EPT[Update] KeSPA Speaks Out On Intellectual Property Rights…
| Forum Index > BW General |
|
legendin
United States10 Posts
| ||
|
Kazeyonoma
United States2912 Posts
| ||
|
mrdx
Vietnam1555 Posts
| ||
|
Draconicfire
Canada2562 Posts
On May 04 2010 08:18 bearbuddy wrote: There's only one way to settle this... Blizzard employee vs KeSPA referee bo7, GO! I would watch this. Also, first post! | ||
|
mistermetal
Canada76 Posts
On May 04 2010 07:38 Waxangel wrote: while there could be a long debate over how representative KeSPA is of everyone who makes e-sports in korea possible, yes, it's about Blizzard wanting ownership over secondary content created by other people using their products. I believe that is maps and other content created with map editor. | ||
|
QibingZero
2611 Posts
On May 04 2010 08:06 redtooth wrote: they almost killed proleague. they did kill one of the 3 individual leagues. they almost forced the superstar player of the time (the Dong) to retire. did they really "keep E-sports" running? i think ESPORTS was fine before i heard of kespa. lol does forcing individuals to type exactly "gg" keep ESPORTS running? gespa. I don't even understand why posts like this exist. Do you even have any remote idea of what you're talking about? Esports might have been fine before you heard of KeSPA, but - and I know this is going to come as a surprise to you - reality still exists even if you aren't aware of it. There were no Esports pre-KeSPA. The same movers behind KeSPA itself were the ones who started the scene (and basically Esports itself) in the first place. The Korean SC scene is still by and large the only true 'success' Esports have had. A very select few WC3 and CS players making okay money is the only remote argument - and neither of those is anywhere near as sustainable as SC in Korea is. Everyone is so willing to see SC die, it seems. There's this notion that SC2 will replace it, but in reality I still enjoy SC as much as I did when I started consistently watching pro games 5 years ago, and 5 years before that when the game was still fresh on everyone's minds. There's nothing preventing the game from lasting as long as Go, chess, etc... because with community involvement, it is that good of a game. On May 04 2010 08:01 Liquid`NonY wrote: I don't think they want to control every action but they do want to have the final say on things. If KeSPA wants to have minors working 70+ hours a week in order for e-Sports to succeed then Blizzard wants to be able to say "No, you're not going to use my game for an industry like that." It's this kind of rhetoric that drives these discussions way out of hand. Blizzard is the white knight, caring so much about making a great game for the fans and all of that and just wanting a piece of their pie; while KeSPA is the corrupt Asian sweatshop owner which keeps people as slaves. And we hold this attitude why? Because Blizzard does things here and there to please the fans (read: get you to buy their next product as well)? I'd like to think that someone as intelligent as you could see through this, Nony.. | ||
|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
On May 04 2010 08:22 legendin wrote: The bottom line is that Blizzard has complete and absolute rights to Starcraft, being their intellectual property, and especially any action that leads to profiting from an IP they created. KeSPA has no legs to stand on and should be grateful that Blizzard have been as lenient as they have been. Blizzard doesn't have to deal with anybody if they don't want to and negotiations last at the pleasure of Blizzard's lawyers. If KeSPA wants any hopes of dealing they better get humble fast. See, you need to be careful in saying things absolutely like this. According to korean copyright lawyers posting on fomos, Copyright holders cant do shit about products that are made secondary to the primary product. I wish people would read a little more before saying things like "complete and absolute rights". This isn't Amerika. | ||
|
jewce
United States68 Posts
| ||
|
Taku
Canada2036 Posts
On May 04 2010 08:16 Baarn wrote: No this is called a license to use their software in the real world. It's not a takeover and they are asking for royalties and a few other items in compensation on a per year basis. KeSPA doesn't want to open their books for whatever reasons each year and be honest about how well or poorly they are doing. It's not Blizzard's problem that KeSPA wouldn't accept the terms of the license and now all of a sudden KeSPA feels all the "hard work" they have done without a license has put them in a position of getting screwed. Maybe if they bought a clue with all the money they've made without a license a few years ago they wouldn't be in the boat they are in and I'd sympathize. Errr, its not the royalties thats the problem, even kespa would likely find it not too unreasonable for blizzard to want to collect royalties of a reasonable amount. The problem is giving blizzard decision-making power on the way things are run in Korean esports. With essentially veto-power over every single aspect of the way kespa does things in regards to starcraft, Blizzard would be taking over kespa in a way. Main thing IMO though is the way things are being done. It isn't giving kespa any sort of movement space or way to back down gracefully. And, as many people know, people in East Asia don't particularly like losing face in that way, or at all. At this rate its virtually guaranteed that no agreement will be found unless any one of the two or both sides eat some humble pie and act reasonably. Kespa can either live with it or in a final act poison it so SC2 will never succeed as an esport as a final act of revenge. People need to remember that American business practices and manners aren't completely the same in Korea. Just my thoughts. | ||
|
Hapahauli
United States9305 Posts
Furthermore, Blizzard made other unreasonable requests beyond the rights of the copyright holder, such as royalties and sub-licensing fees on sponsorships and broadcasting fees, the right to audit KeSPA’s finances, as well as ownership of secondary content created through our unique resources in the teams, players, and broadcasting expertise. I am not a lawyer sadly, but I'll be damned if I don't have my say on it =P ...royalties and sub-licensing fees on sponsorships and broadcasting... It seems completely within Blizzard's rights to make money off of the broadcasting of Starcraft. I'd compare it to any channel deciding to broadcast a sports league, you have to pay for broadcasting rights. Sub-licensing fees give production rights to non-copyright holders, seems that Blizzard is fine so far. ...the right to audit KeSPA’s finances... Assuming this is true, this seems unreasonable, and it's a question of Blizzard's right to demand this in a contract negotiation. "My game my rules" is the Blizzard stance, and I don't know why they wouldn't be able to demand this. ...ownership of secondary content created through our unique resources in the teams, players, and broadcasting expertise... Blizzard has a history of demanding ownership of secondary content. If there are any WoW players here, you probably know that Blizzard owns your profile, thus selling profiles and making money of content designed materialized by their engine is forbidden by the little "Terms of Service" thing you decided to accept when you installed the game. Starcraft 2 is no exception. If you run a legal copy of the game (thus agreeing to ToS), Blizzard owns your user created content. KeSPA suggests that there are other "unreasonable" demands, and I'd imagine that KeSPA's ultimate goal is to pay a flat fee every year or so while doing what they wish with broadcasting and content. Whatever the truth of Blizzard's demands may be, it's clear that Blizzard doesn't simply want money, but an element of control over KeSPA's actions. No one but the companies know the details, but in the eyes of a casual follower of the pro-scene, I'd have no moral issues with Blizzard's stance. The pro-scene in Korea is hardly a model organization, with menial wages, horrid work hours, and even a recent match-fixing scandal! KeSPA is not an angelic organization that promotes e-sports for the love of the game, but is ultimately an organization created by corporate owners that tries to maximize exposure profit. I certainly wouldn't mind Blizzard putting a collar around such an organization... | ||
snowdrift
France2061 Posts
On May 04 2010 08:06 redtooth wrote: they almost killed proleague. they did kill one of the 3 individual leagues. they almost forced the superstar player of the time (the Dong) to retire. did they really "keep E-sports" running? i think ESPORTS was fine before i heard of kespa. lol does forcing individuals to type exactly "gg" keep ESPORTS running? gespa. It's KeSPA's money that allows you to watch proleague and the starleagues in the first place. And I find it odd that people are enthused by Blizzard wanting to have more control over the proscene, beyond just the issue of royalties. I'd like to think more highly of them in that regard, but really, all the decisions they've made so far seem bad -- no LAN, separate servers, etc. At the same time, they expect other companies to provide sponsorships. Trying to control everything without backing it up with money is going to stifle the growth of esports. They're game developers. They should stick to making games and selling them. | ||
|
TheMute
United States458 Posts
| ||
|
Tom Phoenix
1114 Posts
Honestly, this dispute is not good for either party. I wish they would recognise that. | ||
Milkis
5003 Posts
However, Blizzard would have limited the usage period of a game to only one year (note: I have no idea what the heck this means), which would make it difficult to run a stable E-sports league. Yeah, this is quite annoying to translate. The translation is quite literal though, so I'm going to guess that Blizzard is really "limiting" the game usage to "one year". This has many connotation -- it could mean that they're actually only allowing one year per game of eSports, or one year of royalty-free content. However, judging by the rest of the article, I'm leaning towards the former However, WaxAngel's translation is quite wrong. In fact, I'll need to correct this because it gives the COMPLETELY WRONG PICTURE of how KeSPA has viewed Blizzard's demands. Let me make a few corrections. ----- Blizzard requests that all aspects of league management would have be authorized by them beforehand, including the acquiring of sponsorships, marketing planning and broadcast planning, while requesting royalties and sub-licensing fees. IN ADDITION TO THIS, Blizzard goes "one step beyond" and made other unreasonable requests beyond the rights of the copyright holder, the right to audit KeSPA’s finances, as well as ownership of secondary content created through our unique resources in the teams, players, and broadcasting expertise. -------------- Let's put it quite clear. KeSPA does not think royalties are unreasonable. The unreasonable demands are the second paragraph, it's a fight over ownership of content. And fuck, why should Blizzard ever have the right to audit another company? That's complete and utter bullshit. Remember when I said "KeSPA would not reject Blizzard unless Blizzard was being unreasonable"? Well, there we go. | ||
|
Musoeun
United States4324 Posts
Now, I realize the problems: 1) KeSPA isn't exactly what you want your model to be, 2) there is a lot of "face" at stake. But if Blizzard came to KeSPA and tried to sell-them on this sort of long-term plan (rather than the short-term "lease" model they seem to be trying to force) negotiations might get a little farther. Yeah, I'm speculating. No, I'm not a businessman or a lawyer. Just throwing this out there is all. | ||
|
kmdarkmaster
France188 Posts
| ||
|
Shiladie
Canada1631 Posts
If what kespa said about what they were bringing to the table is true, then it is indeed blizzard who is being bull-headed about this,,, | ||
Waxangel
United States33432 Posts
On May 04 2010 08:37 Milkis wrote: I'm curious how many people here even read WaxAngel's translation, since it's clear a lot of you guys are spewing nonsense that haven't been even been mentioned in the article. If you're going to be hopelessly backing Blizzard on this, be my guest, but please, read the article. Yeah, this is quite annoying to translate. The translation is quite literal though, so I'm going to guess that Blizzard is really "limiting" the game usage to "one year". This has many connotation -- it could mean that they're actually only allowing one year per game of eSports, or one year of royalty-free content. However, judging by the rest of the article, I'm leaning towards the former However, WaxAngel's translation is quite wrong. In fact, I'll need to correct this because it gives the COMPLETELY WRONG PICTURE of how KeSPA has viewed Blizzard's demands. Let me make a few corrections. ----- Blizzard requests that all aspects of league management would have be authorized by them beforehand, including the acquiring of sponsorships, marketing planning and broadcast planning, while requesting royalties and sub-licensing fees. IN ADDITION TO THIS, Blizzard goes "one step beyond" and made other unreasonable requests beyond the rights of the copyright holder, the right to audit KeSPA’s finances, as well as ownership of secondary content created through our unique resources in the teams, players, and broadcasting expertise. -------------- Let's put it quite clear. KeSPA does not think royalties are unreasonable. The unreasonable demands are the second paragraph, it's a fight over ownership of content. And fuck, why should Blizzard ever have the right to audit another company? That's complete and utter bullshit. No, that sentence is ambiguous at worst. "Quite wrong" is wrong. PM me if you want to have a long dicussion on korean grammar. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5668 Posts
On May 04 2010 08:10 floor exercise wrote: I think it's reasonable and within the rights of Blizzard to have a say in what brands and products are marketed alongside their intellectual property. I doubt for example they would want a competitor to one of their games sponsor a tournament. Like the Batoo OSL? ClubDay MSL? Esports isn't about getting a little bit of extra market share per se. Not accepting sponsorships from Blizzard's competitors means fewer competitive bids. On May 04 2010 08:10 floor exercise wrote: I think this is also within their rights to own content that is derived from their base work. It wouldn't exist without them. I don't think these are "beyond the rights of the copyright holder" like Kespa claims. Of course copyright law varies by country so it's difficult to say, and they aren't being specific about what kind of secondary content it is. Frankly, derivative works are just the sort of things that Blizzard wouldn't own, but would get royalties for. Don't forget that KeSPA is representing everybody (teams, players, OGN/MBCgame) in this. They are all responsible for the specialized labor that you need to create a vast, institutionalized esports scene (don't take away my LiveBattle and Oldboy). While I can appreciate Blizzard's motives, they don't represent esports as we have known it, so I find that they've gone too far. | ||
NonY
8748 Posts
On May 04 2010 08:25 QibingZero wrote: I don't even understand why posts like this exist. Do you even have any remote idea of what you're talking about? Esports might have been fine before you heard of KeSPA, but - and I know this is going to come as a surprise to you - reality still exists even if you aren't aware of it. There were no Esports pre-KeSPA. The same movers behind KeSPA itself were the ones who started the scene (and basically Esports itself) in the first place. The Korean SC scene is still by and large the only true 'success' Esports have had. A very select few WC3 and CS players making okay money is the only remote argument - and neither of those is anywhere near as sustainable as SC in Korea is. Everyone is so willing to see SC die, it seems. There's this notion that SC2 will replace it, but in reality I still enjoy SC as much as I did when I started consistently watching pro games 5 years ago, and 5 years before that when the game was still fresh on everyone's minds. There's nothing preventing the game from lasting as long as Go, chess, etc... because with community involvement, it is that good of a game. It's this kind of rhetoric that drives these discussions way out of hand. Blizzard is the white knight, caring so much about making a great game for the fans and all of that and just wanting a piece of their pie; while KeSPA is the corrupt Asian sweatshop owner which keeps people as slaves. And we hold this attitude why? Because Blizzard does things here and there to please the fans (read: get you to buy their next product as well)? I'd like to think that someone as intelligent as you could see through this, Nony.. Sorry I'm not trying to use rhetoric to convince people to take one side or the other. But all bias aside, it is perfectly reasonable to think that Blizzard cares about business ethics. Senx was asking why Blizzard isn't satisfied with just the royalties -- why do they also want control? Yeah, control is definitely, at least, for financial reasons too. But it could also be for Blizzard to take responsibility for their products. Anyway, my example is a fact and it's not distorted. I'm sure Blizzard is aware of it and I'm sure they know that if they directly profit from KeSPA's operation then they are responsible for it as well. | ||
| ||
