|
On November 05 2010 22:10 _Quasar_ wrote:Show nested quote +Maybe thats just the Softwareengineer speaking out of me... but the effort making a map via editor isn't nearly as big as making the whole game, including the engine and the friggin editor effort of making e-sports scene IS huge. And - map creators didn't do that for money. And however - that IS effort. Go and see Blizzard's starcraft. It's just almost empty compared to the Starcraft we have now and to which the korean proscene has contributed. Ignoring it you go against laws of the nature. And laws of nature don't like being ignored. That's basically what I'm trying to point at all the way. StarStruck - not whole Blizzard, but their half, or third. Its VERY HIGH contribution. And it is a "source" contribution, a part of the basis - it can be ignored. And it isn't to be ignored.
Got to agree with quasar here imagine playing only the maps created by blizzard for 10 years and no fan contribution just keep that in mind without any fan contribution for the love of the game would we have seen such amazing maps out there now ? Probably those who didn't play bw and starcraft when it first release will not understand the difference because they have sc2 at their side now .
|
On November 04 2010 22:10 BloodDrunK wrote:
looks like i found another reason to hate SC2.
This is the dumbest line of thinking possible ever period.
This company sued another company, so I'm going to hate one of their games.
BUT I WILL LOVE THE OTHER GAME THEY MADE LOLOLOLOL
|
Blizzard is indebted to Korea. E-sports is indebted to Korea... Korea created E-sports... What does Blizzard think it's doing?
They're trying to steal the magic.
Basically claiming that all of Korean esports is theirs, as a derivative work.
I support Blizzard's rights to go after broadcasting fees, but to claim ownership of the replays and players seems incredulous.
If they're just haggling over price then I think things will work out fine.
The judge will set a price and things will move on.
But I fear they're arguing over whether its possible to run esports under a strictly enforced EULA.
And in that case Kespa might really be more willing to shut the whole thing down rather than complying with Blizzard.
|
On November 05 2010 21:49 O.Golden_ne wrote:i think that blizzard are completely within their rights to crack down on OGN. they made it, they have intellectual property rights and OGN aren't respecting that. it's a shame it had to come to a legal battle. maybe the Blizz team can challange the OGN team to a casted game (HD and Husky casting?  )
Not only does this contribute nothing as this is probably the most preliminary argument one could possibly think of but 9 posts plus husky/HD mentions makes me think you're just another SC2 player who has never watched a proleague final and have no idea how attached people are to BW. There are so many people who don't want Blizzard doing all this shit because they're rich beyond their wildest imaginations and all we want is to keep watching BW.
It's not about IP rights, its a morality issue and clearly the new Blizzard doesn't give a shit. Reason? Activision.
|
This isn't mystical, sudden, or unexpected.
Negotiations didn't work.
Mediation didn't work.
So now a judge is going to hear it, likely make some ridiculous ruling for both sides.
It sucks, but when you see the history of these two entities, it's not surprising how it's gotten to this point. Be fun if the community buried the hatchet till we get more details on what said ruling will imply.
|
The OSL has existed for over 10 years and is considered the most prestigious league in esports. It will be sad to see it go away just like that. Besides I thought that blizzard and OGN have already settled this.
|
does this "legal right to broadcast" affect organizations like iCCup or other tourney's that are cast? it seems like it would...
|
Russian Federation4405 Posts
i want to see Jaedong vs Stork and Anytime vs anyone (LOL) tomorrow.
i'm tired of all that blizzard's shit, I finally want the game!
|
On November 05 2010 16:19 ffreakk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2010 15:11 Roq wrote:On November 05 2010 15:00 Pleiades wrote:On November 05 2010 14:51 leonardus wrote:
If I will make some wallpapers with Adobe Photoshop and then sell all those pictures, Adobe will have no rights to get more money from me. I think that we have a similar situation with Blizz and SC2. This is far from that. Photoshop is a tool, and most art derived from Photoshop is not dependent on it. Whereas maps, replays, broadcasted games are dependent on Starcraft programming. Both of their legal agreements for using them are very different, because they are different software marketing different things. I'll try to give you a better analogy, but it's very hard to compare anything to this situation. I'm going to use DOTA. DOTA is a custom game/mod for WC3 based off of Aeon of Strife from SCBW. If the creator of these games decides not to use WC or SC as their platform to base their ideas and games upon, and uses a different platform or one created from the ground up. Does Blizzard have any legal right to DOTA / other games then? Actually yes they do. That's why they're able to use the actual name "Blizzard DOTA" and not something else like League of Legends, or Heroes of Newerth. You are wrong. They have no rights to DotA whatsoever, thats probably why they got mad and invented the new system where they own all custom maps made by users, as well as trying to make a Blizzard DotA now.. The one with right to DotA right now is Valve, who is working with Icefrog, the current developer of DotA (the original creator was Guinsoo n Eul, but Icefrog is in charge now), they already filed a trademark for DotA (all the way to DotA 4). Show nested quote +They owe their popularity to their games that they have created. People buy and play blizzard games because of the continued support and outstanding quality. Thats true, i bought SC2 because SC1 was awesome (and cos my old friends want to play SC2 with me n talk crap about it over dinner). I will probably buy Diablo 3 cos Diablo 2 was awesome as well.. I wont buy SC3, for obvious reasons.
And that's my point, they don't need Icefrog to use the name, since the game was created inside of Blizzard owned IP. Also of note, Icefrog worked on LoL too I believe, not so sure about HoN.
|
Blizzard will win obviously, they not only have the legal right to protect their IP, but they have international law at their side. Also sometimes a company can claim that the licencing was outrageous, however, ogn already obtained rights previously, but chose not to renew them. Gretech will easily win this. As far as the future of OSL, what i predict is that the court will issue and injunction to stop the league, ogn will meet with gretech the next day and an arrangement will be met swiftly and then the court case will be abandoned.
|
On November 05 2010 22:36 mprs wrote:This is the dumbest line of thinking possible ever period. This company sued another company, so I'm going to hate one of their games. BUT I WILL LOVE THE OTHER GAME THEY MADE LOLOLOLOL
If you think the same people who made SC2 made SC, you are mistaken. You can hate SC2 and love SC without being a hypocrite.
|
On November 06 2010 01:21 Moody wrote:
does this "legal right to broadcast" affect organizations like iCCup or other tourney's that are cast? it seems like it would...
The terms are rather unclear. I have not read through the SC2 EULA (only the WoW one), but I know they cover broadcast and rebroadcast as rights (in WoW), and in the US legal system, EULAs are enforceable for certain rights (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProCD,_Inc._v._Zeidenberg for example). One that has not been tested yet is the right of IP broadcast / rebroadcast.
Blizzard has allowed not-for-profit broadcasts without restriction (see JTV, YouTube); That does not imply they do not retain the right, as unlike trademarks you do not have to enforce it.
Therefore, leagues and broadcasters that are for-profit are required (by running SC2 or broadcasting video coming from the game, all as stated in the EULA) to obtain a license from Blizzard. You are free to form an opinion based upon if they should be requiring this, but legally they have every right to do so.
As for opinion: I support Blizzard in this. If you want to run a for profit league or broadcast, you pay for the right to do so. Incidentally, this is how all sports leagues operate with the exception that they don't allow non-profit broadcasts. (Ex: FIFA, NFL, NBA, NHL, the Olympics, etc)
|
On November 06 2010 01:38 Roq wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2010 16:19 ffreakk wrote:On November 05 2010 15:11 Roq wrote:On November 05 2010 15:00 Pleiades wrote:On November 05 2010 14:51 leonardus wrote:
If I will make some wallpapers with Adobe Photoshop and then sell all those pictures, Adobe will have no rights to get more money from me. I think that we have a similar situation with Blizz and SC2. This is far from that. Photoshop is a tool, and most art derived from Photoshop is not dependent on it. Whereas maps, replays, broadcasted games are dependent on Starcraft programming. Both of their legal agreements for using them are very different, because they are different software marketing different things. I'll try to give you a better analogy, but it's very hard to compare anything to this situation. I'm going to use DOTA. DOTA is a custom game/mod for WC3 based off of Aeon of Strife from SCBW. If the creator of these games decides not to use WC or SC as their platform to base their ideas and games upon, and uses a different platform or one created from the ground up. Does Blizzard have any legal right to DOTA / other games then? Actually yes they do. That's why they're able to use the actual name "Blizzard DOTA" and not something else like League of Legends, or Heroes of Newerth. You are wrong. They have no rights to DotA whatsoever, thats probably why they got mad and invented the new system where they own all custom maps made by users, as well as trying to make a Blizzard DotA now.. The one with right to DotA right now is Valve, who is working with Icefrog, the current developer of DotA (the original creator was Guinsoo n Eul, but Icefrog is in charge now), they already filed a trademark for DotA (all the way to DotA 4). They owe their popularity to their games that they have created. People buy and play blizzard games because of the continued support and outstanding quality. Thats true, i bought SC2 because SC1 was awesome (and cos my old friends want to play SC2 with me n talk crap about it over dinner). I will probably buy Diablo 3 cos Diablo 2 was awesome as well.. I wont buy SC3, for obvious reasons. And that's my point, they don't need Icefrog to use the name, since the game was created inside of Blizzard owned IP. Also of note, Icefrog worked on LoL too I believe, not so sure about HoN.
I dont think so, seeing has Valve having already filed the Trademark for DotA up to DotA 4.. I believe Blizzard probably would have to work out something with Valve, since they forgot to mention that they own fanmade custom maps in WC3.
Also Icefrog isnt working for League of Legend, it is Guinsoo who does (Guinsoo = original creator of DotA, but he and Eul left the developing team after version 5.84c, and Icefrog is the one in charge now). In fact i believe they are having a small fight regarding IP rights over DotA as well. Didnt follow it closely so i do not know the details though.
|
ALLEYCAT BLUES50121 Posts
On November 06 2010 01:45 vOdToasT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2010 22:36 mprs wrote::
looks like i found another reason to hate SC2. This is the dumbest line of thinking possible ever period. This company sued another company, so I'm going to hate one of their games. BUT I WILL LOVE THE OTHER GAME THEY MADE LOLOLOLOL If you think the same people who made SC2 made SC, you are mistaken. You can hate SC2 and love SC without being a hypocrite.
but according to some people the opposite makes you a hypocrite.....I LOVE BW and SC2.
|
On November 06 2010 01:48 BLinD-RawR wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2010 01:45 vOdToasT wrote:On November 05 2010 22:36 mprs wrote::
looks like i found another reason to hate SC2. This is the dumbest line of thinking possible ever period. This company sued another company, so I'm going to hate one of their games. BUT I WILL LOVE THE OTHER GAME THEY MADE LOLOLOLOL If you think the same people who made SC2 made SC, you are mistaken. You can hate SC2 and love SC without being a hypocrite. but according to some people the opposite makes you a hypocrite.....I LOVE BW and SC2.
Ok, good for you, lol. What's your point?
|
@ Loiosh
I believe Kespa have agreed to pay in the past (some weeks ago).. But suddenly now paying becomes a problem.. There are many possible scenario, but we cant really tell if we do not know the details.. For example, if Blizz suddenly wanted to charge a ridiculous amount, it would not be possible to simply comply with their demands.. (as a anti-Blizz i obviously gave a biased example, please do not take offence)
Also if you would read up more on the forums on past conditions that Blizz gave, many would think that those conditions are ... difficult to say the least. While i do not think that Blizz has all the legal rights, since IP is complicated and imo in this case it involve many other factors outside of simply the game, to quote someone else earlier in the thread: Even if they (blizz) has all the legal right to fuck me over, it doesnt change the fact that they are fucking me over.
|
On November 06 2010 01:21 Moody wrote:
does this "legal right to broadcast" affect organizations like iCCup or other tourney's that are cast? it seems like it would...
Blizzard is only claiming IP rights over actual TV broadcasts and for profit leagues.
ICCup et al do have to get a licence to run tourneys, but as they aren't doing it for profit and also not paying out particularly large sums in prize money Blizz doesn't require them to pay, just to get a licence. They also only broadcast on the internet via JTV/Ustream etc.
I would imagine MLG/ESL probably do have to pay a small fee to blizzard because of the scale of their tourneys and their premium service, either that or they have come to some arrangement with Blizz. I also imagine they wouldn't claim to have the right to broadcast without blizz permission.... if blizz told MLG they can't broadcast without paying, they would work out a deal or shut down.
Kespa et al claim that they have the right to broadcast BW without Blizz's permission and without a licence or paying for the priviledge. That is the big difference. Personally i don't care who is right or wrong, i just want it settled one way or another
Blizz are basically trying to set a precedence for the future, gaming companies have started to enforce much stricter IP rights on their products in the last few years and now have the legistlation to back it up. in the UK/US etc there are definate laws about who owns the IP rights, and they clearly state it would be Blizzard in this case..... even if they haven't enforced them in the past, they have a legal right to do so whenever they choose. Whether these laws would apply to Korea is the big question
If blizz one day decided that we can't stream our own games, or broadcast tourneys without obtaining a licence, we would have no choice but to get one or face some kind of action on their part, whether that be banning our bnet account, having JTV etc shut down our streams or taking legal action. Luckily tho.... this will likely never happen as blizzard don't want to shut down the average gamer and non-profit organisations who are promoting their game and esports in general.
|
...
1. People need to stop using Photoshop, 3ds Max 'tool' argument because it is retarded. Those tools have separate license versions if you want to sell your works for money. 3ds Max cost $1000+ for the standard version, student version cost $300.. difference? You can sell your work with the standard but not for student.
2. Controlling your IP right is important. If you are lucky, people using your IP can improve your product sells and awareness, if you are not lucky, people can run your product to the ground. Think of what happens if people use blizzard's engine for illegal activity such as pornography, viruses, spams. Are you really going to leave it up to chance?
3. Filing a suit does not mean it would go to court or it would cancel your MSL, OSL..etc. You are just pressuring that it would be resolved as soon as possible. Of course, if both side doesn't want to negotiate, then it would go to court. Blizzard haven't requested a cease and desist yet, so stop getting a head of yourselves.
|
On November 06 2010 02:02 ffreakk wrote:
@ Loiosh
I believe Kespa have agreed to pay in the past (some weeks ago).. But suddenly now paying becomes a problem.
As unfortunate as that is, it is still Blizzard's right to insist upon whatever requirements they wish. At the same time, KeSPA and OGN have a right to defend themselves in court, and that is where I suspect this issue will get its resolution.
As for annoying or impossible requirements, having run a LAN center before, I can fully understand how painful working with publishers / developers can be. Valve was particularly awful to LAN centers trying to be legal when they first started with steam (and for a few years after). I would hope that Blizzard is better than Valve was at that time.
Everything I have seen from them, and when I have spoken with them, indicates Blizzard is forthcoming with their requirements for broadcasting/gaming rights. I understand your pain for a favored league, but these issues do need to be legally resolved. What OGN did (ignoring the EULA) is not legally protected, and they will now face a lawsuit that will establish exactly how much control Blizzard can exert on broadcasts.
On a personal note: I hope you guys do not mind big posts from a relatively new poster. I've been reading TL for awhile, but I recently picked up my account for reasons that will be clear in the near future.
(Hi TL people)
|
I believe Kespa have agreed to pay in the past (some weeks ago).
I remember that too, it seemed to be in the context of not wanting to meet any of the non-monetary demands (like giving GSL the primetime slot).
Later they halted negotiations by saying the amount they'd agree to pay was 0 won. 
Blizzard is only claiming IP rights over actual TV broadcasts and for profit leagues.
Then again, Blizzard execs have publicly referred to iccup as a pirate server.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
