EPTI have a feeling KESPA may have some truth to their statements, although labeling "Blizzard" as the one making demands seems incorrect, it's most definitely the big shots with the trillions of dollars calling this -_-
[Update] KeSPA Speaks Out On Intellectual Property Rights…
| Forum Index > BW General |
|
OptimusTom
United States154 Posts
I have a feeling KESPA may have some truth to their statements, although labeling "Blizzard" as the one making demands seems incorrect, it's most definitely the big shots with the trillions of dollars calling this -_- | ||
|
Lightwip
United States5497 Posts
On May 19 2010 10:31 nD.Sentinel wrote: oh and starcraft 2 will get a 18+ ranking in korea, so kespa wont be able to broadcast anything related to it You do know they pretty much made that happen, right? | ||
|
Muaziz
United States21 Posts
You do know they pretty much made that happen, right? Yeah, according to the rumors, this is one of the few bargaining chips that KeSPA actually has. They have enough political influence that they could probably ensure that SC2 is not 18+. At the same time, if they don't get SC2 rights, you can be pretty sure that they will make sure SC2 is 18+ to prevent anyone else from being able to broadcast games. This is why Dustin Broder said the following in the ingame.de interview: I certainly don't see it as not-selling in Korea, we will definitely trying to sell the game in Korea to our fans in Korea, even if there was no such thing as eSports, we wanna bring it to the Korean fans. | ||
|
TheRabidDeer
United States3806 Posts
Are the terms that much different from any other professional sport? The NFL has all rights to everything, even licensing of teams, TV airtime, and products. Same thing for the NBA and MLB and every other professional sport. To be fully honest, now that I look at it, those are pretty much identical to any professional sports requirement... even the 1 year contract since I think each year the different networks bid to see who gets to air the games and then a final big deal is made for the superbowl. So, is Blizzard really extending its power too far? If SC2 is to be seen as a true "sport", then why is it not entitled to the same opportunities as the other sports in regards to ownership? | ||
|
Eury
Sweden1126 Posts
On May 19 2010 10:38 OptimusTom wrote: This is what happens when Blizzard is bought out by Activision....Now they're owned by Vivendi Universal, 4th largest Conglomeration in the world (had to look it up for a project once XD) I have a feeling KESPA may have some truth to their statements, although labeling "Blizzard" as the one making demands seems incorrect, it's most definitely the big shots with the trillions of dollars calling this -_- You do know that Vivendi has owned Blizzard since 98, right? And before that Blizzard was owned by other public traded companies. Btw Vivendi acquired Activision, not the other way around, for those that didn't know. | ||
|
Rhine[time]
Canada29 Posts
| ||
|
madsweepslol
161 Posts
On May 17 2010 01:16 Razor[cF] wrote: Just to give a basis on how things work in real life: If you work for any company doing research and you design something new, get a patent on it, the company owns it. Same thing with anything else. If you create something using someone else's tool, unless that tool is sold as a product to create things, and they release rights to ownership of what is created, the owners of the tool have partial ownership rights on what is created. No tool, no creation. IP is supposed to promote innovation, not stifle it, which is what giving content creators ownership or partial ownership of every possible use of their content would do. On the other hand, allowing some forms of use, or even copying, is good for innovation in a number of ways. It allows the original content to be improved upon by many, it spreads the content where the original creator couldn't, and it encourages the original creator to continue to be creative instead of resting on his or her laurels. Sure, KeSPA ain't no saint, but their organization represents an important function of innovation in video games: esports. I don't think it would be wise to let Blizzard, or any company, control that kind secondary market based on a knee jerk "but they made it so they should profit from it however they want!" reaction that goes against the spirit of innovation IP is supposed to encourage. | ||
|
Muaziz
United States21 Posts
On May 19 2010 18:39 TheRabidDeer wrote: Are the terms that much different from any other professional sport? The NFL has all rights to everything, even licensing of teams, TV airtime, and products. Same thing for the NBA and MLB and every other professional sport. To be fully honest, now that I look at it, those are pretty much identical to any professional sports requirement... even the 1 year contract since I think each year the different networks bid to see who gets to air the games and then a final big deal is made for the superbowl. There are certainly some similarities with how the major US sports franchises (NFL, NBA, MLB) operate, but there are also stark differences. Starting with the contracts, they are much longer term in all of the 3 major sports (sorry NHL). Most contracts run 5+ years. One of the key reasons is that the broadcasters want to get a return on their (large financial) investment. It takes time to build a good crew of broadcasters, analysts, statisticians, etc. There is no way a major network would agree to a 1 year deal. As for the Super Bowl, it actually rotates among the major networks that carry the games. However, the SC2 eSports scene is a MUCH bigger gamble than the 3 major US professional sports. A broadcaster has a well known proven commodity here. There are well established TV viewership numbers. SC2 is brand new, and while it does have the huge and well followed (in Korea at least) SC as its predecessor, there is no guarantee that SC2 will be a huge eSports hit in Korea or anywhere else. Sure, it has *potential*, but that is very different from a proven money-making machine. Look at Kwame Brown: he was the #1 NBA draft pick by the Washington Wizards in 2001. That didn't exactly work out too well. How about a sports franchise analogy. You remember the XFL? It was a joint venture between the WWF (fake, but very popular Wrestling) and NBC. It was supposed to be the NFL during the off-season, with even more action! It lasted exactly 1 season and all parties involved lost truckloads of money financing it. SC2 as an eSport is an unproven commodity. It is going to take a lot of time and effort to really develop it. Would you want to have a 1-year contract to do all the hard work, only to have it taken from you the very next year? In my opinion, this is by far the biggest sticking point. It seems like if you do a good job, you either: a) know that Blizzard will extort even more money from you next year now that it's a proven success, or b) have it taken it away from you now that it is a proven commodity. As an investor, both those possibilities suck. | ||
|
bcelmo
Romania4 Posts
| ||
|
gumbum8
United States721 Posts
Every time I think it's something new lol >.< Anyway whatever it's no big deal or anything  | ||
|
Muaziz
United States21 Posts
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled against the National Football League over its exclusive contract with an apparel maker in one of the most important sports law cases in decades. In a 9-0 decision Monday, the justices said the league can be considered 32 separate teams, not a single business. The court allowed a lawsuit against the league to continue, saying the licensing of intellectual property "constitutes concerted action" that is not part of the broad antitrust protection enjoyed by professional baseball. Such protection allows individual teams to act as one business when making a host of financial decisions, including marketing their logos and trademarks. Why is this relevant to SC2? Well, for starters, the "pro sports" analogy is the one most likely applicable to eSports. Another reason that this is relevant is that these types of cases making their way all the way to the US Supreme Court is also rare. Thirdly, this was unanimous decision which doesn't bode well for any cases deemed to be similar. Also note that the major US sports operate with broad anti-trust protection. This is good in the sense that it allows the sports to stay cohesive. And it is bad since it effectively shuts out any competition. There is no guarantee that any eSports in the US would be granted this lofty anti-trust protection status from the US Congress. The bottom line is that laws surrounding eSports in the US are very murky. As I wrote in previous posts, I think a lot of the type of control that Blizzard is trying to seize will be challenged in the US within the next 10 years (assuming eSports ever becomes a profitable endeavor). | ||
|
YvoRoK
44 Posts
Blizzard doesn't care about any of that judging from the interview in the last article, apparently "focusing on the community aspect of E-sports more than the financial aspects". I'm sorry but that's not E-sports. The "community" doesn't need you Blizzard, but professional players need sponsorship, advertising and prize money, lots of it. I just can't trust E-sports in Blizzard's hands, and I don't feel like buying any Blizzard products until they back off. | ||
|
LaughingTulkas
United States1107 Posts
On May 19 2010 10:38 OptimusTom wrote: This is what happens when Blizzard is bought out by Activision....Now they're owned by Vivendi Universal, 4th largest Conglomeration in the world (had to look it up for a project once XD) I have a feeling KESPA may have some truth to their statements, although labeling "Blizzard" as the one making demands seems incorrect, it's most definitely the big shots with the trillions of dollars calling this -_- I was thinking this exact thing. The timeline matches up pretty well too, Blizzard doesn't really care at all till 2007, when the merger happens, and then they are all up in Kespa's face. I was more on Blizzard's side before, but these demands... total control of everything relating to any tournament including sponsors??? WTF? I don't see why a licensing fee isn't sufficient, but I understand the lack of LAN support a whole heck of a lot more now. It's all about control. | ||
|
bovi
Japan208 Posts
On May 19 2010 18:39 TheRabidDeer wrote: Just found this thread from a link on the bnet forums from somebody and thought I should voice my opinion on the matter. Are the terms that much different from any other professional sport? The NFL has all rights to everything, even licensing of teams, TV airtime, and products. Same thing for the NBA and MLB and every other professional sport. To be fully honest, now that I look at it, those are pretty much identical to any professional sports requirement... even the 1 year contract since I think each year the different networks bid to see who gets to air the games and then a final big deal is made for the superbowl. So, is Blizzard really extending its power too far? If SC2 is to be seen as a true "sport", then why is it not entitled to the same opportunities as the other sports in regards to ownership? I see as KESPA being the NFL and not blizzard in your analogy. cos NFL didnt invent the game of american football. it represents all the teams. Blizzard made SC/SC2, but that doesnt mean they own the rights to people playing it. If so we'll have england, china fighting over who invented football. can you imagine if england/china owned all rights to soccer/football? FIFA would be KESPA. Do the companies who make the basketball (spalding), court and other equipment own the game of basketball? What is the basketball w/o the human playing with it? nothing. Unless Blizzard employs the gamers to play their game, it is contentless. unless Blizzard can create AI vs AI esports but we all know that wont work. Blizzard didn't sponsor nor propell pro-BW. and even if they did, sponsorship does not equal ownership. Trying to cash in on the hard work of others after 10 years is so lame. My own suspicions is Blizzard wants to kill off BW so that SC2's potential can be maximised. To build up the amount of pro-SC2 players if pro-BW still exists (assuming no BW player crosses over to SC2) is very challenging and time consuming. Better of having all BW pros convert to SC2. Blizzard is kicking themselves because w/o absolute control, they cant keep creating new games and force gamers to change. new games = high retail price, more revenue, forcing upgrades = more revenue. Having BW being the most competitive game means very low revenue as old games = low retail price, less sales as time goes on. Also i'm sure BW is so huge that some people simply watch the games w/o actually playing it or owning a copy. Can you imagine if Mercedes made a car 10 years ago that till today that the majority of people still prefer to buy over the latest models? this is the situation Blizzard is facing. Just look at the difference between pro - BW and pro - WC3. then you can judge who does a better job, KESPA or Blizzard / anyone else. | ||
|
jgad
Canada899 Posts
Strangely, it's probably the sole reason that BW will outlive SC2. | ||
|
Vargavaka
Sweden111 Posts
On June 01 2010 18:01 bovi wrote: I see as KESPA being the NFL and not blizzard in your analogy. cos NFL didnt invent the game of american football. it represents all the teams. Blizzard made SC/SC2, but that doesnt mean they own the rights to people playing it. If so we'll have england, china fighting over who invented football. can you imagine if england/china owned all rights to soccer/football? FIFA would be KESPA. Do the companies who make the basketball (spalding), court and other equipment own the game of basketball? What is the basketball w/o the human playing with it? nothing. Unless Blizzard employs the gamers to play their game, it is contentless. unless Blizzard can create AI vs AI esports but we all know that wont work. Blizzard didn't sponsor nor propell pro-BW. and even if they did, sponsorship does not equal ownership. Trying to cash in on the hard work of others after 10 years is so lame. My own suspicions is Blizzard wants to kill off BW so that SC2's potential can be maximised. To build up the amount of pro-SC2 players if pro-BW still exists (assuming no BW player crosses over to SC2) is very challenging and time consuming. Better of having all BW pros convert to SC2. Blizzard is kicking themselves because w/o absolute control, they cant keep creating new games and force gamers to change. new games = high retail price, more revenue, forcing upgrades = more revenue. Having BW being the most competitive game means very low revenue as old games = low retail price, less sales as time goes on. Also i'm sure BW is so huge that some people simply watch the games w/o actually playing it or owning a copy. Can you imagine if Mercedes made a car 10 years ago that till today that the majority of people still prefer to buy over the latest models? this is the situation Blizzard is facing. Just look at the difference between pro - BW and pro - WC3. then you can judge who does a better job, KESPA or Blizzard / anyone else. There's definitely something to be said about just where Blizzard's role would be in a sports analogy. It is true that Blizzard does in no way represent the players and teams in the way sport associations do, so comparing them to the NBA is way off. On the other hand, comparing them to manufacturers of sports equipment also doesn't cover the whole picture. A game of football can in essence be played with a Nike ball just as well as with one made by Adidas. Even stronger, you bet Adidas are the ones paying for the rights for making the official World Cup footballs. A game of Starcraft on the other hand can only be played with.. well, Starcraft. Blizzard are not just the manufacturers but also the creators of the very concept of Starcraft. The role of Blizzard are creators of the ruleset as well as the equipment makes the sports anology somewhat misleading. So what is Starcraft then? Software? Well in that case, how about we compare it to other software which is used to create secondary content. Adobe and their Creative Suite comes to mind as a program familiar to many. As industry standard in the world of digital media industries you will have to pay up if you want to use these but a few thousand and you have yourself a valid copy for professional use. Now, what about the stuff you make with these programs, and the rights for them? The graphic created in Photoshop? Videos edited in Premiere? Games played in Starcraft? In this light the very idea of all games played being the intellectual property of the company behind the game seems absolutely absurd. If you instead chose to view a game like Starcraft as a complete work (say, a book or a film) well then things changes. In this case a game played could be seen as a sample or a montage. In this case Blizzard would (as much as contemporary copyright laws over digital media disgusts me) probably have the rights on their side. I doubt a whole industry based around televised games of Starcraft can be seen as fair use. So, where does this leads us? I'm not so sure myself; videogames can be seen as all of these and more. Personally I find the whole issue with IP rights some seriously muddy waters, even more so when we're talking about digital non-stuff. When you mix it with the idea of e-Sports, with its somewhat relevant but not quite fitting anology to traditional sports, you get a stinking mess. | ||
|
aznboi918
United States70 Posts
On May 04 2010 07:36 Adron wrote: hmm, looks like blizzard woke up and eecided it wanted a piece of the pie Kespa baked. Or am i way off here? No you're completely right on... I am furious with blizzard... can't believe they'd be like that | ||
|
pR0gR4m3R
Spain1446 Posts
▶ All pro game teams including Broadcasters agree to take joint action Well, there is no "joint action" as MBC Game has already started negociating with GomTV | ||
|
infecteddna
Slovenia243 Posts
On May 04 2010 07:46 redtooth wrote: 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. Same reason Jimmy chose Sarah over the UED. | ||
|
Antisocialmunky
United States5912 Posts
Blizzard = UED Kespa = The Zerg ... I guess that would make the progamers those marines in the intro: | ||
| ||
