Copying and re-selling chess DVDs

[Alex Holowczak]

The scoresheets, and hence the moves written on them, are the property of the event.

This is claimed by FIDE.

It certainly allows an arbiter to check on number of moves played, draws by repetition, etc and insist that a player's scoresheet can be used to update the opponent's.

The score sheets are not owned by the arbiter ! The arbiter and event organiser are different people; FIDE wider rules recognise this by referring to the chief organiser or CO. Although the arbiter in local UK Weekend events etc may be on the organising committee, or be the only organiser, he then wears two hats and cannot use the rights of one in the capacity of the other.

It is desirable to keep the functions of the chief organiser and arbiter separate as in the event of an appeal against the arbiter decision a member of the organising committee should be on the appeal committee but the arbiter should not. It is important that the organisers are represented as they are the ones who may have to shell out in the event of any subsequent leagal action.

The arbiter is only entitled to see the scoreheet at all times according to :-

The scoresheet shall be visible to the arbiter throughout the game.

Well thats whats written in the rules; I know different arbiters like to assume different powers for themselves and bend the rules.

I don't see a problem with these rules at all.

8.1 - property of the organiser - you hand in the scoresheets at the end to the organisers for things like game input

8.2 - the scoresheet shall be visible to the arbiter - if not, then the player is at fault, and should let the arbiter see it

The arbiter is quite entitled to see the scoresheet (8.2), write the moves on a completely separate scoresheet and hand that to the opponent. Rather than cause an unnecessary fuss, it's simpler to just use the player's scoresheet.

[E Michael White]

I somehow knew you would reply in the way you do.

As prescribed by the rules there are only certain points in the game where a player can use his opponents score sheet, for example after a flag fall and the player has not been recording. The time honoured way is for the opponent to provide the player with his score sheet by passing it across the table but only while it is the nonrecorders move. If an arbiter acts in the way you describe to allow a player the indirect use of his opponents score sheet at other times, the arbiter is clearly giving some advantage to one player and not keeping to the rules and should be appropriately dealt with.

Confusing ownership of the score sheet with the arbiters role does not help. For example about 10-15 years ago I was playing when my opponent was not recording properly and there had not been a flag fall. The arbiter leaned over the board, as some arbiters do, grabbed my scoresheet even though it was my move and my clock was running. He gave it to my opponent who proceeded to update his scoresheet. I protested to the arbiter that it was my move and he should wait until I had moved, to which he replied he owned the scoresheet. I subsequently moved and was unable to record my move. My opponent then moved and continued using my scoresheet. The rules werent meant to work that way which would normally be very distracting.

The issue with increment modes is that according to the rules if the increment is less than 30 secs (ed.) the arbiter should keep the score. That may mean all games for the whole tournament ! If the arbiter then selects one game to record he may enable a claim under the 50 move rules to be made, whereas in another game an identical claim may be unsupported and fail; this could of course change the eventual tournament winner.

[Alex Holowczak]

As prescribed by the rules there are only certain points in the game where a player can use his opponents score sheet, for example after a flag fall and the player has not been recording. The time honoured way is for the opponent to provide the player with his score sheet by passing it accross the table but only while it is the nonrecorders move. If an arbiter acts in the way you describe to allow a player the indirect use of his opponents score sheet at other times, the arbiter is clearly giving some advantage to one player and not keeping to the rules and should be appropriately dealt with.

The arbiter isn't giving anyone an advantage really. If you don't write your moves down and the arbiter does for you, he'll then remind you to bring your scoresheet up to date, presenting his copy if required. This way actually costs the non-recorder time, because he still has to write the moves on his scoresheet, but now he even has to write up his own moves in his own time, rather than just the recorder's in his own time if he were recording normally.

The arbiter would probably get fed up of scribing his game after a while, and issue a time penalty, say a couple of minutes.

Confusing ownership of the score sheet with the arbiters role does not help. For example about 10-15 years ago I was playing when my opponent was not recording porperly and there had not been a flag fall. The arbiter leaned over the board, as some arbiters do, grabbed my scoresheet even though it was my move and my clock was running. He gave it to my opponent who proceeded to update his scoresheet. I protested to the arbiter that it was my move and he should wait until I had moved, to which he replied he owned the scoresheet. I subsequently moved and was unable to record my move. My opponent then moved and continued using my scoresheet. The rules werent meant to work that way.

The arbiter was clearly wrong in this case. He should have waited until your opponent's move to do that. I don't see how ownership of the scoresheet comes into this though. I don't see how, at a practical level, waiting for you to complete your move and record it, then asking the non-recorder to bring his scoresheet up to date (using the recorder's scoresheet if necessary) would have caused a problem.

You also have to be careful of saying that the arbiter did this, that and the other. At local events, it's entirely probable that there's only one qualified arbiter present, and the others are keen helpers!

The issue with increment modes is that according to the rules if the increment is less than 30 mins the arbiter should keep the score. That may mean all games for the whole tournament !

That's not true. If the increment is less than 30 seconds, then the player may stop recording when he gets down to less than 5 minutes, regardless of whether adding the increment subsequently sends him back up to 5 minutes or above. If there is a subsequent block of time to be added - unlikely if the increment is less than 30 seconds - then you must resume scoring, including bringing it up to date, when that time period has been added.

[Geoff Chandler]

Had a PM asking me to clear up this matter on a previous post.

"Here someone have made a pure copy....."

'Here' in this instance refers to my hypothetical case where I am
copying and selling DVD's and not meant to be taken as an allegation
aganist anyone actually on here doing it.

Sorry if it read wrong and got misunderstood.

[Nick Murphy]

[Once again, I'm not defending such behaviour at all. I'm merely trying to get people out of the habit of saying copying/downloading = theft.

Interestingly, the Citizen's Advice Bureau which serves the general public rather than lawyers, does refer to it as theft - http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/sea ... Search.y=0

Not strictly true:
from http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/i_t ... terial.pdf

It's very easy to make copies of materials on the internet. But remember that images, text and audio or video clips belong to someone. There are rules about copying other people's material. These are called copyright laws. If you copy other people's material from the internet without permission, you're breaking the law. This is called copyright theft. You could be taken to court, fined and sent to prison for breaking copyright laws.

And indeed FACT (the people who put the warnings on DVDs) itself stands for the "Federation Against Copyright Theft"
So they use the term "Copyright Theft", which of course doesn't make it the the same as "theft". Would it be disingenuous to suggest that this phrase may have been introduced by such organisations as the big record companies etc - as it makes the innocuous sounding "Copyright Infringement" (commited by everyone who ever copied a CD from a friend) sound much worse if you refer to it as "Copyright Theft"? It might make people think copying was the same as theft...

I think many people would regard these practices precisely as 'theft' in the wider, common understanding of the word, even if there is a legal difference between the definition of copyright infringement and theft.

What is the "wider, common understanding of the word"? I'm only aware of one.

And how can one ascertain whether those receiving unauthorised copies of someone's copyrighted material would have otherwise bought it

Exactly my point.

and how is this relevant in any case?

I was preempting anyone who might suggest that - because the copyright holder would have been paid by someone buying from them legally, then by copying and selling something illegally they were somehow depriving the copyright holder of that money - which some people may interpret as a form of theft.

[Peter Lalic]

Nick, you're right. It's just that some people feel so wronged by what's going on, they take it personally. Thus they genuinely feel as though they're been "robbed", and "theft" seems the most appropriate term from the way they look at it. This is understandable.
I strongly opine that the makers of such material should realize this - because it would probably relieve their suffering - the large majority of downloaders would NOT buy the real thing. The only reason they go to lengths to get the free version, is because it is there. People who are in a financially comfortable position to purchase legally the product, and really want it, just go to a shop and do it.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

As prescribed by the rules there are only certain points in the game where a player can use his opponents score sheet, for example after a flag fall and the player has not been recording. The time honoured way is for the opponent to provide the player with his score sheet by passing it accross the table but only while it is the nonrecorders move. If an arbiter acts in the way you describe to allow a player the indirect use of his opponents score sheet at other times, the arbiter is clearly giving some advantage to one player and not keeping to the rules and should be appropriately dealt with.

Since arbiters and scoresheets are being discussed in this thread, can I check what the right approach is when someone with more than five minutes on their clock fails to keep score (the other player has less than five minutes left and has stopped recording his moves)? Is the correct approach to wait for the opponent to notice and make a complaint to the arbiter (but for the arbiter to not say anything otherwise - but if this is the case, can the arbiter start writing down the moves or not?), and then for the arbiter to instruct the player to compete the scoresheet before moving again (unless of course their time runs down to below 5 minutes)? Does the player have to finish completing his scoresheet (when told to do so) before he stops recording when he gets to five minutes left, and at what point do you award time to the other player?

[E Michael White]

............. (but for the arbiter to not say anything otherwise) ............

In LP an arbiter should always point out if he is aware a rule is not being observed by a player. This has been stated by Geurt Gijssen on Chess Cafe many times.

Some related points to your query are discussed in the 4th question in this link:- http://www.chesscafe.com/text/geurt144.pdf

An important point as stated there is : -

As you can see, there is a requirement of updating scoresheets after a flag fall, and only in this case may a player use the opponent's scoresheet.

Many arbiters either dont know this or choose to ignore it.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

............. (but for the arbiter to not say anything otherwise) ............

In LP an arbiter should always point out if he observes a rule is not being observed by a player. This has been stated by Geurt Gijssen on Chess Cafe many times.

Some related points to your query are discussed in the 4th question in this link:-

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/geurt144.pdf

An important point as stated there is : -

As you can see, there is a requirement of updating scoresheets after a flag fall,
and only in this case may a player use the opponent's scoresheet.

Many arbiters either dont know this or choose to ignore it.

Thanks for the link. I read the question but that one is mostly about updating of scoresheets after the flag fall (what was being discussed in this thread). My question is a different one, namely how does updating of scoresheets work before a flag fall? Maybe a bit more detail will make it clearer.

Player A has less than 5 minutes on his clock and has stopped recording moves. Player B has more than 5 minutes left on his clock, and should be recording his moves, but Player A notices that Player B has stopped recording his moves (though quite how Player A could prove this is another matter as Player B could claim that his scoresheet is complete). Anyway, the arbiter was present and observed that moves appeared to have been played with neither player recording the moves. He steps in and asks Player B (whose move it is) to complete his scoresheet before making further moves. Is this correct, and what happens if Player B is unable to do this (and is honest enough not to just scribble any old thing down)?

Meanwhile, back on the clock, Player B realises he now also has less than 5 minutes left and invoking the rule that he no longer has to write down his moves, starts moving again. The game carries on, and the arbiter does his best to record the moves in the subsequent time scramble. However, pandemonium ensues when neither player can agree on what the missing moves were (the ones that neither player recorded, and which the arbiter hadn't recorded as he thought Player B would be recording the moves as player B had more than 5 minutes at that point) or indeed how many of those missing moves there were. Throw in a disputed flag fall as well to make it more interesting.

I think the above has actually happened. But what should be done to avoid such situations? Player B seems most at fault, but what should the penalty be and what happens when moves for a game are missing and players cannot agree what was played?

[Alex McFarlane]

I assume that this situation is at a time control before the guillotine session. The arbiter should have stepped in as soon as he noticed Player B was not recording and ordered him to do so. It is possible that the arbiter could give player A some extra time. This is more of a possibility if Player B cannot reconstruct his moves. When both players are in the last 5 minutes with neither recording the arbiter should record if possible(but there may be other games with a greater need for an arbiter). After a flag fall the arbiter and players should try to reconstruct the game. If this cannot be done the game continues with the next move being assumed to be the first of the next time control eg if 40 moves in 2hrs , 20 in 1 then all in 30mins, unless it can be shown that more than 40 moves were played the next move counts as 41.
I think that answers your question. If not PM me.

Not sure what this has to do with fake DVDs though!!

[andrew martin]

Amazing number of people talking bull**it to try to justify crooked behaviour. Who do they think they are fooling?

[Rob Thompson]

Amazing number of people talking bull**it to try to justify crooked behaviour. Who do they think they are fooling?

Citation needed

[Gavin Strachan]

You know when you have a dodgy DVD when Andrew Martin's voice has been dubbed over by some guy speaking Cantonese.

[Warren Kingston]

You know when you have a dodgy DVD when Andrew Martin's voice has been dubbed over by some guy speaking Cantonese.

End up ordering a Chop Suey and chips

[Jon D'Souza-Eva]

Funnily enough the only time I've ever copied a DVD was because of this. My daughter was on an episode of the teletubbies, but the free DVD we were given by the program makers was for the Chinese region and so wouldn't play on our DVD player. I found a piece of software online which allowed me to make a region-free copy of the DVD.