• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Ratings information per demographic?

I have said this before, but you obviously don't get it. In a claim for copyright infringement, the initial burden is on the plaintiff to establish that the work is subject to copyright. I am arguing that Nielsen ratings aren't, but I wouldn't have to prove that in court. Nielsen would have to prove that it's ratings are copyrightable. The burden is on you to prove the ratings are copyrightable. What Nielsen says isn't proof and bare claims that the ratings aren't 'in the public domain' are just begging the question.
I provided two instances in which attorneys argued before a judge that ratings aren't subject to copyright. There has been no citation by anyone of a legal decision in which the court found that ratings were copyrightable.
 
justgladtobehere said:
I have said this before, but you obviously don't get it. In a claim for copyright infringement, the initial burden is on the plaintiff to establish that the work is subject to copyright. I am arguing that Nielsen ratings aren't, but I wouldn't have to prove that in court. Nielsen would have to prove that it's ratings are copyrightable. The burden is on you to prove the ratings are copyrightable. What Nielsen says isn't proof and bare claims that the ratings aren't 'in the public domain' are just begging the question.
I provided two instances in which attorneys argued before a judge that ratings aren't subject to copyright. There has been no citation by anyone of a legal decision in which the court found that ratings were copyrightable.
Click to expand...


In the more recent cases of unauthorized use of copyright Nielsen data, the defendants have settled and paid once the evidence was presented in discovery. Generally, more of the evidence in these cases is related to proving that the non-subscriber was using the data. Once that was proven, and given that the data was copyrighted, the unlicensed users paid in settlement.

So, in essence, the argument was "no, we did not use your copyrighted material" and Nielsen proved they did.
 
justgladtobehere said:
I have said this before, but you obviously don't get it. In a claim for copyright infringement, the initial burden is on the plaintiff to establish that the work is subject to copyright. I am arguing that Nielsen ratings aren't, but I wouldn't have to prove that in court. Nielsen would have to prove that it's ratings are copyrightable. The burden is on you to prove the ratings are copyrightable. What Nielsen says isn't proof and bare claims that the ratings aren't 'in the public domain' are just begging the question.
I provided two instances in which attorneys argued before a judge that ratings aren't subject to copyright. There has been no citation by anyone of a legal decision in which the court found that ratings were copyrightable.
Click to expand...

well a court ruled that the area is copyrightable

For the reasons explained here, the court concludes that Nielsen does have a valid copyright, and that the DMA region boundaries are protectable elements.

https://casetext.com/case/nielsen-company-us-llc-v-truck-ads
 
Ugh. Again begging the question. "Given that the data was copyrighted." It's not given. That is my flipping point. Stop saying that ratings are copyrightable just because you or Nielsen say so.

There are legal theories other than copyright to sue stations for using unlicensed ratings. Those claims are why stations settle. There shouldn't be any protection outside of a business use.
 
the "data"or predictions as some would call them, are for an area (DMA), and a court HAS RULED that the DMA map is copyrighted material, so if you are going to use the material without payment by saying " we are number 1 with females 18 to 34 in this market based on Arbitron ratings, IMHO it is inferred that you are using the DMA map to define the market, and a Judge has ruled that is copyrighted material.
 
No. The maps are protected. You are reading too much into the ruling. The maps are a different creation. It's no proof ratings are copyrightable.
 
Last edited:
justgladtobehere said:
No. The maps are protected. You are reading too much into the ruling. The maps are a different creation. It's no proof ratings are copyrightable.
Click to expand...

But... this raises a good point: market maps, whether TV DMA or Radio MSA, are shown to be copyrightable in this decision. The maps are an integral part of radio audience estimates.
 
justgladtobehere said:
There are legal theories other than copyright to sue stations for using unlicensed ratings. Those claims are why stations settle. There shouldn't be any protection outside of a business use.
Click to expand...

Nielsen has sued over unlicensed use of copyrighted material in every case. The evidence is generally testimony by advertisers and / or sales presentations that involve a station's use of that material in violation of the usage of Nielsen's copyright reports.
 
The burden is on the party asserting copyright protection. Stating Nielsen says so or they are not in the public domain is not proof. Find me a case in which a court decided that ratings are protected.
 
justgladtobehere said:
The burden is on the party asserting copyright protection. Stating Nielsen says so or they are not in the public domain is not proof. Find me a case in which a court decided that ratings are protected.
Click to expand...

There are no cases because none went to trial. The reason is that Arbitron (and, recently, Nielsen) proved in discovery that their copyright was valid and that the defendant had made use of its copyright material. After seeing all this, the offending station operators decided to negotiate a settlement. That's how strong the copyrighted property rights are.
 
justgladtobehere said:
The burden is on the party asserting copyright protection. Stating Nielsen says so or they are not in the public domain is not proof. Find me a case in which a court decided that ratings are protected.
Click to expand...


OK folks, we have beat this topic to death.

Arbitron managed to be successful in defending its product, and Nielsen wouldn't have spent big bucks to buy a product they were not pretty confident could not be ripped off by every Tom Dick and Harry who got hold of the information by some back channel.

Lets just assume the legal department at Nielsen is a lot smarter than the rest of us since they are still in business.
 
DavidEduardo said:




There are no cases because none went to trial. The reason is that Arbitron (and, recently, Nielsen) proved in discovery that their copyright was valid and that the defendant had made use of its copyright material. After seeing all this, the offending station operators decided to negotiate a settlement. That's how strong the copyrighted property rights are.
Click to expand...

You don't prove anything in discovery. The only place you prove something is in court. Nothing that could come up in discovery would change the legal argument against copyright. These cases settle because there are other legal theories to prohibit stations from using the data.
 
justgladtobehere said:
You don't prove anything in discovery. The only place you prove something is in court. Nothing that could come up in discovery would change the legal argument against copyright. These cases settle because there are other legal theories to prohibit stations from using the data.
Click to expand...

The point is that the evidence of unlicensed usage of copyright reports was so strong that the defendants, in every case, have decided to accept settlement terms.

If the station operators, in any of the cases, thought that they could defeat the "you used it" proof by claiming the copyright was invalid or unenforceable, they would have gone to trial and saved a lot of money from the settlement costs.
 
DavidEduardo said:


The point is that the evidence of unlicensed usage of copyright reports was so strong that the defendants, in every case, have decided to accept settlement terms.

If the station operators, in any of the cases, thought that they could defeat the "you used it" proof by claiming the copyright was invalid or unenforceable, they would have gone to trial and saved a lot of money from the settlement costs.
Click to expand...

Again begging the question. Nothing in discovery would change the legal argument that ratings aren't protected. A station knows what it did. Discovery doesn’t change that
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.
Back
Top Bottom