| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondEssay" |
|---|
|
|
>
> | Copyright Protection but Without Punishing the Poor |
| | |
|
<
< | Chess as Esport: An Inevitable Decline |
>
> | The Current Copyright System |
| | |
|
<
< | Chess has long been described as a marriage between art and science – a pursuit that rewards calculation and logic, but one that also expresses the personalities of its practitioners. For centuries, chess has remained largely unchanged and its appeal has endured. Chess greatness, throughout cultures and eras, has almost invariably been connected with the idea of genius. More than this, the game has occupied a prominent place in shaping culture around the world, arguably reaching its pinnacle in 1972 when Bobby Fisher and Boris Spassky represented the USA and the Soviet Union, respectively, in the World Chess Championship. The champion would earn their respective superpower the reputation as the other’s intellectual superior. |
>
> | "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts..." [1] This is the purpose of the United States copyright system. Spanning for life plus 70 years after, creators are granted an exclusive monopoly to their works to further this purpose. Through a monopoly grant, the copyright system essentially makes a bargain; legally enforceable exclusion in exchange for allowing the public to consume one's creative work. This idea may seem counterintuitive, as discretionary exclusion is seemingly at odds with public access. To truly understand how this bargain works, we need to parse out what exactly is being excluded. |
| | |
|
<
< | In recent years, however, the marketing of chess to the world has undergone a dramatic transformation – from being presented as a timeless game associated with classicality and intellect into a modern esport. While this modernization has brought new energy and enthusiasm to the game and has expanded its player pool and audience, I argue that this sudden and fundamental change in the way chess is communicated and shared will have negative effects on its long-term survival in the mainstream, if it is not tempered at least in part. |
>
> | 17 U.S. Code § 106 states that the owner of a copyright has the exclusive rights to reproduce, prepare derivates, distribute, publicly perform, and publicly display their work. [2] Understood broadly, these rights amount to the exclusivity of certain kinds of uses, and these uses were likely targeted because of their monetary potential. Reproduction and distribution are fundamental to commerce. By being able to reproduce a work and then distribute it to others, a person can participate in the marketplace, selling the work many times over. Derivatives, although not quite the same as the original, use just enough of the original's likeness and character to profit from the original's profitability. The statute's inclusion of the word "publicly" in relation to performance and display could be attributed to Congress' understanding that publicly displaying or performing, a musical score for example, could reasonably lead to, if not already predicated on the condition of, the performers being paid. |
| | |
|
<
< | Chess’s transformation to esport has three main features that I think will be most negative for its longevity. These are faster time controls, instant analysis provided by chess engines, and the trend toward both professional and casual chess being played on monitors rather than across the board from an opponent. |
>
> | Although financial control is an important part of copyright exclusion, attribution is another key element. Creators may understandably feel entitled to having their name associated with their work. After all, creators dedicate time and energy into producing their creative works. The exclusive rights of § 106 are meant to safeguard this association between creators and their works by baring others from uses that are specially reserved for the owner of the copyright. Conversely, creators may not want their work to be associated with certain ideas or concepts. Thus, § 106 forces a person to get a license or the owner's permission, if they want to engage in these kinds of uses. |
| | |
|
<
< | Faster Time Controls |
>
> | Problems in the Current Copyright System |
| | |
|
<
< | For most of chess’s history, master-level games have been played at very slow time controls. There is also a rich history of recording chess games using chess notation. It is because of this combination of both deep thought and meticulous recording that each successive generation of chess players and fans have been able to stand on the shoulders of their predecessors. |
>
> | The current system is off balance, with the bargain between exclusion and public access disproportionately favoring those who benefit from the former. If we accept that the exclusion rights of § 106 are meant to reserve a creative work's financial profitability for the copyright owner, then we must acknowledge that it achieves this goal by putting a paywall behind any meaningful use. Low budget creators who find inspiration in the creative works of others and low-income individuals who just want to indulge in the beauty of another person's creative genius are hurt by this paywall. By tightly gatekeeping a work's profitability, the current system punishes those who do not have enough money to enjoy what is at the heart of a creative work's creativity. |
| | |
|
<
< | Fast forwarding to today, games are still recorded, but faster time controls have become the norm, on both the professional circuit and in casual chess. I believe the reason for this is the shorter attention span of audiences that have so much more competition for their attention than did generations past. But causation aside, chess will suffer both in substance and in its appreciation by fans in the long-term if this is not addressed. Shorter games produce fewer creative or novel ideas. All chess fans know the creative genius that is Mikhail Tal, the dynamic aggression that is Garry Kasparov, and the boa constrictor that is Anatoly Karpov, but far fewer fans now can associate even the most well-known players of today with any particular style. Could this be because the modern game has favored a more universal approach? It is possible, but I find it unlikely to be the main reason for this. |
>
> | Reimagining 17 U.S. Code § 106 |
| | |
|
<
< | Instant Analysis |
>
> | We need a new system that can protect the rights of creators without coming at the expense of people who cannot afford to spend money on a license for meaningful access to their creative works. A more equitable and balanced version of the copyright system would do away with § 106, and in its place provide that owners of a copyright have receive the following: (1) Right to Attribution, (2) Right to Integrity, and (3) Right to Commercial Compensation. |
| | |
|
<
< | One of the most profound changes in the chess world has been the rise of powerful chess engines. While undeniably useful for training and analysis, they have fundamentally altered how players and fans interact with the game. |
>
> | The Right to Attribution and the Right to Integrity |
| | |
|
<
< | In the pre-engine era, analyzing a game was often a multi-person and thought-intensive exercise. Friends or club members would gather to dissect a master game, discussing possible alternatives and variations. This process deepened people’s understanding and appreciation for the game’s intricacies. Today, engines instantly deliver the “best move,” bypassing the need for critical thinking or debate. This shift risks turning chess into an exercise of passive consumption rather than an active exploration of human ingenuity. |
>
> | In the current system, attribution rights are one category of rights within the broader set of Moral Rights. Attribution rights secure a creator's right to be identified as the author of the work. It also protects against misattribution. The Right of Integrity, the other category, provides a creator with the right to protect their reputation or protect against any mutilation of their work. These two categories of Moral Rights match up perfectly with what I envision for The Right to Attribution and the Right to Integrity, respectfully. However, Moral Rights apply exclusively to works of visual arts. [3] All other forms of creative works must fabricate the right to attribution and the right to integrity through the exclusion rights of § 106. These creators are left to hope that others will recognize that they are the rightful author of a work given that they have § 106 rights. By gutting the current provisions of this section and expanding Moral Rights to include all types of copyrightable subject matter, we can properly account for the attribution and integrity rights. [4] |
| | |
|
<
< | Less IRL Competition |
>
> | Right to Commercial Compensation |
| | |
|
<
< | The last major problem with the new approach to modern chess is that most games are played online rather than over-the-board. There are even many professional tournaments conducted with players competing in the same room, but each in front of their monitor. I believe this removes the essential element of human interaction from the game. |
>
> | As I stated before, financial control is an important part of copyright exclusions, as all the § 106 uses have great potential for profitability. Gutting these rights would allow people to profit from another person's creative efforts. Attribution is simply not enough to incentivize creators to share their works with the public. Many want to protect their financial compensation as well. |
| | |
|
<
< | This type of interaction with the game renders your opponents faceless and nameless, and takes away the feeling of sharing the game with your adversary. It also obviates the need for players to conduct a post-game analysis together, which has long been a great tradition of the game. While, of course, it wouldn’t make sense to recede from the era of online chess, which has provided people with the ability to play many more games than ever before. But at the very least, tournaments of any significance should be held in person and over-the-board. |
>
> | Unlike the Right to Attribution and the Right to Integrity, we can find little inspiration from the United States' copyright statute to help us define the Right to Commercial Compensation. Instead, we can look to Creative Commons, which offer a range of free licenses that grant the public permission to use a person's creative work. [5] Creative Commons offers a path for the low budget creator and down-on-his-luck Dan to access creative content for free. A revised § 106 would include these licenses as default options for creators to pick from, but still allowing parties to create their own licenses. My proposed Right to Commercial Compensation would act as a silent provision and entail the following: When at any point commercial use of a copyrighted work leads to great or moderate profitability, the creator receives at least 1% of the profits from that year forward and every year thereafter or until the use stops generating great or moderate profits. Great or moderate profitability will vary based on copyrights subject matter and with economic variances across regions and time. Only commercial entities that have not already worked out a properly compensating license deal with creators will be subject to the Right to Commercial Compensation. This new provision should ensure that creators are fairly compensated for their works by large commercial entities that the original § 106 should have focused on targeting, while the default licenses protect the creative interests of those with little money to spare. |
| | |
|
<
< | But There Are Benefits . . . |
| | |
|
<
< | The transformation of chess into an esport is not inherently negative. In fact, it has revitalized the game, introducing it to new audiences and ensuring its relevance in a fast-changing world. However, it is crucial to strike a balance between embracing modernity and preserving the essence of what makes chess special. |
>
> | Footnotes
[1] U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8, C8. |
| | |
|
<
< | The modernization of chess has undeniably broadened its appeal. Platforms like Twitch and YouTube? have turned chess into a spectator sport, attracting audiences who might never have otherwise engaged with the game. Moreover, this new approach aligns with modern consumption habits. Traditional chess broadcasting – long games with minimal commentary – would struggle to captivate a modern audience, whereas chess streams are lively, interactive, and often feature shorter, fast-paced formats like blitz and bullet chess. |
>
> | [2] 17 U.S. Code § 106 - Exclusive rights in copyrighted works |
| | |
|
<
< | Lastly, this shift has shattered traditional barriers. Today, fans can watch Carlsen or Nakamura play live, listen to their thought processes, and even interact with them in chat or through play. This unprecedented access has fostered a sense of community and connection that was unimaginable in previous eras. |
>
> | [3] 17 U.S.C. Section 106(a) |
| | |
|
<
< | Final Thoughts |
>
> | [4] Per 17 U.S. Code § 102, the types of works that can receive copyright protection include the following categories: literary works; musical works; dramatic works; pantomimes and choreographic works; pictorial, graphics, and sculptural works (PGS); motion pictures and other audiovisual works, sound recordings; and architectural works. |
| | |
|
<
< | The appreciation of deep, complex positions with enough time to examine them, less computer-led analysis, and more in-person competition must remain central to the chess experience. This can be achieved by favoring slower time controls for tournaments with prizes and rating points, turning off the engine during commentary and training, and mandating over-the-board chess in tournaments. |
| | \ No newline at end of file |
|
>
> | [5] Creative Commons is an international nonprofit organization that empowers people to grow and sustain the thriving commons of shared knowledge and culture we need to address the world's most pressing challenges and create a brighter future for all. https://creativecommons.org/ |