EPTLet the fun begin. Activision Blizzard suing MBC - Page 19
| Forum Index > BW General |
|
Fenrax
United States5018 Posts
| ||
|
xBillehx
United States1289 Posts
Fomos 1 Fomos 2 Fomos 3 Fomos 4 Can anyone please translate or at the very least see if there's something new/different in these articles than the one from the OP? | ||
|
SmoKim
Denmark10305 Posts
| ||
|
KlaCkoN
Sweden1661 Posts
This is why I never bought sc2, would have felt soo shitty if i had. As much as I don't think it will happen I really hope blizzard loses completely and totally. Watching brood war is one of my hobbies and it would be really sad to see the scene get killed of. | ||
|
Woony
Germany6657 Posts
On October 23 2010 23:08 Fenrax wrote: I hope seriously that Blizzard loses. E-Sports would be a different, worse thing if a company had a total and complete monopoly on tournament and league play. It would happen the thing that happens everytime someone has a monopoly, it would be about 100 times worse than what a free market would produce. So Kespa didn't have a monopoly? Lol. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5864 Posts
KeSPA consists of many unrelated companies, two broadcasting TVs and more. KeSPA also has no levarage in other countries. I don't see how they're supposedly a monopoly (don't mention the gomtv thing - their league ran just fine for couple seasons until they teamed up with blizzard). You can't seriously compare KeSPA's influence to blizzard getting the total control of the entire esport scene as far as their games go. ;; | ||
|
Woosung
65 Posts
You'd still be allowed to play broodwar you know. So no, that's not really a monopoly. | ||
|
BaltA
Norway849 Posts
| ||
|
StarStruck
25339 Posts
On October 23 2010 23:36 maybenexttime wrote: KeSPA consists of many unrelated companies, two broadcasting TVs and more. KeSPA also has no levarage in other countries. I don't see how they're supposedly a monopoly (don't mention the gomtv thing - their league ran just fine for couple seasons until they teamed up with blizzard). You can't seriously compare KeSPA's influence to blizzard getting the total control of the entire esport scene as far as their games go. ;; I was thinking the same thing. Every sport has organizers around it. What the heck you think the NBA, NHL and MLB are? Like seriously. Only thing Korean Brood War is missing is a player association, which really shouldn't be that hard to pull off. It's a culture thing though. The players over there are used to getting the short-end of the stick and I'd like to see them stand-up for their own rights for once. For example, KeSPA trying to downplay player ceremonies. It has good entertainment value and let's the players show some personality. It was a stupid move on KeSPA's part to get rid of it because it created a lot of interesting rivalries. Korean culture :/ | ||
|
Meriones
43 Posts
On October 23 2010 23:03 Catch]22 wrote: Heh, funny one. Companies have lawyers that read them. As for the rest of your post, you make it sound like the only reson you bought Starcraft 1 and 2 was because of the korean scene which I highly doubt. A gamer who is a lawyer doesn't read ELAU's. What company really needs to read the ELUA of SC or SC2? Koreans bought SC BW because of esports. That's why a tiny 60 million country bought 6 million copies. That's half of all the sales made by 1% of the world population. When I bought SC and BW there were no esports, obviously, because I bought at release date. Kespa only has a monopoly over the players their invested in, trained and pay. It's like saying Barcelona has a monompoly on the single best football player in the world because they have Messi. Also, every sport needs a global sports federation. Esports needs one desperately. Kespa is the first step. What we need now is NA and Europe to copy it and then join together in a world wide esports federation. | ||
|
AyJay
1515 Posts
Edit: what I mean is the conspiracy theorys, praising KeSPA for some reason, telling that blizzard/kespa will win when in reality you don't know anything what's going to happen | ||
mustaju
Estonia4505 Posts
On October 23 2010 23:03 bRuTaL!! wrote: Mustaju, my first paragraph was directed at you. Rest was towards the thread in general. Id argue thought that competition for your own product is harmful (BW vs SC2 tournaments). Blizzard didnt really do anything before now simply becuase of the reasons I already stated, they got sales of their game. Now BW scene is conflicting with their own projects and Blizzard simply wants either money to offset the damages BW does to SC2 or the end of BW tournaments. Whether this is right or wrong, is NOT my point. Simply telling both sides of the story. That still doesn't answer my original question. Why do you think there is no incentive for companies to develop high cost games that can be used in tournaments(which run solely on sponsorship money)? This should be every companies dream, even when they don't have control over EVERY SINGLE THING the players/community do. EDIT: On October 24 2010 00:02 AyJay wrote: everyone in this thread thinks their so clever it's not even funny And you are one of the worst offenders in every single thread I've seen you post in. | ||
|
Grettin
42416 Posts
On October 24 2010 00:02 AyJay wrote: everyone in this thread thinks their so clever it's not even funny You should enlighten all of us then with the right and correct statement how things are. Shouldn't you? | ||
|
Vedic
United States582 Posts
| ||
|
xarthaz
1704 Posts
On October 23 2010 23:03 bRuTaL!! wrote: IP enforcement can be achieved by either law or by changing the product. So if the company cant enforce their IP through courts they ill either not make it available at all or change the product. For example, SC2 cant be played in LAN. I wonder why, might have something to do with piracy or the whole ordeal in Korea... Same goes for copyprotection for music or DVD areas. Im struggling to see how making IP rights enforcement harder will benefit consumers. Either the product will be inferior or it wont be released at all (simplified scenario). Maybe you mean something like Steam? You misunderstood me, my whole point was about specilation over a world without IP enforcement. The benefit of abolishing IP is defined by decreased opportunity cost of gaming-related actions by consumers, given abolisment of IP. The artificially-created costs related to non-scarce ends are eliminated, meaning capital can be used for production of scarce ends. Non-scarce ends do not disappear when their artificial scarcity is eliminated, all that disappears is the cost. This in sharp contrast with scarce ends, which require cost to maintain. Because of this, abolishing IP implies elimination of capital waste investments. | ||
|
T0fuuu
Australia2275 Posts
| ||
|
Slow Motion
United States6960 Posts
On October 23 2010 14:07 EatThePath wrote: 1.+ Show Spoiler + On October 23 2010 10:29 Slow Motion wrote: 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.)? Thanks for reading the case and the thoughtful response. I see now I was misstating the case and simplifying it too much. I went back and read the case again, this time not relying on my crappy notes. My interpretation of the case is a little different than yours. The issue isn't whether all gameplay is copyrightable (like I initially erroneously suggested), but whether the fact that the player can affect the audiovisual work (through gameplay) can withdraw the audiovisuals from copyright eligibility. The answer is no, as there are always enough consistent elements in a game, that come from the code, to make the audiovisual of the game copyrightable. Once that is established, the game company will now have exclusive rights over the broadcasting of the audiovisual of its work. Your question, whether the developers can own the gameplay is basically moot. You can't separate the gameplay from the audiovisuals you see (graphics and sounds). I'm really hard-pressed to imagine a game that is all gameplay and contains no graphics and sounds (by its nature all games must contain some sort of graphics and/or sound). This gives game designers the ability to copyright those graphics and sounds. In effect, the game designer owns exclusive broadcasting rights (among other rights) to all games with graphics and sounds. | ||
|
Weird
United States832 Posts
On October 24 2010 00:07 Grettin wrote: You should enlighten all of us then with the right and correct statement how things are. Shouldn't you? LOL he should probably look into the whole "their" and "they're" thing too... | ||
|
Varth
United States426 Posts
| ||
|
zappa372
Chile365 Posts
SouthKorea is Starcraft Broodwar, Starcraft Broodwar is SouthKorea... deal with it. | ||
| ||
