was taken from their website.

But backing up a bit, this one is sneaky:

22. Plaintiff, by and through its attorney, has sent Defendant a demand letter requesting Defendant cease any and all activities in and related to the retrieval and copying Plaintiff’s intellectual property; provide a copy of its checklist data offered on Zistle.com; and delete any and all instances of Plaintiff’s copyrighted works from Defendant’s personal computers and any servers or other electronic storage devices where it may reside. Defendanthas failed to comply with Plaintiff’s demands.

Beckett knows that some of its checklist information is probably in Zistle's system, but rather than detail it, they just demand a copy of all of Zistle's data. So basically anything Beckett doesn't already have, that Zistle does, Beckett can then brazenly steal and add to Beckett.com.

 

[BenG76]

But...the only reason for a user to upload a card image to Beckett is for Beckett to use it.

A few pages into the complaint, Beckett uses this phrase, or something similar:

The problem there is that by making all of their checklist data available to the public on the web, technically Beckett has implicitly granted a blanket authorization to the entire world to access "Beckett's Copyrighted Works".

Then...

This broad declaration is demonstrably false simply by Zistle's inclusion of any checklist that did not come from Beckett.

But when you boil everything down to its essence, this is the root problem:


At least this document seems to have been written by actual attorneys (or legel clerks) rather some random 5th grader, as was the case with the COMC lawsuit. So clearly Beckett has learned something. I'm interested to see how the copyrights of their printed materials are applied to data that was taken from their website.

But backing up a bit, this one is sneaky:

Beckett knows that some of its checklist information is probably in Zistle's system, but rather than detail it, they just demand a copy of all of Zistle's data. So basically anything Beckett doesn't already have, that Zistle does, Beckett can then brazenly steal and add to Beckett.com.

Do you have any idea what the person or person's running Zistle may do?

When I read the article you linked about this I have a hard time understanding how Beckett can copyright checklists since basically they are facts not a creative work by Beckett themselves. Anyone can basically type up a checklist for a set and they will pretty much look exactly the same as what Beckett has. Kind of like the case between the phone book companies mentioned in the article. Even if someone did cut and paste the info it doesn't matter they are facts not a novel written by someone or something of that sort.

I figure either way Beckett will get them to either shut down or remove the info since they have deeper pockets for the lawyers.

Is it even possible to make a site that has checklist for sets that Beckett couldn't try to claim was ripped off from them?

 

[DaClyde]

Do you have any idea what the person or person's running Zistle may do?

Not a clue.

When I read the article you linked about this I have a hard time understanding how Beckett can copyright checklists since basically they are facts not a creative work by Beckett themselves. Anyone can basically type up a checklist for a set and they will pretty much look exactly the same as what Beckett has. Kind of like the case between the phone book companies mentioned in the article. Even if someone did cut and paste the info it doesn't matter they are facts not a novel written by someone or something of that sort.

I figure either way Beckett will get them to either shut down or remove the info since they have deeper pockets for the lawyers.

Is it even possible to make a site that has checklist for sets that Beckett couldn't try to claim was ripped off from them?

I can't seem to make this point clear, but it is technically not about the content of the checklists that is the issue. One cannot copyright facts.

it is about the presentation of the checklists. To quote CaseBriefs.com about the Feist v. Rural Telephone Service Co decision:

The author chooses what facts to include, in what order to place them, and how to arrange the collected data so they may be effectively used by readers. Thus, even a directory that contains no written expression that could be protected, only facts, meets the constitutional minimum for copyright protection if it features an original selection or arrangement.

So while multiple companies can produce phone books containing the exact same names and numbers, one company cannot simply photocopy the other company's work and sell it. It is not the data to which Beckett applies its copyright claims, but the way they have arranged and displayed them. If Beckett’s listing for a card says this:

2005 Upper Deck HOF Signs of Cooperstown Quads Autograph Gold #BSAY Banks/Ozzie/Apar/Yount

Anyone else producing a checklist of the same set needs to make some effort to differentiate their version of the facts like this:

2005 Upper Deck Hall of Fame Signs of Cooperstown Quad Autographs Gold #BSAY Ernie Banks / Ozzie Smith / Luis Aparicio / Robin Yount

What makes it obvious that people are copying Beckett's checklists is that for many more complicated cards, the other sites are using the exact same arrangement and text of Beckett's (sloppy) listings. If other sites would make the simple effort of cleaning up the data before reproducing it, there is no case. Beckett's checklists tend to be messy because of space saving measures dating back to their print business, and the often leave off prefixes to card numbering and even introduce erroneous numbering for some sets that are unnumbered or where Beckett simply couldn't be bothered to find the correct numbering. Other sites really need to be pushing themselves to improve upon what Beckett has done, not simply regurgitate it verbatim.