|
On May 11 2010 07:39 sushiman wrote:
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.
They likely killed the series off because it was fairly unpopular, especially compared to OSL and MSL, and had very little actually going for it. It was cool for foreigners because you could hear Tasteless talk about the pandabearguy over and over but for Koreans it was a huge step down from OSL and even MSL.
CJ owns Gretech and OGN so why hemorrhage money when you already have the most successful individual league around.
|
On May 11 2010 07:57 KingPants wrote:Show nested quote +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." - wikipediaShow nested quote +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. Too bad, why doesn't Kespa make their own game?
Blizzard made the game, KeSPA used it in a way they didn't imagine (outside of battle.net, televised etc.). Blizzard feels it didn't earn enough from this and now wants a stake in the pro-gaming circuit, something they did not build. Yeah Kespa did it using a blizzard game, but that doesn't discredit their work or give blizzard any sort of ownership stake in it. They can pull SC2 if they want to make that colossal mistake, but that's about the only option left. Sometimes you create something, and it's used in ways you didn't expect, even by others for profit. Do they deserve some compensation? Of course, that's why they charge money for the game. Maybe Kespa is a horrible company, but this isn't about the bit players at all it's about the principle of it.
Since you pulled out the logical fallacy card, then immediately proceeded to attack kespa for its pay rates and explotion: Ad Hominem - also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument toward the person" or "argument against the person"), is an attempt to persuade which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.[1] The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy.[2]
Sometimes the things we create grow beyond our control, and trying to fight them can lead to our own destruction. This was the folly of the Xel'Naga in creating the Zerg - don't you know lore 
|
On May 11 2010 07:57 KingPants wrote: Many people believe that these children are being exploited by Kespa.
If they think so, they can always leave. No one is forcing them to stay.
|
If you filmed yourself painting in photoshop, then post in on youtube, does Adobe own your video or that piece of art you created?
|
On May 11 2010 08:15 Entitygm wrote:Since you pulled out the logical fallacy card, then immediately proceeded to attack kespa for its pay rates and explotion: Ad Hominem - also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument toward the person" or "argument against the person"), is an attempt to persuade which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.[1] The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy.[2]
To be clear I was responding to his point that Kespa provides the players with everything.
|
On May 11 2010 08:21 buhhy wrote:
If you filmed yourself painting in photoshop, then post in on youtube, does Adobe own your video or that piece of art you created?
Actually there's a guy who does just that, and I'm not sure the answer. Also occured to me: Video Professor. He makes videos using MS (or other) software, which he then sells to people as an instructional tool. I expect he pays MS a licensing fee just like anyone else using it commercially does, but does MS by default become a majority shareholder in his company, or have any say over how he uses it? I sure hope not
|
United States47024 Posts
On May 11 2010 08:13 Lazerbeems wrote:
They likely killed the series off because it was fairly unpopular, especially compared to OSL and MSL, and had very little actually going for it. It was cool for foreigners because you could hear Tasteless talk about the pandabearguy over and over but for Koreans it was a huge step down from OSL and even MSL.
This is going to result in a circular argument because part of the reason that it was unpopular was because it was not recognized as "official" by KeSPA, and because pro-teams started preventing prominent players from competing in it.
|
Everyone just keeps hating on Kespa, but am I seriously the only one who think Blizzard is being an idiot as well? They sound so freaking selfish, did you see that list of demands?? It's almost as if Blizzard is saying "It's our game so any profit you make off of it is ours, and anything you do must go through us, and the success Starcraft had in korea was primarily due to us because we made the game". It's not Blizzard that made Starcraft into the huge success in Korea, but the Korean media & companies that decided to try and blow it up to be an E-sport. I'm not saying Kespa is good, they're absolutely horrible in some aspects, but if everyone is going to be moving together (Kespa & all the teams & companies), then everyone loses with Blizzard's decision to try and maximize profits.
|
On May 11 2010 09:33 Wings wrote:
Everyone just keeps hating on Kespa, but am I seriously the only one who think Blizzard is being an idiot as well? They sound so freaking selfish, did you see that list of demands?? It's almost as if Blizzard is saying "It's our game so any profit you make off of it is ours, and anything you do must go through us, and the success Starcraft had in korea was primarily due to us because we made the game". It's not Blizzard that made Starcraft into the huge success in Korea, but the Korean media & companies that decided to try and blow it up to be an E-sport. I'm not saying Kespa is good, they're absolutely horrible in some aspects, but if everyone is going to be moving together (Kespa & all the teams & companies), then everyone loses with Blizzard's decision to try and maximize profits.
It's not just you. Look at the polls on some previous page. Most of the people think Blizz is being an idiot here.
I don't really thing its worth arguing about whether Blizz actually owns the content created with starcraft (replays and the maps), unless you have a law degree in international and Korean laws. But one thing remains uncertain, and that is whether SC2 is actually good enough to replace SCBW in professional scene. As one of the Korean guys already said Koreans don't care anything special for SC2 because there are other good games on the market, and I completely agree. The mere fact that SCBW was such a good game doesn't automatically make SC2 a good game. Who can guarantee that SC2 want end up the same way like WC3 and SCBW did in the US/EU.
|
I back Blizzard on some of these terms. But I dont think Blizzard has a right to request not casting their games. To me in eSports, the Software being used for the game is no different then the ball being used on the field in soccer.
Can you imagine Mikasa soccer balls demanding that all soccer teams not use their ball or they would get sued... how foolish is that? Is watching someone play Starcraft more fun then watching someone that would play super Mario Brothers... Sure. But should Blizzard get paid for that? They are not providing it for broad casting or movie entertainment.
Defiantly an interesting situation.
|
Software being used in e-Sports is nothing like a soccer ball, it is more expensive to produce a high-end video game and balance it. Lots of money goes into it and other people are going to use their creation to make money. I think Blizzard is right here - granted some of their requests (if true) are a little overreaching but Kespa wouldn't be here if it wasn't for Blizzard - at least no where in the capacity that it is today.
|
On May 12 2010 06:30 anomaly0 wrote:
Software being used in e-Sports is nothing like a soccer ball, it is more expensive to produce a high-end video game and balance it. Lots of money goes into it and other people are going to use their creation to make money. I think Blizzard is right here - granted some of their requests (if true) are a little overreaching but Kespa wouldn't be here if it wasn't for Blizzard - at least no where in the capacity that it is today.
On May 11 2010 08:21 buhhy wrote:
If you filmed yourself painting in photoshop, then post in on youtube, does Adobe own your video or that piece of art you created?
Though Photoshop is more expensive, it is also much more complicated than a game and took much more expertise.
|
Im not a layer, but if one look at the scrabble-link under section "Tournaments" and "Books on Scrabble" and not the "Game sets" section(this is referring to making a copy of the game), it becomes unclear (at-least to me) if Blizzard could win under US law. I mean it says:
Court of Appeals.... ...... has held that the playing of a game in public is not a "performance"
And one can make a strategy guide, providing it doesn't:
"reproduces "more than it ha[s] to in order to produce a marketable [strategy] guide"
But it seems like an unclear law.
I also think there is a difference in including a song in a movie, because the public will be enjoying the song directly, but are the public enjoying Starcraft at tournaments, yes, but they cant play it.
Personally I feel like IP-rights shouldn't get out of hand, or it will put society in a straitjacket.
|
i'm actually surprised at the number of people taking kespa's side. just try to remember a time you've heard kespa's name associated with a positive act? they are just a bunch of greedy bureaucratic idiots who are trying their best to stay alive with SC2 looming around the corner.
maybe they are, but if anyone is greedy here its blizzard.the demands speak for themselves
|
On May 04 2010 13:38 Synwave wrote:
Considering the corruption of KESPA and their related teams and star players I have no wish to see them in charge of anything.
I have lost all respect for Korean e-sports as it is currently organized.
Blizzard has a record of doing everything they can to help e-sports around the globe in regards to their games. That they want licensing fees is not greedy, it is a valid and fair business model.
On the one hand you have an organization with a record of mishandling and bullying, being greedy and out of control. On the other hand you have a company that goes out of its way to promote events and work with sponsers to create great events.
Guess which one I side with and believe in more.
let me ask.. what record does blizzard have of helping e-sports?
didn't they choke the dota scene?
they nearly eliminated WoW due to their demands for royalties for broadcasting
blizzard is just another corporation trying to milk all the money they can for their shareholders, nobody else.
e-sports is not a priority for them.
|
In the wow world their has been some talk of what blizz is asking for companies like MLG to run its tourneys and it seems like a reasonable ammount. If they arre asking for simmilar from Kespa then id say blizzard is justified in that.
|
fuck blizzard
WoW spoiled them and now they want everything their way like a spoiled little brat
i hope kespa continues with SC1 and the community stays with SC1
SC2 is nowhere near as good as the first anyway
|
On May 11 2010 07:57 KingPants wrote:Show nested quote +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." - wikipediaShow nested quote +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. Too bad, why doesn't Kespa make their own game?
1) That is not a strawman.
2) These children can leave whenever they want. Look at Ret and Nony. They left when they decided to leave. No one forced them to stay. Same with the kids.
|
I don't have a law degree and I can't comment on the legality of the issue. I can say though that I think if a person pays money for a product they should be able to do what they want with it without having to answer to the people they purchased it from, short of duplicating and re-selling it in the case of media.
|
Ultimately, the IP belongs to Blizzard, so it's within their legal right to deny use by other parties that wish to use it in a for-profit manner (though whether or not they're making a profit from it makes no real difference). By using a trademarked name and IP (namely, Starcraft), and televising it, it's within Blizzard's legal rights to ask for compensation. Additionally, if you were to, say, sell maps for Starcraft, Blizzard could also seek compensation.
Ultimately, if you are making money in any way shape or form off of content created by Blizzard, it's within their legal right to seek compensation. KeSPA really has no leverage on that issue in particular -- the Starcraft name (in the realm of gaming) belongs to Blizzard, and they, ultimately, have the last say on how it is used.
To briefly address the previous poster that mentioned Photoshop: Adobe could ask for the video to be taken down, though that would be incredibly bad for their business as their products are specifically designed to create content in a variety of mediums. If you were selling those videos, you would most likely need to contact Adobe for legal approval before doing so (and you would most likely have to pay a licensing fee).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
