MBCGame v. Blizzard - First Court Session - Page 6

@iba001, I do not quite agree if your statement that Starcraft is meant for eSports. In 1998, nobody was thinking about such things.

On December 14 2010 10:12 iba001 wrote:


well maybe not sc1. but definitely sc2.

On December 15 2010 08:05 towers wrote:
If Blizzard was really serious about promoting e-sports, they wouldn't be having this lawsuit.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, can you imagine what would have happened if any of the other sports creators decided to control (thus restrict) their respective games? If Adams had sole IP rights of chess, or you had to pay Smith X amount of dollars if you wanted to broadcast a football game. This is insane.

In short, what Blizzard is doing and what Blizzard is saying are contradictory, and since they are a company and since actions usually speak louder than words in said context, I think Blizzard doesn't ultimately care about the health of esports in general, just the health of their profit margins in regards to esports.

Ergo, fuck blizzard (in this instance).

On December 15 2010 20:35 gslavik wrote:
I agree with you.

Another thing to point out. Mickey Mouse was drawn by Walt Disney in 1929. It is still protected by copyright.

Starcraft2 will be under US copyright protection (according to current rules) until 2105. That's right, folks, we'll be dead before Starcraft2 enter public domain. Since US along with the entire world signed the Berne copyright convention, pretty much the rest of the world is subject to this fact.

Basketball was invented in 1893. Imagine if it was still copyrighted and NBA had to pay the author's family to organize a league. Just apply Blizzard's ideas to any sport we all can go out and play.

Leagues make money (primarily) from selling broadcast and related rights. (why is there no other NFL game besides from EA? Because EA has exclusive rights to make an NFL branded game, no one else is allowed to make a football game with league/player likeness/name). Broadcasters get money from advertising and selling subscriptions (DirectTV Sunday ticket and such). Blizzard would come in to this situation and just start siphoning money away from this system like Ukraine did to Russian gas bound for western Europe through Ukraine.

Another interesting analogy. You are a home builder. You build homes and sell them. You buy tools and materials to build homes. Do the building tools/materials companies get to claim IP rights on tools/materials they designed (spent millions on R&D) and produced (spent millions on retooling factories)? No, they don't.

Did Valve assert IP rights over Counter-Strike when it first came out? No, they didn't, they bought the rights (or highered the group/guy, I don't remember). To date, Counter-Strike (1.6 or Source) is still the largest multi-player FPS on PC in terms of players.

If it's a sport, don't ask for revenue sharing and make money on the copies of the game everyone buys. If it's not a sport, keep going, but don't claim to support eSports

On December 18 2010 07:25 Pleiades wrote:
I do realize that progaming is a job to some people, but it's better to suspend league operations until a legal settlement or agreement can be made. Otherwise, it can end the current E-Sports scene or make it stagnant. The reason why some people don't support KeSPA is not because they might be breaking IP rights, it's that they're continuing to do it in a bad and legal situation.

On December 18 2010 07:25 Pleiades wrote:
respecting and upholding IP rights is a step towards E-sports growth.

Yea, I read that KeSPA originally bought broadcasting rights from Blizzard, and then KeSPA sold those rights to 3rd parties without Blizzard's permission. So this suggests that broadcasting rights exist and can be sold. From a contract law point of view, Blizzard, as the seller, could impose whatever restrictions they want to upon the buyer, and Blizzard could conceivably sue them for breach of contract, lost profits, infringement of IP rights, and misappropriation of revenue.

On December 13 2010 21:02 iba001 wrote:


In terms of Australian law this is the issue as I see it (i'm a just-graduated law student who has completed copyright, so I'm not an expert):
*note that we are here talking ONLY about the computer game itself, not of all the other things that go into making that game (artwork, trademarks, etc)

- Why Australian law might be an accurate representation of Korean Law: WIPO - An organisation tasked with ensuring the consistency of IP law across the world has created many treaties that seek to do just that. Korea and Australia are members and thus their respective copyright laws are similar.

- What is a computer game under copyright law? A Cinematograph film. It does not have its own category. <- stupid i know, but it has stuck. I think because one of the first cases involving a game featured virtua cop, which if any of you have played it seemed more like a movie because it was on "rails" (i.e. like time crisis and house of the dead).

- What is a cinematograph film? It is classed as subject matter other than a work (works, such as drawings, receive greater protections than non-works)

- The basis of all copyright claims: Whether the defendant, through their actions, has exercised one of the exclusive rights vested in the owner of the copyright - in this case to broadcast the game to the public.

- The D must have taken(broadcast in this case) a substantial part of the game.

- The issue likely to be litigated, the one that the above quote mentions: In my opinion, it is whether the broadcast of a match of startcraft constitutes a substantial part of the game. Questions the court may ask are whether the matches constitute an essential part of the game, or an important ingredient.

-It could be argued that broadcasting a game would never involve a substantial taking as games are by their nature interactive, and a movie of a couple of strangers playing the game could never be characterised as the game's essential part.

- Things that muddy the water (aside from the fact that i am a legal noob):
1. Starcraft I & II are meant for e-sports - they are meant to be watched, which might mean they need to be treated differently.
2. Games are classed as cinematograph films - noone would argue that broadcasting a whole episode of LOST without a license would be breaching the law, so why should whole matches of starcraft be treated differently?
3. And this is just something to think about - would the law treat this case differently if what was at issue was the broadcast of the single player portion of the game (i.e. the storyline), and not one of the hundreds of thousands of 1v1 matches that get played around the world every day?

If anyone familiar with Korean law wants to fix this up please do.

On December 23 2010 06:42 MozzarellaL wrote:

What on earth are you talking about? Basketball isn't copyrightable material. It is patentable, and patent terms last a maximize of 17 years (probably around 20 years back in the 1890s).


Blizzard acts like the NFL in this situation, actually. GOMtv etc are like separate conferences in the NFL. Poor analogy but that's how it goes.


Actually they do. Go to www.google.com/patents and look at the patents companies like John Deere, and Sears, and Stihl own. They claim their IP rights on the tools/materials they design, and you pay a premium to buy and use their products.


They didn't assert IP rights because under the Half-Life Engine license, people could modify the Engine and distribute it for free. In order to financially benefit from the creation of the CS, Valve would have had to change their license terms (removing people's privilege to modify the HL engine and distribute it for free), and by changing their license terms, CS would never have been made if those terms were in effect when Half-Life was sold.


You really need to have a better understanding of legal principles. Blizzard made SC2, and they own the rights to SC2. They also own SC2, and under US law, when you 'buy a video game' (or any software for that fact) you aren't buying anything except a license to use the video game in the manner the developer/publisher lets you use it. The EULA outlines the terms of this license. This means Blizzard could enjoin anyone from making a SC2 tournament if they wanted to, because they get to perscribe how their customers use SC2, and if they don't want people making a SC2 tournament, they could stop it from happening.


Yea, I read that KeSPA originally bought broadcasting rights from Blizzard, and then KeSPA sold those rights to 3rd parties without Blizzard's permission. So this suggests that broadcasting rights exist and can be sold. From a contract law point of view, Blizzard, as the seller, could impose whatever restrictions they want to upon the buyer, and Blizzard could conceivably sue them for breach of contract, lost profits, infringement of IP rights, and misappropriation of revenue.