|
On October 23 2010 16:09 Rikstah wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2010 12:57 PalaceAthene wrote:
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. Shut up you fucking idiotic troll. All you've done in the 19 posts you've been on this forum is troll and make serious errors of fact arguing against Kespa. How about you go build Esports for 10 years, totally untouched, and have the game maker make more than ridiculous demands. Its not about money, its about control, Blizzard even went as far as to say they have the right to the progamer contracts... how the fuck is that possible. Negotiations broke down because blizzard asked for more than licensing money, which is all they really had the right to. kespa was willing to pay quite early, it aint about the money, get it through your thick skulls that blizzard DEMANDED control of everything, and that is clearly arguable. The way I see it: Blizz asking for money is not arguable The rest of their freakish demands are clearly arguable. They don't own the pro league, they dont own the teams, they dont have a right to audit every single fkn company. Sick of these fanboys
The irony is, I'm sick of Kespa fanboys.
And that's what you are.
Kettle calling the pot black, tsk tsk.
And it's all about the money. Blizzard doesn't have 'control over everything' when it came to Gom. Gom does. This is where your argument falls.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
Forget it. Tired of this. Won't get embroiled in this any further.
MBC fighting!
|
On October 23 2010 16:21 PalaceAthene wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2010 16:09 Rikstah wrote:On October 23 2010 12:57 PalaceAthene wrote:
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. Shut up you fucking idiotic troll. All you've done in the 19 posts you've been on this forum is troll and make serious errors of fact arguing against Kespa. How about you go build Esports for 10 years, totally untouched, and have the game maker make more than ridiculous demands. Its not about money, its about control, Blizzard even went as far as to say they have the right to the progamer contracts... how the fuck is that possible. Negotiations broke down because blizzard asked for more than licensing money, which is all they really had the right to. kespa was willing to pay quite early, it aint about the money, get it through your thick skulls that blizzard DEMANDED control of everything, and that is clearly arguable. The way I see it: Blizz asking for money is not arguable The rest of their freakish demands are clearly arguable. They don't own the pro league, they dont own the teams, they dont have a right to audit every single fkn company. Sick of these fanboys The irony is, I'm sick of Kespa fanboys. And that's what you are. Kettle calling the pot black, tsk tsk. And it's all about the money. Blizzard doesn't have 'control over everything' when it came to Gom. Gom does. This is where your argument falls.
So if "it's all about the money", then why will Blizzard STILL not accept Kespa's initial IP rights payment? It is obviously clear that Blizzard wants something more, which is more control over the Korean proscene THROUGH Gretech (which owns GomTV). Get it?
|
Terrible news indeed. Hopefully Korean law is on KeSPAs side.
|
United States238 Posts
On October 23 2010 16:29 cocoa_sg wrote:
So if "it's all about the money", then why will Blizzard STILL not accept Kespa's initial IP rights payment? It is obviously clear that Blizzard wants something more, which is more control over the Korean proscene THROUGH Gretech (which owns GomTV). Get it?
KeSPA has never acknowledged IP rights afaik. They are only willing to pay for the licensing fees to broadcast things, but they will not acknowledge IP rights of StarCraft.
|
On October 23 2010 16:32 Selith wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2010 16:29 cocoa_sg wrote:
So if "it's all about the money", then why will Blizzard STILL not accept Kespa's initial IP rights payment? It is obviously clear that Blizzard wants something more, which is more control over the Korean proscene THROUGH Gretech (which owns GomTV). Get it?
KeSPA has never acknowledged IP rights afaik. They are only willing to pay for the licensing fees to broadcast things, but they will not acknowledge IP rights of StarCraft.
I stand corrected on mistaking IP rights for licensing fees.
Now, let's look at this, from your quote above, therein is where the problem lies:
Blizzard never enforced those IP rights of Starcraft for the past 10 years, so it was basically a non-issue. Why enforce them now only when SC2 has come out?
This is irresponsibility on Blizzard's part in protecting their intellectual rights. They do not have much of a say on such matters now as they would have when BW was just blooming in South Korea.
|
It's funny, none of this arguing between Blizzard, Gretech, KeSPA and the channels ever really gave me the impression that Brood War was going to die. I figured as long as there were players willing to play and fans willing to watch, Brood War would live on.
It's actually the new Proleague schedule which really gave me a sense of dread. There are now less teams, with less players or at least practice partners, but they're going to run as many matches per week and per season as before. And with more games every match, too. I read the interviews too, and some mentioned that the new format tires them and leaves them with little time to practice between games. And I feel that the abundance of StarCraft matches might oversaturate the audience. I know I haven't watched as much Proleague recently as I used to. (Though I guess midterms and running at the same time as GSL might be other explanations for that  ).
Anyway, I apologise for running this off topic, please go back to your regularly scheduled arguing.
|
On October 23 2010 16:17 sCuMBaG wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2010 09:38 mustaju wrote:
I don't know what is worse. That this actually is happening or that we are bound to get a massive amount of people here saying that this is a good thing. funny thing is, every single one who thnks and says it's "good" doesn'T have any SC:BW icon in their sigs, and are registered sth. like september 2010
I noticed this started happening in numbers during the BW off-season. Every time there was a discussion on this subject.
On October 23 2010 16:46 Fanatic-Templar wrote:It's funny, none of this arguing between Blizzard, Gretech, KeSPA and the channels ever really gave me the impression that Brood War was going to die. I figured as long as there were players willing to play and fans willing to watch, Brood War would live on. It's actually the new Proleague schedule which really gave me a sense of dread. There are now less teams, with less players or at least practice partners, but they're going to run as many matches per week and per season as before. And with more games every match, too. I read the interviews too, and some mentioned that the new format tires them and leaves them with little time to practice between games. And I feel that the abundance of StarCraft matches might oversaturate the audience. I know I haven't watched as much Proleague recently as I used to. (Though I guess midterms and running at the same time as GSL might be other explanations for that ). Anyway, I apologise for running this off topic, please go back to your regularly scheduled arguing.
Some players also welcome the Bo7 format. Read Sea's interview. I don't think the audience is oversaturated.
If they didn't increase the number of games, sponsors might not have signed on because 2 fewer teams means less airtime.
|
United States238 Posts
Blizzard doesn't really care as long as no money is trying to be made out of their stuff.
At 2007, Blizzard contacted KeSPA after the whole fiasco about trying to charge people who wanted to come to the games. They wanted to set up a negotiation, but we all know nothing came out of it.
While I am pretty sure Blizzard just wants to make SC 2 big while reducing BW's popularity (because both shares some degree of same fanbase), it's not quite correct to think that Blizzard only just begun to think about their IP rights. They have been since 2007.
|
On October 23 2010 16:48 Selith wrote:
Blizzard doesn't really care as long as no money is trying to be made out of their stuff.
At 2007, Blizzard contacted KeSPA after the whole fiasco about trying to charge people who wanted to come to the games. They wanted to set up a negotiation, but we all know nothing came out of it.
While I am pretty sure Blizzard just wants to make SC 2 big while reducing BW's popularity (because both shares some degree of same fanbase), it's not quite correct to think that Blizzard only just begun to think about their IP rights. They have been since 2007.
You do have a good point. However, BW lasted for nearly a decade now, which is 10 years.
So if we want to agree that Blizzard 'started thinking' about their IP rights since 2007, that would mean they started 3 years ago. This also means they FAILED to do anything to protect their IP rights for the past 7 years before 2007.
Let's look at an example, shall we:
We share a common lawn, half of which belongs to each other. I put up a sign saying "This is my half of the lawn" while you leave your half open and free.
Then, you go on a 7-year vacation. I settle down on your half of the lawn too, enjoying the sun and BBQ'ing with friends. I put down another sign saying "This half of the lawn belongs to me too".
I then charge my friends if they want to use my entire lawn now. You come back after 7 years and start raising a ruckus about how 'your' half belongs to you.
Would you have much of a say in this anymore?
|
On October 23 2010 16:48 Selith wrote:
Blizzard doesn't really care as long as no money is trying to be made out of their stuff.
At 2007, Blizzard contacted KeSPA after the whole fiasco about trying to charge people who wanted to come to the games. They wanted to set up a negotiation, but we all know nothing came out of it.
While I am pretty sure Blizzard just wants to make SC 2 big while reducing BW's popularity (because both shares some degree of same fanbase), it's not quite correct to think that Blizzard only just begun to think about their IP rights. They have been since 2007.
And when Starcraft II was announced ?
Oh wait ... in 2007.
|
I fantasize JFSB monopolising the SC2 tournaments with wins then speaking out about how Blizzard sucks ass and shit.
|
United States238 Posts
On October 23 2010 16:59 cocoa_sg wrote:
You do have a good point. However, BW lasted for nearly a decade now, which is 10 years.
So if we want to agree that Blizzard 'started thinking' about their IP rights since 2007, that would mean they started 3 years ago. This also means they FAILED to do anything to protect their IP rights for the past 7 years before 2007.
Let's look at an example, shall we:
We share a common lawn, half of which belongs to each other. I put up a sign saying "This is my half of the lawn" while you leave your half open and free.
Then, you go on a 7-year vacation. I settle down on your half of the lawn too, enjoying the sun and BBQ'ing with friends. I put down another sign saying "This half of the lawn belongs to me too".
I then charge my friends if they want to use my entire lawn now. You come back after 7 years and start raising a ruckus about how 'your' half belongs to you.
Would you have much of a say in this anymore?
It is pretty much obvious that Blizzard has ulterior motive of trying to make SC 2 the thing to be, since they are acting NOW instead of before. Only possible reason I can think of is to lessen the backlash (as SC was lot more popular back in 2007), but who knows?
I wouldn't say that example is good though. More correct way to say is:
I own a piece of land. It lawfully belongs to me. I go on a vacation for a while. Then someone comes in and builds a non-profit building on the land that I own, and didn't give him or her permission to do so.
Lawfully, I do have every right to boot him or her out of the lawful land that I own. Whether it is a nice thing to do or not, is not so clear-cut.
|
On October 23 2010 17:06 Selith wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2010 16:59 cocoa_sg wrote:
You do have a good point. However, BW lasted for nearly a decade now, which is 10 years.
So if we want to agree that Blizzard 'started thinking' about their IP rights since 2007, that would mean they started 3 years ago. This also means they FAILED to do anything to protect their IP rights for the past 7 years before 2007.
Let's look at an example, shall we:
We share a common lawn, half of which belongs to each other. I put up a sign saying "This is my half of the lawn" while you leave your half open and free.
Then, you go on a 7-year vacation. I settle down on your half of the lawn too, enjoying the sun and BBQ'ing with friends. I put down another sign saying "This half of the lawn belongs to me too".
I then charge my friends if they want to use my entire lawn now. You come back after 7 years and start raising a ruckus about how 'your' half belongs to you.
Would you have much of a say in this anymore?
It is pretty much obvious that Blizzard has ulterior motive of trying to make SC 2 the thing to be, since they are acting NOW instead of before. Only possible reason I can think of is to lessen the backlash (as SC was lot more popular back in 2007), but who knows? I wouldn't say that example is good though. More correct way to say is: I own a piece of land. It lawfully belongs to me. I go on a vacation for a while. Then someone comes in and builds a non-profit building on the land that I own, and didn't give him or her permission to do so. Lawfully, I do have every right to boot him or her out of the lawful land that I own. Whether it is a nice thing to do or not, is not so clear-cut.
The key word here is "lawfully". When BW started becoming popular in South Korea, it was everyone's commodity. When you buy a product, it is yours now.
That would be the case if Blizzard never bothered to enforce their IP rights before 2007, which is true. And as such, until then, Kespa had a say in owning that commodity and creating an entire e-sports scene out of it.
And this is where my example goes in.
|
United States238 Posts
On October 23 2010 17:13 cocoa_sg wrote:
The key word here is "lawfully". When BW started becoming popular in South Korea, it was everyone's commodity. When you buy a product, it is yours now.
That would be the case if Blizzard never bothered to enforce their IP rights before 2007, which is true. And as such, until then, Kespa had a say in owning that commodity and creating an entire e-sports scene out of it.
And this is how my example goes in.
All software products you buy are not actually "yours" in a true sense. They are more or less "leased" or "given a license to use". Although I am not 100% sure if EULA is legally binding, but that's what many of the commercial software publishers will tell you (not just Blizzard).
And public performance of many things are not allowed by many different products unless you get a license to do so beforehand. IE) Movies and music.
Maybe it is different in Singapore.
|
Not that it's particularly surprising, but this thread is a pretty sad example of [most] people basing their assertions purely on how they wish things should be rather how they are.
|
for everybody who is saying they should have done this for years , ask yourself why they didn't ?, cause it was convenient for blizzard (i'm sure they where getting money out of it) , and i'm 100% that this time they will lose this lawsuit against mbc and ogn
|
|
|
Oh, Blizzard.
What sad times.
|
On October 23 2010 17:17 Selith wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2010 17:13 cocoa_sg wrote:
The key word here is "lawfully". When BW started becoming popular in South Korea, it was everyone's commodity. When you buy a product, it is yours now.
That would be the case if Blizzard never bothered to enforce their IP rights before 2007, which is true. And as such, until then, Kespa had a say in owning that commodity and creating an entire e-sports scene out of it.
And this is how my example goes in. All software products you buy are not actually "yours" in a true sense. They are more or less "leased" or "given a license to use". Although I am not 100% sure if EULA is legally binding, but that's what many of the commercial software publishers will tell you (not just Blizzard). And public performance of many things are not allowed by many different products unless you get a license to do so beforehand. IE) Movies and music. Maybe it is different in Singapore.
And my friend, this is where it gets COMPLICATED.
EULA has been evolving throughout the years. BW was an old game, and e-sports was pretty much non-existent. I remember the old days when BW players were free to use the Spawn function to replicate their BW games through LAN. Yes, that Spawn function was part of the game and thus implemented by Blizzard.
The EULA of old is nowhere near the same as the EULA of now, or mostly varied differently. So thus, it is hard to say for sure whether my or your example is right.
The license to use a product was a newer surplus to evolving laws between the past and the present. So again, it is like trying to hold a liquid bar when it only seeps through your fingers. Such issues only complicate the whole thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
