EPTOh, plenty of basic software EULAs say the creator has the right to pull the plug. The list includes Windows, iOS, and just about all platform software you can think of. Now do I need to remind you how big of an industry computer programing is, in which all content is based on those platform softwares?
KeSPA-Gretech negotiations fail; Lawsuits next - Page 7
| Forum Index > Community News and Headlines |
|
ricerocket
154 Posts
Oh, plenty of basic software EULAs say the creator has the right to pull the plug. The list includes Windows, iOS, and just about all platform software you can think of. Now do I need to remind you how big of an industry computer programing is, in which all content is based on those platform softwares? | ||
|
moopie
12605 Posts
On October 28 2010 18:50 ricerocket wrote: Successful model for over 10 years? Go read their press release, KeSPA is not a non-profit by choice, it's that they've yet to make enough investment to turn a profit... FOR TEN YEARS! I think Blizz should kill them off just for being such a failed business before ruining revenue potential in eSport for everybody else. The two things are not related. KeSPA is a non-profit organization ("an organization that does not distribute its surplus funds to owners or shareholders, but instead uses them to help pursue its goals"). The fact that it can barely turn a profit with BW doesn't conflict with that. The more money it can draw from its e-sport titles, the more it can put back into them, like additional leagues/events/ceremonies/etc, or the ability to invest in a new title to support (which is a very costly and risky event since if the game is a dud or the sponsors pull out you lose all the infrastructure you built for it). | ||
mustaju
Estonia4505 Posts
On October 28 2010 18:50 ricerocket wrote: Successful model for over 10 years? Go read their press release, KeSPA is not a non-profit by choice, it's that they've yet to make enough investment to turn a profit... FOR TEN YEARS! I think Blizz should kill them off just for being such a failed business before ruining revenue potential in eSport for everybody else. Oh, plenty of basic software EULAs say the creator has the right to pull the plug. The list includes Windows, iOS, and just about all platform software you can think of. Now do I need to remind you how big of an industry computer programing is, in which all content is based on those platform softwares? They don't exactly have a source for profit other than the revenues they get from broadcasting. Which in turn gets their money from advertisements that are run between the games. Unless advertising costs rise steeply, I don't think expectations of direct profit (as opposed to indirect PR from sponsoring teams) can even be met. This goes double if the game isn't even being broadcasted on TV. | ||
|
dybydx
Canada1764 Posts
| ||
|
DND_Enkil
Sweden598 Posts
If we look beyond the current situation and the history of BW, what would be a reasonable setup for this? Is it reasonable for the developer of a game to have broadcasting rights for that game? I am trying to figure out any similar situation in any other field and is pretty much drawing a blank, one could think that music and covers and such might be comparable but i am not certain. In music you can not legally prevent anyone from making a cover of your song, you can however demand royalties for it. Would something similar be the right path for e-sports? Meaning that if i wanted to start up a website streaming games from SC2, BW and lets add CS aswell to make it as wide as possible. I then host tournaments in each game, with some prizemoney, and charge members to watch theese games, something like a 5$ / month fee. Is it reasonable that if i wanted to do this the developers of said games could not forbid me as long as i agree to pay them royalties, preferably standardized like in music. Would it be reasonable for the IP-holder of counterstrike to be able to say "No", for whatever reason? Another comparison would be Magic: The Gathering, obviously Wizard owns the IP rights to MtG but afaik there is nothing stopping me from opening shop and hosting an MtG tournament, filming it and broadcasting it? Now i am a "SC2-fanboy" if i would have to pick sides. I joined TL.net because of SC2, i have never watched BW and had no idea who Boxer/Flash/etc was before i joined here. I did play Bw quite a bit casually when it was released. Up to now i have been firmly on Blizz/gretech side in this, i think it is a given that they have IP rights and that right sould be protected and respected. But IP rights are NOT the same as broadcasting rights, and i honestly dont think they should have broadcasting rights because i think one party should never have broadcasting rights for an entire sports and that is what we want this to be. It would be absurd if one organisation had broadcasting rights for football, they can have broadcasting rights for a specefic fottball league, but not the entire game. Now it is a lot easier since no one have created fotball or owns the IP for fotball, but if we want E-sports to actually grow into something similar to mainstream sports i think it would be a far bigger setback if Blizzard/Gretech wins this. IP rights and royalties yes this is obvious, broadcasting rights no. | ||
|
Integra
Sweden5626 Posts
| ||
|
Pleiades
United States472 Posts
| ||
|
infinity2k9
United Kingdom2397 Posts
On October 28 2010 21:20 Pleiades wrote: Can't really compare SC to any real physical contact sport since no one has a patent on the equipment involved in playing and using the sport, I believe. Whereas e-sport games are dependent on the programming made by the developers. Note that not all game developers have IP rights for their games though. IE: Halo series. That's why its unprecedented but doesn't mean it won't be ruled in MBC/KeSPA's favour, as the whole page of posts happens to just keep ignoring facts such as MBC already paid a Blizzard partner for broadcasting rights many years ago. Only now they see it's actually successful and potentially they could make a profit did they suddenly change their opinion on IP rights. Like i keep saying to everywhere, where were Blizzard when there's 100k people watching PL finals and 6 million copies of BW being sold due to the hype? Are they going to claim in the court they did not know this, or are they just going to go ahead and admit they were completely fine with KeSPA's actions until it possibly conflicted with their new game. To me it doesn't sound like a very strong case. If eSports is to be a SPORT and not just a tool for developer profit this there is only one way this case must go or we will forever be stuck in the cycle of constant titles coming and going and no sustainable leagues. There's so little money in such a niche scene already there isn't room for Blizzard to attempt to siphon even MORE out of it in the name of 'IP Rights'. The publicity should be enough, wasn't it enough to make BW the most successful RTS ever? So why get more greedy now? | ||
|
DND_Enkil
Sweden598 Posts
On October 28 2010 21:49 infinity2k9 wrote: That's why its unprecedented but doesn't mean it won't be ruled in MBC/KeSPA's favour, as the whole page of posts happens to just keep ignoring facts such as MBC already paid a Blizzard partner for broadcasting rights many years ago. Only now they see it's actually successful and potentially they could make a profit did they suddenly change their opinion on IP rights. Like i keep saying to everywhere, where were Blizzard when there's 100k people watching PL finals and 6 million copies of BW being sold due to the hype? Are they going to claim in the court they did not know this, or are they just going to go ahead and admit they were completely fine with KeSPA's actions until it possibly conflicted with their new game. To me it doesn't sound like a very strong case. This argument is very weak imo, there could be a million legitimate reasons for them not to get involvled. Even a reason such as "Back then we where not interested in e-sports, now we are." pretty much nullifies the whole argument since IP-rights is not something that is really up for debate, the created it they have the IP-rights. Also they might just say that with the merge with Activision the companys standpoint changed. Bear in mind this will most likely not only decide this case but might set a precedent for future cases, so i very much doubt the courts will take that into account. Where Kespa is fighting them is over broadcasting rights, which Blizzard claims comes with the IP-rights, Kespa acknowledges Blizzard's IP-rights but does not acknowledge that the broadcasting rights are included in the the IP-rights. That is, unless I need a new class in reading comprehension. | ||
|
infinity2k9
United Kingdom2397 Posts
The IP rights issue is just going to be needed to be decided if it's in the interest to allow complete control of a game to a game developer if its to be a sport. That is not in the Korean publics interest and not really in anyones interest. At the end of the day you made a videogame for people to play, a game which can be played competitively. If you were interested in actually helping run a competitive league in any way at all then you should have been there from the start, not turn up many years later and decide now you have a problem with it. They might own the rights to the game but do the own the rights to the games actually played with it? The replays? Broadcasts? I don't think so at all. I think they should stick out of it completely and get on with actually fixing SC2 instead of alienating a whole fanbase for your previous game. | ||
|
emythrel
United Kingdom2599 Posts
Its a bit like the US People vs Tobacco Companies, the tobacco companies put in literally 20-30 more money in to the law suits than the government, their legal team could fill a small sports stadium and the government has like 10 lawyers working on it...... it doesn't matter who is right or wrong, its never going to work out that bad for the tobacco companies because they put so much more money in to it. I hope this isn't what happens in this case, either blizz or kespa funneling in more money and winning purely based upon that fact... because this is about setting a precedent for all future esports.... Which ever side you are on, i think we can all agree that getting the correct decision (whatever it is) is preferrable to getting the wrong one. As the wrong decision could ruin esports one way or another. If blizz is right, it could mean a new era for esports with direct backing from the publishers themselves, this could be a great thing for all esports. Imagine if gaming companies all put their weight behind esports and that influence takes things like MLG global, we get gaming associations all over the world and esports become more mainstream. If they are wrong, then they could kill esports by making it so that getting them on real TV becomes very hard and not profitable. If Kespa is right, and anyone should be allowed to broadcast esports without the permission of the publisher, it could lead to an explosion of esports on TV in places other than korea. It could lead to pro gaming associations like kespa all over the world, paying salaries to pro gamers etc. If they are wrong, without the backing of the publishers, without the publishers actively balancing the game for esports purposes, the esports aren't fun to watch or play.... esports die. You see how whichever side you are on, both outcomes can be good or bad for esports, we simply do not know. Which is why smarter people than us will be fighting the court case, and hopefully the judge is up to the task! my .02 | ||
|
overt
United States9006 Posts
On October 29 2010 01:39 emythrel wrote: Its a bit like the US People vs Tobacco Companies, the tobacco companies put in literally 20-30 more money in to the law suits than the government, their legal team could fill a small sports stadium and the government has like 10 lawyers working on it...... it doesn't matter who is right or wrong, its never going to work out that bad for the tobacco companies because they put so much more money in to it. What? The tobacco companies lose cases all the time. Just last year they lost a case in which they have to rename any cigarette product called Light, Ultra Light, Medium, Mild, etc. because the courts found it to be deceptive. That's why when you buy cigarettes (in America at least) they're called Gold, Blue, Silver, or something similar now. Not to mention that the tobacco companies have taxes raised on their product way more than anything else. Maybe I misread what you said, but the cigarette companies lose court cases quite often to the government. When individuals take them to court because they have cancer or something then yeah, the cigarette companies will win but that's because you have to be an idiot to suit a cigarette company because you have lung cancer. It's like people who try to suit McDonald's because they're overweight. | ||
|
Archduke
United States119 Posts
| ||
|
ffreakk
Singapore2155 Posts
On October 29 2010 05:00 Archduke wrote: I don't want KeSPA anywhere near SC2. We don't need an organization like that to make esports less fun. Lol, on what basis are you making this statement? Kespa already expressed that they have no plans to get involved in SC2.. So i take it you are just making this statement to somehow try to look down on the other side because they are fighting with your favourite money-grubbing Blizz? Not that Starcrap II will last for very long either, mind.. Warcraft 3 did not despite being much better, by the time this hype dies down (soon enough) you will see what will be left of SC2.. Even if Kespa had plans to do it (before they had their catfight w Blizz), looking at it now its not really worth it imo. | ||
|
iFU.pauline
France1776 Posts
 | ||
|
icclown
Denmark270 Posts
| ||
| ||
