Your second point, as specifically phrased, is probably factually false.
SCotUS ruled in Feist Publications Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co. [0] that, "Many compilations consist of nothing but raw data — i.e. wholly factual information not accompanied by any original expression. On what basis may one claim a copyright upon such work? Common sense tells us that 100 uncopyrightable facts do not magically change their status when gathered together in one place. … The key to resolving the tension lies in understanding why facts are not copyrightable: The sine qua non of copyright is originality."
This is the source of what I've heard called the "phone book doctrine" of copyright (though I'm not finding any hits on that phrase in a cursory search, so it may not be a widely used phrasing).
Publications "which contain nothing more than factual scores / play statistics" per se contain no originality, and are consequently not copyrightable.
SCotUS ruled in Feist Publications Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co. [0] that, "Many compilations consist of nothing but raw data — i.e. wholly factual information not accompanied by any original expression. On what basis may one claim a copyright upon such work? Common sense tells us that 100 uncopyrightable facts do not magically change their status when gathered together in one place. … The key to resolving the tension lies in understanding why facts are not copyrightable: The sine qua non of copyright is originality."
This is the source of what I've heard called the "phone book doctrine" of copyright (though I'm not finding any hits on that phrase in a cursory search, so it may not be a widely used phrasing).
Publications "which contain nothing more than factual scores / play statistics" per se contain no originality, and are consequently not copyrightable.
(IANAL)
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._R....