|
On October 23 2010 13:46 Zona wrote:
So much trash in this thread now that the dregs of TL have joined in.
Forbidding the players in your league from participating in competing shows is normal. While most north american sports now consist of monopolies, those who follow, say, combat sports will encounter such arrangements regularly.
Anyways, I'll make one prediction here which I'll revisit. Ongamenet won't be sued. It would be pretty idiotic for CJ to allow something with still unproven long term prospects disrupt one of the successful cable channels, since pro BW and other BW related shows make up a huge chunk of OGN's programming. As time passed with Gretech (partially owned by CJ, for those not in the know) making deals with OGN (also partially owned by CJ) but not MBC, it began to look more and more like CJ group was trying to not only control SC2 in Korea, but BW as well. I actually had a huge rant written against CJ/OGN/Gretech about this but I can't be bothered to finish it since I need to go back and again find the precise sources I wanted to cite as evidence. But two other dirty moves by them include keeping the coach who was involved in match-fixing as an "advisor" on hite entus - plus supposedly not offering Effort a decent salary to keep him playing.
Or...if Blizzard no longer plays by CJ's playbook and does sue OGN, Gretech's operations will definitely change, since CJ will definitely not want to give up OGN's success for Gretech.
Very possible. Not the first time the CJ group has played dirty trying to take over one industry. They tried the same thing in kpop using mnet as it's minion.
|
Does no one here agree with the saying "Out with the old, in with the new?"
It's only right to move on.
Conservatives. -_-
|
On October 23 2010 14:03 StatiC)Ex( wrote:
Does no one here agree with the saying "Out with the old, in with the new?"
It's only right to move on.
Conservatives. -_-
I agree.
Tex-Mex for everyone!
|
1.+ Show Spoiler +On October 23 2010 10:29 Slow Motion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2010 10:22 Meriones wrote:
The big question for the court is: Does the IP rights to an esports match belong to the players playing the game or to the devs of the game?
This is obviously not about the power of kespa. It is about the power of the player.(A.) It is fundamentally the players IP rights Blizzard is suing. SC BW players put in a tremendous effort to develop an exceptional skill at playing games people want to watch. They spend much much more time than Blizzard devs. If the court rules that the player has no role in the creation of this IP then that is a major blow for esports players.
Broadcasting channels/websites have no real problem. They can broadcast cheaply and get ad money. The player has to try to make a living. He can't if what he works so hard for is automatically owned by Blizzard. I have no idea what Korean IP law is like, but under U.S. law it's settled that the gaming company has a copyright in all the gameplay that is created from the game(B.) (it's sad that the case law on this was developed by old ass judges who have no idea what the gaming industry is like, but whatever). I hope this isn't the case in Korea but I'm not optimistic. Edit: if anyone is interested the case that illustrates U.S. law on this subject is Stern Electronics v. Kaufman, 669 F.2d 852 (2nd Cir. 1982).
I highlighted the main thrust; you guys are both wrong. (Yes I have read the whole thread, and I read the entirety of the ruling cited. Big thanks btw! Edifying.)
(A.) I agree that it's legally stupid if a game company owns all the gameplay that results from the game, especially if a game designed specifically for deeply unpredictable emergent gameplay is studied and mastered by devoted players. I don't think current pros think about it in terms of IP when they play, though. They think about it like an athlete. In a sense, whichever team owns the athlete owns their play. And league organizations have historically had free reign to dictate terms to member teams of their sport. No one ever invented sports though obviously, in an IP sense. Anyway that's not what Blizzard is suing; I would assume their legal strategy will be typical, not imaginative.
(B.) That wasn't indicated at all in the ruling. They talked about the arguments set forth, and about the criteria for copyright. This didn't include "all the gameplay", but one of Kaufman's arguments was that the gameplay is different always despite the AV; the judges correctly saw this as bullshit, and the AV copyright was the point anyway.
What you guys have brought up though is SUPER INTERESTING and completely unlitigated, as far as I can tell. Gedanken: what if soccer never existed, then someone thought it up and turned it into the global success it is now. Do players create IP just by play? Would a hypothetical FIFA have a right to adjust the rules, or is that infringement of the original design, by way of a knockoff essentially?
This player IP question is not about the developers as a whole. All the artists and programmers obviously get their shit copyrighted. It's about game design and how much a designer owns the (mostly unpredetermined) gameplay that results from player actions. I am highly fascinated.
(I don't think the court case we're discussing will go deeply in this direction though.)
2.+ Show Spoiler +On October 23 2010 12:52 TheStupidOne wrote:
So wait... Blizzard gave the rights to Gretech for SC in Korea, Gretech last week decided to play nice and let PL continue and now Blizzard is sidestepping Gretech altogether and just directly suing? Am I getting this right?
Has the world gone completely insane?
Back on topic... can someone knowledgeable answer this (2.)?
|
And so it begins.
"Proleague is under attack!"
Proleague will return.
|
On October 23 2010 14:07 EatThePath wrote:2. + Show Spoiler +On October 23 2010 12:52 TheStupidOne wrote:
So wait... Blizzard gave the rights to Gretech for SC in Korea, Gretech last week decided to play nice and let PL continue and now Blizzard is sidestepping Gretech altogether and just directly suing? Am I getting this right?
Has the world gone completely insane? Back on topic... can someone knowledgeable answer this (2.)?
Gretech never said they would just let Proleague continue and wouldn't sue although they did say some other stuff abt wanting esports to growth blah blah.
There was also an article by DES a few days ago that said Blizzard was personally stepping in instead of letting Gretech handle this.
|
On October 23 2010 14:07 EatThePath wrote:1. + Show Spoiler +On October 23 2010 10:29 Slow Motion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2010 10:22 Meriones wrote:
The big question for the court is: Does the IP rights to an esports match belong to the players playing the game or to the devs of the game?
This is obviously not about the power of kespa. It is about the power of the player.(A.) It is fundamentally the players IP rights Blizzard is suing. SC BW players put in a tremendous effort to develop an exceptional skill at playing games people want to watch. They spend much much more time than Blizzard devs. If the court rules that the player has no role in the creation of this IP then that is a major blow for esports players.
Broadcasting channels/websites have no real problem. They can broadcast cheaply and get ad money. The player has to try to make a living. He can't if what he works so hard for is automatically owned by Blizzard. I have no idea what Korean IP law is like, but under U.S. law it's settled that the gaming company has a copyright in all the gameplay that is created from the game(B.) (it's sad that the case law on this was developed by old ass judges who have no idea what the gaming industry is like, but whatever). I hope this isn't the case in Korea but I'm not optimistic. Edit: if anyone is interested the case that illustrates U.S. law on this subject is Stern Electronics v. Kaufman, 669 F.2d 852 (2nd Cir. 1982). I highlighted the main thrust; you guys are both wrong. (Yes I have read the whole thread, and I read the entirety of the ruling cited. Big thanks btw! Edifying.) (A.) I agree that it's legally stupid if a game company owns all the gameplay that results from the game, especially if a game designed specifically for deeply unpredictable emergent gameplay is studied and mastered by devoted players. I don't think current pros think about it in terms of IP when they play, though. They think about it like an athlete. In a sense, whichever team owns the athlete owns their play. And league organizations have historically had free reign to dictate terms to member teams of their sport. No one ever invented sports though obviously, in an IP sense. Anyway that's not what Blizzard is suing; I would assume their legal strategy will be typical, not imaginative. (B.) That wasn't indicated at all in the ruling. They talked about the arguments set forth, and about the criteria for copyright. This didn't include "all the gameplay", but one of Kaufman's arguments was that the gameplay is different always despite the AV; the judges correctly saw this as bullshit, and the AV copyright was the point anyway. What you guys have brought up though is SUPER INTERESTING and completely unlitigated, as far as I can tell. Gedanken: what if soccer never existed, then someone thought it up and turned it into the global success it is now. Do players create IP just by play? Would a hypothetical FIFA have a right to adjust the rules, or is that infringement of the original design, by way of a knockoff essentially? This player IP question is not about the developers as a whole. All the artists and programmers obviously get their shit copyrighted. It's about game design and how much a designer owns the (mostly unpredetermined) gameplay that results from player actions. I am highly fascinated. (I don't think the court case we're discussing will go deeply in this direction though.) 2. + Show Spoiler +On October 23 2010 12:52 TheStupidOne wrote:
So wait... Blizzard gave the rights to Gretech for SC in Korea, Gretech last week decided to play nice and let PL continue and now Blizzard is sidestepping Gretech altogether and just directly suing? Am I getting this right?
Has the world gone completely insane? Back on topic... can someone knowledgeable answer this (2.)?
Gretech did not let MBC off. Gretech just released some details regarding the situation but also confirmed that MBC will be delt legally. They talked about their terms and correct any misinformation/bad rumors going on. Because people were confused saying gretech/blizz is evil and that they want to destroy BW, but it was because KeSPA was unable to reach a conclusion.
It looks like Blizzard is going to sue them as well? I wish there was a primary source somewhere.
Anyways, people are blaming Blizz/Gretech like fuck here. I'm blaming KeSPA. It took 3 years of negotiations for blizz to stop negotiations. KeSPA will never learn the lesson and it has come to a sour conclusion.
|
This makes me sad. Why can't BW and SC2 co-exist peacefully?!
Will the existence of BW REALLY take away ALL the viewers away from SC2? zzz
|
Sigh and just when I thought they might finally make some progress =\
|
the sad part is blizzard doesnt care about all the people who will be jobless if they win cause i cant see sc1 without kespa/ogn/mbc
|
On October 23 2010 14:06 PalaceAthene wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2010 14:03 StatiC)Ex( wrote:
Does no one here agree with the saying "Out with the old, in with the new?"
It's only right to move on.
Conservatives. -_- I agree. Tex-Mex for everyone!
Just because it's new doesn't mean it's better.
Appeal to Novelty - Fallacy
|
On October 23 2010 14:22 Lokian wrote:
Anyways, people are blaming Blizz/Gretech like fuck here. I'm blaming KeSPA. It took 3 years of negotiations for blizz to stop negotiations. KeSPA will never learn the lesson and it has come to a sour conclusion.
Well depending on whose side of the story you listen to, the claim is that Kespa aimed to secure the rights years ago, but Blizzard wouldn't negotiate. Only when SC2's release was nigh did Blizzard agree to discuss things but never offered any reasonable terms.
Still, with these kinds of fights between corporate interests rarely does the public get to know really what's going on - unless there's a court case. If Blizzard follows through, hopefully the Korean courts are open enough for us to find out what's actually going on.
|
On October 23 2010 14:06 PalaceAthene wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2010 14:03 StatiC)Ex( wrote:
Does no one here agree with the saying "Out with the old, in with the new?"
It's only right to move on.
Conservatives. -_- I agree. Tex-Mex for everyone!
So you both would rather see BW die than support the co-existence of both BW and SC2 as two viable and distinct e-sports? Great... you are not helping our cause here. We want to see e-sports survive, but if BW dies, e-sports will have gone backwards by several years.
As much as I want to swear at you both, I will not say anything more here. -_-
|
fuck blizzard man...
User was warned for this post
|
On October 23 2010 14:22 Lokian wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2010 14:07 EatThePath wrote:1. + Show Spoiler +On October 23 2010 10:29 Slow Motion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2010 10:22 Meriones wrote:
The big question for the court is: Does the IP rights to an esports match belong to the players playing the game or to the devs of the game?
This is obviously not about the power of kespa. It is about the power of the player.(A.) It is fundamentally the players IP rights Blizzard is suing. SC BW players put in a tremendous effort to develop an exceptional skill at playing games people want to watch. They spend much much more time than Blizzard devs. If the court rules that the player has no role in the creation of this IP then that is a major blow for esports players.
Broadcasting channels/websites have no real problem. They can broadcast cheaply and get ad money. The player has to try to make a living. He can't if what he works so hard for is automatically owned by Blizzard. I have no idea what Korean IP law is like, but under U.S. law it's settled that the gaming company has a copyright in all the gameplay that is created from the game(B.) (it's sad that the case law on this was developed by old ass judges who have no idea what the gaming industry is like, but whatever). I hope this isn't the case in Korea but I'm not optimistic. Edit: if anyone is interested the case that illustrates U.S. law on this subject is Stern Electronics v. Kaufman, 669 F.2d 852 (2nd Cir. 1982). I highlighted the main thrust; you guys are both wrong. (Yes I have read the whole thread, and I read the entirety of the ruling cited. Big thanks btw! Edifying.) (A.) I agree that it's legally stupid if a game company owns all the gameplay that results from the game, especially if a game designed specifically for deeply unpredictable emergent gameplay is studied and mastered by devoted players. I don't think current pros think about it in terms of IP when they play, though. They think about it like an athlete. In a sense, whichever team owns the athlete owns their play. And league organizations have historically had free reign to dictate terms to member teams of their sport. No one ever invented sports though obviously, in an IP sense. Anyway that's not what Blizzard is suing; I would assume their legal strategy will be typical, not imaginative. (B.) That wasn't indicated at all in the ruling. They talked about the arguments set forth, and about the criteria for copyright. This didn't include "all the gameplay", but one of Kaufman's arguments was that the gameplay is different always despite the AV; the judges correctly saw this as bullshit, and the AV copyright was the point anyway. What you guys have brought up though is SUPER INTERESTING and completely unlitigated, as far as I can tell. Gedanken: what if soccer never existed, then someone thought it up and turned it into the global success it is now. Do players create IP just by play? Would a hypothetical FIFA have a right to adjust the rules, or is that infringement of the original design, by way of a knockoff essentially? This player IP question is not about the developers as a whole. All the artists and programmers obviously get their shit copyrighted. It's about game design and how much a designer owns the (mostly unpredetermined) gameplay that results from player actions. I am highly fascinated. (I don't think the court case we're discussing will go deeply in this direction though.) 2. + Show Spoiler +On October 23 2010 12:52 TheStupidOne wrote:
So wait... Blizzard gave the rights to Gretech for SC in Korea, Gretech last week decided to play nice and let PL continue and now Blizzard is sidestepping Gretech altogether and just directly suing? Am I getting this right?
Has the world gone completely insane? Back on topic... can someone knowledgeable answer this (2.)? Anyways, people are blaming Blizz/Gretech like fuck here. I'm blaming KeSPA. It took 3 years of negotiations for blizz to stop negotiations. KeSPA will never learn the lesson and it has come to a sour conclusion.
No organisation in their right mind would agree to the list of 6 demands placed on Kespa by Blizzard. Negotiations were never going anywhere.
|
I was having a really really good day and then this goes and sours it up a bit, here's hoping that this doesn't go anywhere
|
|
|
I don't care who wins as long as I'm able to watch flash/jaedong/bisu and crew playing some form of the game starcraft.
|
On October 23 2010 14:01 PalaceAthene wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2010 13:55 ghrur wrote:On October 23 2010 13:39 PalaceAthene wrote:On October 23 2010 13:30 ghrur wrote:On October 23 2010 13:25 PalaceAthene wrote:On October 23 2010 13:19 zenMaster wrote:On October 23 2010 13:13 deafhobbit wrote:On October 23 2010 13:06 Hikko wrote:On October 23 2010 13:00 deafhobbit wrote:On October 23 2010 12:57 PalaceAthene wrote:
[quote]
It's pointless trying to argue to them. They don't understand how at this point in time, Kespa is hurting the pro scene more than helping them by forbidding any of their players from playing in the GSL. Any yet Blizzard ISN'T holding back esports by trying to ban anyone from participating in any further OSL's, MSL's, Courage Tournaments, or Proleague matches? Currently, they aren't. The only thing they're pissed about is the fact that the broadcasting organizations did not pay their dues in order to broadcast Starcraft games even though they were explicitly told so or risk legal consequences. Notice MBC and OGN are being sued. Not KeSPA. They're submitting for an injunction to stop proleague. The specter of this is why OGN and MBC are hesitant to start up new starleagues right now. Yeah, they're trying to fuck over esports. Yes, we love E-Sports but we will stop proleague if we don't get control over everything. I'm so mad I will punch a kitten. They only want to control their product. *IB4 people argue soccer balls or whatever stupid analogies they bring up* And no, pro sports are not owned by anybody but Starcraft isn't a sport. Starcraft is a product that is used to play a sport ("e-sports"). OGN and MBC, and in turn KeSPA has never had the right to use Starcraft for their business. Pro sports ARE owned by people, especially the broadcasting of sports. Examples include the NBA, the NFL, and the MLB. All of them have a "do not broadcast without the permission of _______" before their games. In this case, Basketball:NBA, Starcraft:Kespa. Wrong, it's been stated that KeSPA had bought the rights from HanBitSoft. They also had the right when they themselves bought the game... unless you're saying we can't put up our starcraft matches on youtube now without paying Blizzard royalties. Finally, their business is based around the matches. Starcraft matches are their product, which are a combination of many things, just like NBA matches are a product of many people's hard work. Funny thing, uploading videos on certain sites restrict content from games. The thing is, Gaming law is sketchy in the sense that it hasn't been explored as much as Movies, TVs, and sports even. And while it's been stated KeSPA bought rights from HanBitSoft, they were just the distributor. Like how Capcom distributes GTA games in Japan, they have no right to do with whatever they want concerning the IP itself, they're just the ones that translate it, and sale to the stores to retail. Comparing games to sports or anything is a fallacy, because game laws aren't as cut clear as sport fair use is. Take Blip TV: http://blip.tv/faq/content/From the content restrictions: It is also our policy not to accept videogame screen recordings. So as it stands it's sketchy when it comes to broadcasting copyright content from videogames. Maybe commentators can throw their 2 cents into the ring, seeing as they freely upload casts, they know more than us. I don't understand, if gaming law hasn't been explored as you stated, how can you then make the second statement about HanBitSoft and being "just the distributor?" Also, yes, games haven't been explored as much, but we're no discussing strictly games here, we're discussing e-SPORTS as they're called. Anyway, my original point stands in that most sports HAVE companies which control the distribution of the products their organization made. Also, I'd think the Blip TV supports KeSPA if anything because it doesn't accept screen recordings, but it accepts videos with commentators. KeSPA hires the commentators in this case; they also hire the players, the observers, etc. Because Distributor, in any sense of the word, is just the company that localizes and 'distributes' the product. They have no control over the IP itself, they just have permission to distribute it.(Key work, distribute(. Again, Starcraft isn't a sport, it's a product used to play e-Sports. A product that very well has a copyright owner, and protection from that. It is not a real 'sport' in the sense that not everyone can play it;IE schools can play Basketball, but they don't have to pay the NBA or anyone license fees, but if they wanted to use Starcraft for their class or anything, they'd have to ask permission from the license holder in order to do so. That's why you can't compare Starcraft to real sports. Blip.Tv was just an example of their terms of service directly stating limitations of using gameplay content in videos. Whether they support kespa indirectly because so is irrelevant.
Berkeley had a Starcraft class.... they didnt or need to get rights from Blizzard....
so that point is invalid.
|
On October 23 2010 14:48 cocoa_sg wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2010 14:06 PalaceAthene wrote:On October 23 2010 14:03 StatiC)Ex( wrote:
Does no one here agree with the saying "Out with the old, in with the new?"
It's only right to move on.
Conservatives. -_- I agree. Tex-Mex for everyone! So you both would rather see BW die than support the co-existence of both BW and SC2 as two viable and distinct e-sports? Great... you are not helping our cause here. We want to see e-sports survive, but if BW dies, e-sports will have gone backwards by several years. As much as I want to swear at you both, I will not say anything more here. -_-
Again, BW and SC2 aren't sports, they are used for e-sports. Just like Halo 3 is used for e-sports, and isn't a sport itself. Fine line in semantics here. E-sports will be around as long as people play their Team Fortress 2 and counter-strike or whatever. SC2 and SC will still be used in E-sports, regardless of what happens in this situation. Someone else will license the permissions if MBC/OGN falls, after all when Gom licensed permissions to broadcast games, Blizzard gave them the contract at the price of $1.
...And then KeSPA threatened them and pretty much shut them down by witholding their own players. That's when Blizzard started seeing KeSPA as a threat, but now I'm just running off on a tangent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
