Does BoxRec own http://www.fightsrec.com ?

[ChicagoBoxing]

Does BoxRec own FightsRec ? If not who does ? Anyone has their contact information

[Adamj1987]

Dont think boxrec own styat, it looks out of date aswell

[ChicagoBoxing]

It looks like the same database is being used. Does BoxRec rent out their database

[Adamj1987]

It looks like the same database is being used. Does BoxRec rent out their database

PM john he owns boxrec, THE LAW may know aswell

[ChicagoBoxing]

I am going to PM right now. I thought it was eerily similar.

[ChicagoBoxing]

It looks like the same database is being used. Does BoxRec rent out their database

PM john he owns boxrec, THE LAW may know aswell

It looks similar
http://www.fightsrec.com/david-haye.html

[stac]

nicked the data....pure and simple..no copyright in boxing records...merely time and effort...complete brian cants

[ChicagoBoxing]

nicked the data....pure and simple..no copyright in boxing records...merely time and effort...complete brian cants

Crazy, we got a email from them yesterday, or someone claiming to be from them.

[wouter]

nicked the data....pure and simple..no copyright in boxing records...merely time and effort...complete brian cants

Crazy, we got a email from them yesterday, or someone claiming to be from them.

They managed to make a copy of the database here some time ago and now present it as their own. They try to manually add to that copy to keep it updated, but they don't really succeed in doing it. Who's the person that contacted you?

[Rover]

nicked the data....pure and simple..no copyright in boxing records...merely time and effort...complete brian cants

Pathetic. Some people have no work ethic.

[ChicagoBoxing]

nicked the data....pure and simple..no copyright in boxing records...merely time and effort...complete brian cants

Crazy, we got a email from them yesterday, or someone claiming to be from them.

They managed to make a copy of the database here some time ago and now present it as their own. They try to manually add to that copy to keep it updated, but they don't really succeed in doing it. Who's the person that contacted you?

I believe it was Tom Leer or Leen

[informationnexus]

As a lawyer, I am not so sure that copying Boxrec is not actionable.

[ChicagoBoxing]

As a lawyer, I am not so sure that copying Boxrec is not actionable.

Copying might not be sufficient, but will stealing from database via hacking be enough to pursue legal action ?

[informationnexus]

[Copying might not be sufficient, but will stealing from database via hacking be enough to pursue legal action ?[/quote


One thing I noticed was I put a result up, scores, etc. I noticed later that I had a score incorrect. Funny thing. I went and corrected it.

Then, one day, I was looking at something and noticed a website had clearly copied the incorrect information onto their website. Now the only way they could have got this information was from boxrec because I got it from the scorecards which very few people have access to.

As a lawyer, I have to say things carefully, but, as intellectual property such as website layout, content, etc. is evolving. I think boxrec might have a legitimate issue about other websites stealing content, etc. from boxrec. That is all I will say in a forum.

[Blue]

Ask them who or what they use for a source reference!
AFAIK; John has had to block illegal spy bots many times over the years.

[Rover]

I don't know about British copyright law. I'm also a lawyer--in the U.S. It's a tricky question for copyrights with databases because Boxrec has gathered available public information (boxing records). It isn't like a literary work involving thought or an invention. It's a compilation of available data.
There was a case in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals based in Chicago called ProCD v. Zeidenberg where a guy bought a CD of (I think) a database of phone numbers. There was a "shrinkwrap license" inside that indicated he couldn't copy it. He used the info to create his own database and sold it. The court ruled that he'd violated copyright law because of the license agreement.
This is the holding of one circuit; a district court in Kansas expressly rejected this reasoning because there was no signed agreement; this license was wrapped in the box and, say, wouldn't apply to a stranger on the street who'd found it or the recipient of a gift.
Again, though, this is U.S. law, and the Supreme Court hasn't delved much into Internet database copyright issues, as the issue is rather new. Don't know what English courts have done.

[ChicagoBoxing]

I don't know about British copyright law. I'm also a lawyer--in the U.S. It's a tricky question for copyrights with databases because Boxrec has gathered available public information (boxing records). It isn't like a literary work involving thought or an invention. It's a compilation of available data.
There was a case in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals based in Chicago called ProCD v. Zeidenberg where a guy bought a CD of (I think) a database of phone numbers. There was a "shrinkwrap license" inside that indicated he couldn't copy it. He used the info to create his own database and sold it. The court ruled that he'd violated copyright law because of the license agreement.
This is the holding of one circuit; a district court in Kansas expressly rejected this reasoning because there was no signed agreement; this license was wrapped in the box and, say, wouldn't apply to a stranger on the street who'd found it or the recipient of a gift.
Again, though, this is U.S. law, and the Supreme Court hasn't delved much into Internet database copyright issues, as the issue is rather new. Don't know what English courts have done.

Sounds about right especially since almost all the information is provide by volunteers of the site. This is very tricky

[informationnexus]

I don't know about British copyright law. I'm also a lawyer--in the U.S. It's a tricky question for copyrights with databases because Boxrec has gathered available public information (boxing records). It isn't like a literary work involving thought or an invention. It's a compilation of available data.
There was a case in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals based in Chicago called ProCD v. Zeidenberg where a guy bought a CD of (I think) a database of phone numbers. There was a "shrinkwrap license" inside that indicated he couldn't copy it. He used the info to create his own database and sold it. The court ruled that he'd violated copyright law because of the license agreement.
This is the holding of one circuit; a district court in Kansas expressly rejected this reasoning because there was no signed agreement; this license was wrapped in the box and, say, wouldn't apply to a stranger on the street who'd found it or the recipient of a gift.
Again, though, this is U.S. law, and the Supreme Court hasn't delved much into Internet database copyright issues, as the issue is rather new. Don't know what English courts have done.

Well, the U.S. Courts would look at how similar the web sites are in layout and content.
However, there are two separate questions, does boxrec own any copyright that has been violated?
and second, if not, does a website have the right to copy information from one website and then use it on its own website? In other words, did any other website actually basically copy boxrec and then use it as their own frame for a website? If boxrec was hacked, that is entirely clear and yes, would be actionable.

[wouter]

In other words, did any other website actually basically copy boxrec and then use it as their own frame for a website? If boxrec was hacked, that is entirely clear and yes, would be actionable.

It was, in fact, hacked. There are some typos on fightsrec that I recognise as my own. For instance, I accidentally put in a capital O long when entering this venue:

http://boxrec.com/show_display.php?show_id=567842

You can go to fightsrec and find the same typo there. By the way, I chose not to correct it so I could use it as an example if questions about fightsrec's legitimacy ever came up.

[TonyThirty4]

Does anyone have contact any info for this fightsrec.com? Apparently, according to the site, I am a professional boxer with an 0-1 record, and pictures that I haven't seen in 10 years are associated to the profile. And, there is no way to get ahold of the site to inquire as to how they even created this profile, let alone how they got pictures of me.

I suppose, for the sake of it, I should say that I am not nor have I ever been a boxer. I just googled myself and found old pictures linked to fightsrec.com and my "Boxing" profile. If the site is indeed using Boxingrec's database. Then both sites are at the very least sharing one profile that is not real. Google Tony Panti, that is me, and you will find some pictures of me and a YouTube street fight, which is not me.

I am amending this post in case one of the people on this forum is the owner of fightsrec. Something with your database is definitely wrong.

[Ric]

I don't know about British copyright law. I'm also a lawyer--in the U.S. It's a tricky question for copyrights with databases because Boxrec has gathered available public information (boxing records). It isn't like a literary work involving thought or an invention. It's a compilation of available data.
There was a case in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals based in Chicago called ProCD v. Zeidenberg where a guy bought a CD of (I think) a database of phone numbers. There was a "shrinkwrap license" inside that indicated he couldn't copy it. He used the info to create his own database and sold it. The court ruled that he'd violated copyright law because of the license agreement.
This is the holding of one circuit; a district court in Kansas expressly rejected this reasoning because there was no signed agreement; this license was wrapped in the box and, say, wouldn't apply to a stranger on the street who'd found it or the recipient of a gift.
Again, though, this is U.S. law, and the Supreme Court hasn't delved much into Internet database copyright issues, as the issue is rather new. Don't know what English courts have done.

What if, instead of a copyright for the layout, John sought a trademark for the layout, the way items link (date, opponents, venues, etc.) and so forth?

[Alex]

Some useful material here on the legal position of databases: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/cop ... dex_en.htm

Also, the below decision could have some bearing on the Boxrec/fightsrec situation.

Source: http://blogs.dlapiper.com/mediaandsport ... databases/

UK: Court of Appeal delivers landmark ruling relating to databases

The Court of Appeal has delivered a landmark ruling relating to databases. The judgment is important for anyone who makes a substantial investment in obtaining, verifying and presenting data, including airlines, financial institutions, sporting bodies and technology companies.

The database in issue in the case lists football data (such as goals, goalscorers, own goals, penalties, cautions/expulsions and substitutions) relating to matches organised by the Premier League, the Football League, the Scottish Premier League and the Scottish Football League. Each season, the leagues make a substantial investment (in excess of £600,000) in arranging for this data to be collected at football grounds and inputted into the database.

The Court of Appeal unanimously held that this database is protected by the European sui generis database right. The data concerned was clearly "pre-existing" data, even though the information was being recorded for the first time in the database. Further, the investment made in its creation was also independent of any investment in the competitions per se.

The database right was also infringed by the defendants, which included a Swiss data supplier, Sportradar, and Gibraltar-based bookmaker Stan James. The Court of Appeal recognised that Sportradar was caught copying data from the database because some of the data in Sportradar's database were 'seeded' or planted errors. The court said that, once a defendant has been proved to have copied such errors from the database, the evidential burden falls on the defendant to explain from the source of the data. In this case, the available sources of the data were limited.

The Court of Appeal also held that even where the data that had been taken from the database was limited to goals and time of goals, that subset was still a "substantial part" of the database for the purposes of infringement. This is because the investment that went into obtaining that data (goals and times of goals) was still substantial.

Simon Levine, partner at DLA Piper (acting for the claimants), commented, "This result will be welcomed by all database owners. As the Court said, if this database were not found to be protected, the European sui generis database right would have a very narrow ambit and this cannot be what the authors of the Database Directive intended."

David Folker, General Manager of Football DataCo, said, "It is very positive to see a UK court protecting businesses that incur significant investment in obtaining and making available data on a large scale. We will take some time to consider this judgment fully and will discuss its implications with the various market sectors that historically use football content."

[stac]

so if i enter a previous unentered bout ....from from paid datasources ..i can claim the cost of fightsrec if it appears in fightsrec....doubtful....but its a bit dreadful what they do oh well