EPTAnyway,
MBC HWAITING!
Let the fun begin. Activision Blizzard suing MBC - Page 20
| Forum Index > BW General |
|
Weedk
United States507 Posts
Anyway, MBC HWAITING! | ||
|
Slow Motion
United States6960 Posts
On October 23 2010 23:10 xBillehx wrote: :\ Rather than internet lawyers arguing over whats right or wrong I really would like just more information about the subject in general. I posted links to 4 Fomos articles about 10 pages back that may give more information as to what is really going on and I think it'd be awesome if someone who spoke/read Korean could translate it for the rest of us. >: 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? It's true that knowledge of Korean is more useful than internet lawyering right now, but most of us don't know Korean so we are stuck with speculating blindly. If some Korean speaker can come clear things up it'd be awesome (if there is anything to clear up that is). | ||
|
Neo7
United States922 Posts
| ||
|
Vedic
United States582 Posts
On October 24 2010 00:33 Varth wrote: Will be interesting to see if any new information is gained once this lawsuit comes into play. Wondering what exactly blizzard is going to say, along with the defendents. Then we can finally get some hard facts on each side instead of speculation. It's a lawsuit, not a trial. | ||
|
Piledriver
United States1697 Posts
Having said that , its hard not to respect what KeSPA has done for the systematic growth of SC1.I just wish that they would reach an amicable resolution. Perhaps one day we could see players of both games having no restrictions at entering any tournament that they wanted. Just a pipe dream, pity it will never become true. | ||
|
Vxed
Norway239 Posts
| ||
CTStalker
Canada9720 Posts
On October 23 2010 18:14 Biff The Understudy wrote: Yeah, let's support the fatass corporation suying the non-profit organization so that they stop an 10 years activity so that the big fatass corporation can make more money on their new product regardless its (mediocre) quality. Makes perfect sense. I don't think Kespa is great. But they are the one who made esport, who made the success of BW (and in fact, in a way, of SC2), and they deserve huge credit for that. If chess was invented today we would have to play royalties for holding a tournament. I hope one day people realize that the notion of intellectual property has been pusehd to an extent that it is completely fucked up. calling kespa a non-profit is disingenuous at the least, verging on deceipt. this isn't the ymca, it's just a consortium of for-profit companies who get together to arbitrate and discuss things that are of common interest and benefit to them at any rate, it sucks to see this happen. i'd still watch a proleague match from time to time for nostalgia | ||
|
infinity2k9
United Kingdom2397 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. ;; Even if you mention the GOM thing its irrelevant. You are free to start your own BW scene in korea with your own teams, own sponsors, own players and do whatever you like and KeSPA has no authority over it. But when you want KeSPA paid players in your tournaments for nothing in return, while you are planning to directly undermine KeSPA by teaming with Blizzard, is it surprising they have a problem with it? If i was a progame coach why would i want my gamers practicing for this league? The GOM leagues were just unnecessary and the only reason there's any western support for them is because of the fact there were english commentators. | ||
|
MangoTango
United States3670 Posts
| ||
|
tommya
Canada52 Posts
Why does MBC/possibly OGN have to listen to foreign companies? Can't they just tell them to fuck off, this is south korea, and we don't really give a shit if you want to sue us? Are the SK police going to arrest them and send them off to an American prison? I would imagine the SK government might be more interested in collecting tax from broadcasting studios than bending over and letting foreign powers tell them how to run their police system. I can understand that maybe the SK government wouldn't want to tarnish their reputation, but it seems brood war has become part of their culture. I know it's become part of mine, as I watch quite a few proleague broadcasts. Sure, they could get new companies to broadcast the games, but don't OGN and MBC directly sponsor some tournaments? I don't know how many people would be willing to do so in SK. I can't help but think at some deep level, MBC/possibly OGN will lose the case but nothing will happen because of it. It's not like America is going to declare war on them just because they're refusing to PAY FOREIGNERS to continue their culture. That sounds like some serious imperialistic bullshit to me. Can someone explain why I'm wrong? | ||
|
deathgod6
United States5064 Posts
| ||
|
Vedic
United States582 Posts
On October 24 2010 03:45 tommya wrote: I haven't read much of the thread aside from the op post, but it makes me wonder. Why does MBC/possibly OGN have to listen to foreign companies? Can't they just tell them to fuck off, this is south korea, and we don't really give a shit if you want to sue us? Are the SK police going to arrest them and send them off to an American prison? I would imagine the SK government might be more interested in collecting tax from broadcasting studios than bending over and letting foreign powers tell them how to run their police system. I can understand that maybe the SK government wouldn't want to tarnish their reputation, but it seems brood war has become part of their culture. I know it's become part of mine, as I watch quite a few proleague broadcasts. Sure, they could get new companies to broadcast the games, but don't OGN and MBC directly sponsor some tournaments? I don't know how many people would be willing to do so in SK. I can't help but think at some deep level, MBC/possibly OGN will lose the case but nothing will happen because of it. It's not like America is going to declare war on them just because they're refusing to PAY FOREIGNERS to continue their culture. That sounds like some serious imperialistic bullshit to me. Can someone explain why I'm wrong? Not reading anything on the matter, and then spending THAT big of a thread on pointing out things that are completely wrong, is a waste of time. Next time, READ. For one, Blizzard owns the rights to the game. For two, Blizzard put Gretech (korean) in charge of their broadcasting rights, merely because KeSPA wouldn't accept the terms. For three, South Korea is not in some judicial stone age - if they lose, the consequences will be severe. | ||
BisuDagger
Bisutopia19258 Posts
| ||
|
tonight
United States11130 Posts
| ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On October 24 2010 00:22 Slow Motion wrote: 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. First of all: Xarthaz, you clearly have a big ideological slant. There's a big problem with your position: there's little incentive for innovation--so called "non scarce" ideas, theories, design--in a world where research and development is unprotected. Nothing drastic social/political/cultural change couldn't solve, but still. Re: Stern vs Kaufman... I pretty much agree with the interpretation you've articulated, and I definitely agree with the outcome of the case and how it casts the law. It seems like the judiciary did a great job understanding the salient aspects of the technology; however, they were dealing with arcade games. Fundamentally videogames are no different today, but there are important differences of scale, I guess you could say. My upcoming point also relies on a philosophical distinction that is currently unresolved. All videogames (and, in general, the broader set of commercially designed games) are necessarily mathematical constructs, because they are played on a computer. The AV is part of the communication with the player, to give them information about the state of the abstract system in which they are cavorting. It also functions to contextualize the gameplay and make it accessible, e.g. Wolfenstein is about shooting Nazis, not arranging nodes in a bounded 2d space throughout time. The philosophical question is, how much of a game is the system, and how much is the dressing? I wish I could link to info but I'll leave it at that and trust that interested readers can dig up material. SCRAMBLE was on arcade machines that had AV hardcoded into the game, not like today where an engine is provided with myriad AV data to display, produced by artists who "skin" the abstract system that designers create and engineers build. This is why the arguments are about what AV is displayed. The pirates didn't even bother to reskin the design. But think of all the donkey kong ripoffs. There are a million stupid platformers with basically identical mechanics, but different AV. What would happen if one took another to court? So, about *. I think no matter the time period, the AV is copyright and should be. Hence, any broadcast of it requires licensing. While I can't think of a situation where it would be argued, I believe a player could contest the fact that the developer owns any resultant gameplay. A car manufacturer doesn't own the experience of driving around. This line of thought has weird implications for ripoffs though. What if I made Halo but changed all the AV? Illegal? What if I tweak the mechanics a little? Still illegal? That's basically most generic console shooters for the last 5 years. No one sues each other over mechanics in the current developer culture though. A game's owner can rightly ask for whatever licensing dues they want for broadcast, and since the gameplay can't be decoupled from the AV, it functionally licenses the playing. But I posit: technically the gameplay broadcasted is not part of that legal/business interaction, and the IP law is unclear on this, and certainly has never been litigated. About **. Granted. But this is why I'm really interested in the fact that the law sees a game as an essentially static AV "copy". You could view it as a library of AV. But obviously games are about the interactivity, which is an abstract design which almost always has unforeseen play characteristics, and the law says nothing about that IP element. Right now the Blizzard EULA says they own the gameplay (like any replays are their property). How can that wholly be? edit: format error, added italic clarification | ||
|
tommya
Canada52 Posts
On October 24 2010 04:14 Vedic wrote: Not reading anything on the matter, and then spending THAT big of a thread on pointing out things that are completely wrong, is a waste of time. Next time, READ. For one, Blizzard owns the rights to the game. For two, Blizzard put Gretech (korean) in charge of their broadcasting rights, merely because KeSPA wouldn't accept the terms. For three, South Korea is not in some judicial stone age - if they lose, the consequences will be severe. Alright, I think you missed my point. Sure, Blizzard owns the game, they created it. Sounds good and fair so far. They're stating that unless you pay royalties, you cannot broadcast it. Blizzard is a game making company (or at least it was, before they beaome a "shit making" company) not a warring state. Blizzard is stating that no, you may have a large business based around our product, but you have to completely change your business to either pay us or disband. Why should MBC listen? Imagine you live in America. Imagine America isn't a big, strong superpower... imagine it is relatively weak. If some other country, for example Great Britain invaded and said "you guys can't drink tea, you guys have to pay us tax, and you guys cannot have any large broadcasting stations containing ANYTHING made in our country of Great Britain." Would that go over well? No, that would be warmongering / international bullying. In response to your second point, Gretech might be in charge of Blizzard's broadcasting rights. Imagine if in my previous example, they selected a few Americans to be tax collectors and law enforcers for Great Britain. Does that change anything? I don't exactly understand what you mean by your third point, so I cannot make a reply that accurately contains my opinion. Please explain it, so our debate may continue. Why can't MBC sue Gretech for harassing their broadcasting / threatening their business' prosperity? Better yet, why do courts who have to deal murder, rape, arson, and crime in general care about two gaming companies having a fit with each other over unclear "IP rights?" | ||
|
ForSC2
United States580 Posts
It's like a 10 year absentee father telling you to drop out of school you worked 2 jobs to pay for to do a job you don't like that only benefits him. | ||
|
arb
Noobville17921 Posts
On October 23 2010 09:33 Redmark wrote: Yeah, I don't care to see the same arguments we've been making for months but what's going on here? OGN finished negotiating... Oh, I guess it's because they're broadcasting proleague. Interesting to see the different perspectives of that gaming forum and TL lol. From what ive gathered from other threads it boils down to; blizzard owns the game and as such can do whatever the fuck they want. Even after not caring for 10 or something years | ||
|
wswordsmen
United States987 Posts
| ||
|
Vedic
United States582 Posts
On October 24 2010 04:52 tommya wrote: Alright, I think you missed my point. Sure, Blizzard owns the game, they created it. Sounds good and fair so far. They're stating that unless you pay royalties, you cannot broadcast it. Blizzard is a game making company (or at least it was, before they beaome a "shit making" company) not a warring state. Blizzard is stating that no, you may have a large business based around our product, but you have to completely change your business to either pay us or disband. Why should MBC listen? Imagine you live in America. Imagine America isn't a big, strong superpower... imagine it is relatively weak. If some other country, for example Great Britain invaded and said "you guys can't drink tea, you guys have to pay us tax, and you guys cannot have any large broadcasting stations containing ANYTHING made in our country of Great Britain." Would that go over well? No, that would be warmongering / international bullying. In response to your second point, Gretech might be in charge of Blizzard's broadcasting rights. Imagine if in my previous example, they selected a few Americans to be tax collectors and law enforcers for Great Britain. Does that change anything? I don't exactly understand what you mean by your third point, so I cannot make a reply that accurately contains my opinion. Please explain it, so our debate may continue. Why can't MBC sue Gretech for harassing their broadcasting / threatening their business' prosperity? Better yet, why do courts who have to deal murder, rape, arson, and crime in general care about two gaming companies having a fit with each other over unclear "IP rights?" It's not a "debate" - you're asking about things that have been discussed in great detail already, and making assumptions about things that have already been discussed/dismissed. You agree to the terms set by Blizzard in order to install the game. One of those terms is specifically that you do not OWN the game, or it's content - you are licensing it. You require a license in order to use it for anything but personal use. While your example is absolutely terrible, if "Great Britain" had a product with a license agreement, and you broke that agreement, you would be on the business end of an international lawsuit. Your MBC harassment lawsuit question points to either a lack of knowledge of the situation, law in general, or that you're trolling. I'm going to assume a troll, but in case you aren't, you really need to READ these threads before you post. | ||
| ||
