EPTGretech's Final Offer to the Broadcasting Stations - Page 13
| Forum Index > Community News and Headlines |
|
attackfighter
Canada308 Posts
| ||
|
battarro
United States59 Posts
My point is are simple. Blizzard is entitled to portion of the market established by Kespa, they have a strong saying in controlling what happens with Sc1 and yes, it is their right to kill sc1, in order to push their new product. | ||
|
Levythenobz
Canada42 Posts
On November 16 2010 12:32 battarro wrote: my hypothetical situations are simple, just replace a "square ball" with starcraft and you have the BW programing at a glance. At where a party created an unique piece of equipment that is the main tool of another party for revenue. The rest are the ramifications from a business perspective. My point is are simple. Blizzard is entitled to portion of the market established by Kespa, they have a strong saying in controlling what happens with Sc1 and yes, it is their right to kill sc1, in order to push their new product. Serious question, Do car manufacturers get any say whatsoever in who uses their car in what race? Cuz it's basically the same as your "square ball". Someone made the cars, others made the races. I don't think people give royalties to BMW or Ford each time there is a race anywhere in the world. Nor do they have any say whether their car can be used or not in x or y different race. Was James Naismith (the guy that invented Basketball) receiving royalties for each game of basketball played on TV? It's his creation afterball. Is the guy that invented the skateboard receiving royalties for each televised game where skateboarding is used? Might be wrong, but no seems to be the answer to these 3. Why should it be different for blizzard. Just cuz your created ''something'' does not entitle you to decide everything that happends with said ''something''. | ||
|
Kaneh
Canada737 Posts
Just cuz your created ''something'' does not entitle you to decide everything that happends with said ''something''. uhh that's the whole point of copyrights and patents and intellectual property... | ||
|
ffreakk
Singapore2155 Posts
Your analogy is interesting, but many points are twisted the wrong way. 1/ Blizz isnt broke, and its not like their new "ball" isnt selling. They are actually selling well. 2/ A good part of your old "ball" 's popularity came from this new company that makes a sport out of it. And they are responsible for a huge amount of publicity which, in turn, translated into your sales. 3/ Your new product is related to (i would go as far as to say it live off the fame of) your "square ball" that stopped gaining popularity until this new "sport" came about. So a good part of the sales also benefit from (came from) this popularity brought about by this "sport". With these 3 in mind, can you really complain? Let alone press them with ridiculous lawsuits and conditions after you are done thriving off their efforts? | ||
|
overt
United States9006 Posts
Could I have someone who cares about the Brood War scene and who wants to see Brood War continue explain why they favor Blizzard over KeSPA? Please don't lie or anything, if you're only interested in SC2 and don't really care if Brood War dies or do care if it dies but feel it's Brood Wars, "time," don't reply to me. I will ignore you. I want to hear reasons why, as a fan of Brood War and the pro scene, I should support Blizzard and not boycott every game they make from here on out. I feel pretty betrayed by Blizzard to be honest. The terms on page one are fucking ridiculous (I'm not going to go into detail). Why can't they just demand that their logo be seen and ask for royalties every year? Even though OGN/MBCGame shouldn't have to pay royalties, I think they'd gladly pay royalties at a reasonable price once a year. So seriously, as someone who likes Brood War and wants the Brood War scene to continue why should I not be enraged at Blizzard? | ||
|
Zeridian
United States198 Posts
This whole issue pretty much comes down to that, emotional anecdotal stuff aside. The original product was produced by blizzard. Don't turn this into some silly KESPA is non-profit and blizzard is trying to blah blah. KESPA may be non-profit in name, but they promote their parent companies via advertising. Blizzard may not be inherently good in the situation, but if they hadn't created the game and owned rights to it. There would've been no BW for you guys to watch and fawn over. Someone had to build the house, for you guys to enjoy it. Whether you think E-Sports could've existed without KESPA is another story. | ||
|
Hav0k
United States7 Posts
| ||
|
Ferago
41 Posts
On November 16 2010 15:57 overt wrote: After reading a bunch of the replies I can't help but think that at least most of the people on Blizzard's side are people who don't give a shit what happens to Brood War. And frankly, if you don't care about the Brood War scene then why you'd even post on a thread about the Brood War scene is beyond me. Could I have someone who cares about the Brood War scene and who wants to see Brood War continue explain why they favor Blizzard over KeSPA? Please don't lie or anything, if you're only interested in SC2 and don't really care if Brood War dies or do care if it dies but feel it's Brood Wars, "time," don't reply to me. I will ignore you. I want to hear reasons why, as a fan of Brood War and the pro scene, I should support Blizzard and not boycott every game they make from here on out. I feel pretty betrayed by Blizzard to be honest. The terms on page one are fucking ridiculous (I'm not going to go into detail). Why can't they just demand that their logo be seen and ask for royalties every year? Even though OGN/MBCGame shouldn't have to pay royalties, I think they'd gladly pay royalties at a reasonable price once a year. So seriously, as someone who likes Brood War and wants the Brood War scene to continue why should I not be enraged at Blizzard? Blizzard isn't asking much beyond a reasonable royalty and the display of their logo. The only other significant item is the 50:50 split of ownership of the broadcasting material, which is normal. All that means is that Blizzard can use that material however they want for promotional purposes, etc., which would be for the benefit of both Blizzard and e-sports. It doesn't mean they're trying to control anything. So I'm not sure what it is that you (or anyone) find to be ridiculous in these terms. | ||
|
infinity2k9
United Kingdom2397 Posts
On November 16 2010 21:04 Ferago wrote: Blizzard isn't asking much beyond a reasonable royalty and the display of their logo. The only other significant item is the 50:50 split of ownership of the broadcasting material, which is normal. All that means is that Blizzard can use that material however they want for promotional purposes, etc., which would be for the benefit of both Blizzard and e-sports. It doesn't mean they're trying to control anything. So I'm not sure what it is that you (or anyone) find to be ridiculous in these terms. As if they didn't benefit enough from the BW eSports scene without their logo directly paraded around everywhere? And 50:50 ownership is huge. What about shows like Hyungjoon becomes a progamer. Why should Blizzard have any ownership of this at all? | ||
|
battarro
United States59 Posts
On November 16 2010 13:03 Levythenobz wrote: Serious question, Do car manufacturers get any say whatsoever in who uses their car in what race? Cuz it's basically the same as your "square ball". Someone made the cars, others made the races. I don't think people give royalties to BMW or Ford each time there is a race anywhere in the world. Nor do they have any say whether their car can be used or not in x or y different race. Was James Naismith (the guy that invented Basketball) receiving royalties for each game of basketball played on TV? It's his creation afterball. Is the guy that invented the skateboard receiving royalties for each televised game where skateboarding is used? Might be wrong, but no seems to be the answer to these 3. Why should it be different for blizzard. Just cuz your created ''something'' does not entitle you to decide everything that happends with said ''something''. It is different for that case from a legal point of view. First, each car company is a diferent legal entity, each one with a different product. Second, the use of a specif car vs other type of car it is not a requirement for the race to happen, you can have a ford, a toyota, a honda. Third, no car manufacturer holds the patent for a generic car, an internal combustion engine., the entity necessary to run the race. This items are different from BW, or the square ball scenario, on which a single company holds the patent for the product. Also without the product from this single company , the "race" or the "game" can not occur. This point in particular is important in determining if it can be consider a derivative work or not. If the original product can be removed from the new work and what an impact will have on the new work the removal of the original product. If we were to remove all ford cards from a race and replace them with Honda, the race will not suffer any modification on the enjoyment of the viewer. When was the last time on a race you went? "DID you see how that Honda performed?. Did you notice how the curves were handle by the ferrari? The experience of enjoing a race is not dependant of the cars on it. With broodwar. Everything thing is tied to specific elements of the game. Items that are copyrigthed . "Did you see hte micro on those zerglings, the muta flock, the M&M ball, etc. Everything that we enjoy from the broadcast is tied to specific, non replaceable elements from the broodwar game. Basketball is not protected by copyrights laws, sadly because the guy who invented did not patented it / copyrighted it. Has he copyrighted/patented it would be a diferent tune.. SkateBoard question: When you buy a skateboard, you dont sign a EULA, something that you do when you buy a computer game. More important, not single company holds the patent/copyright for skateboards | ||
|
battarro
United States59 Posts
| ||
|
Ferago
41 Posts
On November 16 2010 23:45 infinity2k9 wrote: As if they didn't benefit enough from the BW eSports scene without their logo directly paraded around everywhere? And 50:50 ownership is huge. What about shows like Hyungjoon becomes a progamer. Why should Blizzard have any ownership of this at all? It doesn't matter how much they've benefited from esports; they are still entitled to being CREDITED for making the game. It's really not asking that much to put a little Blizzard logo somewhere in view of the camera. And the terms of this agreement apply specifically to broadcasting of tournaments and things like that. Shows like the one you mentioned would have to go through a different process (or at least be subject to different terms). Besides, I think you're still misinterpreting what ownership means. It just means that Blizzard would be allowed to use the broadcasting material themselves (for whatever reason) without paying royalties back to the broadcasting stations. It has nothing to do with control over anything, or even money. As the terms clearly state, the broadcasting stations keep 100% of their revenues, and only need to pay the fixed royalty fee. | ||
|
battarro
United States59 Posts
Right now Blizzard can not do that, since they do not own any of the broadcasts, or a % on the broadcast. | ||
|
overt
United States9006 Posts
On November 16 2010 21:04 Ferago wrote: Blizzard isn't asking much beyond a reasonable royalty and the display of their logo. The only other significant item is the 50:50 split of ownership of the broadcasting material, which is normal. All that means is that Blizzard can use that material however they want for promotional purposes, etc., which would be for the benefit of both Blizzard and e-sports. It doesn't mean they're trying to control anything. So I'm not sure what it is that you (or anyone) find to be ridiculous in these terms. We can agree to disagree, but those three things aren't the only things in that agreement. I'd also point out that while it isn't stated in that agreement I think it's very likely that MBCGame and OGN would be asked to change their programming around so that it doesn't compete with SC2 (as that was a big issue in earlier discussions). You also didn't answer my main question of that post and instead just decided to give your input on the deal Gretech offered. I don't care about discussing the ins and outs of the deal or why I think it's bullshit. | ||
|
battarro
United States59 Posts
Because it sets a legal precedent. | ||
|
Magnamus
United States23 Posts
It makes sense that Blizzard would try to protect their image. The betting scandal demonstrated that Kespa can't handle the scene. Yet, they are overcharging the broadcasters and undercutting the length of contract. Blizzard is cutting off their nose to spite their face as broadcasters won't be able to afford the payments or risk the uncertainty of short-term contracting. Blizzard might not want to kill BW, and they may very well only want control of the scene, fine whatever, but how can they expect it to survive when their demands would ruin the industry? | ||
|
ffreakk
Singapore2155 Posts
On November 17 2010 06:15 battarro wrote: what was your main question? why should we care? Because it sets a legal precedent. Well if you decided to reply him, shouldnt you reply to all his questions rather than dodging the ones that you cant answer (aka hes right, if so at least credit him for being right). Just a side note i target-fired you with some questions/arguments too, you dodged as well  . | ||
|
Ferago
41 Posts
On November 17 2010 03:44 overt wrote: We can agree to disagree, but those three things aren't the only things in that agreement. I'd also point out that while it isn't stated in that agreement I think it's very likely that MBCGame and OGN would be asked to change their programming around so that it doesn't compete with SC2 (as that was a big issue in earlier discussions). You also didn't answer my main question of that post and instead just decided to give your input on the deal Gretech offered. I don't care about discussing the ins and outs of the deal or why I think it's bullshit. What was your main question? Why should you not be enraged at Blizzard and boycott them? If my response didn't answer that question then maybe you should further explain what you're enraged about, because you kind of just left it out in the open. You are correct in observing that there are more than three terms on the agreement, but I still fail to see which ones you don't like. Again, maybe some elaboration would clear things up a bit. I'm not trying to be hostile, but I'm starting to wonder if you even know what you're talking about. | ||
|
battarro
United States59 Posts
On November 16 2010 15:41 ffreakk wrote: @ battaro Your analogy is interesting, but many points are twisted the wrong way. 1/ Blizz isnt broke, and its not like their new "ball" isnt selling. They are actually selling well. 2/ A good part of your old "ball" 's popularity came from this new company that makes a sport out of it. And they are responsible for a huge amount of publicity which, in turn, translated into your sales. 3/ Your new product is related to (i would go as far as to say it live off the fame of) your "square ball" that stopped gaining popularity until this new "sport" came about. So a good part of the sales also benefit from (came from) this popularity brought about by this "sport". With these 3 in mind, can you really complain? Let alone press them with ridiculous lawsuits and conditions after you are done thriving off their efforts? The selling of a new ball is irrelevant, Blizzard had the same right to the broodwar scene before the launch of SC2 and after the launch. It is not that when you create a new product you forfeit any rights to an old one. While is it fortunate and convenient for blizzard that another company laid the ground work for the e-sport community, having doing so does not gives legal right to the company after creating the secondary market. For example if I take someones unused land and without their consent I build an apartment complex, they can come later and get everything i pour money and heart into. Is it fair, no, is it legal, yes, it is. | ||
| ||
