|
On September 01 2010 10:29 dybydx wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2010 10:19 Bidouleroux wrote:On September 01 2010 10:10 Teddyman wrote:
Most people don't know what non-profit means. The difference is, instead of being paid out to shareholders, money left over after expenses must be invested back in the organization. They can still have a board set by the corporate sponsors that mainly protects those interests. Exactly. Non-profit or not, you can't make money by infringing on someone else's property. its not quite clear at this moment whether what KeSPA did constitute infringing Blizz's IP. as I said, there was a case in the US courts and the court sided in favor of the competition's organizer over the objection of the game maker.
Can you cite this? I did a quick google search and found nothing.
|
On September 01 2010 10:29 dybydx wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2010 10:19 Bidouleroux wrote:On September 01 2010 10:10 Teddyman wrote:
Most people don't know what non-profit means. The difference is, instead of being paid out to shareholders, money left over after expenses must be invested back in the organization. They can still have a board set by the corporate sponsors that mainly protects those interests. Exactly. Non-profit or not, you can't make money by infringing on someone else's property. its not quite clear at this moment whether what KeSPA did constitute infringing Blizz's IP. as I said, there was a case in the US courts and the court sided in favor of the competition's organizer over the objection of the game maker.
I'd like to see that case. Probably the competition was not designed as a for-profit venture. Think of it like a raffle : most jurisdictions that have a lottery commission require registration and a fee when organizing for-profit raffles but no fee (or a nominal fee/registration) when said raffle is for non-profit purposes. The same thing may apply to sport/game competitions in many jurisdictions.
KeSPA could be recognized as an independent non-profit organization, but in the U.S. they would likely need more independent board members to conform to federal/state law. Also, while KeSPA may live on account of being non-profit, the progaming teams for which KeSPA exist could not.
|
@maximuspita
http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/89/89.F3d.614.html
the case in question was a board game competition held by the school board. the game maker Allen claim that the competition is a "public performance" which the court disagreed. the court went further to say that even if it WAS public, the games are MEANT to be played, so it is fair use.
|
On September 01 2010 10:31 aru wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2010 10:19 Bidouleroux wrote:On September 01 2010 10:10 Teddyman wrote:
Most people don't know what non-profit means. The difference is, instead of being paid out to shareholders, money left over after expenses must be invested back in the organization. They can still have a board set by the corporate sponsors that mainly protects those interests. Exactly. Non-profit or not, you can't make money by infringing on someone else's property. They did it for the past 10 years that Blizzard left them alone for.
Yes, and if you abuse your wife for 10 years and she doesn't complain does that mean you get a free pass when she finally decides that enough is enough and drags your sorry ass to court?
|
@Bidouleroux
ur derailing the topic here. this is completely different from wife abuse.
aru has a valid claim. if Blizz fail to enforce their IP rights when KeSPA has been "violating" it for 10yrs, its very possible that the court will deem Blizz have forfeited their right. it depends on the jurisdiction ofc, but most countries do not have IP laws as strict as the USA.
|
Do you guys know that KESPA did so many ridiculous things and rules ? I already hated KESPA way before sc2 beta was out. Anyone can remember the "gg"'s rule for instance ? That's exactly one of them.
|
On September 01 2010 11:03 Bidouleroux wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2010 10:31 aru wrote:On September 01 2010 10:19 Bidouleroux wrote:On September 01 2010 10:10 Teddyman wrote:
Most people don't know what non-profit means. The difference is, instead of being paid out to shareholders, money left over after expenses must be invested back in the organization. They can still have a board set by the corporate sponsors that mainly protects those interests. Exactly. Non-profit or not, you can't make money by infringing on someone else's property. They did it for the past 10 years that Blizzard left them alone for. Yes, and if you abuse your wife for 10 years and she doesn't complain does that mean you get a free pass when she finally decides that enough is enough and drags your sorry ass to court?
That's a horrible analogy and you know it. BW's success in Korea essentially gave Blizzard tons of free advertising. The Blizzard of old left them alone because they recognized the benefit of a thriving e-sports industry built around their game. They regularly invited the top Korean pros to play at Blizzcon Invitationals. Hell, they made the official SC2 announcement in Korea.
That's 10 years during which Blizzard showed zero interest in protecting their IP rights. If anything, Blizzard was perfectly willing to give their informal support for the Korean e-sports scene up until the point where it started to raise doubts about SC2's future.
|
On September 01 2010 11:09 dybydx wrote:
@Bidouleroux
ur derailing the topic here. this is completely different from wife abuse.
aru has a valid claim. if Blizz fail to enforce their IP rights when KeSPA has been "violating" it for 10yrs, its very possible that the court will deem Blizz have forfeited their right. it depends on the jurisdiction ofc, but most countries do not have IP laws as strict as the USA.
Did you not get the "piracy priority watchlist" thing? South Korea is a member of WIPO and has been part of the ACTA discussions since day one.
Also, aru has no claim at all. His argument is plainly stupid, thus my wife beating analogy. His reasoning is based on trademark law, which grants an infinite term of protection for a word. Trademark law applies to the term "Starcraft" but not to the game itself. The game is protected by copyright law, which has a finite term and applies to the whole of the game. Copyright law has no provision for "abandonware" types of situations.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
Hong Kong20321 Posts
what the fuck is up with these sc2 asswipes that are encouraging BW to die? (yeah you findingpride. you can fuck off with your huge condescending douchebag attitude) i don't care if you think kespa is wrong and want them to die and hope for a better organization to manage bw or something, but yeah,
-WE FUCKING GET THAT YOU THINK BW IS BORING. GO PLAY YOUR SC2 THEN NO ONE CARES IF YOU LIKE SC2.
-BUT LOTS OF PEOPLE STILL LIKE BW. WHY THE FUCK WOULD YOU WANT TO KILL OFF OUR PASSION?
-WHY NOT LET BOTH SCENES GO ON AT THE SAME TIME?
-OH, because its NOT LETTING YOUR NEW SHINY PRECIOUS GAME SUCCEED? lol give me a fucking break.
|
It's obvious that Kespa has no intention on giving in. They'll pirate BW until the police raid their office.
|
@dybyx
Just wanted to quote this:
Even if the playing of games could constitute a performance, we would have to recognize the applicability of the fair use doctrine under Section 107 of the Copyright Act. This section allows the fair use of a copyrighted work in such instances as for nonprofit educational purposes and where the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the protected work is limited. As indicated above, AGLOA tournaments are held not for profit, but for encouraging education among young students.
I don't think the case is all that similar in the sense of education and limited potential market and taking it to court might be very risky for KeSPA.
|
On September 01 2010 11:19 Spritescaper wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2010 11:03 Bidouleroux wrote:On September 01 2010 10:31 aru wrote:On September 01 2010 10:19 Bidouleroux wrote:On September 01 2010 10:10 Teddyman wrote:
Most people don't know what non-profit means. The difference is, instead of being paid out to shareholders, money left over after expenses must be invested back in the organization. They can still have a board set by the corporate sponsors that mainly protects those interests. Exactly. Non-profit or not, you can't make money by infringing on someone else's property. They did it for the past 10 years that Blizzard left them alone for. Yes, and if you abuse your wife for 10 years and she doesn't complain does that mean you get a free pass when she finally decides that enough is enough and drags your sorry ass to court? That's a horrible analogy and you know it.
It's terrible because it's true. Truth hurts. Get over it.
On September 01 2010 10:10 Teddyman wrote:
BW's success in Korea essentially gave Blizzard tons of free advertising. The Blizzard of old left them alone because they recognized the benefit of a thriving e-sports industry built around their game. They regularly invited the top Korean pros to play at Blizzcon Invitationals. Hell, they made the official SC2 announcement in Korea.
That's 10 years during which Blizzard showed zero interest in protecting their IP rights. If anything, Blizzard was perfectly willing to give their informal support for the Korean e-sports scene up until the point where it started to raise doubts about SC2's future.
Are you kidding me? Everything you said shows that Blizzard cared about their IP. Yes, the Korean statu quo profited Blizzard since they didn't have the resources back then to manage the emerging Korean pro-scene. Thus they protected their IP by keeping the statu quo in their favor instead of nipping the pro-scene in the bud. Corporate management 101. Plus, not enforcing your copyright does not make it forfeit, etc. see my previous post.
Returning to my wife beating analogy, if you think your husband will kill you if you go to the police, is it wrong to wait for a secure opportunity instead of taking the chance of getting killed? Cooperating does not mean you agree. It may simply be that you have little choice otherwise or that the unlawful arrangement is temporarily beneficial. But unlawful is still unlawful, see? And since you can't infringe your own copyright, profiting from the infringement of your copyrighted property is not unlawful.
|
@Bidouleroux
1. This is not a clear violation of IP rights.
2. There are limitations copyright protection. In the past 10 yrs Blizz was fully aware of the situation with KeSPA and willfully neglected to enforce their IP claims. From my understanding, it is much more likely the court will side in favor of KeSPA regarding past matches.
|
On September 01 2010 11:53 maximuspita wrote:@dybyx Just wanted to quote this: Show nested quote +Even if the playing of games could constitute a performance, we would have to recognize the applicability of the fair use doctrine under Section 107 of the Copyright Act. This section allows the fair use of a copyrighted work in such instances as for nonprofit educational purposes and where the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the protected work is limited. As indicated above, AGLOA tournaments are held not for profit, but for encouraging education among young students. I don't think the case is all that similar in the sense of education and limited potential market and taking it to court might be very risky for KeSPA.
the case also cited that the games were meant to be played. and even if played in public, it falls under fair use.
|
Vietnam1555 Posts
On September 01 2010 11:51 alffla wrote:
what the fuck is up with these sc2 asswipes that are encouraging BW to die? (yeah you findingpride. you can fuck off with your huge condescending douchebag attitude) i don't care if you think kespa is wrong and want them to die and hope for a better organization to manage bw or something, but yeah,
-WE FUCKING GET THAT YOU THINK BW IS BORING. GO PLAY YOUR SC2 THEN NO ONE CARES IF YOU LIKE SC2.
-BUT LOTS OF PEOPLE STILL LIKE BW. WHY THE FUCK WOULD YOU WANT TO KILL OFF OUR PASSION?
-WHY NOT LET BOTH SCENES GO ON AT THE SAME TIME?
-OH, because its NOT LETTING YOUR NEW SHINY PRECIOUS GAME SUCCEED? lol give me a fucking break.
Woa never seen you being so enraged alffla :o Ignore those SC2 newbs!
|
On September 01 2010 11:40 Bidouleroux wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2010 11:09 dybydx wrote:
@Bidouleroux
ur derailing the topic here. this is completely different from wife abuse.
aru has a valid claim. if Blizz fail to enforce their IP rights when KeSPA has been "violating" it for 10yrs, its very possible that the court will deem Blizz have forfeited their right. it depends on the jurisdiction ofc, but most countries do not have IP laws as strict as the USA. Did you not get the "piracy priority watchlist" thing? South Korea is a member of WIPO and has been part of the ACTA discussions since day one. Also, aru has no claim at all. His argument is plainly stupid, thus my wife beating analogy. His reasoning is based on trademark law, which grants an infinite term of protection for a word. Trademark law applies to the term "Starcraft" but not to the game itself. The game is protected by copyright law, which has a finite term and applies to the whole of the game. Copyright law has no provision for " abandonware" types of situations.
It's funny how people construe arguments that don't exist. I never made mention of IP, trademark or copyright laws. You said they can't make money off of it and I said they did and would have continued if Blizzard left them alone, and unless you're claiming otherwise, I don't get what you're blarghing about.
|
ALLEYCAT BLUES50584 Posts
On September 01 2010 11:51 alffla wrote:
what the fuck is up with these sc2 asswipes that are encouraging BW to die? (yeah you findingpride. you can fuck off with your huge condescending douchebag attitude) i don't care if you think kespa is wrong and want them to die and hope for a better organization to manage bw or something, but yeah,
-WE FUCKING GET THAT YOU THINK BW IS BORING. GO PLAY YOUR SC2 THEN NO ONE CARES IF YOU LIKE SC2.
-BUT LOTS OF PEOPLE STILL LIKE BW. WHY THE FUCK WOULD YOU WANT TO KILL OFF OUR PASSION?
-WHY NOT LET BOTH SCENES GO ON AT THE SAME TIME?
-OH, because its NOT LETTING YOUR NEW SHINY PRECIOUS GAME SUCCEED? lol give me a fucking break.
You forgot to mention that....
BW IS THE GREATEST THING TO EXIST IN THE HISTORY OF E-SPORTS!!!!!
but seriously Blizzard(activision) an KeSPA are fucking children and are blowing things way off proportion.
|
On September 01 2010 12:00 dybydx wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2010 11:53 maximuspita wrote:@dybyx + Show Spoiler +Just wanted to quote this: Even if the playing of games could constitute a performance, we would have to recognize the applicability of the fair use doctrine under Section 107 of the Copyright Act. This section allows the fair use of a copyrighted work in such instances as for nonprofit educational purposes and where the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the protected work is limited. As indicated above, AGLOA tournaments are held not for profit, but for encouraging education among young students. I don't think the case is all that similar in the sense of education and limited potential market and taking it to court might be very risky for KeSPA. the case also cited that the games were meant to be played. and even if played in public, it falls under fair use.
Whether privately in one's home or publicly in a park, it is understood that games are meant to be "played." In this situation, the games are being played by students who come together for the purpose of friendly, academic competition. There is no indication that this nonprofit corporation, AGLOA, and the individual respondents are making the subject games available to the public for a fee. The students, schools, and school districts use their own games, purchased from Allen, in the tournaments, and respondents are merely organizers of this event. Moreover, AGLOA's tournaments are limited to students who participated in regional competitions which also involved the playing of Allen's games.
Things in courts are judge on a case to case basis. You may argue that SC:BW progames are also friendly, academic competition but I still don't believe this is the case with progaming and the huge sponsors and money pots. I hope for a satisfactory solution but unless the whole matter goes to court, all we can do is speculate on the claims of both parties.
|
On September 01 2010 11:55 dybydx wrote:
@Bidouleroux
1. This is not a clear violation of IP rights.
2. There are limitations copyright protection. In the past 10 yrs Blizz was fully aware of the situation with KeSPA and willfully neglected to enforce their IP claims. From my understanding, it is much more likely the court will side in favor of KeSPA regarding past matches.
1. Yes it is.
2. No there aren't (except the 75 year term limitations).
As much as I don't like copyright when it comes to non-profit situations, real piracy is wasteful. If the progaming teams (i.e. KeSPA) want to make money by playing Starcraft, they should license Starcraft period.
Performing Starcraft and profiteering from Starcraft are not the same thing.There are copyright provisions that limit the public viewing of television programs and movies even though they are made to be viewed publicly. Indeed, they are made to be viewed by millions of people, in their living rooms and in theatres with many people watching at the same time! Yes, that is copyright : the producers of television shows and movies get to decide where and when their property is shown publicly. The same should apply with games. Plus, games aren't made to be broadcasted unlike television shows and movies, but played. Having an audience/broadcasting is not covered by the ruling of the case you cited. The only provision that could apply is the non-profit/educational clause. I fail to see how it would apply the teams/KeSPA.
|
I don't like KeSPA for various blunders (ie: jaedong free agency, DQ for mistype, ban fbh hip thrust). But to not support them now is to abandon BW. I just can't bring myslef to watch an inferior game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
