Check his posts to see what I mean...
We bought John Bartholomew!
Sort:
Feb 6, 2018
0
#43
Nino_98 wrote:
Martin_Stahl wrote:
If a company wants to pay someone to do a particular job for them in an exclusive format, then there isn't anything wrong with that. Apparently the compensation being provided was not a deal-breaker or the contract would not have been signed. edit: assuming that is part of the terms, since "for now" may not actually be as restrictive as it sounds.
It's reasonable to pay chess personalities for streaming on your site, however, it isn't reasonable to force them to boycott another website, or in this case effectively pretend like it doesn't exist. We're not talking about John's prosperity but about some sites, that very well deserve exposure and are deliberately being held in the dark by chesscom. It's sabotaging competition. How is that fair?
How many titled players are out there streaming? Chess.com (or any other site) paying some players for exclusive streaming, isn't going to hurt other sites. If a company enters a contract with a content creator for exclusivity, it doesn't prevent other companies from getting content.
Other sites are free to work with anyone they want to host exclusive content as well. That is the heart of competition. Now, if the site went out and hired every high profile player that streamed on another site, then that would be something to get worked up over.
This process is even true outside the content world. If you work in almost any space that has Intellectual Property, employees are very often required to sign non-compete agreements to not work for a competitor while employed at the contracted employer.
The fairness comes from the fact that the content creator can decide not take the deal or negotiate one that allows more freedom.
Nino_98 wrote:
Martin_Stahl wrote:
h4_explosive wrote:
david wrote:
According to the quoted material, sure.
sorry, that's just wrong. John clearly says he is allowed to stream on other sites "as of now", which he obviously wouldn't mention if he was indeed allowed to stream on other sites after "as of now", would he?
also, it's even forbidden to just mention the name of this other chess site in this forum, so it's quite ridiculous to believe that chess.com would allow John to play on this site
There probably isn't a requirement not to play on other sites but just not to stream from them, starting at some point. If that is part of the contract I'm sure that both parties negotiated the details and if John agreed to it, then he apparently found it worthwhile.
The fact that he isn't allowed to stream from other sites is the whole point...
Virtually every organization in the world that contracts individuals for competitive play or for the creation of content will have a non-compete clause in their contracts. That's what they pay for - exclusivity.
dannyhume wrote:
What about Chessable?
No worries at all about Chessable 
We are not a playing/streaming site and we are focused entirely on the learning and improving aspect of chess, so no conflicts there. John posted about it himself here:
https://www.chessable.com/discussion/thread/14093/
Martin_Stahl wrote:
Nino_98 wrote:
Martin_Stahl wrote:
If a company wants to pay someone to do a particular job for them in an exclusive format, then there isn't anything wrong with that. Apparently the compensation being provided was not a deal-breaker or the contract would not have been signed. edit: assuming that is part of the terms, since "for now" may not actually be as restrictive as it sounds.
It's reasonable to pay chess personalities for streaming on your site, however, it isn't reasonable to force them to boycott another website, or in this case effectively pretend like it doesn't exist. We're not talking about John's prosperity but about some sites, that very well deserve exposure and are deliberately being held in the dark by chesscom. It's sabotaging competition. How is that fair?
How many titled players are out there streaming? Chess.com (or any other site) paying some players for exclusive streaming, isn't going to hurt other sites. If a company enters a contract with a content creator for exclusivity, it doesn't prevent other companies from getting content.
Other sites are free to work with anyone they want to host exclusive content as well. That is the heart of competition. Now, if the site went out and hired every high profile player that streamed on another site, then that would be something to get worked up over.
This process is even true outside the content world. If you work in almost any space that has Intellectual Property, employees are very often required to sign non-compete agreements to not work for a competitor while employed at the contracted employer.
The fairness comes from the fact that the content creator can decide not take the deal or negotiate one that allows more freedom.
It's legal, doesn't make it fair though. Elsewhere.org obviously can't charge people to play on their site wheb their ideology is to be a completely community supported website. How do you expect them to compete against getting obscured by chess.com? Again, you can pay personalities to give INCENTIVE to play on your site, but just forbidding the other sites is indecent.
The point is, a large part of chess.com buying personalities probably has a lot to do with people discovering other websites via these personalities. Obscuring competition isn't really in the spirit of the free market system and by no means fair. Chess.com just doesn't want to compete with elswhere.org because they'd have to constantly spend money on improving the quality of their site and can only give premium members the perks of articles and instructional videos by titled players etc.(which is a format they will have to go to when elsewhere.org starts getting more members than chess.com anyways) which means less profit. They'd rather charge members for "premium features" that these members don't know can be easily done better and for free on elsewhere.org
Feb 7, 2018
0
#48
People will migrate to whatever has more value for them. Value is determined subjectively and there are probably very few people that are delusional enough not to figure out the differences in available offerings.
The fact is, it's both fair and legal. Any player that wants to reject an offer due to exclisivity restraints is able to do so. Nothing unfair about a business, player or customer exercising their right to chose.
Feb 9, 2018
0
#49
When I say "the quoted material", I'm referring to the quotes attributed to Bartholomew in the initial post, which I assume to be true.
"As of now" can be interpreted a number of ways - a valid one is that the contract with Chess.com says he has to gradually switch over from everything to Chess.com from other sites. Another interpretation is that as of the point in time when he made the comment, he himself was going to start switching over to Chess.com.
Bartholomew himself thinks it's a great opportunity for himself, and I still think the fact that he is going to be paid more for his content means he is going to produce better content. Or even just the same quality of content, just more frequently.
JB seems a really nice, genuine guy. Chess.Com are lucky to have recruited him.
meh let chess dot com have him, the best streamers are amateurs who do it for the luv.
robbie_1969 wrote:
meh let chess dot com have him, the best streamers are amateurs who do it for the luv.
Who would do it for pay in a heartbeat if someone were willing to pay them for it.
'Who would do it for pay in a heartbeat if someone were willing to pay them for it.'
Yeah just like Booby streamers. Hilarious.
You seem terribly naive for someone who's nearly 50 (assuming 1969 is your birth year).
Yes its true, only yesterday I traded our cow for some magic beans. Seemed like an excellent deal at the time.
And now you resort to banal trolling. Good day.
you asked for it, cya!
The guy is a notorious troll, so be careful about everything he writes. Even if he gives the source and even in the rare cases he is telling the truth, the guy is a troll, so we should always start from the premise he is lying. Or do you believe him when he says he saw Magnus Carlsen stealing? Often he begins his posts with a true story to begin telling his lies...