Blizzards tournament license already in place(?) - Page 2

On February 23 2010 06:03 Oddysay wrote:
blizzard will kill the e-sports if they dont stop about license .

i know you guy are fanboy and love blizzard but what they are doing right now = just wrong .

On February 23 2010 06:03 Oddysay wrote:
blizzard will kill the e-sports if they dont stop about license .

i know you guy are fanboy and love blizzard but what they are doing right now = just wrong .

On February 23 2010 06:32 Eury wrote:


Explain to me why Brood War is around then because they have the same policy there.

On February 23 2010 06:34 Boblion wrote:

yay it is not like if there are/were plenty of broodwar tourneys without licensing...

Also gl explaining how Iccup is legal

On February 23 2010 06:32 TArujo wrote:
Because asking a fee to run a game that took them maybe 10 years to make is unreasonable, come on they have been doing this for wc3 and they dont want to do the same mystake they did in the battle versus Kespa

On February 23 2010 06:35 Eury wrote:


Ok, explain to me then how TSL exist.

On February 23 2010 06:39 Boblion wrote:

Answer my question first please.

On February 23 2010 06:38 Gedrah wrote:
Rothbardian, I think you are too exclusively opposed to anyone doing anything that gives them power over you. I agree that IP can and has been used for nefarious purposes but that doesn't mean the entire concept is evil, and you're being unrealistic if you think it's going away entirely without major constitutional amendments which provide protections that preclude such practices.

I also agree that ideas are meant to spread and empower people with intelligence and wisdom, but the fact is that we have a society where you must make money to stay alive and part of that process is preventing other people from putting you out of business by using your ideas to enter business and compete against you. We are all in competition with one another--for money--and that's completely fundamental in an economy.

The one problem arises because "Blizzard" is not a person. It's an entity, and many many people work together to create the many ideas that become "SC2" but "Blizzard" is the only one who owns those ideas or is allowed to profit from them. This means that employees of Blizzard aren't guaranteed to get payed a fair amount for their work and contribution to Blizzard's products. However, that's their decision to contribute and they gay a paycheck.

I can see how you dislike the idea of IP, since the idea of owning knowledge is contrary to the beneficial process of spreading knowledge and empowering people with intelligence. But that's fundamental to our way of life. That's why we have words like Rube and Mark and Fish. An economy, like a poker game, is a zero-sum system where we compete for one another's money and using a knowledge advantage over others is the main way people earn money at all. I know how to paint houses and you don't, but if you pay me I'll paint yours.

You're just a rube that didn't make SC2, Blizzard made SC2 and since you couldn't do it yourself they're willing to let you play it in exchange for buying a license. Am I wrong? Is this wrong of them? I'm asking this for reals. In plain English, your own please, I'm not following your links ever again after the last tax protest thread, please tell me why this is wrong as I am genuinely curious what you think.

On February 23 2010 06:39 Boblion wrote:

Answer my question first please.

On February 23 2010 06:49 Rothbardian wrote:
Bolded. Wrong. In a voluntary exchange both parties end up better than they were going into the trade. This is a priori. I'm tired of seeing this fallacy perpetuated.

As for why I don't like IP? I'm both morally and utility-driven against IP. For one, IP raises the cost of all products due to the sheer size of bureaucracy involved to keep track of the thousands and thousands and thousands of patents, copyrights, trademarks, etc. It also costs companies to employ lawyers for the specific purpose of IP, not to mention all the court fees involved (Which, come from the Taxpayer).

As for the moral argument which I believe is much stronger, is that one cannot own an idea. An idea is an abstract principle. It is not a scarce physical good. You cannot tell me what I can or cannot think. Similarly, you cannot tell me what I can or cannot do with my own property. IP and Private Property are antithetical terms. Moreover, IP does not contribute to increased innovation. If this was the case, then we should be handing out monopolies left and right, since that is what IP is.

I'm an anti-monopolist, pro-private property, pro-Natural Law. I'm not opposed per se, to what Blizzard is doing; I'm opposed because they do not make it well known, and you sign no contract upon "purchasing" the license. I gave the link where Kinsella describes his position on EULA, TOS, Fine Print, etc. I happen to agree with his analysis.