What do we owe Pros?

From today's chess.com/tv show, Pardon our Blunders (airing live wednesdays, 1 pm pacific, now saved for on-demand viewing), our fourth topic:

This was supposed to be: "Should we expect to watch professional tournaments (games or broadcasts) for free?"

but we were getting so heated, Danny had trouble reading the question

it was a general discussion of what responsibilities fans/spectators/chess enthusiasts might have towards chess players; whether it was alright to download their games, lessons, etc. for free as well as watching live broadcasts...

Still a big topic to return to another day, as David and Danny kick off the Revolution in the Chessworld!

Download their games for free: Yes.
Download their lessons for free: No. 
Watch live broadcasts for free: Yes. Let the advertisers take care of this area. Just like television.

Thanks for your reply to my message Danny. I think a common theme in the chess world is that many people believe that a game that is played between two individuals has to be provided to the general public for free.

 

This just isn't true. Although in my opinion, I believe it would better the game of chess in the long run if they were indeed provided free of charge.

 

One of the things to think about here is why intellectual property rights exist in the first place. They don't exist just to protect content from unauthorized reproduction, but generally the main theme that they try to focus on is money. While there may be many exceptions, generally it all boils down to money and ensuring that there is enough financial incentive for the original "artist" to create new art in the future. While we aren't talking about copyrighting chess games, we are talking about giving the players of the games ownership over their particular games. So how does this play out in the grand scheme when you consider monetary gain?

I believe that if all of the games were provided free of charge, there would be no noticable difference in the number nor quality of games produced or played in the chess future. Why? Because tournaments are funded by other means, and as such there is no pressure to protect the games themselves since they will carry on without the funding. Contrast this to, say, a GM or IM who produces training videos. If all of his videos are shared for free when he wants financial compensation, he or she will probably quit making videos. But chess players won't quit playing chess if their games are free.

 

So while chess players may have the right to not release their games for free, if we are looking at this from a moral perspective and not a legal perspective, it would be wrong (and a hinderence to the furtherence and advancement of chess) not to provide their games for free. The amount of monetary gain for the individual would me neglible compared to the harm done to the future of the game (letting all of the games be recorded for future study). But, some may argue that the grand scheme of things is not all that important.

This does not mean that databases like Chessbase should be free. Rather, Chessbase would be taking free material and compiling it and selling it. Unless you want to compile all of those games yourself, you would need to pay Chessbase for their database.

 I'm intrested in seeing how this thread turns out. Thanks for telling me about it!

Everybody should be able to watch GM games and tournaments for free.  If people have to pay to watch the highest level of competition then people won't watch, which won't progress.  To gain intrest in new and prospective players, they need to be able to watch the highest level of play to draw inspiration and learn.  If I have to watch 5 minutes of adds every hour to watch Grandmaster games, I think I can deal with that. 

The great thing about Chess (unlike any other sports really) is the game hasn't really changed much over time.  (64 squares, 2 sides one White one Black 8 pawns, etc.  So you can actually compare games over time.  Everybody sould be able to download anyone's game for free.  It shouldn't matter if your a 2800 or 800.

Lessons should be up to the GM.  They would be "teaching" and should be paid for this.  If they wanted to give them away for free or even one or 2 to spark some intrest then great!

GM's dedicate themselves to the game so to say they owe anything fans/spectators/chess enthusiasts is a double edged sword.   Keeping the fans/spectators/chess enthusiasts involved will only benefit Chess in the long run.

Chess Federations could connect with a website to provide "database" for all the games played within their regulations.  You could even look into live broadcast of games (long games could be tricky - tape delay with a shortened version of just the moves?) Having live comentators give their prespective (and even have some people with computers giving analysis).  The limitations are endless!!!

I think it also depends on the sponsor of the match/tournament. At the highest level one could argue that the sponsors have the right to disseminate the games of those who are being paid to play. I am equating tournament sponsors with professional sports leagues such as the NFL, NHL, Premier League etc in this regard. The leagues own the rights to their games, not the players. I know this comparison breaks down in many ways but it fits generally under the, "(s)he who pays the piper ..." principle

@IM dpruess. When you sign up for a heavyweight tournament, where norms are at stake etc, is there anything in the competition rules and regulations that dictates who owns rights to the games (sort of chess equivalent of the GPL in software) ?

"Should we" calls for a normative justification of a social norm (free games, free broadcasts).  Probably a pointless enterprise.  The failure of our reasoning to provide normative justification derives from the inability of reason to do the work for us.  There is no single right answer.  These are social practices, so mabe the first question should be "how did we get here in the first place?"

Has there ever been a paying market for professional chess games?  For chess broadcasts? 

Do participants and audiences "owe" a duty to chess players?  As far as the rule of law is concerned: no.  As far as social norms are concerned?  That's up to those who controls how the content is created and performed. 

The participants are certainly "free" to choose the parameters under which they play.  It's up to the participants and event organizers to dictate the norms of play, compensation, and release of information.  It's up to the market--the audience, the consumer--to determine whether to consume that content.

For me, I pay for my Chess.com membership to access the lessons, the videos, the tactics trainer, the games.  I pay for an ICC membership for the games, to watch live games, though I haven't watched any of their videos.  I pay for a book to consume the content.  I pay for software.  So far, the price is right.

This is really interesting stuff. I honestly don't know what the answer is...

As a "Chess Pro" I have obviously dedicated my life to "a game". Despite the "big money" lifestyle us titled players live , in all seriousness, I think we can agree that most people did not commit to chess as a job for the financial state that the Game of Kings currently enjoys. BUT -- at least in my case -- that doesn't mean I expected it to always remain that way...

I have always had intentions, dreams, whatever you want to call it -- of changing the social viewpoint, financial status, overall lifestyle, etc of chess and its patrons. I never intended on living as a "starving artist". I don't know, and I don't expect to anytime in the foreseeable future. That said, how and by what means do I/we plan to change the current structure and platform of our "chess society" so that dreams can become realities?

Is it realistic that players, tournaments, or even leagues will own the rights to their games at some point in the near future; and therefore, start earning royalties for their "work" and contributions to the game??? Not likely. BUT is it possible??? Is it really that far outside of the realm(s) of current intellectual property rights that something like this could happen??? I don't think it is.

I agree, in many respects, with emmett4077 in that keeping the games free, before analysis or any educational aspects are added to the content, does benefit the game to a certain degree. It gets people involved. Keeps people interested. All that stuff. However, if the games were controlled and only released after a "purchase right" of somekind (not millions of dollars, but something...) would that really be so bad? Maybe the Federations or Leagues or Tournaments control this "content", and that money they earn is in turn passed onto the players via conditions, tournaments appearance fees, prize funds being bigger, etc

Anyway, I could write a novel on the pros and cons, the ins and outs, the rights and wrongs, of this topic. I do believe it goes very deep and would take a lot to change things, but hey, you gotta start somewhere right???

Interesting points! And leads to another question: what can the pros, the tournament organizers, the leagues, the federations /do/ to obtain sponsorships, win patrons, obtain donations? The target markets for the money are obviously 1. Your audience! 2. Interested businesses, at the very least. So what is the pitch? Or, what are the potential pitches? 1. Advertising 2. Tax deductible charitable donations 3. Patron recognition At the very least. So what's the pitch to bring in the money in an organized way?? Every successful sport and game in today's media market started somewhere, and started somewhere small, before finding 1. People who wanted to organize, create and market that content, and 2. Distribution platforms for that content (print, radio, network tv, cable, satellite, Internet, iptv streaming, user generated content distribution sites, etc).

This is a great topic for discussion!

As far as a market goes for paying for content, I think you're paying more for convience and services than anything else.  You can watch major tournaments move by move in a web browser for free.  Sometimes they'll even have live commentary on the site, either audio/video or in text.  However, if it's being covered here, one of my benefits of supporting this site is that I'm able to watch the great live commentary by IM's Pruess and Rensch, GM Friedel, and a few other people I'm not recalling at the moment. (Sorry!)  Not only can I watch, but any of us are able to ask questions and get them answered to better understand what is going on in a given position.  This level of interaction is not something that is commonly offered, and these broadcasts are something that the titled players involved deserve compensation for.  Chess.com has been fairly generous in the past with allowing the non-paying members access to some of this content live.  I believe during the World Championship Match, many of the shows were available to anyone on the site. 

As far as the video lessons go on this site, I think it's perfectly fair to charge for them.  For the last month, (today back through 6 SEPT) the site has put up almost 9 1/2 hours of content, covering a wide range of topics by a variety of authors.  I know not every video (or author's style) is ideal for everyone, but I think it's a great value!  If you pay by the month, I think it came out to about $1.38 an hour.  (Note: This is for Diamond members.)  And you still have access to all the earlier videos, that you can watch whenever you want!  It's almost like a chess version of Netflix, and in a similar price range. To get a lesson one-on-one with an IM or GM you're going to be paying far more than that per hour, I can promise.

To comment on what IM Rensch said, what if the USCF or FIDE owned the rights to distribute the games played in tournaments that fell under their "jurisdiction"?  As a member of that Federation, you would grant them the rights to publish your game.  In turn, the Federations publish them in some format that can be downloaded for a small fee by anyone who wants the games.  (Either in micro-transaction or subscription format) It would probably still be far less of a hit to the wallet than say a ChessBase 10, where you are paying for various levels of service to have easy access to the most current games. (and a multitude of older ones...)  If they actually used the money to improve prize funds, contribute to chess education programs, etc, that could be a very good thing in the long run. 

I do believe that people, who are having their games used by others for instructional materials, deserved to be compensated in some direct form.  There would probably need to be a discussion on whether games would ever become "public domain", and when that would occur, if something like this happened, however.  For instance, all the games that came before the implimentation of this could considered "public domain" and be free for all, and they could move forward from there.  I think that would be the right thing to do.

The only way to lock down the content is at the event/organizational level by 1. Terms and conditions for participants governing release and obligation of the scorecard, and 2. Locking down the release of the information. Because as soon as the moves themselves are made public (eg through a live telecast of the event even with commentary), those moves themselves can be (under current u.s. Copyright law) freely appropriate and commented upon by anyone else. So it becomes a timing issue with the value coming from live or near-live release of the content and replay of highlights. Think of it like espn carrying the game, but the box scores are in every news paper nationwide the next day. The value of the rights comes from, and has to be exploited by and in, immediate proximity to the event itself. The more time that passes, the more dispersed the information becomes, and the value diminishes.

I don't want to get too far into this, but there has always been one thing that would bother me here in the US that applies to this discussion and that is how in most tournaments I play in, Masters (or just titled players) play for free. In some of these tournaments I am paying $150 entry fee for a shot at winning maybe $1500 (with 30-40 people in my section), while GM's and IM's who play for free in the Open are competing for $3000. This $3000 is obviously partly paid by me and by all other class players. I'm not sure how things work around the rest of the world, but here this practice had always bothered me. What do we class players in the US get for this? I do not see any benefit upon myself for this. If perhaps I received a score of every game that occured on the top boards, then I would appreciate that. That is not the case, unfortunatly.

While this may not be the case for all tourneys, it has been my experience in quite a lot of them. There are plenty of valid justifications for this practice, but I myself don't see the benefit.

Intellectual property is sadly stolen every day, i.e. boot leg software, music, movies. It hurts those industries and their ability to create future content, since they are not making money on property that can be stolen so easily.

Look at the recording part of the music industry. It's a mess. I asked a few Gernation Y, Echo Boomers,  Millennials (that would include David Pruess and Danny Rensch    ) if they purchased the music heard on their MP3/cell phone players recently. What do you think the answer was?

@ David and Danny - Keep that entrepreneurial spirit up, finding more ways to make money at chess. Teachers like me depend on healthy tax revenues for government paychecks. I want to see more generation Y kids making money and paying taxes, supporting old government workers like me!

@RobKing - First of all, IMs don't normally get their entries free. Secondly, how many tournaments have you played in? I would venture that I have already played in more tournaments, at the age of 24, then you ever will...

Not a big deal, nor am I "special" for doing this, but it is a fact -- if we are strictly talking numbers.

Again, I don't think I am "special", but I do believe that honoring some level of committment and contributions made to the game by the best players is absolutely the right thing to do. Also, if an IM or GM wins prize money, their entry fee is ALWAYS subtracted from the purse they are given -- just so you know...

Top talent playing for free or discounted entry fees? Makes perfect sense. You attract the top talent tom play, and in turn can offer and more prestigious tournament to sponsors/advertisers, and in turn attract more paying entrants. Flying in top GMs makes perfect sense as well. Coach of course, but a plane nonetheless. Organized coverage of the event and release of games and analysis herenon chess.com would be a must! I think pruess once mentioned you could organize a decent tournament for $5k or $10k or something.

I think the notion of a game being 'intellectual property' is a bit of a fallacy.  The game itself is news, the rights to broadcast or sell tickets to it is the property.  Anyone can publish the score of a tennis match, but I have to pay (either advertising or subsciption) to watch the game.  The 'score' of a chess game is no different, unless it is played behind close doors and access is controlled.  That, I think, would backfire VERY quickly when event organizers realized just how little interest there would be in media outlets paying for access to a sporting event.

I just learned how to  convert youtube videos to the iTune movie format. I now can watch youtube chess videos on my iPod while working out at the gym.

I could also watch youtube videos on how to plant potatoes while exercising. Both are equally educational and exciting. 

Cardio workouts are extremely boring, for me. It means, for a guy with a bad back, getting on a zero impact machine, like an eliptical machine, and moving my arms and legs for 40 to 60 minutes. Well, this one eliptical machine has a tv monitor with an iPod jack! 

I can now watch chess videos while working out. This translates into a ton of potential viewing time over the year burning in chess patterns, opening moves -  while doing something incredibly boring - exercise.

What fee would you charge per chess.com video downlaod for mobile viewing? The world is becoming increasingly mobile/wireless. Why would the younger generations want to sit still and watch chess videos, when they could be viewing chess videos on the go (the mobile generation) while checking out the pretty girls, um...I mean sites. Something to think about.

Regards,

The Idea Guy

---

I re-read the OP, and fear I missed the topic altogether. David and Danny want to get paid to have us watch them sit at a chess board and play chess?

I don't even think the world chess championship made it to ESPN. Chess is defined as a sport. I have ten million tv channels, and I don't think there is even one channel devoted to covering chess tournaments, in real time.

I did watch the NASA channel a few times to torture my children, who wanted to watch something else. The camera was parked on the Space Shuttle while it was not moving, but in pre-launch mode - with no commentary. This went on for hours.

CSPAN comes in second for total boredom, especially when the camera parks on the legislators kabitzing after a session. You can't hear them really saying anything, as the mic is just on the room, so it all sounds like a bunch of mumbling and shuffling of papers.

Now with chess, a live broadcast could be so many things. GM's commenting on the game in progress, some retrospect footage of when Vishy was just a little boy playing in his first tournament in India. Kinda the way you would broadcast the Olympics, which have very low ratings compared to other sporting events. Nothing tops the NFL in America - except perhaps reality tv - ugh!

Archaic makes the right point. A chess game is a thing that happens, anyone can report on it and tell you what happened. Just like with any other thing that happens. It's not intellectual property: if it was, players would have to pay royalties for copying other players' ideas! Kasparov would be even richer than he is now for all his opening novelties - if its intellectual property, he owns them!

In any case, it is absolutely 100% great that chess games are free. Though the organization of the sport could be better, its pretty great as it is, and in my view anyone should be able to enjoy following it, regardless of how much money they have.

First I want to say, this is a tough proposal!  Disagreeing with the idea of compensation for score-sheets could be misunderstood as, "I don't think titled players should make a good living".  I do think that chess players should live comfortably.  I think you should beat a loud drum in this regard, but you are perhaps beating the wrong drum?

Lets establish first that if it IS intellectual property, that it should belong to the players.  With that being said:

*What if a player doesn't want his/her game shared with ANYONE?  The super-elite players might find this to be a nice idea to prevent people from studying them.

*What if the two players that composed the "original works" are in disagreement over the distribution of the game? (ie, player A wants to share his work freely, player B wants royalties).

*At what point does a game stop being common knowledge? (there are openings that have been around for 100 years which are still being played.  Can you dare copyright an opening even in part?)

*Compensation/royalties would become subject to negotiation (I promise top GMs will say, "My games are more valuable than inferior players X, Y, and Z, and I want more).  This could eventually spiral out of control.

*What if someone wants to take a copyrighted game to forum for discussion? (distribution without permission)

Any person or organization that tries to assume control of rights to a players games is going to deal with a strike to some degree.

LINUX is free, but still generates revenue by offering "professional" products.  If you want to make more money for the players, create a hub where enthusiasts have the OPTION to pay for superior delivery.  I feel like what you are describing here is a systematic strong-arming of chess knowledge.  

Finally, I don't think the financial gains of profiteering PGNs will compensate for the loss in exposure.