|
On May 11 2010 04:25 KingPants wrote:
How many programs can play music? How many programs can allow players to play a game of Starcraft?
I guess Adobe should also demand royalties from artists using PhotoShop. ;;
Let's just agree to disagree, this isn't getting nowhere.
On May 11 2010 04:34 KingPants wrote:Show nested quote +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?
It's largely a matter of perception what you consider the content here. People are stating their opinions in hope more people realize that the pro matches/broadcast can be regarded as the actual content here, while the game as a 'mere' tool. How else can we try to establish a precedent other than being vocal about our views on the issue?
|
On May 11 2010 04:45 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2010 04:25 KingPants wrote:
How many programs can play music? How many programs can allow players to play a game of Starcraft? I guess Adobe should also demand royalties from artists using PhotoShop. ;; Let's just agree to disagree, this isn't getting nowhere.
The difference here is that Photoshop is designed to be a tool and Starcraft is designed to be a game. Just because you compare two things does not mean they are comparable.
Hey maybenexttime, I guess pizzas should demand royalties from people who eat them.
|
On May 11 2010 04:45 maybenexttime wrote:
It's largely a matter of perception what you consider the content here. People are stating their opinions in hope more people realize that the pro matches/broadcast can be regarded as the actual content here, while the game as a 'mere' tool. How else can we try to establish a precedent other than being vocal about our views on the issue?
Exactly - I may not agree with KeSPA's policies (a lot of them are outright silly ggg) but this case is going to set the precedent. Does Blizzard own the game of Starcraft, or do they by extension own everything created through it, and even the leagues dedicated to playing it. I don't see id or Valve making these ridiculous demands on e-sports organizers. Blizzard has the biggest cash cow in gaming history (WoW), I have trouble feeling much sympathy for them here.
As for providing facts to back my opinion, that's not something I can just pull out of thin air. This is new territory and the rules haven't been written yet. I am, however, a strong believer in the rights of the consumer, and I see this going the same way Apple has taken the apps store, where they own the content developed for the iPhone, because they own the platform, and I think that's a horribly stifling system
|
On May 11 2010 04:52 KingPants wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2010 04:45 maybenexttime wrote:On May 11 2010 04:25 KingPants wrote:
How many programs can play music? How many programs can allow players to play a game of Starcraft? I guess Adobe should also demand royalties from artists using PhotoShop. ;; Let's just agree to disagree, this isn't getting nowhere. The difference here is that Photoshop is designed to be a tool and Starcraft is designed to be a game. Just because you compare two things does not mean they are comparable. Hey maybenexttime, I guess pizzas should demand royalties from people who eat them.
Starcraft is a piece of software, just like Photoshop. Just because one is for entertainment and one is for productivity doesn't change anything. It's not like the EULA is a forever binding contract - if it were there wouldn't be any need for these negotiations. EULA's have been and continue to be uncertain legal territory (not quite a contract)
|
On May 11 2010 04:55 Entitygm wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2010 04:45 maybenexttime wrote:
It's largely a matter of perception what you consider the content here. People are stating their opinions in hope more people realize that the pro matches/broadcast can be regarded as the actual content here, while the game as a 'mere' tool. How else can we try to establish a precedent other than being vocal about our views on the issue? Exactly - I may not agree with KeSPA's policies (a lot of them are outright silly ggg) but this case is going to set the precedent. Does Blizzard own the game of Starcraft, or do they by extension own everything created through it, and even the leagues dedicated to playing it. I don't see id or Valve making these ridiculous demands on e-sports organizers. Blizzard has the biggest cash cow in gaming history (WoW), I have trouble feeling much sympathy for them here. As for providing facts to back my opinion, that's not something I can just pull out of thin air. This is new territory and the rules haven't been written yet. I am, however, a strong believer in the rights of the consumer, and I see this going the same way Apple has taken the apps store, where they own the content developed for the iPhone, because they own the platform, and I think that's a horribly stifling system
There is actually a lot of precedent for using art in media. If you play music in a movie or on tv you have to pay the person who made the music, if you use art in a game you have to pay the person who made that art, etc.
I don't see so much a respect for consumer rights as I do a disrespect for artist's rights. Even if a company has a lot of money it still deserves the rights to it's own creation.
Kespa is using Blizzards art, music, voice acting, and sound effects without paying royalties and that is a fact.
PS: It does make a difference whether a piece of software is for entertainment or is a tool for creation. Most people will laugh at you if say all software is the same.
|
On May 11 2010 05:09 KingPants wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2010 04:55 Entitygm wrote:On May 11 2010 04:45 maybenexttime wrote:
It's largely a matter of perception what you consider the content here. People are stating their opinions in hope more people realize that the pro matches/broadcast can be regarded as the actual content here, while the game as a 'mere' tool. How else can we try to establish a precedent other than being vocal about our views on the issue? Exactly - I may not agree with KeSPA's policies (a lot of them are outright silly ggg) but this case is going to set the precedent. Does Blizzard own the game of Starcraft, or do they by extension own everything created through it, and even the leagues dedicated to playing it. I don't see id or Valve making these ridiculous demands on e-sports organizers. Blizzard has the biggest cash cow in gaming history (WoW), I have trouble feeling much sympathy for them here. As for providing facts to back my opinion, that's not something I can just pull out of thin air. This is new territory and the rules haven't been written yet. I am, however, a strong believer in the rights of the consumer, and I see this going the same way Apple has taken the apps store, where they own the content developed for the iPhone, because they own the platform, and I think that's a horribly stifling system There is actually a lot of precedent for using art in media. If you play music in a movie or on tv you have to pay the person who made the music, if you use art in a game you have to pay the person who made that art, etc. I don't see so much a respect for consumer rights as I do a disrespect for artist's rights. Even if a company has a lot of money it still deserves the rights to it's own creation. Kespa is using Blizzards art, music, voice acting, and sound effects without paying royalties and that is a fact. PS: It does make a difference whether a piece of software is for entertainment or is a tool for creation. Most people will laugh at you if say all software is the same.
The point is KeSPA wants to pay royalties and some sort of fees. What they disagree with and many people (including myself) find ridiculous is the fact that Blizzard wanted to ownership of anything using StarCraft in any way pretty much.
It's like you demanded the authorship of a movie just becaused your song was used in it (can we stop with all those analogies? ). Sure, you deserve some compensation, but don't expect the actual makers of the movie to give it to you and bow to you.
|
On May 11 2010 05:09 KingPants wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2010 04:55 Entitygm wrote:On May 11 2010 04:45 maybenexttime wrote:
It's largely a matter of perception what you consider the content here. People are stating their opinions in hope more people realize that the pro matches/broadcast can be regarded as the actual content here, while the game as a 'mere' tool. How else can we try to establish a precedent other than being vocal about our views on the issue? Exactly - I may not agree with KeSPA's policies (a lot of them are outright silly ggg) but this case is going to set the precedent. Does Blizzard own the game of Starcraft, or do they by extension own everything created through it, and even the leagues dedicated to playing it. I don't see id or Valve making these ridiculous demands on e-sports organizers. Blizzard has the biggest cash cow in gaming history (WoW), I have trouble feeling much sympathy for them here. As for providing facts to back my opinion, that's not something I can just pull out of thin air. This is new territory and the rules haven't been written yet. I am, however, a strong believer in the rights of the consumer, and I see this going the same way Apple has taken the apps store, where they own the content developed for the iPhone, because they own the platform, and I think that's a horribly stifling system There is actually a lot of precedent for using art in media. If you play music in a movie or on tv you have to pay the person who made the music, if you use art in a game you have to pay the person who made that art, etc. I don't see so much a respect for consumer rights as I do a disrespect for artist's rights. Even if a company has a lot of money it still deserves the rights to it's own creation. Kespa is using Blizzards art, music, voice acting, and sound effects without paying royalties and that is a fact. PS: It does make a difference whether a piece of software is for entertainment or is a tool for creation. Most people will laugh at you if say all software is the same.
I'm glad you brought up use of music in movies/tv though. The company pays a royalty, that much is certain (I'm surprised KeSPA doesn't already do this), but that should be the artist's compensation. It comes down to a fundamental difference of opinion on how much right an artist has to derivations of his creation. If Jay-Z pays daft punk or whoever $10,000 for the right to remix one of their songs, and his version goes on to become a major hit and he earns $10,000,000 off of it, does daft punk have the right to demand a percentage of that, on top of the fee already received, or was the initial fee the end of it? I certainly don't think they'd be allowed to come in and demand a look at exactly how much he earned off of it, and have a say in how it's used in the future. The compensation has already been given
|
Ah I found the perfect analogy: Scrabble tournaments! Scrabble is a Hasbro property, what rights do the organizers of leagues have? http://home.teleport.com/~stevena/scrabble/legal/issues.html
Also "Copyright does not protect the idea for a game, its name or title, or the method or methods for playing it. Nor does copyright protect any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in developing, merchandising, or playing a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles." from http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html
|
The copyright holder has the right to decide whether they want a flat fee, a per usage fee, or a percentage of profit. If they decide they want a percentage they also have a right to know that they are getting the percentage agreed upon.
I disagree that complete ownership of the movie/tv show is fair terms for the use of media, but a company can make as wild a demand as they want to, they don't have to make a reasonable offer if they don't want to. It is their right when it comes to deciding what they do with what they made.
What I take issue with is people making absurd claims that a game of Starcraft is a new piece of art itself disconnected from the hundred or so(?) people who put their time and creativity into making the game. It was made as a finished product for consumption and to pretend that it is instead a tool for creating art is intellectually dishonest. If you use the game for profit, you have to agree to the creators terms. Kespa is simply taking advantage of Blizzards inability to enforce it's rights.
|
On May 11 2010 05:38 Entitygm wrote:Ah I found the perfect analogy: Scrabble tournaments! Scrabble is a Hasbro property, what rights do the organizers of leagues have? http://home.teleport.com/~stevena/scrabble/legal/issues.htmlAlso "Copyright does not protect the idea for a game, its name or title, or the method or methods for playing it. Nor does copyright protect any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in developing, merchandising, or playing a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles." from http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html
That is a much better analogy but you left out some very important parts from those sites.
"Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author’s expression in literary, artistic, or musical form."
"Material prepared in connection with a game may be subject to copyright if it contains a sufficient amount of literary or pictorial expression. For example, the text matter describing the rules of the game or the pictorial matter appearing on the gameboard or container may be registrable."
Since Starcraft can not be separated from it's copyrighted images and sounds, it can not legally be displayed without the copyright holders permission. I believe there is a fair use exception in that you can show a very short segment of it(for example if you are reviewing it or mocking it) but that also does not apply because we are talking about full length BW games.
|
United States47024 Posts
On May 11 2010 04:57 Entitygm wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2010 04:52 KingPants wrote:On May 11 2010 04:45 maybenexttime wrote:On May 11 2010 04:25 KingPants wrote:
How many programs can play music? How many programs can allow players to play a game of Starcraft? I guess Adobe should also demand royalties from artists using PhotoShop. ;; Let's just agree to disagree, this isn't getting nowhere. The difference here is that Photoshop is designed to be a tool and Starcraft is designed to be a game. Just because you compare two things does not mean they are comparable. Hey maybenexttime, I guess pizzas should demand royalties from people who eat them. Starcraft is a piece of software, just like Photoshop. Just because one is for entertainment and one is for productivity doesn't change anything. It's not like the EULA is a forever binding contract - if it were there wouldn't be any need for these negotiations. EULA's have been and continue to be uncertain legal territory (not quite a contract)
The difference is that the content produced in Photoshop is entirely divorced from the software that created it--art touched up in Photoshop does not by nature require any of the Adobe-owned assets that reside in Photoshop. By contrast, displaying a game of Starcraft requires, naturally, the game of Starcraft. The creation and exhibition of the content here requires simultaneous display of assets owned by Blizzard.
A more apt comparison would be if an artist using Photoshop would like to specifically use the Photoshop logo in their creation. In which case, yes, they would need Adobe's direct permission.
|
On May 11 2010 06:20 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2010 04:57 Entitygm wrote:On May 11 2010 04:52 KingPants wrote:On May 11 2010 04:45 maybenexttime wrote:On May 11 2010 04:25 KingPants wrote:
How many programs can play music? How many programs can allow players to play a game of Starcraft? I guess Adobe should also demand royalties from artists using PhotoShop. ;; Let's just agree to disagree, this isn't getting nowhere. The difference here is that Photoshop is designed to be a tool and Starcraft is designed to be a game. Just because you compare two things does not mean they are comparable. Hey maybenexttime, I guess pizzas should demand royalties from people who eat them. Starcraft is a piece of software, just like Photoshop. Just because one is for entertainment and one is for productivity doesn't change anything. It's not like the EULA is a forever binding contract - if it were there wouldn't be any need for these negotiations. EULA's have been and continue to be uncertain legal territory (not quite a contract) The difference is that the content produced in Photoshop is entirely divorced from the software that created it--art touched up in Photoshop does not by nature require any of the Adobe-owned assets that reside in Photoshop. By contrast, displaying a game of Starcraft requires, naturally, the game of Starcraft. The creation and exhibition of the content here requires simultaneous display of assets owned by Blizzard. A more apt comparison would be if an artist using Photoshop would like to specifically use the Photoshop logo in their creation. In which case, yes, they would need Adobe's direct permission.
In that case, if they make a video of game and broadcast it on the TV but not live, does that count as using StarCraft to display a game of StarCraft or are they actually using Media Player or some other program to display it? I'm talking about broadcasting a game of BW already in a video format.
If that wouldn't count as using StarCraft, then that'd be pretty absurd.
|
On May 11 2010 05:26 Entitygm wrote:
I'm glad you brought up use of music in movies/tv though. The company pays a royalty, that much is certain (I'm surprised KeSPA doesn't already do this), but that should be the artist's compensation. It comes down to a fundamental difference of opinion on how much right an artist has to derivations of his creation. If Jay-Z pays daft punk or whoever $10,000 for the right to remix one of their songs, and his version goes on to become a major hit and he earns $10,000,000 off of it, does daft punk have the right to demand a percentage of that, on top of the fee already received, or was the initial fee the end of it? I certainly don't think they'd be allowed to come in and demand a look at exactly how much he earned off of it, and have a say in how it's used in the future. The compensation has already been given
I dunno how many times this has to be repeated but KeSPA did pay for broadcast rights for BW!
|
United States47024 Posts
On May 11 2010 06:31 maybenexttime wrote:
In that case, if they make a video of game and broadcast it on the TV but not live, does that count as using StarCraft to display a game of StarCraft or are they actually using Media Player or some other program to display it? I'm talking about broadcasting a game of BW already in a video format.
If that wouldn't count as using StarCraft, then that'd be pretty absurd.
I would imagine it still counts regardless of the format of display--it contains art assets (images, sounds, etc.) owned by Blizzard. Whether you choose to photograph, videotape, or record audio of those assets, they still belong to Blizzard.
|
The main problem with IP (Intellectual Property) rights on this issue is that Korean Law does not abide by the same laws as the US, nor does China or other countries who often copy other peoples IP and turn a profit from it. International IP statements (statements used to bridge gaps between different countries' IP law) were not contracted into BW's license, so KeSPA has never had to pay Blizzard anything for using Blizzards IP (starcraft) to make a huge profit.
After years of negotiation and getting no where, Blizzard realized its mistakes (mainly in part to KeSPA not being ethical and paying minimal fees to Blizzard for the use of their intellectual property to turn a profit) and is really handing it back to KeSPA for burning that bridge down hardcore for the last 6 years. Now KeSPA wants to pay minimal royalties as if its done nothing wrong.
Most of the requests that Blizzard has made, according to the English translation released just recently, are reasonable. In the Korean release, the requests were spun a little to exaggerate the point. These PR responses are crafted by a professional, its not just state of fact. Its done the same way politicians omit information when they try to slander their political rival. For example:
from http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=123275
However, Blizzard has asserted not the right as a copyright but unreasonable demands as following.
1. Set the contract term for using its games to 1 year
2. Prior approvals about all league operations such as contracting sponsorship, marketing materials, broadcasting plan
3. License fee for running of league and all license fee of sponsorship inducement
4. Ownership of all broadcasted programs, program videos
5. Right to audit KeSPA
So, these are the unreasonable requests blizzard has made.
1 - Contract term is set to 1 year so that blizzard can review and rewrite the contract each year if needed. If KeSPA does stuff that blizzard doesn't like, they get the boot. No permanent usage contract. Its in there so that Blizzard can fire the KeSPA if they want.
2 - Blizzard wants oversight of how their product is marketed. If KeSPA wants to use a Porn site as a sponsor, Blizzard can say GTFO. They aren't trying to control, they just want the ability to step in if they have to. Its pretty standard stuff.
3 - Licensing Fee, accepted standard.
4 - Ownership of materials, not so standard, but it depends on the context. It would be great if we could actually see the contract to see the legal jargon used. Most likely KeSPA gets to use the materials, and make money off it, Blizzard just wants the rights to pull it down, remove it, or use it themselves in their own marketing. We don't know what that really means though without access to the contract.
5 - Right to Audit KeSPA. They don't trust KeSPA, I wouldn't either with their history of being unethical.
Seems pretty reasonable to me.
All in all though, we really don't know much about it other than the very limited information provided. We really need to see the exact contracts and fee amounts to be able to determine if they are reasonable.
|
On May 11 2010 06:49 Razor[cF] wrote:The main problem with IP (Intellectual Property) rights on this issue is that Korean Law does not abide by the same laws as the US, nor does China or other countries who often copy other peoples IP and turn a profit from it. International IP statements (statements used to bridge gaps between different countries' IP law) were not contracted into BW's license, so KeSPA has never had to pay Blizzard anything for using Blizzards IP (starcraft) to make a huge profit. After years of negotiation and getting no where, Blizzard realized its mistakes (mainly in part to KeSPA not being ethical and paying minimal fees to Blizzard for the use of their intellectual property to turn a profit) and is really handing it back to KeSPA for burning that bridge down hardcore for the last 6 years. Now KeSPA wants to pay minimal royalties as if its done nothing wrong. Most of the requests that Blizzard has made, according to the English translation released just recently, are reasonable. In the Korean release, the requests were spun a little to exaggerate the point. These PR responses are crafted by a professional, its not just state of fact. Its done the same way politicians omit information when they try to slander their political rival. For example: from http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=123275However, Blizzard has asserted not the right as a copyright but unreasonable demands as following. 1. Set the contract term for using its games to 1 year 2. Prior approvals about all league operations such as contracting sponsorship, marketing materials, broadcasting plan 3. License fee for running of league and all license fee of sponsorship inducement 4. Ownership of all broadcasted programs, program videos 5. Right to audit KeSPA So, these are the unreasonable requests blizzard has made. 1 - Contract term is set to 1 year so that blizzard can review and rewrite the contract each year if needed. If KeSPA does stuff that blizzard doesn't like, they get the boot. No permanent usage contract. Its in there so that Blizzard can fire the KeSPA if they want. 2 - Blizzard wants oversight of how their product is marketed. If KeSPA wants to use a Porn site as a sponsor, Blizzard can say GTFO. They aren't trying to control, they just want the ability to step in if they have to. Its pretty standard stuff. 3 - Licensing Fee, accepted standard. 4 - Ownership of materials, not so standard, but it depends on the context. It would be great if we could actually see the contract to see the legal jargon used. Most likely KeSPA gets to use the materials, and make money off it, Blizzard just wants the rights to pull it down, remove it, or use it themselves in their own marketing. We don't know what that really means though without access to the contract. 5 - Right to Audit KeSPA. They don't trust KeSPA, I wouldn't either with their history of being unethical. Seems pretty reasonable to me. All in all though, we really don't know much about it other than the very limited information provided. We really need to see the exact contracts and fee amounts to be able to determine if they are reasonable.
International Law is such fun isn't it. I don't know the whole truth of the matter, it sounds like both parties are at fault to a degree, but this case is more important than KeSPA. They don't sound like a very reputable company, but if granted this degree of control over a tournament league what sort of message does that send to others? Should HD/husky/TL be afraid of takedown notices issued by Blizzard for all of their content? Should wikis be afraid of getting raid for violating IP laws? I'm not trying to paint a slippery slope here that's a very real possibility for anyone profitting off of the property. If TL puts up an ad for one of Blizzard's competitors or Activision doesn't approve of livestream any more and demands all SC content be on ustream only, this case would set a precedent for taking it down.
KeSPA should have been paying some royalty to Blizzard for a while, I agree, but it certainly shouldn't be controlled by them, directly or indirectly through threat of legal action. Call it paranoia but Activision's history with DRM isn't stellar, although the PR machine keeping it quiet is, and I'm an EFF member 
|
very interesting, thx for this
|
KingPants what part of KESPA agreed to pay some royalty fees do you not understand? Not only is it in the first post, but several posters have tried to get that through your head.
Kespa is the organizations that sponsor players and provide them with literally everything. Blizzard is trying to curtail this by saying these organizations will have to turn over their rights to any given player at anytime.
Capiche? From Kespa's point of view, some of the terms are ridiculous.
|
Seeing as KeSPA basically killed of GOMs SC-tourney, which incidentally was sponsored by Blizzard, I wouldn't trust them one bit when they blame Blizzard for hindering further development of e-sports. They've been leeching and making strange regulations for years, and Blizzard wanting better control of such an organization handling their newest game is far from unacceptable.
Some of the demands may seem harsh, but hardly surprising concidering the organization they're aimed against.
|
On May 11 2010 07:21 StarStruck wrote:
KingPants what part of KESPA agreed to pay some royalty fees do you not understand? Not only is it in the first post, but several posters have tried to get that through your head.
"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position." -wikipedia
Kespa is the organizations that sponsor players and provide them with literally everything. Blizzard is trying to curtail this by saying these organizations will have to turn over their rights to any given player at anytime.
Do you know that most players that are sponsored by Kespa organisations make very little money and have no opportunity for career growth? Many people believe that these children are being exploited by Kespa.
Capiche? From Kespa's point of view, some of the terms are ridiculous.
Too bad, why doesn't Kespa make their own game?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
