Statsology has a nice roundup of the issues involving licensing statistics from MLBAM. Like Bud Selig on the issue of steroids, there seems to be a conflict in MLB's position now and in the past:

Baldas quotes MLB Advance Media's Jim Gallagher, senior VP of corporate communications: "Player statistics are in the public domain. We've never disputed that," Gallagher said. "But if you're going to use statistics in a game for profit, you need a license from us to do that. We own those statistics when they're used for commercial gain."

But IP lawyer Kent Goss is quoted as citing an interesting 2001 case in which MLB themselves claimed that player names and statistics were (as far as I can interpret) both in the public domain and free for others to profit from, and the California Court of Appeal upheld MLB's right to use the names and stats of historical players. "A group of former players sued MLB for printing their names and stats in game programs, claiming their rights to publicity were violated," Goss said. "But the court held that they were historical facts, part of baseball history, and MLB had a right to use them. Gionfriddo v. Major League Baseball, 94 Cal. App. 4th 400 (2001)."

It's my opinion that MLBAM should have kept the fees low and encouraged more fantasy games. Fantasy games are a growth industry; they create fans for major league baseball, and those fans spend money in the MLB.com store, attend MLB games and watch the advertising during broadcasts that keeps the teams running. They should be encouraging the growth of the industry with low license fees. If a court finds that the MLBAM has no right to license the stats, they'll end up with nothing.

Baseball Musings is holding a pledge drive during March. Click here for details.