|
Edit: Probably not a lot of people care about my blog, but just in case more people wander in... There's more going on here than just the one thing that made me come here and write this post. I was particularly intrigued by the post about copyright law on page 2. Please try to follow the rest of the evolving discussion before you reply! Original angry rant below:
I am furious right now.
Before I tell you why I'm furious, I want to be clear about the fact that I'm not going to come down on a side of the major Korean E-sports dispute. Starcraft 1 VS Starcraft 2 has been debated to death, as has Blizzard vs Kespa, Gretech vs Proleague. Instead, I'm going to try to stick to my concrete realization, without being subjective. (edit: lol)
Watching the GSL, however, has caused me to have an epiphany, not just about E-Sports, which is the topic at hand, but about I.P. law in general.
Rather unsurprisingly to most of us who are older, the dispute about I.P. broadcasting rights for StarCraft in Korea boiled down to money. Gretech said to Kespa: "We own the exclusive rights to broadcast StarCraft; so, if you'd like to license those rights from us, you need to pay us some money." (I'm going to ignore the other demands, such as "don't compete with our event time-slot" for now.)
Where's the hypocrisy, you ask? It's immediate, prominent, and it's spread all throughout the GSL broadcasts. I literally had just begun watching a VOD when I had to stop within moments because I was so angry, and I came here to write this post instead.
Can you guess what it is that got that reaction out of me?
It's the music.
That's right, the music. Surely the gears in your head are turning by now, but I'll help them along: I guarantee that GOMTV doesn't have the right to broadcast that music on television. This has been happening for years, by the way. It happened in "the Classic" as Tasteless calls it. Every Starcraft broadcast I've ever tuned in to by GOMTV has used music by Western rock bands and even some obscure industrial bands (I recognize Bill Leeb's Front Line Assembly during the flashy GSL1 intro graphics). There is no doubt in my mind that royalties are not exchanging hands for any of this material. I can only assume they choose music from the English-speaking world because it's so unlikely that someone's going to call them up threatening to sue.
Oh, don't get me wrong: OnGameNet and MBCgame have been doing this for years, too. But at least they were consistent. They weren't paying royalties for StarCraft and they weren't paying royalties for the music either. OnGameNet may be guilty here, as they are a company, but MBCgame is a government-related entity, and in my opinion they should get a pass for being not-for-profit. Gretech, GOMTV, and by extension, Blizzard, are hypocrites for demanding that royalties be paid for the StarCraft I.P. while ignoring all the commercial I.P. they're using for free.
I'm personally opposed to I.P. law (and silly presumptuousness) in its current form. Think about how ridiculous it really is: when morning talk shows go on the air, do the producers have to credit the people who made the suits and skirts everybody's wearing? Do they have to pay tribute to the manufacturer of the desk, or the pen the news anchor is twirling in his hand? Of course not... THEY bought the clothes, the clothes are theirs. Now that they own the clothes, it's up to them whether they want to take video of people wearing them or not.
However, they often DO give credit where credit's due. They'll say "so-and-so's wardrobe by ____". Maybe they get a discount if they do that, I don't know. But I'll bet the clothing maker is pretty happy that their name got blasted over the airwaves.
StarCraft was and should be no different. Blizzard should be ecstatic that Korea loved their game, that these e-sports television companies promoted their product and directly had an enormously positive influence on sales of Blizzard's product. They should be happy for the free advertising.
But the world chugs on. It was time to sell the sequel. So after Blizzard got its money's worth from the existing Korean e-sports scene, they suddenly changed their tune and cared very deeply that their creation was being used "illegally."
Well I'm calling them out. Don't tell me all about how we should respect your I.P. while you blatantly ignore the I.P. rights of others. If I were running the world... OGN and MBC bought umpteen copies of StarCraft, they should be allowed to show their copies on television, while crediting you and promoting your brand.
This isn't even getting into the fact that the specific game being played is an invention of the players playing it. That game being shown has never been played before in the history of the world, and that's really the thing that's being shown on TV. Blizzard only made the platform for the activity-- and then they sold it, or a copy of it, to the broadcasters. It should be up to the broadcasters whether they want to twirl it around in front of a camera. If Blizzard wants to "own" and control this thing they made, they shouldn't sell it.
Oh, but I'm sure there's a loophole here somewhere. There's an infuriating trend that's taken hold in corporate culture not the least of which in gaming: unfair EULAs. I don't know if this is Activision, Vivendi, or just Blizzard's influence, but in WoW, they tell you that you don't own your account. No no. THEY own the account that you bought. You're just licensing its use from them. That way, they have an out: THEY own it, so they can pull the plug on you if they feel like it. I'm sure SC2 accounts are the same way. Anyone here care to read the EULA?
Blizzard would probably say they've never ever sold a copy of StarCraft II. They're just letting everybody borrow its use for a modest fee. Pricks.
Let me know when you decide to pay for all the music GOMTV has been using for last 3 or 4 years.
Sorry for getting all subjective there at the end. But I hope you can all agree that this is blatantly hypocritical.
 
|
16952 Posts
How can you guarantee that they don't have the rights to broadcast the music?
|
I heard Stabbing Westward, and the cd of Stratovarius I have in my car right now. It's like spotify but better, to me.
|
I can't guarantee it, Empyrean. But how much doubt is there, really? Are you really that skeptical?
A lot of the acts are very small and unheard of. Some of the industrial artists I've communicated with personally. They often have real jobs to support themselves while they make their music on the side. Those are the people who need royalties the most for the work that they've done. And I've never seen any of them mention "My music got used for a StarCraft tournament, and they sent me a check!" on their websites.
|
They paid for right to play those songs.
|
thinking about this, i think they have the rights. also: during one of the classic seasons they had a song by an austrian band playing 
|
Oh really? Then why aren't they ever listed in the broadcast credits? You know, like music in the rest of broadcast television.
|
I guarantee that GOMTV doesn't have the right to broadcast that music on television.
guarantee any sh.t without knowing the facts.
and you can't ASSUME when it is LAW.
"Gretech is a bad bad company hurting e-sports etc. So since they are bad I can guarantee they didn't fulfill any other duties regarding law" excuse me but this is a 12 years old viewpoint...
I am not saying that they HAVE the rights. But I know that I can't guarantee anything since I don't know the facts about their I.P. negotiations with the respective rock bands.
|
OGN for example is owned by On Media who own like 10 different cable TV channels in Korea, to suggest that they just skimp on licensing fees is highly presumptuous.
Another problem in addition to having no proof to back up your claims is you don't have any idea how broadcasting rights work in Korea. How do we know there is no fair use law protecting live events, or if there the rules on broadcasting licensed music on TV apply to internet TV, etc.
You could be right or wrong, but writing in bold "I guarantee they don't pay" when you can't actually make that guarantee really invalidates your blog
|
1) You're not guaranteeing anything. You're guessing.
2) Even if broadcasters don't have the rights, why would small bands complain? That's the advantage of playing music by unknown artists - the only way small bands are going to make money is exposure and all exposure is good if more people hear your music, so they're be HAPPY you play their stuff. Same goes for K-Pop in a slightly different way; although it could be popular in Korea, having it played to foreigners is good because that means more potential consumers.
But 2 is moot if you can't prove the big companies don't have a licence to play the music. 99.9% chance they do.
|
Calgary25966 Posts
I also like to assume things and then get upset about them.
|
I feel bad for you, writing that huge text and in the end it made no sense. You're just speculating. Where's that source that says GOM does not pay?
Innocent unless proven otherwise, or whatever they say.
|
Yeah... uh... next time you express indignation at presumed hypocrisy, make sure the offender is actually a hypocrite before gong off on a tangent. It's always fun to see nerd-rages, but at least give some sources next time.
|
So you made up some shit that might or might not be true and you got so pissed at what you made up that you had to post about it? WHY?
|
You all are understandably annoyed that I can't prove my "guarantee" (which isn't a guarantee at all; I chose that word when I was pissed off). But I consider this issue just common sense. There is evidence that the rights to all this material is not held. So, for all of you who are annoyed by this post: where is the evidence that they DO have the rights? Aren't you also just guessing, presuming, that they'll of course do "the right thing," just because they're broadcast companies?
On October 01 2010 01:29 sgtcodfish wrote:
2) Even if broadcasters don't have the rights, why would small bands complain? That's the advantage of playing music by unknown artists - the only way small bands are going to make money is exposure and all exposure is good if more people hear your music, so they're be HAPPY you play their stuff. Same goes for K-Pop in a slightly different way; although it could be popular in Korea, having it played to foreigners is good because that means more potential consumers.
But that's exactly my point. EXACTLY. You're utilizing the same logic as me. If you think that these artists should be happy about the exposure, then you also think that Blizzard should be happy about StarCraft's exposure.
|
United States7481 Posts
1/5, next time bring some proof.
|
Austin10831 Posts
what..
do you really think GOMtv is going to call up whatever industrial artist you found on myspace and say "Hey man, can we use some of your tracks for our tournament?" I have no doubt that GOM is using those tracks legally, probably through a service like ASCAP or BMI, which aggregates tracks through agreements with labels and publishers and then sells blanket or per-program licenses for broadcast.
Also, news anchors don't wear their own clothes rofl. They have wardrobe departments. The reason you see "wardrobe provided by hugo boss" or whatever isn't some nice courtesy, the designers provide the clothes explicitly for that purpose, so that viewers can see the fashion on TV personalities and then identify it later. It's essentially paid advertising.
Mod Edit: Muted anger for this post provided by Chill. Chill - When you just can't take it anymore.
|
United States22883 Posts
On October 01 2010 01:09 Delerium wrote:
I can't guarantee it, Empyrean. But how much doubt is there, really? Are you really that skeptical?
A lot of the acts are very small and unheard of. Some of the industrial artists I've communicated with personally. They often have real jobs to support themselves while they make their music on the side. Those are the people who need royalties the most for the work that they've done. And I've never seen any of them mention "My music got used for a StarCraft tournament, and they sent me a check!" on their websites.
You're calling him skeptical because he's questioning your logic that they must be unlicensed? And you're the one making that assumption without any relevant information? Are you really that skeptical?
|
United States22883 Posts
On October 01 2010 01:52 BroOd wrote:
what..
do you really think GOMtv is going to call up whatever industrial artist you found on myspace and say "Hey man, can we use some of your tracks for our tournament?" I have no doubt that GOM is using those tracks legally, probably through a service like ASCAP or BMI, which aggregates tracks through agreements with labels and publishers and then sells blanket or per-program licenses for broadcast.
Also, news anchors don't wear their own clothes rofl. They have wardrobe departments. The reason you see "wardrobe provided by hugo boss" or whatever isn't some nice courtesy, the designers provide the clothes explicitly for that purpose, so that viewers can see the fashion on TV personalities and then identify it later. It's essentially paid advertising.
Mod Edit: Muted anger for this post provided by Chill. Chill - When you just can't take it anymore.
Every day I look forward to seeing which powersuit Chanel has provided to Nancy Grace and how it will express her dedication, fearlessness and inquisition er... inquisitiveness on the case!
It's time for Swift Justice!
|
On October 01 2010 01:52 BroOd wrote:
do you really think GOMtv is going to call up whatever industrial artist you found on myspace and say "Hey man, can we use some of your tracks for our tournament?" I have no doubt that GOM is using those tracks legally, probably through a service like ASCAP or BMI, which aggregates tracks through agreements with labels and publishers and then sells blanket or per-program licenses for broadcast.
I've grown accustomed to seeing material like that credited, so this is the first that I've heard that published music is such a clipart-style commodity.
Yes, they're innocent until proven guilty. The hypocrisy charge I can drop, because I don't have anything to back it up. Let the power of logic win out over emotion.
I am still annoyed about the business model. To me, the professional sports model is based on advertising. That's why I wanted Blizzard to give up trying to control their products and let the fans and the e-sports industry run with them; they can't lose if they do that, it's infinitely better advertising than anything they can pay for. I originally had a line of thought about this, because most sports on television are paid for entirely by sponsors, but I abandoned the idea of mentioning it because there are some pay-per-view events, so there's precedent for the GSL model.
Yes, Jibba, I felt that skepticism... because I'm passionate about e-sports. Being passionate about e-sports isn't an excuse for behaving like an idiot, but it's why I got upset. About OSL, MSL, Proleague, and everything else.
|
http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/music-licensing3.htm
Educate yourself.
Bands almost never play a part in the licensing of their music other than possibly by what contract they choose to sign.
I'm sure you realize the RIAA sues at the drop of a hat (as shown by their actions against illegal downloads) so you realize that OGN and MBC game HAS to be licensing their shit. How the hell do you think they manage to get Paramore's music playing during breaks, an internationally known band's music, without causing an international incident? That shit is money.
Yeah, these bands might be damn well near unknown, which might be why GOM TV chose them. Their licensing fees are probably dirt cheap, and, if you understand how advances work for recording artists, they might never even see the money, it might just go to paying off their advance that the label gave them.
This is ridiculous. Your assumptions are unfounded, and you don't understand how music licensing works (government entity should get a pass? Uh, no, the United States Postal Service pays for the music in their commercials too.)
It's not "blantantly hypocritical." You're just making false assumptions on shaky grounds.
|
Yes. And you're posting before reading the whole thread!
I do that sometimes, too. But not when the thread is only one page long =o
I kind of want to steal that mod edit on brood's post for a sig. Seems like I need more Chill.
|
I started my post before I saw your post at the bottom of the first page (it hadn't been posted yet), but my points still stand in regards to your original post. I'm addressing the fact that your assumptions are entirely ludicrous as well as the fact they're wrong.
|
Well, they're not necessarily wrong... just probably wrong ;]
I've learned over the years that "knowing" is a difficult thing. It's hard to "know" something for certain. Most of what we think we know is just educated guesses. Usually, those are fine. But sometimes...
The premise of this thread is actually an interesting example of how the human mind can work. If you're upset about something, in this case the turmoil of korean e-sports, it can cloud your judgment. If you want something to latch onto with your emotion, you will do so unreasonably as soon as you identify a candidate.
I and many other people I know have always presumed that the music wasn't being paid for. Actually, it still may not be, even if there is a vehicle for it-- there's no way to know (but that neither supports nor excuses the accusation). Even so, I didn't question the presumption when I got myself worked up about it, which was a mistake.
|
Guess I'm the only one who liked your blog . I don't think there would be a pro scene as we know it (no market to invade for GOMTV) if it wasn't for KESPA. This is not really related to what you said about copyright though.
|
Korea (South)1897 Posts
Yo Delerium,
well everyone is hammering you on the hypocrisy thing, and I guess you got triggered by the assumption of the song thing;
but I just wanna say:
I bought 2 copies of SC2; one in Korean and one in Australia (so I could nearly have full worldwide coverage lol, Europe is no point in Korea) so anyway,
even though I've bought the game, actually, I have an 'unlimited' account.
I wonder if one day it will suddenly change to 'limited' keke,
but I get your main point about it if you see the game as a platform;
and I think for SCBW you're right,
but as the corporate wheels turn, by its nature, SC2 now is set-up so that isn't the case, it isn't an open platform now as SCBW .
Its hard to say either way; if its the professional sports model I agree with you, but if blizzard choses to treat the game as content then yeah, its their prerogative, but I get what you're saying and for me, its not something I can agree with blizzard or disagree with them, its just a commercial decision that may hand them some short term profits or fuck up their long term prospects and ultimate market potential in sales. They very well may be shooting themselves in the foot and then after 4 years when their sales are like zero, very well ease up on this... or else the momentum of SC2 will keep on raging and it will have been a great decision and SC3 will come out a bit sooner than expected for a cost of 150 USD per unlimited license (joke blizzard, it's expensive enough!)
|
rated 1/5, they pay licensing fees as OGN/MBC are parts of the larger TV networks that do so.
unless you show otherwise with direct proof that they don't pay for the rights to the music, your rant means nothing
|
Yes, Elroi... though misguided, this was a vehicle for me to express my displeasure at what's happening to KeSPA because of SC2. I know Korean fans tend to hate dogspa, but I love Proleague...
I get irritated whenever Dan and Nick say on the air that the GSL is better because it's not closed off, then in the same breath they say that the sc2 teams are looking for sponsors. I don't particularly want to return to the days when teams had to eat ramen because they had no money, but I promised I wouldn't get back into that debate in that thread, so I won't.
|
OGN and MBC do pay licensing fees. they play the same 3-4 songs for the players over and over in osl/msl Group Selection.
|
I'm against I.P Law because the only backing that it "supposedly" has is utilitarian, which I don't think is particularly strong. Essientitally, people rationalize that if the creator can't extort some payment from anyone who uses/copies/samples, then creators lose incentive to create. And so the logic for I.P law is that it is needed to "protect" (protectionsim comes to mind) the fragile profitibility of creative works. Of course, there are examples that prove this wrong. Clothing and Fashion for the most part have no laws on them (some countries do, but, not surprisingly, the countries WITHOUT I.P Law on Clothes/Fashion have the highest gross in total sales), and they still have many designers with innovation.
The way I think of it that is hard to dispute, is that the commodities of ideas/music/video games are non-scarce; meaning, you can literally infinitely reproduce them, so that everyone can experience it WITHOUT theft/ loss of property. We can't share a car, if you drive it, then I can't; but if you have a CD, I can copy that CD on mine, we both have that CD. There's that Thomas Jefferson quote about it, along the lings of "someone who lights the candle of ideas with the flame of mine has not taken from me, nor at the expense of me."
Fun Fact: When Xerox Copiers became available, there was a big uproar over how bad that would be for authors because anyone could just photocopy your work.
|
On October 01 2010 02:25 Delerium wrote:
The premise of this thread is actually an interesting example of how the retard mind can work.
User was warned for this post
|
Wow, I never thought about it from this angle...
|
oh ho, while I was away from my computer I pondered embellishing my post about the psychology of this blog entry, but I see someone has already fake-quoted and gotten warned for it! good thing I waited.
In all seriousness, I had made a remark to a starcraft-watching friend of mine about the music before, and he agreed that it was hypocritical. But really, the origin of that thought was a lot longer-standing than a recent conversation. As I said, many people besides myself presumed that that's what was going on, since e-sports is not a really profitable business- how could they afford to pay for all that music? Some of you may recall that the point of e-sports was to create cheap television programming. I had never seen discussion of it, so I wanted to post about it.
I had come to view the Blizzard-sponsored e-sports establishment as the enemy of Korean e-sports, so this detail acted as a symbol. It came to represent what was upsetting me: the possible disbanding of Proleague and the pro team houses, the death of the MSL and probably OSL. That became attached to the music I was hearing (which was presumed to be used inconsistently with the way Blizzard wanted StarCraft to be used). Then, when I heard it, it acted as a trigger. That whole process with the attachment of meaning was the part I found interesting.
Another interesting thing for all you armchair psychologists out there is that I had some self-awareness of this. I knew that I couldn't prove what I was saying in spite of how strongly I felt about it. So, there is an out. If you're vigilant about what's happening in your mind, you can stop yourself from putting your foot in your mouth!
|
Netherlands6142 Posts
One thing that you left out (I think) but is important in your op (and you told me this a lot) is that they pick music that noone's heard. Like small local bands that just put stuff on their myspace and probably wont watch GSL anyway. OSL and MSL did this too so I guess you're right in calling them out as illegal (and thus making them hypocrites) but you don't have a point without showing us proof. I reckon you're right but without having a black-on-white what's the point.
|
On October 01 2010 05:45 Delerium wrote:
oh ho, while I was away from my computer I pondered embellishing my post about the psychology of this blog entry, but I see someone has already fake-quoted and gotten warned for it! good thing I waited.
In all seriousness, I had made a remark to a starcraft-watching friend of mine about the music before, and he agreed that it was hypocritical. But really, the origin of that thought was a lot longer-standing than a recent conversation. As I said, many people besides myself presumed that that's what was going on, since e-sports is not a really profitable business- how could they afford to pay for all that music? Some of you may recall that the point of e-sports was to create cheap television programming. I had never seen discussion of it, so I wanted to post about it.
ya man totally SHOCKING that GSL and OGN can pay 4 the music. they pay millions for studio, broadcasters, prize money, camera crew, observers, makeup, artists, video producers, booths, computers, advertising, internet streams for millions of ppl, or to have their own TV channel. all of this is no problem, but like 10k for a few songs they play over and over, now that's just crazy yo, glad ur here 2 spot how weird that is. maybe u should call CNN right now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
