Proper citation of Arbitron data

[Seven_Costanza]

Just curious...

... if there is a legal precedence.

I somewhat understand Arbitron wanting to keep the numbers close to the vest, but at some point don't the numbers stop becoming "intellectual property" (which would obviously be protected) and fall under the umbrella of "news" and/or "historical fact"? In my mind it happens the millisecond after they've been printed by a "licenced" vendor.

In the same light, couldn't a companies' stock price untimately be protected by the NYSE or NASDAQ? Or baseball scores being copyrighted by MLB? (Wow, the Pirates beat Colorado X to X in XX innings!) I'm not sure if I can think of another instance where information that is readily available (12+ anyhow) and ultimately meaningless can't be openly discussed elsewhere.

I'm not looking to start some kind of cyber revolt here since I have all the data that I need at my fingertips and have no plans on breaking bad. But, I am curious as to the legaleese of the situation - not so much Radio-Info's adherence thereof - and I'm just wondering if you could shed some light on it.

 

[davideduardo]

Re: Just curious...

> ... if there is a legal precedence.
>
> I somewhat understand Arbitron wanting to keep the numbers
> close to the vest, but at some point don't the numbers stop
> becoming "intellectual property" (which would obviously be
> protected) and fall under the umbrella of "news" and/or
> "historical fact"? In my mind it happens the millisecond
> after they've been printed by a "licenced" vendor.

There are no licensed vendors. Users, who are agencies or stations, have specific rights in usage for the preparation of ad presentations and for agency calculations. Each has a contract which prohibits giving data to the press or general public, and also prohibits giving data to non/subscribing stations.

When a book is published, it is not in the public domain. Arbitron data is not news, it is a data service under the law, and protected by copyright. However, the copyright holder must vigorously protect the data, meaning keeping it from being published or circulated except in the approved manners.
>
> In the same light, couldn't a companies' stock price
> untimately be protected by the NYSE or NASDAQ? Or baseball
> scores being copyrighted by MLB? (Wow, the Pirates beat
> Colorado X to X in XX innings!)

Ball scores are news. Baseball is a public performance, accessable by all. Ratings are a proprietary service, done and distributed under contract only. They are not intended for the the general public.

> I'm not looking to start some kind of cyber revolt here
> since I have all the data that I need at my fingertips and
> have no plans on breaking bad. But, I am curious as to the
> legaleese of the situation - not so much Radio-Info's
> adherence thereof - and I'm just wondering if you could shed
> some light on it.
>

Fundamentally, it is Arbitron guaranteeing that what is really important is protected. To do that, copyright law requires a history of consistent protection, not disregard.

 

[Seven_Costanza]

Re: Just curious...

> There are no licensed vendors. Users, who are agencies or
> stations, have specific rights in usage for the preparation
> of ad presentations and for agency calculations.

Then where do All Access, R&R and various and sundry reporters and columunist fall? Don't they pay some sort of licencing fee in order to have access to and publish said numbers? I thought that was what I was told.

> Each has a contract which prohibits giving data to the press or general
> public, and also prohibits giving data to non/subscribing
> stations.

No arguement there...

> Arbitron data is not news, it is a data service under the
> law, and protected by copyright. However, the copyright
> holder must vigorously protect the data, meaning keeping it
> from being published or circulated except in the approved
> manners.
> >

But once the 12+ numbers are published in those approved manners (ie. R&R, All Access, Feder of Chicago, etc.) don't they become "news" and hence public domain? By allowing that, isn't Arbitron in essence relequishing their claim to that particular data set?


> Ball scores are news. Baseball is a public performance,
> accessable by all.

Correction, baseball is a paid public performance. I'm pretty sure that's why they issue press credentials. I don't think they would allow me to pod-cast the score of the game while I'm sitting in the bleachers without "express written consent". But once the score is put out there by one of their broadcast partners, you can quote them to your heart's desire. Also, I know I can't legally "sell" a picture of A-Rod that I take inside a ballpark (unless I hold a photo pass).

Ratings are a proprietary service, done
> and distributed under contract only.
They are not intended
> for the the general public.

Again, I'm talking the 12+ here, not dayparts or Maximizer. It would be foolish of them to allow me to come on here shortly after the book is released and say "our afternoon drive guy scored a X.X with males 18-34, easily beating your show that only got a x.x"! It would even be foolish of them to allow me to quote 12+ numbers before they're published by R&R. But, it seems to me that once they are "out", they should be ours to discuss.


> Fundamentally, it is Arbitron guaranteeing that what is
> really important is protected. To do that, copyright law
> requires a history of consistent protection, not disregard.

My best guess is that they don't want to spend the time policing... making sure that the data being discussed on Radio-Info (or any another forum) is indeed 12+ data and that it's been time stamped to be after release to the media. So to make life easier for themselves, they say no to everything.


>

 

[davideduardo]

Re: Just curious...

> > There are no licensed vendors. Users, who are agencies or
> > stations, have specific rights in usage for the
> preparation
> > of ad presentations and for agency calculations.
>
> Then where do All Access, R&R and various and sundry
> reporters and columunist fall? Don't they pay some sort of
> licencing fee in order to have access to and publish said
> numbers? I thought that was what I was told.

A news medium may request permission to publish data. This is always 12+ which is what Arbitron consideres newsworthy. Other data may be cited, but without data... such as who is leading in mornings, but only rank, not share.
>
> > Each has a contract which prohibits giving data to the
> press or general
> > public, and also prohibits giving data to non/subscribing
> > stations.
>
> No arguement there...
>
> > Arbitron data is not news, it is a data service under the
> > law, and protected by copyright. However, the copyright
> > holder must vigorously protect the data, meaning keeping
> it
> > from being published or circulated except in the approved
> > manners.
> > >
>
> But once the 12+ numbers are published in those approved
> manners (ie. R&R, All Access, Feder of Chicago, etc.) don't
> they become "news" and hence public domain? By allowing
> that, isn't Arbitron in essence relequishing their claim to
> that particular data set?

Again, Arbitron is establishing a cut off for what is newsworth and what is not public data. By this means, they show that most of the data is not public.

> > Ball scores are news. Baseball is a public performance,
> > accessable by all.
>
> Correction, baseball is a paid public performance. I'm
> pretty sure that's why they issue press credentials. I
> don't think they would allow me to pod-cast the score of the
> game while I'm sitting in the bleachers without "express
> written consent".

But the scores are public domain, as they are newworth. In the 50's, many stations recreated ball games from the press reports as each inning finished, and this is public domain. Baseball is intended to be a public event, even if attendees pay a ticket or statins pay royalties. Ratings are not intended to be public.

> But once the score is put out there by
> one of their broadcast partners, you can quote them to your
> heart's desire. Also, I know I can't legally "sell" a
> picture of A-Rod that I take inside a ballpark (unless I
> hold a photo pass).
>
> Ratings are a proprietary service, done
> > and distributed under contract only.
> They are not intended
> > for the the general public.
>
> Again, I'm talking the 12+ here, not dayparts or Maximizer.
> It would be foolish of them to allow me to come on here
> shortly after the book is released and say "our afternoon
> drive guy scored a X.X with males 18-34, easily beating your
> show that only got a x.x"! It would even be foolish of them
> to allow me to quote 12+ numbers before they're published by
> R&R. But, it seems to me that once they are "out", they
> should be ours to discuss.

The press can list a ranker, but without shares. As in, "Bob and Bill scored a #3 showing in 25-54, up from 5th."
>
>
> > Fundamentally, it is Arbitron guaranteeing that what is
> > really important is protected. To do that, copyright law
> > requires a history of consistent protection, not
> disregard.
>
> My best guess is that they don't want to spend the time
> policing... making sure that the data being discussed on
> Radio-Info (or any another forum) is indeed 12+ data and
> that it's been time stamped to be after release to the
> media. So to make life easier for themselves, they say no
> to everything.
>
>
> >
>

 

[Seven_Costanza]

Re: Just curious...

snip
> A news medium may request permission to publish data. This
> is always 12+ which is what Arbitron consideres newsworthy.
snip

If that's the case, why can't we quote 12+ numbers on R-I? That's really my question.

> But the scores are public domain, as they are newworth. In
> the 50's, many stations recreated ball games from the press
> reports as each inning finished, and this is public domain.
> Baseball is intended to be a public event, even if attendees
> pay a ticket or statins pay royalties.

I don't think that's the case. Try to publish a stat book of batting averages without some kind of permission from MLB. Even if you kept track of the information yourself by paying to go see every game they would want a cut. MLB considers itself to be the "owner" of all the "material" they "produce". Hence the now-famous disclaimer "Without the express written consent...".

But that's not really the point. I'm wondering why we can't openly quote 12+ numbers - that even you say Arbitron considers newsworthy - while we could readily quote another stat (ie. a score, a stock price or the weekend box office) that is also considered "newsworthy".

It would almost be as if the MPAA wouldn't allow you to mention a movie's rating (PG, PG-13, R, M) on a film discussion board because they assigned it, even though it is readily found in advertisments and reviews.

 

[davideduardo]

Re: Just curious...

> But that's not really the point. I'm wondering why we can't
> openly quote 12+ numbers - that even you say Arbitron
> considers newsworthy - while we could readily quote another
> stat (ie. a score, a stock price or the weekend box office)
> that is also considered "newsworthy".

Arbitron will only allow some data to be published in news publications,whether electronic or on paper. Radio Info is not considered by Arbitron to be a news site, but a message board. Since it is their data, they can make the rules.