|
On May 05 2010 06:03 MaYuu wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2010 05:57 Yurebis wrote:On May 05 2010 05:50 MaYuu wrote:
Lets say I start selling, lets say, a new form of football. I have copyright of the football and and I sell it all over the world. The football is the shit in every country for about 4 years but then it start to fade away (sort of like pokémon cards) So I stop supporting and investing money in it. The only exception is one country where this football is THE BOMB. It's on live TV millions of people are watching people play with this ball and this is their bread and butter. They live eat breath this ball.
Now, ten years later and when I've sold million of copies of the football, I'm releasing Football 2.0 and demand that I have rights over every player in every team. I also want a fee for every dime earned by the TV companies that are airing the teams competing and I also want that people now start paying me if they want to host a tournament or competition using football 2.0.
Sounds fair right? I'm not a proponent of IP rights but, if you are, then it should be fair to you. Did you not say you created it? If they don't want to follow your rules, then they can go play something else. (Or just ignore you and maybe get incarcerated by their local government ofc) You're at most only denying them their right to play something that wouldn't have existed if not for you, so you're not stealing from them (on an IP perspective) Thats also known as pure greed. There probably wouldn't even be a football 2.0 if it wasn't for that country. And I wouldn't had made that much money of the ball if it weren't for them. But hey, lets milk some more money even tho it could mean ruining a part of that country's culture.
Did you or did you not create football 2.0? Because if you did, and you believe in IP rights, it wouldnt' be stealing even if you came back a century later from the afterlife and took it away from everyone. You made it. You decide how it's used. Is that fair? On IP rights principles, of course.
Again, not a supporter of IP rights, but that's how it goes.
Basically
Are people entitled to your creations because you let them have it for some time?
Can intelectual creations be considered property?
If you answer no to the first, and yes to the second, then yes, it's 100% right for you to take it away from them.
|
United States1719 Posts
On May 05 2010 06:07 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2010 06:03 MaYuu wrote:On May 05 2010 05:57 Yurebis wrote:On May 05 2010 05:50 MaYuu wrote:
Lets say I start selling, lets say, a new form of football. I have copyright of the football and and I sell it all over the world. The football is the shit in every country for about 4 years but then it start to fade away (sort of like pokémon cards) So I stop supporting and investing money in it. The only exception is one country where this football is THE BOMB. It's on live TV millions of people are watching people play with this ball and this is their bread and butter. They live eat breath this ball.
Now, ten years later and when I've sold million of copies of the football, I'm releasing Football 2.0 and demand that I have rights over every player in every team. I also want a fee for every dime earned by the TV companies that are airing the teams competing and I also want that people now start paying me if they want to host a tournament or competition using football 2.0.
Sounds fair right? I'm not a proponent of IP rights but, if you are, then it should be fair to you. Did you not say you created it? If they don't want to follow your rules, then they can go play something else. (Or just ignore you and maybe get incarcerated by their local government ofc) You're at most only denying them their right to play something that wouldn't have existed if not for you, so you're not stealing from them (on an IP perspective) Thats also known as pure greed. There probably wouldn't even be a football 2.0 if it wasn't for that country. And I wouldn't had made that much money of the ball if it weren't for them. But hey, lets milk some more money even tho it could mean ruining a part of that country's culture. Did you or did you not create football 2.0? Because if you did, and you believe in IP rights, it wouldnt' be stealing even if you came back a century later from the afterlife and took it away from everyone. You made it. You decide how it's used. Is that fair? On IP rights principles, of course. Again, not a supporter of IP rights, but that's how it goes. Basically Are people entitled to your creations because you let them have it for some time? Can intelectual creations be considered property? If you answer no to the first, and yes to the second, then yes, it's 100% right for you to take it away from them.
as stated in the OP, don't talk like you are an international IP lawyer. US laws do not apply universally, and this issue is about whether or not blizzard has a claim on secondary content generated in a foreign country where IP laws differ
|
On May 05 2010 06:06 Milkis wrote:Show nested quote +Alright, but, government-run too?
Like, run it my way, or don't run at all?
I still don't quite know if KeSPA is governmentally backed or not... I just assumed it was because of how shitty the quality of it's services are LOL It's not government run. MLB and NBA practices similar practices regarding "run it my way or don't run at all".
Then those people saying KeSPA had shut down GOM were exaggerating?
Ok then.
I withdraw all my complaints on KeSPA having a legal monopoly. And I apologize for labeling it as such.
And I still side with blizzard because KeSPA is far more spendable.
"No Blizzard" certainly constitutes no starcraft
Yet "no KeSPA" does not constitute no esports. KeSPA did not create esports. Period.
|
I don't know anything about intellectual property laws but my guess it that it is a lot less black and white than your football analogy. Especially since this controversy is happening across national borders. Even if Blizzard wanted KeSPA to stop televising Broodwar games, could do actually do aynthing about it? So far from the AO rating it seems like the Korean government has sided with KeSPA.
Edit: It blows my mind that people actually think Blizzard could be good for e-sports, despite them killing LAN and wanting to make all pro replays public. KeSPA, at the very least, has not killed pro broodwar, whereas I could easily see Blizzard completely destroying the SC2 e-sports scene.
|
On May 05 2010 06:11 iamho wrote:
I don't know anything about intellectual property laws but my guess it that it is a lot less black and white than your football analogy. Especially since this controversy is happening across national borders. Even if Blizzard wanted KeSPA to stop televising Broodwar games, could do actually do aynthing about it? So far from the AO rating it seems like the Korean government has sided with KeSPA.
Edit: It blows my mind that people actually think Blizzard could be good for e-sports, despite them killing LAN and wanting to make all pro replays public. KeSPA, at the very least, has not killed pro broodwar, whereas I could easily see Blizzard completely destroying the SC2 e-sports scene.
They'd be destroying that which they created, wouldn't they?
Players and fans would be left with the same thing they had before.
So no destruction has been committed...
|
On May 05 2010 06:00 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2010 05:48 Milkis wrote:you see, I've read a lot of those assertions, but what exactly has KeSPA done, besides licensing (restricting unregistered players from playing) and regulating (restricting certain actions by the part of players and maybe organizers, idk)
if it was nothing but restrictions, how can one open a market by restricting it? Opening a door by putting a lock on it? I thought a market was opened by demand, which is the profit opportunity... but other people seem to think otherwise, and unless I'm misrepresenting what KeSPA does, I'd really like it if someone taught me something here. If there's demand for a more indepth explanation, I'll give one in the future. But you should think of KeSPA like the NBA or the MLB or something like that. There's a lot of transaction costs into making a successful, organized league, and that's why such organizations are needed. Alright, but, government-run too? Like, run it my way, or don't run at all? I still don't quite know if KeSPA is governmentally backed or not... I just assumed it was because of how shitty the quality of it's services are LOL Show nested quote +On May 05 2010 05:57 zerglingsfolife wrote:On May 05 2010 05:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 05 2010 05:45 DreaM)XeRO wrote:On May 05 2010 05:34 urashimakt wrote:On May 05 2010 05:31 Vasoline73 wrote:
Anyone who believes Blizzard is actually interested in maintaining a real esports scene is crazy.
Kespa may suck but at least they have experience running the only truely successful esport Is it crazy to assume Blizzard will try to make money? As long as there's money in eSports, I'd be pretty persuaded to believe such a powerful company would keep it going strong. And don't go using misinformation like SC:BW being the only "truly successful eSport", etc. What makes Halo and WC3 unsuccessful, exactly? considering how small the professional esports scene is i think they should keep said profits to themselves to keep themselves afloat. Blizzard already makes money on wow and the upcoming SC2 and D3 why they want MORE is just greed Don't be naive. It's not about greed, it's about how works a company. A company is own by shareholders who invest and want money back for their investment. The shareholders don't give a fuck about what the company does, they just decide who runs the company and the only responsability the managers have is the responsability towards them to make as much money as possible in the shortest amount of time (actually that's called capitalism). There is no reason wy Blizzard should work differently than General Motors, Total or Mc Donald. Even if you think their products are awesome. This is correct. Every for profit company's most important goal is improving shareholder wealth. Blizzard is no different and how can you increase profits if not by increasing the efficiency or quality at which you provide your products and services to consumers?
Shitty services? I wonder what you're gonna call events outside Korea then. T_______T
|
On May 05 2010 05:45 DreaM)XeRO wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2010 05:34 urashimakt wrote:On May 05 2010 05:31 Vasoline73 wrote:
Anyone who believes Blizzard is actually interested in maintaining a real esports scene is crazy.
Kespa may suck but at least they have experience running the only truely successful esport Is it crazy to assume Blizzard will try to make money? As long as there's money in eSports, I'd be pretty persuaded to believe such a powerful company would keep it going strong. And don't go using misinformation like SC:BW being the only "truly successful eSport", etc. What makes Halo and WC3 unsuccessful, exactly? considering how small the professional esports scene is i think they should keep said profits to themselves to keep themselves afloat. Blizzard already makes money on wow and the upcoming SC2 and D3 why they want MORE is just business
Went ahead and fixed that for you.
|
On May 05 2010 06:16 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2010 06:11 iamho wrote:
I don't know anything about intellectual property laws but my guess it that it is a lot less black and white than your football analogy. Especially since this controversy is happening across national borders. Even if Blizzard wanted KeSPA to stop televising Broodwar games, could do actually do aynthing about it? So far from the AO rating it seems like the Korean government has sided with KeSPA.
Edit: It blows my mind that people actually think Blizzard could be good for e-sports, despite them killing LAN and wanting to make all pro replays public. KeSPA, at the very least, has not killed pro broodwar, whereas I could easily see Blizzard completely destroying the SC2 e-sports scene. They'd be destroying that which they created, wouldn't they? Players and fans would be left with the same thing they had before. So no destruction has been committed...
As I said, IP rights are not as black and white as you're portraying them. If I give birth to a baby that does not give me the right to kill it.
+ Show Spoiler +Yes I know that was a shitty analogy, that was the point
|
On May 05 2010 05:50 MaYuu wrote:
Lets say I start selling, lets say, a new form of football. I have copyright of the football and and I sell it all over the world. The football is the shit in every country for about 4 years but then it start to fade away (sort of like pokémon cards) So I stop supporting and investing money in it. The only exception is one country where this football is THE BOMB. It's on live TV millions of people are watching people play with this ball and this is their bread and butter. They live eat breath this ball.
Now, ten years later and when I've sold million of copies of the football and not giving a fuck what happens really since I got these other "footballs" selling like crazy, I'm releasing Football 2.0 and demand that I have rights over every player in every team. I also want a fee for every dime earned by the TV companies that are airing the teams competing and I also want that people now start paying me if they want to host a tournament or competition using football 2.0.
Sounds fair right?
Starcraft is intellectual property. You might be able to get a unique patent on a physical football like that, and unless you sold your rights to others, they wouldn't be allowed to manufacture your football in the first place. People would have to have been paying you all along. Sounds fair that they never did though, right?
|
On May 05 2010 05:53 Yurebis wrote:
If Blizzard wants to be an ass and deny everyone the right to broadcast starcraft 2 unless they pay them 100 million dollars, they can do that, but no one is gonna broadcast and starcraft 2 will die, and they will lose profit.
Correction: Blizzard can kill off all broadcasters and install their own international broadcaster, or do it themselves or their parent company. I doubt SC2 will die because of that.
|
On May 05 2010 06:03 MaYuu wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2010 05:57 Yurebis wrote:On May 05 2010 05:50 MaYuu wrote:
Lets say I start selling, lets say, a new form of football. I have copyright of the football and and I sell it all over the world. The football is the shit in every country for about 4 years but then it start to fade away (sort of like pokémon cards) So I stop supporting and investing money in it. The only exception is one country where this football is THE BOMB. It's on live TV millions of people are watching people play with this ball and this is their bread and butter. They live eat breath this ball.
Now, ten years later and when I've sold million of copies of the football, I'm releasing Football 2.0 and demand that I have rights over every player in every team. I also want a fee for every dime earned by the TV companies that are airing the teams competing and I also want that people now start paying me if they want to host a tournament or competition using football 2.0.
Sounds fair right? I'm not a proponent of IP rights but, if you are, then it should be fair to you. Did you not say you created it? If they don't want to follow your rules, then they can go play something else. (Or just ignore you and maybe get incarcerated by their local government ofc) You're at most only denying them their right to play something that wouldn't have existed if not for you, so you're not stealing from them (on an IP perspective) Thats also known as pure greed. There probably wouldn't even be a football 2.0 if it wasn't for that country. And I wouldn't had made that much money of the ball if it weren't for them. But hey, lets milk some more money even tho it could mean ruining a part of that country's culture.
What is the point of your anology?
I think that basically KeSPA is outdated, and perhaps un-needed. Starcaft has never "faded away" to the level that I believe that your analogy states- the fact that TeamLiquid.net is the largest Starcraft site in the world, not just outside of Korea supports this. I'm sure that KeSPA facilitated the growth of E-sports in it's early days by providing managment to an untested concept, but Blizzards doesn't really owe them shit. Now that Esports is big, and as a company there is no reason that they shouldn't cut out the middle man all together and find a new way of managing Esports.
The difference between Capatalism and Socialism is very evident in your post, plain and simple KeSPA hasn't evolved in a way to make it a legitimate part Esports in today's (tomorrow's) maket. This is Capatilism, so some other company that can adjust to changing markets will evolve- and they will be in a position to make a ton of change. This isn't Socialism, where an archaic company will be kept to "preserve culture" just because. This isn't some happy fairieland where everyone jaunts out in the field to play nicely and protect eachother against the big bad enemy. Blizzard isn't being greedy persay, they are just doing what every other successful company has ever done- make a profit.
In my opinion people that think this will kill Esports are being pretty blind. Some other company will fill the void left by KeSPA, one that will do a better job. All the players, map makers, casters, obs, ect. will be managed by a different body and Blizzard. Blizzard has every right to stick it to KeSPA, and really there isn't any reason why they shouldn't.
|
On May 05 2010 06:03 MaYuu wrote:
Thats also known as pure greed. There probably wouldn't even be a football 2.0 if it wasn't for that country. And I wouldn't had made that much money of the ball if it weren't for them. But hey, lets milk some more money even tho it could mean ruining a part of that country's culture.
There is no such thing as pure greed in business, just good business!
|
I'm not trying to prove whats right and wrong by law. I just think that what Blizzard is doing is really really shit for us die hard starcraft fans. Why you might ask and the simple reason is cause Blizzard is a game creator, not company who runs tournaments and has pro-houses.
NBA didn't create basketball did they?
|
On May 05 2010 06:41 MaYuu wrote:
I'm not trying to prove whats right and wrong by law. I just think that what Blizzard is doing is really really shit for us die hard starcraft fans. Why you might ask and the simple reason is cause Blizzard is a game creator, not company who runs tournaments and has pro-houses.
NBA didn't create basketball did they?
No, a Canadian did 
It's hard to believe that the progammers will just start to run across the country lawlessly raping and pillaging if KeSPA loses Blizzard games. KeSPA will run a Starcraft rip-off and someone else who knows what they are doing, and are willing to play by Blizzard's rules will come along and inhabit that corner of the market. There is still a whole lot of money out there for any company that is willing to do so. I'm assuming that if Korea is moderetly successful (as it should be), then Blizzard will look at setting up similar operations in other countries.
|
you guys need to stop with the fucking sports analogies, there is no IP rights to sports because they PREDATE IP laws. For fucks sake, using bad analogies is one thing, but using them repeatedly in the wrong context is totally just stupid.
|
I never followed the Korean pro scene so I don't really care about how good or bad KESPA is.
However, wouldn't SC, being software, work the same way Microsoft requires companies to pay a yearly license to use their products?
I also don't understand why everyone thinks KESPA must survive for Esports/SC2 to remain viable. Who's to say a new governing board won't do an even better job than KESPA with Blizzard's full support?
|
Why are the teams owned by KesPA? And why can't Blizzard host tournaments?
I don't know about the NBA or the NFL for that matter, but how does that work when another organization wants to host sports leagues or tournaments?
Would the teams be penalized for playing in other tournaments hosted by another organization?
It's hard to make analogies for this kind of situation because 1, we're in a different country, 2, we're talking about computer games.
Blizzard has the property right of the game and KeSPA has the property right of the teams.
I do believe that the creator should get some benefits thought. I mean, people are making money off their own game, and its become a country-wide corporation. When it gets this big, the creator should get recognized rather than being blocked from the scene.
And to everyone that thinks Blizzard is just a small company, siezing every opportunity to make lots of money...
Well, you're right about Blizzard being a gaming company, but really. They've been working on Starcraft 2 for how long? D3? This company makes good games. And they're not afraid to spend 10 years if it means making a good game. I don't know why people started thinking that Blizzard is just a company that goes by textbook logic. This sets Blizzard away from most others.
I can see why KeSPA responded compulsively and everyone believing them, but really, if we check out what has happened so far, its Blizzard being blocked from the pro-gaming scene and KeSPA seizing full control in eSports.
Either KeSPA change their attitude toward property rights or teams should go back to being individually owned.
If KeSPA shares their property rights, then it would be the best for e-Sports. With their little plan to block other organization from the scene makes competitive starcraft a little skeptical. We all saw how gomTV was taken down, who knows how true these competitions are if they're able to control the players like that. For all we know, these matches could be set up to produce entertainment rather than competition. For KeSPA to share the teams, this would all be resolved.
|
On May 05 2010 06:56 Adila wrote:
I never followed the Korean pro scene so I don't really care about how good or bad KESPA is.
However, wouldn't SC, being software, work the same way Microsoft requires companies to pay a yearly license to use their products?
I also don't understand why everyone thinks KESPA must survive for Esports/SC2 to remain viable. Who's to say a new governing board won't do an even better job than KESPA with Blizzard's full support?
I'm just gonna repost this and let you read it.
"Blizzard already has enough money, and it's never, NEVER a good idea to allow anyone invested in the game or a team to handle organizing or broadcasting a sport. If we allow Blizzard to organize they won't pick the most entertaining players, they'll pick the ones they can convince to push their product, and the broadcasts will be swamped with commercials for their games. You NEED a neutral third party to handle organizing and broadcasting the tournaments, and kespa fits. This is why the MLB or NFL don't have their own channels, we get coverage from a third party like ESPN instead who put entertainment (i.e. ratings) before commercialism.
If it were still the 90s I would totally trust Blizz with doing whatever they want, they could do no wrong. But after Burning Crusade... I'm skeptical SC2 won't gut all my favorite characters for not appealing to every last one of the potential 10 gazillion "consumers" and screw over the balancing because the noobs didn't want to bother with the early game and just want to play fastest and send BCs and Carriers at each other. "
|
On May 05 2010 07:12 jpak wrote:Show nested quote +[spoiler]On May 05 2010 06:56 Adila wrote:
I never followed the Korean pro scene so I don't really care about how good or bad KESPA is.
However, wouldn't SC, being software, work the same way Microsoft requires companies to pay a yearly license to use their products?
I also don't understand why everyone thinks KESPA must survive for Esports/SC2 to remain viable. Who's to say a new governing board won't do an even better job than KESPA with Blizzard's full support?
I'm just gonna repost this and let you read it. "Blizzard already has enough money, and it's never, NEVER a good idea to allow anyone invested in the game or a team to handle organizing or broadcasting a sport. If we allow Blizzard to organize they won't pick the most entertaining players, they'll pick the ones they can convince to push their product, and the broadcasts will be swamped with commercials for their games. You NEED a neutral third party to handle organizing and broadcasting the tournaments, and kespa fits. This is why the MLB or NFL don't have their own channels, we get coverage from a third party like ESPN instead who put entertainment (i.e. ratings) before commercialism. If it were still the 90s I would totally trust Blizz with doing whatever they want, they could do no wrong. But after Burning Crusade... I'm skeptical SC2 won't gut all my favorite characters for not appealing to every last one of the potential 10 gazillion "consumers" and screw over the balancing because the noobs didn't want to bother with the early game and just want to play fastest and send BCs and Carriers at each other. "
ESPN, ABC, etc. still pays royalties to the NBA, MLB, NFL, etc. to broadcast the sport. I know the NBA and NFL have their own channels on cable. Not sure about MLB.
Also, the broadcasters also cherry-pick games that they believe will boost their ratings. They also boost stars who may not be the best, but are flashy. I also see tons of commercials during breaks in the game advertising MLB, NFL, NBA, etc. related products/issues. Therefore, I believe that your comparison is extremely weak about needing a third party when reality shows that it's not that much different.
|
Well as far as I know the Korean government backs Kespa and there is no f**king chance that a game company can "win" against a government. No government will want a foreign company to control every aspect of its national sport, so Blizz should know its position and be reasonable : just ask for money and don't ask for control, or else nothing good will come from this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
