EPT[Update] KeSPA Speaks Out On Intellectual Property Rights…
| Forum Index > BW General |
|
aloT
England1042 Posts
| ||
|
nonduc
Russian Federation405 Posts
EDIT: typo | ||
|
aloT
England1042 Posts
On May 10 2010 09:00 nonduc wrote: Blizzard does not create the game content in SC — progamers create this one with the support of the observers and commentators. EDIT: typo What? Blizzard creates game content. They are called level design technicians. Its pretty much half the design process after coding and graphics engine... progamers, observers and commentators do not create anything, maybe some verbal feedback. | ||
|
dybydx
Canada1764 Posts
while i admit Blizz did an awesome job making SC, but credits still go to the Korean progamers as well as MBC, OGN for developing the pro SC scene. Everything from getting sponsors (so players can get PAID!!!) to map designs etc, all these work are independent of Blizz. i honestly doubt blizz has any claims of IP rights over these matters. | ||
|
nonduc
Russian Federation405 Posts
On May 10 2010 18:43 aloT wrote: What? Blizzard creates game content. They are called level design technicians. Its pretty much half the design process after coding and graphics engine... progamers, observers and commentators do not create anything, maybe some verbal feedback. The game content is a strategy and its execution on a specific map. Blizzard creates only the core functionality of the game, but players, observers, commentators and professional mapmakers create the game content. (Blizzard’s maps and the soles are not suitable order maps, which progamers play.) | ||
|
monkh
United Kingdom568 Posts
| ||
|
ymirheim
Sweden300 Posts
On May 10 2010 19:32 nonduc wrote: The game content is a strategy and its execution on a specific map. Blizzard creates only the core functionality of the game, but players, observers, commentators and professional mapmakers create the game content. (Blizzard’s maps and the soles are not suitable order maps, which progamers play.) You don't "own" the maps you make in a blizzard editor though, read the terms of usage of their editors. | ||
|
Zeridian
United States198 Posts
Although if this were a real sport NFL, MLB, NBA, has to have given consent for people to broadcast their sports. At the same time NFL, MLB, NBA, aren't the only form of a sport able to be spectated/played. In other words, comparisons of a computer game =! comparisons to real life sports, because the rules aren't even that concrete in either one. Not to mention intellectual property rights. | ||
|
HwaSaL
United States3 Posts
| ||
|
D3lta
United States93 Posts
No...it just means that the SPONSORS currently agree to back KeSPA. I don't see whats so hard to understand about this. Again, KeSPA disbanding doesn't = Corporations disbanding. They will be there if KeSPA fails, they will bail if another organization becomes more successful than KeSPA, because KeSPA is in fact, a separate entity from the sponsors of pro game teams. Currently, KeSPA represents the best investment for the various big sponsors. A fact KeSPA exploits by forcing corporation such as this. There is no benefit currently to break from KeSPA...which is why some people hail Blizzards involvement as fortunate, given that it might break up KeSPA's hold on televised competitive SC, and allow a organization to control this that won't try to monopolize the whole thing (I.e. forcing teams to not partake in non-KeSPA televised events ect.). | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5552 Posts
Second of all, afaik KeSPA did not ban anyone (save for anyone with a progaming from playing in SC2 tournaments, but I assume you're talking about GOMTV). | ||
|
aorsmith
2 Posts
blizzard makes enough money and the publicity esports brings them can only help. trying to wrap their fingers around the players trying to squeeze as much money out of everything just pisses everyone off. i guess the only thing kespa did that was unreasonable was maybe the whole GOMtv thing. regardless, both sides want money but blizzard is just being unreasonable while kespa is just trying to host its events without complications or blizzs hand's in their pockets. | ||
|
KingPants
United States54 Posts
| ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5552 Posts
On May 11 2010 03:03 KingPants wrote: I can not get past the inability of people to see the difference between a tool for art creation and a video game. I'm not watching Zeratul rip some cerebrates apart. I'm watching Bisu rape sAviOr. You need to understand that StarCraft is a medium here. If it were any other game that played exactly the same (i.e. the same gameplay but totally different lore) I'd still watch it. | ||
|
KingPants
United States54 Posts
On May 11 2010 03:22 maybenexttime wrote: I'm not watching Zeratul rip some cerebrates apart. I'm watching Bisu rape sAviOr. You need to understand that StarCraft is a medium here. If it were any other game that played exactly the same (i.e. the same gameplay but totally different lore) I'd still watch it. That is absurd in every way. You are pretending that Blizzard did not make the gameplay. You are pretending that lore is what differentiates games. And I am absolutely certain that Starcraft would not have a pro scene if it had poor graphics. etc. It is a game. Why can't you admit that you enjoy watching two people play a game? If your enjoyment has nothing to do with Starcraft then why are you watching two Starcraft players play Starcraft? | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5552 Posts
| ||
|
Entitygm
United States14 Posts
What Blizzard is doing is more akin to what a lot of software makers do. They are selling a product (more like leasing in this context but that's another issue) which is capable of creating content (the tournaments/records thereof). The pro-gaming leagues create this content, using a Blizzard product, and in return they pay a royalty for the use of the product. The important thing to realize is that Blizzard is not entitled to the profits derived from that work, any more than Adobe is entitled to a share of a graphic artist's profits on a picture he created with Photoshop. I work with AutoCAD frequently, and design a number of things with it. In return, I pay them a reasonable fee for the use of the software. I do not pay them a percentage of what I earn on the work derived through it, and they certainly don't have any right to audit my books and see how much I earned. Same thing with Windows - I use it as an OS while developing things, and I pay for use of the software, but it's none of their business what I create while using it. This is no different than the RIAA trying to claim you are just borrowing the music you buy on CD, and they decide how and where you can use it. Blizzard needs to negotiate their royalty and stay out of the rest of it, no matter what you think of KeSPA. They make and sell a product, what people do with that product isn't a matter for the creators | ||
|
KingPants
United States54 Posts
| ||
|
KingPants
United States54 Posts
On May 11 2010 04:24 Entitygm wrote: People are looking at this the wrong way with the sports analogies. Yes, it's an e-sport, but it's a relatively new thing. Sports don't have this problem because the people who invented them are long dead. What Blizzard is doing is more akin to what a lot of software makers do. They are selling a product (more like leasing in this context but that's another issue) which is capable of creating content (the tournaments/records thereof). The pro-gaming leagues create this content, using a Blizzard product, and in return they pay a royalty for the use of the product. The important thing to realize is that Blizzard is not entitled to the profits derived from that work, any more than Adobe is entitled to a share of a graphic artist's profits on a picture he created with Photoshop. I work with AutoCAD frequently, and design a number of things with it. In return, I pay them a reasonable fee for the use of the software. I do not pay them a percentage of what I earn on the work derived through it, and they certainly don't have any right to audit my books and see how much I earned. Same thing with Windows - I use it as an OS while developing things, and I pay for use of the software, but it's none of their business what I create while using it. This is no different than the RIAA trying to claim you are just borrowing the music you buy on CD, and they decide how and where you can use it. Blizzard needs to negotiate their royalty and stay out of the rest of it, no matter what you think of KeSPA. They make and sell a product, what people do with that product isn't a matter for the creators It rests on you to prove that playing a video game is the same thing as making art because nobody has ever made that claim and had that claim be respected. What you are doing and what many people in this thread are doing is acting like that opinion is a well accepted fact. Your entire argument is built on that opinion being true but you provide no evidence of it being true. Do you see the problem with your argument? | ||
|
Severedevil
United States4838 Posts
.avi is totally sweet. I love to get my friends together in a room with couches and decode an .avi together. On May 11 2010 03:03 KingPants wrote: I can not get past the inability of people to see the difference between a tool for art creation and a video game. Art is not a meaningful term in this context. A painting program doesn't claim your output regardless of whether you produce art or suck. Brood War is used as a tool for professionals to create a product centered around an audio/visual, which is then used to sell advertising space. Kespa should pay a royalty for showing Blizzard's stuff in their for-profit TV broadcasts, and they agreed to do so. | ||
| ||
