|
So with every report it becomes more apparent where Blizzard's loyalties lie and it's profits. (not much surprise there).
Do you want to get involved with sc2 esports run by blizzard? Then you must be quite dumb, let me explain...
Blizzard has proven already that they lose interest in their products quite quickly. They shut down their official broodwar ladder and let iccup take over simply because they didn't care. (not much profits left to be squeezed out) And now they actively try to even get one of their older products out of the way. If you ask me that is not the kind of image that makes you look like a trustworthy long-term partner.
No one can give young aspiring gamers wanting to become progamers a guarantee about their future careers, even with the broodwar scene, we have seen only very few players age and transition out of being a progamer. The branch is simply to young. However, Blizzards actions are just so ridiculous that even the most optimistic people should see that the future looks grim.
Be a sc2 progamer and wait for sc3 or w4 to come out and all you'd have achieved will be taken away from you and you will become nothing more that simply a barrier in blizzards way of making more money.
This is far-fetched, grim and very much anti-blizzard. However, I say, if not evidence, there are a lot of hints that this might be true.
Just ask yourself is blizzard acting in a way that makes you want to trust them on a long term?
|
On September 08 2010 07:43 mierin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2010 07:05 Yamoth wrote:
That still doesn't change the fact that the current BW scene will be competing with SC2. No matter how much attention I acquire for the band I love, when I start giving out free concert in the same city at their planned tour singing their song. How much do you want to bet they are still going to sue me for it? Ever heard of a cover band? Haha.
Ever heard of cease and desist order? Haha!!!!
Now that we are done with childish argument. Cover band for the most part do no make money off of the song in which they are covering. Furthermore, at any time when they do make money, the record company have every right to order them to stop doing so or risk heavy punishment. Not to mention KESPA is hardly a small no name band not making all that much money from the usage of blizzard property.
|
I'm really like forming of:
"Anti Blizzard".
at least they to have leave BW players them adapted to the SC2
User was warned for this post
|
On September 08 2010 07:37 rackdude wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2010 07:21 Yamoth wrote:On September 08 2010 07:00 rackdude wrote:On September 08 2010 06:53 RHoudini wrote:On September 07 2010 13:18 29 fps wrote:
it doesnt look good for kespa.... as much as i like proleague, i think if theres a lawsuit, gretech/blizzard will win because it's blizzard's game. Why? As much as the game itself is without any doubt Blizzard's intellectual property, the broadcasting rights of an event created around the game is a completely different matter. Exactly this. When you make a software synthesizer and someone makes a song with it, you don't own the song. Same idea: you write a software, they make something from it, and you don't own what they made from it. It would be ridiculous if everything made from a software was owned by the software maker. The whole SCBW scene is not the software itself, but it's a product made from the software, and thus it's not owned by the software maker. That's how I see it. I can give the same argument in blizzard favor. Imagine you put a great amount of time and effort to write a beautiful song and proceed to sell the record. Then someone else come along buy a single record of your, change the beat and lyric a bit and proceed to go an a tour and makes money with it. When you ask them for compensation for using your music, they refuse to do so cause they ripping off your song for a while now without you saying anything about it so it is okay for them to continue to ripped out your song. Furthermore, they are arguing that since they are not a for profit company, that gives them even more rights to ripped off your music. When you tell them that more or less, the song that they used is your so you should at least have a saying on who can sing it, they throw a hissy fit and scream that you want to control them. Getting tired of all the bullshit you sign with another record company, giving them all the rights to your song, and have them deal with all the poo throwing monkies on your behalf and get you the well deserved royalty that you are entitled to. See what I did there? Yes, I see what you did there. You made an analogy that was refuted by cases before. I think the case about digital antiskips was the one that established that digital files are are different from the SR (which includes the performance), and thus different rules apply. An SR includes the PA, and thus all performances and derivatives in things like musical arrangement, lyrics, etc (all covered in more depth by other court cases). In your case, what law would cover it would be SR law. That is completely different than IP law. However, if I'm not mistaken, a software synthesizer would be covered by the same IP law as a software computer game.
I think I will leave the IP law to the lawyers. From what I've been reading, I would like to assume that most people are raging about how blizzard is an evil company trying to destroy something that kespa created. So how about we just stick to logic of the argument and not the fine letters or the laws.
|
On September 08 2010 08:10 Yamoth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2010 07:43 mierin wrote:On September 08 2010 07:05 Yamoth wrote:
That still doesn't change the fact that the current BW scene will be competing with SC2. No matter how much attention I acquire for the band I love, when I start giving out free concert in the same city at their planned tour singing their song. How much do you want to bet they are still going to sue me for it? Ever heard of a cover band? Haha. Ever heard of cease and desist order? Haha!!!! Now that we are done with childish argument. Cover band for the most part do no make money off of the song in which they are covering. Furthermore, at any time when they do make money, the record company have every right to order them to stop doing so or risk heavy punishment. Not to mention KESPA is hardly a small no name band not making all that much money from the usage of blizzard property.
How don't they make money from what they're covering? That's EXACTLY what a cover band is: they cover another band's song for profit. Incidentally, it's 100% legal to play another band's song live for profit.
|
actually cover bands legally have to have permission to cover the song but the law is not always enforced.
you could look this up easily for yourself other then spouting your nonsence
|
On September 08 2010 07:51 SevenAteNine wrote:
your analogy in inherently flawed as SCBW is both art and a device that could be used to create art.
SCBW was basicly made on software like that you were speaking about
its clear to me Blizzard is 100% more legitimate in this respect and thus would clearly win in any reasonable court of law
What national or international court case describes computer games as both an art or a device than can be used to create an art? Why would VSTs and RTASs not count as art themselves (Especially if you're going to talk about the artwork that is within the program)?
|
On September 08 2010 08:36 rackdude wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2010 07:51 SevenAteNine wrote:
your analogy in inherently flawed as SCBW is both art and a device that could be used to create art.
SCBW was basicly made on software like that you were speaking about
its clear to me Blizzard is 100% more legitimate in this respect and thus would clearly win in any reasonable court of law What national or international court case describes computer games as both an art or a device than can be used to create an art? Why would VSTs and RTASs not count as art themselves (Especially if you're going to talk about the artwork that is within the program)?
okay well im not aware yet i will research this topic and reply afte rim done.
what court case denies computer games to be considered as art tho?
do you deny computer games are a product in themselves and thus are protected by the same laws that you say protects KeSPA and their actions?
Edit: after looking into things it seems VST and RTAS are just programs used to create audio and completely have nothing to do with Blizzard vs KeSPA except to confuse people.
|
On September 08 2010 08:43 SevenAteNine wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2010 08:36 rackdude wrote:On September 08 2010 07:51 SevenAteNine wrote:
your analogy in inherently flawed as SCBW is both art and a device that could be used to create art.
SCBW was basicly made on software like that you were speaking about
its clear to me Blizzard is 100% more legitimate in this respect and thus would clearly win in any reasonable court of law What national or international court case describes computer games as both an art or a device than can be used to create an art? Why would VSTs and RTASs not count as art themselves (Especially if you're going to talk about the artwork that is within the program)? okay well im not aware yet i will research this topic and reply afte rim done. what court case denies computer games to be considered as art tho? do you deny computer games are a product in themselves and thus are protected by the same laws that you say protects KeSPA and their actions? Edit: after looking into things it seems VST and RTAS are just programs used to create audio and completely have nothing to do with Blizzard vs KeSPA except to confuse people.
It seems like most computer programs would not be counted as an art, and therefore by default a computer game would not be also unless it is specified to be some subset of computer programs. Thus the burden of proof would be on you to count it as not just a computer program, but something more/ different than the average computer program.
Softwares are a completely different thing than events. Kespa has to deal with broadcasting law, and performance laws for their respective country. So no, it wouldn't be the same laws that protect computer games.
And the VSTs and RTASs were mentioned because they dealt specifically with my example, and it was a question to further what was being talked about. If any law is close to Blizzard vs KeSPA, it would be laws dealing with those devices because they are programs used to create art and performances. Precedents from laws dealing with these programs (and others that satisfy this small niche of which I cannot think of) would be used to determine what would happen in the case of programs being used as elements to create art and performances. So since programs like these would be used to set the precedent they would have a lot to do with the case. And if you look at the precedent set by these programs, they do not give ownership rights to the creator of the program.
From this I can see why Kespa would have legal grounding in their actions. I mean, the court case could end up making computer games some special entity where special laws apply to it and such, but such a move doesn't seem like it has a precedent as far as I can tell.
|
South Africa4316 Posts
On September 08 2010 09:15 rackdude wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2010 08:43 SevenAteNine wrote:On September 08 2010 08:36 rackdude wrote:On September 08 2010 07:51 SevenAteNine wrote:
your analogy in inherently flawed as SCBW is both art and a device that could be used to create art.
SCBW was basicly made on software like that you were speaking about
its clear to me Blizzard is 100% more legitimate in this respect and thus would clearly win in any reasonable court of law What national or international court case describes computer games as both an art or a device than can be used to create an art? Why would VSTs and RTASs not count as art themselves (Especially if you're going to talk about the artwork that is within the program)? okay well im not aware yet i will research this topic and reply afte rim done. what court case denies computer games to be considered as art tho? do you deny computer games are a product in themselves and thus are protected by the same laws that you say protects KeSPA and their actions? Edit: after looking into things it seems VST and RTAS are just programs used to create audio and completely have nothing to do with Blizzard vs KeSPA except to confuse people. It seems like most computer programs would not be counted as an art, and therefore by default a computer game would not be also unless it is specified to be some subset of computer programs. Thus the burden of proof would be on you to count it as not just a computer program, but something more/ different than the average computer program. Softwares are a completely different thing than events. Kespa has to deal with broadcasting law, and performance laws for their respective country. So no, it wouldn't be the same laws that protect computer games. And the VSTs and RTASs were mentioned because they dealt specifically with my example, and it was a question to further what was being talked about. If any law is close to Blizzard vs KeSPA, it would be laws dealing with those devices because they are programs used to create art and performances. Precedents from laws dealing with these programs (and others that satisfy this small niche of which I cannot think of) would be used to determine what would happen in the case of programs being used as elements to create art and performances. So since programs like these would be used to set the precedent they would have a lot to do with the case. And if you look at the precedent set by these programs, they do not give ownership rights to the creator of the program.
Do you know anything about laws regarding the invention of sports/games outside of computers? If company X devises a new format for a sport (lets say indoor NFL with indoor rules and what not) which it popularises and owns the rights to, would others be allowed to broadcast that sport using the exact same rules and format?
Just from the top of my head, I would imagine that you can't just copy "Who wants to be a millionaire" and add your own questions to it while using the same set, format, rules, etc. Wouldn't this be more similar to Starcraft, as they are taking the format, the name, and everything else directly from the original product, but using it to create their own content?
Like I said, I know nothing about this, but it strikes me as being more similar to the current situation.
|
On September 08 2010 09:27 Daigomi wrote:
Do you know anything about laws regarding the invention of sports/games outside of computers? If company X devises a new format for a sport (lets say indoor NFL with indoor rules and what not) which it popularises and owns the rights to, would others be allowed to broadcast that sport using the exact same rules and format?
But if you organize this kind of football matches, you do not pay anything to the inventor.
So in this case, you definitely have a problem, since the inventor's work is not appreciated with payment. Since there are no physical products to sell in this case, the inventor can only charge for broadcast rights.
For BW, people do pay for the game, the inventor's work is already appreciated with payment.
Unless blizzard leave something in the agreement says that you can not organize and broadcast matches, there is no obvious problems here.
It is totally a different situation.
|
On September 08 2010 09:15 rackdude wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2010 08:43 SevenAteNine wrote:On September 08 2010 08:36 rackdude wrote:On September 08 2010 07:51 SevenAteNine wrote:
your analogy in inherently flawed as SCBW is both art and a device that could be used to create art.
SCBW was basicly made on software like that you were speaking about
its clear to me Blizzard is 100% more legitimate in this respect and thus would clearly win in any reasonable court of law What national or international court case describes computer games as both an art or a device than can be used to create an art? Why would VSTs and RTASs not count as art themselves (Especially if you're going to talk about the artwork that is within the program)? okay well im not aware yet i will research this topic and reply afte rim done. what court case denies computer games to be considered as art tho? do you deny computer games are a product in themselves and thus are protected by the same laws that you say protects KeSPA and their actions? Edit: after looking into things it seems VST and RTAS are just programs used to create audio and completely have nothing to do with Blizzard vs KeSPA except to confuse people. It seems like most computer programs would not be counted as an art, and therefore by default a computer game would not be also unless it is specified to be some subset of computer programs. Thus the burden of proof would be on you to count it as not just a computer program, but something more/ different than the average computer program. Softwares are a completely different thing than events. Kespa has to deal with broadcasting law, and performance laws for their respective country. So no, it wouldn't be the same laws that protect computer games. And the VSTs and RTASs were mentioned because they dealt specifically with my example, and it was a question to further what was being talked about. If any law is close to Blizzard vs KeSPA, it would be laws dealing with those devices because they are programs used to create art and performances. Precedents from laws dealing with these programs (and others that satisfy this small niche of which I cannot think of) would be used to determine what would happen in the case of programs being used as elements to create art and performances. So since programs like these would be used to set the precedent they would have a lot to do with the case. And if you look at the precedent set by these programs, they do not give ownership rights to the creator of the program. From this I can see why Kespa would have legal grounding in their actions. I mean, the court case could end up making computer games some special entity where special laws apply to it and such, but such a move doesn't seem like it has a precedent as far as I can tell.
Well consider you are trying to equate the replay that is created from SCBW as "art" is it not hard for me to argue that in fact SCBW is in itself "art"
i mean that is the argument you are trying to make? what is produced from the VST is essentially art is it not? it is not hard for me then to argue that if the replay is art then SCBW is too as they are essentially one and the same. its just that the replay is a copy of what happened beforehand and thus could be considered a reproduction of what already took place.
and lets not forget that SCBW was in fact created to play games on while these other programs were made with the fact in mind that they would be used to produce art and thus cannot reasonably expect to be payed licensing fees for what they created.
and i to can see that there is enough leeway in this argument where this needs to be decided in courts as it 100% depends on what rights SCBW has as a medium.
On September 08 2010 09:27 Daigomi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2010 09:15 rackdude wrote:On September 08 2010 08:43 SevenAteNine wrote:On September 08 2010 08:36 rackdude wrote:On September 08 2010 07:51 SevenAteNine wrote:
your analogy in inherently flawed as SCBW is both art and a device that could be used to create art.
SCBW was basicly made on software like that you were speaking about
its clear to me Blizzard is 100% more legitimate in this respect and thus would clearly win in any reasonable court of law What national or international court case describes computer games as both an art or a device than can be used to create an art? Why would VSTs and RTASs not count as art themselves (Especially if you're going to talk about the artwork that is within the program)? okay well im not aware yet i will research this topic and reply afte rim done. what court case denies computer games to be considered as art tho? do you deny computer games are a product in themselves and thus are protected by the same laws that you say protects KeSPA and their actions? Edit: after looking into things it seems VST and RTAS are just programs used to create audio and completely have nothing to do with Blizzard vs KeSPA except to confuse people. It seems like most computer programs would not be counted as an art, and therefore by default a computer game would not be also unless it is specified to be some subset of computer programs. Thus the burden of proof would be on you to count it as not just a computer program, but something more/ different than the average computer program. Softwares are a completely different thing than events. Kespa has to deal with broadcasting law, and performance laws for their respective country. So no, it wouldn't be the same laws that protect computer games. And the VSTs and RTASs were mentioned because they dealt specifically with my example, and it was a question to further what was being talked about. If any law is close to Blizzard vs KeSPA, it would be laws dealing with those devices because they are programs used to create art and performances. Precedents from laws dealing with these programs (and others that satisfy this small niche of which I cannot think of) would be used to determine what would happen in the case of programs being used as elements to create art and performances. So since programs like these would be used to set the precedent they would have a lot to do with the case. And if you look at the precedent set by these programs, they do not give ownership rights to the creator of the program. Do you know anything about laws regarding the invention of sports/games outside of computers? If company X devises a new format for a sport (lets say indoor NFL with indoor rules and what not) which it popularises and owns the rights to, would others be allowed to broadcast that sport using the exact same rules and format? Just from the top of my head, I would imagine that you can't just copy "Who wants to be a millionaire" and add your own questions to it while using the same set, format, rules, etc. Wouldn't this be more similar to Starcraft, as they are taking the format, the name, and everything else directly from the original product, but using it to create their own content? Like I said, I know nothing about this, but it strikes me as being more similar to the current situation.
you're argument is not valad as Sudden Attack is a legal copy of Counter strike, sorry
|
On September 08 2010 09:27 Daigomi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2010 09:15 rackdude wrote:On September 08 2010 08:43 SevenAteNine wrote:On September 08 2010 08:36 rackdude wrote:On September 08 2010 07:51 SevenAteNine wrote:
your analogy in inherently flawed as SCBW is both art and a device that could be used to create art.
SCBW was basicly made on software like that you were speaking about
its clear to me Blizzard is 100% more legitimate in this respect and thus would clearly win in any reasonable court of law What national or international court case describes computer games as both an art or a device than can be used to create an art? Why would VSTs and RTASs not count as art themselves (Especially if you're going to talk about the artwork that is within the program)? okay well im not aware yet i will research this topic and reply afte rim done. what court case denies computer games to be considered as art tho? do you deny computer games are a product in themselves and thus are protected by the same laws that you say protects KeSPA and their actions? Edit: after looking into things it seems VST and RTAS are just programs used to create audio and completely have nothing to do with Blizzard vs KeSPA except to confuse people. It seems like most computer programs would not be counted as an art, and therefore by default a computer game would not be also unless it is specified to be some subset of computer programs. Thus the burden of proof would be on you to count it as not just a computer program, but something more/ different than the average computer program. Softwares are a completely different thing than events. Kespa has to deal with broadcasting law, and performance laws for their respective country. So no, it wouldn't be the same laws that protect computer games. And the VSTs and RTASs were mentioned because they dealt specifically with my example, and it was a question to further what was being talked about. If any law is close to Blizzard vs KeSPA, it would be laws dealing with those devices because they are programs used to create art and performances. Precedents from laws dealing with these programs (and others that satisfy this small niche of which I cannot think of) would be used to determine what would happen in the case of programs being used as elements to create art and performances. So since programs like these would be used to set the precedent they would have a lot to do with the case. And if you look at the precedent set by these programs, they do not give ownership rights to the creator of the program. Do you know anything about laws regarding the invention of sports/games outside of computers? If company X devises a new format for a sport (lets say indoor NFL with indoor rules and what not) which it popularises and owns the rights to, would others be allowed to broadcast that sport using the exact same rules and format? Just from the top of my head, I would imagine that you can't just copy "Who wants to be a millionaire" and add your own questions to it while using the same set, format, rules, etc. Wouldn't this be more similar to Starcraft, as they are taking the format, the name, and everything else directly from the original product, but using it to create their own content? Like I said, I know nothing about this, but it strikes me as being more similar to the current situation.
You do have a point there. Most of the law I know deals with software and programs, then a dabble into music law. The closest real example to your NFL example I could think of is actually the AFL for arena football. Or how the NCAA also has football. But that case doesn't work because the NFL doesn't own "the game", so it turns out differently.
But what is intriguing is the "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" example. I don't know what would happen if a show decided to rip off its format and stuff. Would that be more similar of a comparison to Starcraft than programs used for performances that are not games (like software instruments)? I think it would be counted as different. I mean, the show would be counted as a performing art, and likewise you can say that the broadcast and Esports side of Starcraft would be a performing art. Usually that has different copyrights than the original. However, in some parts of copyright law (music especially), when you copyright the tangible product (like the sound recording), the performing arts part of it is also copyrighted (and not vice versa, ie you can copyright the performing art without holding the copyright to the recording). If it's the case for computer games that by copyrighting the product (the algorithms) the performance of such algorithms are copyrighted, then Kespa would lose. However, I don't know if this is the case. Like I said, with software instruments the performance is not copyrighted. But there is something about the case you bring up that feels like it should be the same, so there probably is another way to analyze the analogy between the two.
|
South Africa4316 Posts
On September 08 2010 09:50 rackdude wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2010 09:27 Daigomi wrote:On September 08 2010 09:15 rackdude wrote:On September 08 2010 08:43 SevenAteNine wrote:On September 08 2010 08:36 rackdude wrote:On September 08 2010 07:51 SevenAteNine wrote:
your analogy in inherently flawed as SCBW is both art and a device that could be used to create art.
SCBW was basicly made on software like that you were speaking about
its clear to me Blizzard is 100% more legitimate in this respect and thus would clearly win in any reasonable court of law What national or international court case describes computer games as both an art or a device than can be used to create an art? Why would VSTs and RTASs not count as art themselves (Especially if you're going to talk about the artwork that is within the program)? okay well im not aware yet i will research this topic and reply afte rim done. what court case denies computer games to be considered as art tho? do you deny computer games are a product in themselves and thus are protected by the same laws that you say protects KeSPA and their actions? Edit: after looking into things it seems VST and RTAS are just programs used to create audio and completely have nothing to do with Blizzard vs KeSPA except to confuse people. It seems like most computer programs would not be counted as an art, and therefore by default a computer game would not be also unless it is specified to be some subset of computer programs. Thus the burden of proof would be on you to count it as not just a computer program, but something more/ different than the average computer program. Softwares are a completely different thing than events. Kespa has to deal with broadcasting law, and performance laws for their respective country. So no, it wouldn't be the same laws that protect computer games. And the VSTs and RTASs were mentioned because they dealt specifically with my example, and it was a question to further what was being talked about. If any law is close to Blizzard vs KeSPA, it would be laws dealing with those devices because they are programs used to create art and performances. Precedents from laws dealing with these programs (and others that satisfy this small niche of which I cannot think of) would be used to determine what would happen in the case of programs being used as elements to create art and performances. So since programs like these would be used to set the precedent they would have a lot to do with the case. And if you look at the precedent set by these programs, they do not give ownership rights to the creator of the program. Do you know anything about laws regarding the invention of sports/games outside of computers? If company X devises a new format for a sport (lets say indoor NFL with indoor rules and what not) which it popularises and owns the rights to, would others be allowed to broadcast that sport using the exact same rules and format? Just from the top of my head, I would imagine that you can't just copy "Who wants to be a millionaire" and add your own questions to it while using the same set, format, rules, etc. Wouldn't this be more similar to Starcraft, as they are taking the format, the name, and everything else directly from the original product, but using it to create their own content? Like I said, I know nothing about this, but it strikes me as being more similar to the current situation. You do have a point there. Most of the law I know deals with software and programs, then a dabble into music law. The closest real example to your NFL example I could think of is actually the AFL for arena football. Or how the NCAA also has football. But that case doesn't work because the NFL doesn't own "the game", so it turns out differently. But what is intriguing is the "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" example. I don't know what would happen if a show decided to rip off its format and stuff. Would that be more similar of a comparison to Starcraft than programs used for performances that are not games (like software instruments)? I think it would be counted as different. I mean, the show would be counted as a performing art, and likewise you can say that the broadcast and Esports side of Starcraft would be a performing art. Usually that has different copyrights than the original. However, in some parts of copyright law (music especially), when you copyright the tangible product (like the sound recording), the performing arts part of it is also copyrighted (and not vice versa, ie you can copyright the performing art without holding the copyright to the recording). If it's the case for computer games that by copyrighting the product (the algorithms) the performance of such algorithms are copyrighted, then Kespa would lose. However, I don't know if this is the case. Like I said, with software instruments the performance is not copyrighted. But there is something about the case you bring up that feels like it should be the same, so there probably is another way to analyze the analogy between the two.
It's interesting that you bring up AFL because that is exactly what I was thinking about but I couldn't remember it's name. Rather than asking if the AFL owes the NFL, I'm wondering if a new sport broadcasting a game that 100% exactly copies the AFL (to the last letter in the rules and format) would be legal or not. For example, if a sport called AFL2 would be allowed to broadcast in direct competition with the AFL.
The problem with this whole thing is that it's way more complicated than it appears, and I don't think there's anyone that can give a hard and fast answer for what will happen if this goes to court. That's also the problem that both KeSPA and Blizzard are faced with. If either one was clearly in the right, they would have more bargaining power and the other one would need to make concessions. However, because it's as unclear as it is, both companies are standing their ground which could lead to a very uncomfortable legal battle.
In the end both companies are making the best choices they can, given their information. Gretech made an investment and it needs to get some of that investment back from KeSPA, and making the demands it currently is is probably it's best way. On the other hand, KeSPA doesn't believe that Gretech's investment is legally enforceable, so it has no reason to make concessions. Can't really blame either party for their decisions, we must just hope it doesn't end up hurting Esports too much.
|
On September 07 2010 13:24 So no fek wrote:If Gretech kills proleague I swear I will never watch another Gom event. 
Word, for me KESPA were always a bunch of idiots because of some of their decisions. but for this time I'm siding with them and BroodWar legacy.
just ask for a sc2 banner during PL broadcasts.. bw will die eventually and sc2 will remplace it if gretech avoid to appear as greedy bastards (hint, they are failing)
|
As long as the PL and MSL starts back up I'll be happy. With any hope Kespa will come out on top so we won't be having anymore PL interruptions any time soon.
|
On September 08 2010 03:57 mmdmmd wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2010 03:42 Daigomi wrote:
I think it's impossible to pass judgement on what is happening during these negotiations without actually being there. Trying to decide who the wrongdoer is based on snippets of biased information from both sides is ridiculous. It comes down to a business deal which needed to be made, and both parties believing that they did not need to budge.
To all those blaming Gretech for hardballing KeSPA, if I remember correctly Gretech paid a ton to purchase the broadcasting rights from Blizzard. They need to recuperate their costs by bringing in sponsors and broadcasting their tournaments, and KeSPA is making it difficult for them to do so. Furthermore, KeSPA is blatantly ignoring the broadcasting rights that Gretech purchased. With this in mind I don't find Gretech's actions to stop the Proleague to be surprising.
Not only is KeSPA broadcasting the Proleague without paying Gretech for the rights, it is also directly competing with the GSL by broadcasting the Proleague at the same time. Gretech said it was fine if they didn't pay, but they can't not pay and then be the direct competition. KeSPA refused to budge on either request, and Gretech had to take action somehow. I don't think Gretech's action was ever intended to stop the Proleague, it simply stated that KeSPA does not have the broadcasting rights to continue with the Proleague and that it would take legal action should they fail to reach an agreement while continuing to broadcast the Proleague.
What it all comes down to is whether Blizzard holds the broadcasting rights to its own games and is thus able to sell it. As I said earlier, I would tend to think the do, but the legal issue is complex and none us know enough to say who is in the right. If Blizzard does hold the rights, the KeSPA is in the wrong for not doing more to negotiate a deal with Gretech. If Blizzard does not hold the rights then KeSPA was right for standing its ground and Gretech got fucked over by purchasing the rights.
Either way, I don't see how Gretech can be blamed for this. If HBO paid a fortuned to hold the exclusive rights to screen Dexter, you can't blame HBO from trying to stop NBC and ABC from airing Dexter at the exact same time that HBO plans to. You are really contradicting yourself. A. You first said: I think it's impossible to pass judgement on what is happening during these negotiations without actually being there. Trying to decide who the wrongdoer is based on snippets of biased information from both sides is ridiculous. B. Then you said: If I remember correctly Gretech paid a ton to purchase the broadcasting rights from Blizzard.They need to recuperate their costs by bringing in sponsors and broadcasting their tournaments...etc But things in B is exactly what you deemed ridiculous in A - since I assume you were not there in the meetings and you based it all on "snippets of biased information" you've gotten from the internet?
@Daigomi
You realise KESPA agreed to pay royalties everytime?
KESPA vs Gretech AND Kespa vs Blizzard
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=128517
Please have a good read and think about how logical your post is also.
P.S. KESPA is not for profit..think about it.
P.P.S. Should microsoft own the rights to the content we create on microsoft word/excel? I hope not..
|
I find this issue fascinating because of the moral issues involved. Deciding what's "fair" in this case is rather messy. Everybody's trying to create something that people like and everybody's trying to make money with that in the process (for equally selfish reasons when you break down everyone's interests to what's most basic). The question of how much should go to who from what source is infinitely debatable and any system that could forge an approximate solution would be a worthwhile system to define. Apart from that, however, I also wish people weren't so quick to strangle away profits from everybody else (and could be more thoughtful).
First things first, "IP rights" in any situation are ALWAYS impossible to define perfectly. Obviously the truth of this particular matter can't come down cleanly in defense of just one side or the other. For instance, it's true that you can't fund competitive StarCraft without being in Blizzard's debt. The reason is because competitive StarCraft needs a game and a worldwide framework that Blizzard created and built (otherwise, if that's not the case, why don't competition organizers simply make up their own games to support their professions and move away from the games they currently play?). However, that point made, it's also equally true that Blizzard should have no claim to any profits that come from the hard work of competition organizers and promoters when Blizzard had nothing to do with such things (and have no right to claim they should have had something to do with it at the beginning).
In a perfect world, he or she who contributes anything to a given project (and how much that contribution will earn for that project in the future) would be undeniably self-evident to everybody. None of us would be able to deny who deserves how much payment for what actions and we'd all feel happy and content about everything. In such a world, Kespa would pay Blizzard the exact amount it owes without needing "negotiations." From there, we'd also know how much Blizzard owes for the work of deserving people at Games Workshop and other organizations that they, themselves, have ever used to "create" anything in their games (and so on and for absolutely everybody in the world alive or dead). (YEESH, what a BORING world that would be . . . it would take forever for us to pay anybody for doing anything.)
In the end, however, beyond these interesting intellectual questions, I can't say I care too much about who's going to get what. In a world where real artists and real innovators are screwed over every day, I'm not going to cry too much if Blizzard, Kespa, or whoever doesn't get EXACTLY what they think they're owed. Also, I certainly won't pretend that the justice systems of this world will generally reward those who are most deserving (IP law is a rather undefined mess). After everything, my only personal concern is to see everything that I enjoy continue and everyone who has ever contributed to what I enjoy being reimbursed with at least some form of profit.
From my limited, silly perspective, I would decree that Blizzard should receive a third of all profits earned when their game is directly displayed or otherwise indispensable to a competition's profitability. I choose that percentage because I think the competition organizers are contributing most of the work in that instance. Unfortunately that's just one impatient judgement from one limited perspective and no two people ever value anything exactly the same. Oh well, I tried.
|
On September 08 2010 10:03 Daigomi wrote:
The problem with this whole thing is that it's way more complicated than it appears, and I don't think there's anyone that can give a hard and fast answer for what will happen if this goes to court. That's also the problem that both KeSPA and Blizzard are faced with. If either one was clearly in the right, they would have more bargaining power and the other one would need to make concessions. However, because it's as unclear as it is, both companies are standing their ground which could lead to a very uncomfortable legal battle.
In the end both companies are making the best choices they can, given their information. Gretech made an investment and it needs to get some of that investment back from KeSPA, and making the demands it currently is is probably it's best way. On the other hand, KeSPA doesn't believe that Gretech's investment is legally enforceable, so it has no reason to make concessions. Can't really blame either party for their decisions, we must just hope it doesn't end up hurting Esports too much.
That's the point. Right there. I think I may know what direction the case could take, but really it's a complicated issue. In fact, the lawyers on both sides probably think they would win the court case, and that's why they both have no reason to make concessions. Anyone reading these posts going "gee, obviously Blizzard would win" or something should think twice. I'm ready to pull you into the argument from either side. The big thing is, neither side knows who would win, but I bet you both think they would. With that kind of a mindset, I don't know if it's possible to settle without a court case. They just need a third party to basically "tell them how it is".
It's like two kids on the playground arguing over if they stepped out of bounds. The kid with the ball is saying no and the kid without the ball is saying yes. Obviously they're going to do that and think that, they are just helping themselves. There is always the chance that someone calms down and says, "fine, just go with it", but normally it has to end with the teacher coming over and saying how to move on. Sad to say it, I think they need a court case to move on, and that case will be one of the biggest cases in Esports.
|
I seriously cannot believe what I read in this thread. People saying "I'm for Kespa / I'm for gretech / if it goes to court kespa will win / gretech will lose" etc.
Where do you all think you are going, by taking sides with either parties ? In this whole mess, eventually the biggest loser will be the fan. Brood War or Sc2 fan, whatever, the eSports fan is hurting right now, so before choosing sides, before spitting on sc2 or burrowing bw, please start thinking by yourself, don't fall into the trap of being a zombie cash cow, rooting for multimillion companies, as if it was a FvJ game. At the moment I feel like this whole case is putting esports fans against each other. People need to realise that this is not the right way to go.
SKT, KT, STX, Woongjin, and "Many others" are forming an "Anti Blizzard" Line. Players under those companies are not allowed to partake in SC2 events. They block OGN from broadcasting the GSL through the board of directors. Apparently, they're trying to get all the progame teams to unify.
Seriously, I may seem rather uninformed but which kind of sheep would follow this kind of maneuver? I'm used to see that sort of unsophisticated, cheap and awkward tactics work with success in politics, but in this case it's going too far.
ps: and because it seems that insulting people who don't agree is a new trend, I'll just say that you are all assholes as well as morons, Blizzard doesn't care about anything, KeSPA is a money-making machine. Sc2 is shitty and too easy, and I hate it because it's one month old.
User was warned for this post
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
