|
United States238 Posts
The lawyerese is pretty annoying.
Source: http://www.fomos.kr/board/board.php?mode=read&keyno=113292&db=issue&cate=&page=1&field=&kwrd=
-----------------------------------------------------------
In Dec. 10th, first court session of MBCGame v. Blizzard-Gretech (regarding IP rights) have started.
However, the session has been delayed without much argument due to MBCGame requesting "lawsuit cost collateral request".
What it is, is that if the plaintiffs are a foreigner or a foreign company, the defendants can request that to force the foreigner/foreign company to get the necessary collateral before the court can proceed. Defendant can do this in order to ensure the rights to request payments for their lawsuit costs (should they win).
The plaintiffs - Blizzard-Gretech - stated MBCGame has been violating Blizzard's IP rights for many years, and with MBCGame forcing MSL despite the fact Blizzard sent them a warning saying, "Stop violating our IP rights". Blizzard-Gretech then stated there is no way they can avoid a lawsuit, and has filed for such in Oct. 28th.
In a meanwhile, today, the court asked, "While the lawsuits are going on, it looks like a proper mediation can end this matter. What do you think?". To that, Blizzard answered, "A proper mediation can end this matter." However, MBCGame stated, "While we can accept mediation, we wish take this opportunity to know just how far the IP rights reach in regards to broadcasting content creation through a game."
The defendants requested additional time to prepare in-depth answers in relating to IP rights violation request, and as such, the second session is set to begin in January 28th.
|
United States4053 Posts
That's uneventful. MBC's response is soemwhat odd though.
TY for translating!
|
United States7481 Posts
thanks for the translation, guess this is on the back burner for a month and a half
|
|
I keep forgetting how painstakingly long a lawsuit is. Hopefully they can agree on something decent. Although this will probably just end in the court favoring one or the other. I expect OGN will be the same.
|
On December 10 2010 16:30 seRapH wrote: So... nothing happened?
Something did happen this " "lawsuit cost collateral request" well in a sense it's asking for the plaintiff who are suing the defendant to get ready the money to ensure there will be a colleteral compensation given at the time of the case being resolved . I still like MBC pushing the limits by seeing how far these IP rights go . Go mbc I am all behind you lets see if the JD & Flash of the law firms can actually do anything to mbc.
|
This should set an interesting case study for Entertainment and Multimedia Company's protecting International Intellectual Property Rights. This case could set an precedent in sports-media regarding IP rights. Really a shame that it had to get to this.
It seems very amusing that MBC Game is requesting a "lawsuit cost collateral request", as Activision-Blizzard is a very wealthy company (especially from their WoW subscriptions for the past 5-6 years). Seems like a maneuver to buy more time for MBC to solidify their case. I wonder if Blizzard issue a "cease and desist" on this PDPOP MSL or if MSL goes another season than future MSLs. Activision-Blizard has stated that they have no intention of killing BW, so it seems unlikely that they will go back on their word and pursue such legal action. I am hoping for the best as watching BW is more enjoyable for me than SC2.
|
United States4053 Posts
On December 10 2010 16:37 GhoSt[shield] wrote: This should set an interesting case study for Entertainment and Multimedia Company's protecting International Intellectual Property Rights. This case could set an precedent in sports-media regarding IP rights. Really a shame that it had to get to this.
It seems very amusing that MBC Game is requesting a "lawsuit cost collateral request", as Activision-Blizzard is a very wealthy company (especially from their WoW subscriptions for the past 5-6 years). Seems like a maneuver to buy more time for MBC to solidify their case. I wonder if Blizzard issue a "cease and desist" on this PDPOP MSL or if MSL goes another season than future MSLs. Activision-Blizard has stated that they have no intention of killing BW, so it seems unlikely that they will go back on their word and pursue such legal action. I am hoping for the best as watching BW is more enjoyable for me than SC2. It's going to be ridiculously bad PR if Actiblizz does end up killing BW, since they've said they have no intentions of doing so. They're in a big bind right now. They have to win and show dominance over IP rights without crippling the broadcasting companies to the point where BW falters.
That's also probably why Actiblizz has not (and will not?) pursue an injunction.
|
=P at this point i'm fine with the lawsuit being pushed bac and delayed indefinately as long as there is no sucessful injuction from Blizzard on my BW. MBC might feel this way too.
|
Interesting MBC Game response. I'm kinda interested too.
How much IP rights can you exert over the creation of a game, especially when it deals with the consumer's usage after the game has been purchased?
|
phew, broodwar lives to see another day.
|
Osaka26976 Posts
Thank you for keeping us up to date. It is really important and appreciated.
|
Corporate lawsuits take a really long time to end. It sounds like the MBC lawyers have come well prepared for this case though, so that's at least reassuring.
|
Definitely nothing happened. Well, this is good for now. The longer this takes the longer BW scene will last.
|
Thank you for translating, i appreciate it. Its really going to be interesting what happens, we have heard both sides and I have refrained from making an opinion, but the courts really will have to decide. This is kind of a huge deal, it's groundbreaking laws being formed that will have a large effect on the future of eSports.
|
Estonia4504 Posts
Hell yeah! I wouldn't say any side really wants to be there (at least not any more), and that in itself is a great thing for the negotiations. I sincerely hope Blizzard will make some amends as well. Please, Blizzard, don't cripple BW.
|
Blizzard is indeed in bind. You are spot on infinite. The negative publicity in a country such as Korea with gaming as a part of its culture would have terrible future consequences for a media-entertainment company such as Activision Blizzard. Their bind comes from every Multinational Corporations issues, protection of IP rights abroad. Without having their Intellectual Property recognized, future transgressions will bring up the same problems and issues. Should be interesting to see how this is resolved, and its resulting impact upon Korea and e-Sports.
|
Russian Federation4405 Posts
On December 10 2010 16:39 infinitestory wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 16:37 GhoSt[shield] wrote: This should set an interesting case study for Entertainment and Multimedia Company's protecting International Intellectual Property Rights. This case could set an precedent in sports-media regarding IP rights. Really a shame that it had to get to this.
It seems very amusing that MBC Game is requesting a "lawsuit cost collateral request", as Activision-Blizzard is a very wealthy company (especially from their WoW subscriptions for the past 5-6 years). Seems like a maneuver to buy more time for MBC to solidify their case. I wonder if Blizzard issue a "cease and desist" on this PDPOP MSL or if MSL goes another season than future MSLs. Activision-Blizard has stated that they have no intention of killing BW, so it seems unlikely that they will go back on their word and pursue such legal action. I am hoping for the best as watching BW is more enjoyable for me than SC2. It's going to be ridiculously bad PR if Actiblizz does end up killing BW, since they've said they have no intentions of doing so. They're in a big bind right now. They have to win and show dominance over IP rights without crippling the broadcasting companies to the point where BW falters. That's also probably why Actiblizz has not (and will not?) pursue an injunction. This.
And since they said they do not see esports as a source of profit, they should make an agreement (but not only they, MBC and OGN too), so that the Blizzard will be somewhat promoted through these broadcasts so that we'll see that this is not only the product of OGN, but of the developer company too. That would be correct from all points of view #_#
Offtopic - I can't help thinking of SC2 as a lower and SC as a higher division of e-sports RTS... Much like Primera and Segunda in Spain's football leagues for example...
|
konadora
Singapore66060 Posts
yay BW to continue until january :p (minimum!)
|
On December 10 2010 18:09 konadora wrote: yay BW to continue until january :p (minimum!) *knocks on wood*
btw, is it me... or does those answers sound very badass? : o
|
Katowice25012 Posts
Thanks for the update.
Start the 35 day countdown for this to show up on otaku.
|
its the calm before the storm ..
|
Thanks for the translation.
Interesting stuff from MBC. On the one hand they did what I expected and bought themselves more time. On the other hand they seem determined to go ahead with the proceedings in order to get some sort of precedent ruling (either that or they're just trying to appear ready to go through with things so they have more leverage in the mediation talks).
|
ALLEYCAT BLUES49044 Posts
On December 10 2010 18:23 chongu wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 18:09 konadora wrote: yay BW to continue until january :p (minimum!) *knocks on wood* btw, is it me... or does those answers sound very badass? : o
They are bad ass
they are the real MBC game HEROES!!!!!
+ Show Spoiler [ Obligatory pic] +
|
FREEAGLELAND26780 Posts
Thanks for this, Selith. It's good to know that this keeps getting pushed back. Maybe, maybe, maybe both sides will just decide to drop it one day if progress is this slow.
|
Blizzard really wants OGN and MBC to broadcast SC2 on television so they cannot hit these 2 too hard, in the other hand they want absolute control over the scene so they must find a way to subdue Kespa and 2 broadcasting stations into their rule. Both of these 2 tasks are extremely difficult and I don't think they can do it without messing the whole thing up.
|
On December 10 2010 16:39 infinitestory wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 16:37 GhoSt[shield] wrote: This should set an interesting case study for Entertainment and Multimedia Company's protecting International Intellectual Property Rights. This case could set an precedent in sports-media regarding IP rights. Really a shame that it had to get to this.
It seems very amusing that MBC Game is requesting a "lawsuit cost collateral request", as Activision-Blizzard is a very wealthy company (especially from their WoW subscriptions for the past 5-6 years). Seems like a maneuver to buy more time for MBC to solidify their case. I wonder if Blizzard issue a "cease and desist" on this PDPOP MSL or if MSL goes another season than future MSLs. Activision-Blizard has stated that they have no intention of killing BW, so it seems unlikely that they will go back on their word and pursue such legal action. I am hoping for the best as watching BW is more enjoyable for me than SC2. It's going to be ridiculously bad PR if Actiblizz does end up killing BW, since they've said they have no intentions of doing so. They're in a big bind right now. They have to win and show dominance over IP rights without crippling the broadcasting companies to the point where BW falters. That's also probably why Actiblizz has not (and will not?) pursue an injunction.
I so agree with you on this. Honestly, imo, these lawsuits are so VERY unnecessary. BW and SC2 are running fine together right now, and everyone is talking about great games in between. This only dampens the mood of the fans, like me... Blizzard has to be WILLING to take a compromise on the extent of their IP rights. There can never be an ultimatum if it will only backfire on you in the PR department. Think about that please, ActiBlizzard!
At least, we get to see BW for a while longer. =3
|
On December 10 2010 18:09 _Quasar_ wrote: And since they said they do not see esports as a source of profit, they should make an agreement (but not only they, MBC and OGN too), so that the Blizzard will be somewhat promoted through these broadcasts so that we'll see that this is not only the product of OGN, but of the developer company too. That would be correct from all points of view #_# You believe the company line? In recent times, Activision Blizzard has been monetizing all sorts of things. Although Microsoft has not directly confirmed it, most industry observers conclude that pressure/leverage from CoD caused MSFT to increase the price on XBox Live, with a portion of that revenue going to ATVI. And that's just one example among many.
Also, YEARS ago, before this entire conflict started, Blizzard's branding was prominently displayed in BW leagues. But of course one doesn't continue to promote someone who refuses to offer reasonable licensing terms, and later, sues you.
Thanks for the update.
|
Thank you so much for the update! It is much appreciated!!!
|
Yes yes legal system for the win.
Fingers crossed for 5 + years of legal battle, I'd be happy with 17 years of BW.
|
Blizzard could simply request an injunction to prevent further damages until the trial is over. I'm sure that would cause MBC to negotiate fairly quickly. Not sure if this works in korea.
|
5003 Posts
On December 11 2010 01:55 darmousseh wrote: Blizzard could simply request an injunction to prevent further damages until the trial is over. I'm sure that would cause MBC to negotiate fairly quickly. Not sure if this works in korea.
Except they've already said that they wont do an injunction, so it'd be going back on their word.
Also it'd show weakness on Blizzard's part seeing that really, "why wouldn't blizzard want a court battle?"
MBC Game really did make the right move -- Blizzard assumes that they hold 100% of the property rights, but MBC Game disagrees. The court is the only entity that can decide who owns what clearly. ONLY after that will they be able to negotiate properly. There's a reason this entire thing took 3 frigging years -- i twas a battle over property rights and not much else.
If blizzard does indeed own the property rights, then MBC Game cannot lose, but can only gain, from this trial -- since Blizzard acts like they own it anyway, and if the court rules that way, so be it, but there's a chance court can make some interesting decision (the interesting decision, imo, that would be the right one)
|
Judge "Mediation?" Blizzard "Mediation!" MBC "OK, but..."
So, it sounds to me like they'll agree to agree at some point. MBC is just looking to define the gray area between IP rights and Blizzard owning your soul.
|
Judging from the recent GSL games, Blizz need to win this more than ever and ASAP. I don't see GSL going anywhere if the games continues to be 4 min all in + random champion every season.
|
On December 11 2010 03:59 mmdmmd wrote: Judging from the recent GSL games, Blizz need to win this more than ever and ASAP. I don't see GSL going anywhere if the games continues to be 4 min all in + random champion every season.
Have you watched any of Jinro's games? Or IdrAs? Or ST_Squirtles? Or Nestea v MakaPrime? Have you watched any games at all or are you reading the LR threads and just regurgitating hearsay? There have been plenty of non all-in games, please do not make a rash overgeneralization.
Also there have been 3 seasons of GSL Opens so far. Open as in any player who shows up in Korea can play. How can there not be 3 randoms champions? Do you expect FD or Nestea to repeat within a month when there are thousands of players in the initial player pool? It is really a bit ridiculous to think we would have 3 super well-known champs by the end of 3 months. Did anyone know who MarineKing.Prime was before last season? Did YOU know Nestea was KTF Zergbong before he won?
The GSL "real" seasons have not even begun, these opens were to determine Code "S" and "A" Players for the 2011 season. Next year with Blizzard Cup, year ending 8 man tourny, that will be known players who win. These opens are for players to prove themselves for next year. Relax, enjoy and about the whine please.
|
On December 10 2010 21:24 cocoa_sg wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 16:39 infinitestory wrote:On December 10 2010 16:37 GhoSt[shield] wrote: This should set an interesting case study for Entertainment and Multimedia Company's protecting International Intellectual Property Rights. This case could set an precedent in sports-media regarding IP rights. Really a shame that it had to get to this.
It seems very amusing that MBC Game is requesting a "lawsuit cost collateral request", as Activision-Blizzard is a very wealthy company (especially from their WoW subscriptions for the past 5-6 years). Seems like a maneuver to buy more time for MBC to solidify their case. I wonder if Blizzard issue a "cease and desist" on this PDPOP MSL or if MSL goes another season than future MSLs. Activision-Blizard has stated that they have no intention of killing BW, so it seems unlikely that they will go back on their word and pursue such legal action. I am hoping for the best as watching BW is more enjoyable for me than SC2. It's going to be ridiculously bad PR if Actiblizz does end up killing BW, since they've said they have no intentions of doing so. They're in a big bind right now. They have to win and show dominance over IP rights without crippling the broadcasting companies to the point where BW falters. That's also probably why Actiblizz has not (and will not?) pursue an injunction. Blizzard has to be WILLING to take a compromise on the extent of their IP rights.
As a Multinational Corporation, one of their primary organization objectives (true for almost any MNC) is to protect their IP rights. IP rights protections is a driving force behind Free Trade Agreements such as NAFTA of EU. Compromises on IP rights sets a dangerous precedent for future breaches of IP rights. Litigation is usually the last option as it is expensive, time-consuming and severely hurts the reputation of a Corporation while also having an uncertain outcome. An Entertainment-Media Corporation only have their creative and intellectual property to protect. It is their product, their "good" developed through R&D investment and the vehicle in which they attempt to be profitable. To allow breaches of their IP Rights uncontested is suicidal for future earnings and growth. Why does it seem like everyone forgets that all corporations in every industry protects their IP rights and yet in this case they act as if IP rights do not deserve to be recognized? I love BW myself, but to be perfectly frank MBC has knowingly and purposefully breached the IP rights of Blizzard for quite some time without repercussions. MBC is definitely in a win-win situation, as if they lose the status quo will be unaffected. Blizzard as everything to lose as now they must wait on the decision of the courts to decide their property rights.
|
hurray for procrastination! Let's keep this up!
|
|
On December 11 2010 04:14 GhoSt[shield] wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2010 03:59 mmdmmd wrote: Judging from the recent GSL games, Blizz need to win this more than ever and ASAP. I don't see GSL going anywhere if the games continues to be 4 min all in + random champion every season. Have you watched any of Jinro's games? Or IdrAs? Or ST_Squirtles? Or Nestea v MakaPrime? Have you watched any games at all or are you reading the LR threads and just regurgitating hearsay? There have been plenty of non all-in games, please do not make a rash overgeneralization.
Yes I have watched. Not everyone but most of what I've seen involves semi all-in, at least the players give up after their first strat/attack fails, most of them don't seem to have a plan B in game.
And coming from a long SC/BW pro-scene background. Both the spirit and time of sc2 games feels semi-all ins to me.
Also there have been 3 seasons of GSL Opens so far. Open as in any player who shows up in Korea can play. How can there not be 3 randoms champions? Do you expect FD or Nestea to repeat within a month when there are thousands of players in the initial player pool? It is really a bit ridiculous to think we would have 3 super well-known champs by the end of 3 months. Did anyone know who MarineKing.Prime was before last season? Did YOU know Nestea was KTF Zergbong before he won?
Yes I do know many player's histories for the reasons stated above
The GSL "real" seasons have not even begun, these opens were to determine Code "S" and "A" Players for the 2011 season. Next year with Blizzard Cup, year ending 8 man tourny, that will be known players who win. These opens are for players to prove themselves for next year. Relax, enjoy and about the whine please.
In the original post: "Judging from the recent GSL games"
I am not going to argue with "what might happen"
|
On December 11 2010 04:22 GhoSt[shield] wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 21:24 cocoa_sg wrote:On December 10 2010 16:39 infinitestory wrote:On December 10 2010 16:37 GhoSt[shield] wrote: This should set an interesting case study for Entertainment and Multimedia Company's protecting International Intellectual Property Rights. This case could set an precedent in sports-media regarding IP rights. Really a shame that it had to get to this.
It seems very amusing that MBC Game is requesting a "lawsuit cost collateral request", as Activision-Blizzard is a very wealthy company (especially from their WoW subscriptions for the past 5-6 years). Seems like a maneuver to buy more time for MBC to solidify their case. I wonder if Blizzard issue a "cease and desist" on this PDPOP MSL or if MSL goes another season than future MSLs. Activision-Blizard has stated that they have no intention of killing BW, so it seems unlikely that they will go back on their word and pursue such legal action. I am hoping for the best as watching BW is more enjoyable for me than SC2. It's going to be ridiculously bad PR if Actiblizz does end up killing BW, since they've said they have no intentions of doing so. They're in a big bind right now. They have to win and show dominance over IP rights without crippling the broadcasting companies to the point where BW falters. That's also probably why Actiblizz has not (and will not?) pursue an injunction. Blizzard has to be WILLING to take a compromise on the extent of their IP rights. As a Multinational Corporation, one of their primary organization objectives (true for almost any MNC) is to protect their IP rights. IP rights protections is a driving force behind Free Trade Agreements such as NAFTA of EU. Compromises on IP rights sets a dangerous precedent for future breaches of IP rights. Litigation is usually the last option as it is expensive, time-consuming and severely hurts the reputation of a Corporation while also having an uncertain outcome. An Entertainment-Media Corporation only have their creative and intellectual property to protect. It is their product, their "good" developed through R&D investment and the vehicle in which they attempt to be profitable. To allow breaches of their IP Rights uncontested is suicidal for future earnings and growth. Why does it seem like everyone forgets that all corporations in every industry protects their IP rights and yet in this case they act as if IP rights do not deserve to be recognized? I love BW myself, but to be perfectly frank MBC has knowingly and purposefully breached the IP rights of Blizzard for quite some time without repercussions. MBC is definitely in a win-win situation, as if they lose the status quo will be unaffected. Blizzard as everything to lose as now they must wait on the decision of the courts to decide their property rights.
Are you a member of shield? Or just a Bisu fanboy?
Also, I don't understand why ActiBlizz would ever guarantee that they wouldn't kill BW, when their ultimate trump card that they have over all of the broadcasting companies is the ability to kill BW.
|
Russian Federation4405 Posts
On December 10 2010 23:15 Zona wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 18:09 _Quasar_ wrote: And since they said they do not see esports as a source of profit, they should make an agreement (but not only they, MBC and OGN too), so that the Blizzard will be somewhat promoted through these broadcasts so that we'll see that this is not only the product of OGN, but of the developer company too. That would be correct from all points of view #_# You believe the company line? In recent times, Activision Blizzard has been monetizing all sorts of things. Although Microsoft has not directly confirmed it, most industry observers conclude that pressure/leverage from CoD caused MSFT to increase the price on XBox Live, with a portion of that revenue going to ATVI. And that's just one example among many. Also, YEARS ago, before this entire conflict started, Blizzard's branding was prominently displayed in BW leagues. But of course one doesn't continue to promote someone who refuses to offer reasonable licensing terms, and later, sues you. Thanks for the update.
I believe what they said officially. They say it for us and everyone to believe -___- And it's kind of main statement in that interview.
If they lie in it, this is really a bad PR for them. That's unacceptable. What's the reason to cooperate with some company that is able to lie that bad? They aren't a monopoly of video games. There are Lineage instead of WoW, will be Valve Dota instead of their own, SC2 is just shit (IMHO. But everyone says it has many more holes and flaws than BW), the only truly unique game they have made (looong ago) is Starcraft. But everyone already bought SC, they won't make many profit on it.
edit: And I'm serious, that's not a threat, I just know that it will happen this way (If, of course, they are not telling the truth).
To fool many people was a way to gain something in the middle/end of 20th century, but now it's falling out of trend. =/ They better not lie or this will end badly for them.
|
Why does it seem like everyone forgets that all corporations in every industry protects their IP rights and yet in this case they act as if IP rights do not deserve to be recognized? But does auditing KeSPA and controlling player contracts fall under IP rights? Blizzard has asked for many things which its unclear whether they're entitled to.
when their ultimate trump card that they have over all of the broadcasting companies is the ability to kill BW. I don't think turning it into abandonware would help Blizzards legal position any. If they really wanted to mess with things they should make a new patch... every week...
To fool many people was a way to gain something in the middle/end of 20th century, but now it's falling out of trend. =/ They better not lie or this will end badly for them. I'm not saying they're lying here, but to think that all companies everywhere have stopped lying is just silly.
|
Russian Federation4405 Posts
No they all haven't stopped lying. But this is an important case with very much at the stake. To lie at this moment in the very main part of the official statement is just plainly wrong.
|
On December 11 2010 06:02 gyth wrote:Show nested quote +Why does it seem like everyone forgets that all corporations in every industry protects their IP rights and yet in this case they act as if IP rights do not deserve to be recognized? Show nested quote +On December 11 2010 gyth wrote:
But does auditing KeSPA and controlling player contracts fall under IP rights? Blizzard has asked for many things which its unclear whether they're entitled to.
Auditing a Business Partner with outside, independent auditors is done all the time in the financial industry. Blizzard has every right to ask for an independent audit wit help from any of the Big Four (Deloitte, KPMG, PWC, H&R Block). I imagine their intentions is to see where KeSPA's licensing fees actually went too. It seems everyone is forgetting that KeSPA forced MBC and OGN to pay licensing fees for BW, when they did not set up the leagues or organize them themselves. KeSPA represents sponsors for teams, they represent players in the sense that players need to join KeSPA to get a progaming card through courage and be recruited onto a team. How is there any logic in people not wanting Blizzard to have their IP rights acknowledged and at the same time allow KeSPA to collect broadcasting fees on the same Intellectual property?
|
KeSPA is not collecting fees for broadcasting BW. KeSPA's collecting fees for broadcasting ProLeague, which happens to be their creation.
|
On December 11 2010 06:30 maybenexttime wrote: KeSPA is not collecting fees for broadcasting BW. KeSPA's collecting fees for broadcasting ProLeague, which happens to be their creation. OGN's creation.*** KeSPA stole it.
Anywho I guess we have to wait till the 28th of January to see how much progress can be made. It's comforting that Blizzard still remains willing to mediate although they still remain undecided (they haven't said they won't do it, but it would be bad PR) on injunctions. Thanks for translating, this is a case to be followed closely.
|
On December 11 2010 05:46 _Quasar_ wrote:
the only truly unique game they have made (looong ago) is Starcraft.
pardon, but this just rub be the wrong way ..
D2 was the most unique ..
starcraft was Warhammer that was from most sci-fi with cult followings ..
Diablo on the other hand ..
|
On December 11 2010 08:11 xBillehx wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2010 06:30 maybenexttime wrote: KeSPA is not collecting fees for broadcasting BW. KeSPA's collecting fees for broadcasting ProLeague, which happens to be their creation. OGN's creation.*** KeSPA stole it.
And that changes things how? The point is still the same: KeSPA's fees are about broadcasting Proleague, not BW.
If you want to have a debate about who owns Proleague IP, thats up to OGN/MBC/KeSPA—Blizzard has nothing to do with it.
|
On December 10 2010 16:39 infinitestory wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 16:37 GhoSt[shield] wrote: This should set an interesting case study for Entertainment and Multimedia Company's protecting International Intellectual Property Rights. This case could set an precedent in sports-media regarding IP rights. Really a shame that it had to get to this.
It seems very amusing that MBC Game is requesting a "lawsuit cost collateral request", as Activision-Blizzard is a very wealthy company (especially from their WoW subscriptions for the past 5-6 years). Seems like a maneuver to buy more time for MBC to solidify their case. I wonder if Blizzard issue a "cease and desist" on this PDPOP MSL or if MSL goes another season than future MSLs. Activision-Blizard has stated that they have no intention of killing BW, so it seems unlikely that they will go back on their word and pursue such legal action. I am hoping for the best as watching BW is more enjoyable for me than SC2. It's going to be ridiculously bad PR if Actiblizz does end up killing BW, since they've said they have no intentions of doing so. They're in a big bind right now. They have to win and show dominance over IP rights without crippling the broadcasting companies to the point where BW falters. That's also probably why Actiblizz has not (and will not?) pursue an injunction. But didn't they file an injunction? Did they withdraw it or did it get declined?
|
On December 11 2010 09:21 VManOfMana wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2010 08:11 xBillehx wrote:On December 11 2010 06:30 maybenexttime wrote: KeSPA is not collecting fees for broadcasting BW. KeSPA's collecting fees for broadcasting ProLeague, which happens to be their creation. OGN's creation.*** KeSPA stole it. And that changes things how? The point is still the same: KeSPA's fees are about broadcasting Proleague, not BW. If you want to have a debate about who owns Proleague IP, thats up to OGN/MBC/KeSPA—Blizzard has nothing to do with it. Did I imply it changed anything? Did I even try to argue the point? There's no need for another thread to be derailed into arguing IP.
On December 11 2010 09:31 Simplistik wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 16:39 infinitestory wrote:On December 10 2010 16:37 GhoSt[shield] wrote: This should set an interesting case study for Entertainment and Multimedia Company's protecting International Intellectual Property Rights. This case could set an precedent in sports-media regarding IP rights. Really a shame that it had to get to this.
It seems very amusing that MBC Game is requesting a "lawsuit cost collateral request", as Activision-Blizzard is a very wealthy company (especially from their WoW subscriptions for the past 5-6 years). Seems like a maneuver to buy more time for MBC to solidify their case. I wonder if Blizzard issue a "cease and desist" on this PDPOP MSL or if MSL goes another season than future MSLs. Activision-Blizard has stated that they have no intention of killing BW, so it seems unlikely that they will go back on their word and pursue such legal action. I am hoping for the best as watching BW is more enjoyable for me than SC2. It's going to be ridiculously bad PR if Actiblizz does end up killing BW, since they've said they have no intentions of doing so. They're in a big bind right now. They have to win and show dominance over IP rights without crippling the broadcasting companies to the point where BW falters. That's also probably why Actiblizz has not (and will not?) pursue an injunction. But didn't they file an injunction? Did they withdraw it or did it get declined? They haven't attempted to yet and it's still undecided on if they will. They probably won't try unless the case is constantly delayed because it'd be extremely bad PR.
|
I believe MBC is just trying to buy time or something. With the success of Starcraft 2 and all blizzard games really (World of warcraft) Blizzard has some DEEP pockets and im sure they can pay the court costs quiet easily... I dont really know who i want to win this case, i kinda want starcraft 1 to continue to be a pro sport because i love watching the games, but also i can understand blizzard wanting some of the money that their game generates. I dont agree with blizzard wanting the rights to everything MBCgame broadcasts stacraft related and the right to audit them. I really wish they could all just get along, Blizzard has plenty of money from World of Warcraft, and im not sure but starcraft 1 progaming doesnt bring in as much money as it used too...
|
Contrary to popular belief Blizzard probably actually doesn't care about the income from SC1 or SC2 pro-gaming.
Why? Because it's all about the marketing baby.
Regardless of which game it is, having Starcraft on television and pushing it's popularity into the television of other countries is the true worth. Hence why protecting the IP and demanding it to be recognized is so important to them.
I predict a few months of muscle flexing in the courtroom of both sides showing they are serious and then a settlement, neither side will benefit from extending this courtcase far from the proceedings.
|
I don't see how this is good at all tbh, uncertainty stunts growth.
I know most of the anti-Blizzard comments stem mostly from self interest anyways (boo evil Blizzard keep your hands off my BW.. also the reason why most of you sound so silly ><), but in the long run for BW to remain viable, sponsors to remain interested and so on it really would be in everyone's best interest to just get the damn thing over with.
They promised nothing btw, they stated a preference, in line with their stated desire for BW to live. If this is stalled for 5 years though, I doubt they wouldn't reconsider the option, which wouldn't be good either.
|
Thanks for the update.
We'll have to see come January what happens. I'm still hoping this ends peaceably without killing the BW scene.
|
Blizzard has plenty of money from World of Warcraft, and im not sure but starcraft 1 progaming doesnt bring in as much money as it used too... This is the thing that totally blows my mind. Blizzard makes more in a couple days from WoW than BW sees all year. Even if everything went exactly as they wanted there was relatively little money to be made.
I think Blizzard would have made more money to gift BW to the people of Korea and just avoid getting bogged down in a PR morass.
|
On December 11 2010 06:18 GhoSt[shield] wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2010 06:02 gyth wrote:Why does it seem like everyone forgets that all corporations in every industry protects their IP rights and yet in this case they act as if IP rights do not deserve to be recognized? On December 11 2010 gyth wrote:
But does auditing KeSPA and controlling player contracts fall under IP rights? Blizzard has asked for many things which its unclear whether they're entitled to.
Auditing a Business Partner with outside, independent auditors is done all the time in the financial industry. Blizzard has every right to ask for an independent audit wit help from any of the Big Four (Deloitte, KPMG, PWC, H&R Block). I imagine their intentions is to see where KeSPA's licensing fees actually went too. It seems everyone is forgetting that KeSPA forced MBC and OGN to pay licensing fees for BW, when they did not set up the leagues or organize them themselves. KeSPA represents sponsors for teams, they represent players in the sense that players need to join KeSPA to get a progaming card through courage and be recruited onto a team. How is there any logic in people not wanting Blizzard to have their IP rights acknowledged and at the same time allow KeSPA to collect broadcasting fees on the same Intellectual property?
Actually being one of my best friends a Senior Manager in KPMG, independent auditors arent usually made in this kind of bussines (Blizzard-Kespa), so your statement is wrong.
|
I think that Blizzard is going to win w/out any negotiations. They were given a warning and just ignored it. Blizzard was nice enough to give them a warning. Don't they make money from people watching the game and they do not have IP Rights so that is technically illegal right?
|
On December 11 2010 06:18 GhoSt[shield] wrote: Auditing a Business Partner with outside, independent auditors is done all the time in the financial industry. Blizzard has every right to ask for an independent audit wit help from any of the Big Four (Deloitte, KPMG, PWC, H&R Block). I imagine their intentions is to see where KeSPA's licensing fees actually went too.
Blizzard did not ask for Kespa to be audited privately by an independent auditor...Blizzard wants to look at Kespa's books (an entirely different demand), which is not "done all the time". It's almost never done - seeing another company's books basically lets you understand their entire business, even when companies partner on projects this doesn't happen.
On December 11 2010 06:18 GhoSt[shield] wrote: It seems everyone is forgetting that KeSPA forced MBC and OGN to pay licensing fees for BW, when they did not set up the leagues or organize them themselves. KeSPA represents sponsors for teams, they represent players in the sense that players need to join KeSPA to get a progaming card through courage and be recruited onto a team. You do know that in most professional sports (like the NBA, MLB, etc), the leagues are jointly owned by the team owners? Not the broadcasters. Kespa represents the team owners...so it's not unusual that they "own" Proleague.
|
I fully expect a settlement when MBC realizes they will lose. Blizzard will probably settle with terms of some kind of payment and/or an agreement to have mbc host and run sc2 leagues like bw has done in the past. Then OGN will follow a similar path. It is in Blizzards best interest to further esports over all money that can be gained from this suit (Because in the long run the esports will pay off the most). I just hope MBC/OGN don't claim bankruptcy or some other shit out of spite or something instead of working with blizzard.
|
On December 11 2010 15:53 SpoR wrote: I fully expect a settlement when MBC realizes they will lose. Blizzard will probably settle with terms of some kind of payment and/or an agreement to have mbc host and run sc2 leagues like bw has done in the past. Then OGN will follow a similar path. It is in Blizzards best interest to further esports over all money that can be gained from this suit (Because in the long run the esports will pay off the most). I just hope MBC/OGN don't claim bankruptcy or some other shit out of spite or something instead of working with blizzard.
There are a lot that have been said on this matter so there isnt much point in repeating them everytime. But i have a VERY hard time believing that to "further e-Sport" is to smash the foundation of the only successful e-Sport model EVER.
|
Blizzard please win! rooting for you!
|
IMO, it's a pretty clear-cut case for Blizzard. It seems KeSPA & Co.'s main argument are that they are the ones that made E-sports what it is today and they are the ones that spent the money and sweat to elevate E-sports to the high level that it is at today. This seems to be a true statement, but it doesn't entitle them to earn a profit based on another company's copyrighted material without due compensation. It's like someone building a huge theater and showing movies there without paying royalties to the film companies and their reasoning for not paying royalties is because they're the ones that built the theater. Just because you built the screen doesn't give you the right to earn profit on someone else's copyrighted material.
|
On December 11 2010 18:48 Devolved wrote: IMO, it's a pretty clear-cut case for Blizzard. It seems KeSPA & Co.'s main argument are that they are the ones that made E-sports what it is today and they are the ones that spent the money and sweat to elevate E-sports to the high level that it is at today. This seems to be a true statement, but it doesn't entitle them to earn a profit based on another company's copyrighted material without due compensation. It's like someone building a huge theater and showing movies there without paying royalties to the film companies and their reasoning for not paying royalties is because they're the ones that built the theater. Just because you built the screen doesn't give you the right to earn profit on someone else's copyrighted material.
Since when didn't they pay royalties to blizzard you are implying and expressively stating every non factual lies and even using analogies to support your facts ? Bring some facts and than we talk .
|
T.O.P.
Hong Kong4685 Posts
On December 11 2010 02:17 Milkis wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2010 01:55 darmousseh wrote: Blizzard could simply request an injunction to prevent further damages until the trial is over. I'm sure that would cause MBC to negotiate fairly quickly. Not sure if this works in korea. Except they've already said that they wont do an injunction, so it'd be going back on their word. Also it'd show weakness on Blizzard's part seeing that really, "why wouldn't blizzard want a court battle?" MBC Game really did make the right move -- Blizzard assumes that they hold 100% of the property rights, but MBC Game disagrees. The court is the only entity that can decide who owns what clearly. ONLY after that will they be able to negotiate properly. There's a reason this entire thing took 3 frigging years -- i twas a battle over property rights and not much else. If blizzard does indeed own the property rights, then MBC Game cannot lose, but can only gain, from this trial -- since Blizzard acts like they own it anyway, and if the court rules that way, so be it, but there's a chance court can make some interesting decision (the interesting decision, imo, that would be the right one) This is exactly why MBC, OGN, and Kespa can't come to a agreement with Blizzard. Agreeing to Blizzard's terms, no matter how financially insignificant it is, means that MBC, OGN, and Kespa is acknowledging that Blizzard owns 100% of the ip rights to the broadcast of their games. If you set a precedent that game companies own 100% of broadcast rights, you're just going to cause a lot of trouble down the road.
|
The results of this lawsuit will determine how much I will be able to appreciate Korea as a maintainer of esports. I can't wait for the clarification of this problem. If professional broodwar needs to be harmed by this process in the short term in order to resolve it then I am not against it. Sometimes things have to come down before you can build something better, and I'm confident (at least I hope so) that this will be the case.
|
is there like a TL pool to see "who's side" the community is?
|
ALLEYCAT BLUES49044 Posts
On December 11 2010 23:56 DayJP wrote: is there like a TL pool to see "who's side" the community is?
Absolutely against the idea....lets not try to split the community.
|
Estonia4504 Posts
On December 12 2010 00:49 BLinD-RawR wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2010 23:56 DayJP wrote: is there like a TL pool to see "who's side" the community is? Absolutely against the idea....lets not try to split the community. It's funny that people actually want this. As if an unclear issue would be somehow resolved once a bunch of badly informed people start voting it. Some people also like flamewars, I guess.
|
I think the facts are pretty straight forward, rending the "badly informed" argument invalid
Maybe expecting mature responses to a poll is a bit too much to ask
And if a poll of opinions would split the community, maybe TL isn't as awesome as it is portrayed
|
Estonia4504 Posts
On December 12 2010 01:22 DayJP wrote: I think the facts are pretty straight forward, rending the "badly informed" argument invalid
Maybe expecting mature responses to a poll is a bit too much to ask
And if a poll of opinions would split the community, maybe TL isn't as awesome as it is portrayed There is no legal precedent, thus the facts people want to include are largely dependent on what they want to see. Some see negligence, others see theft, some see derivative works, others see IP rights being abused. Even the results are highly skewed, some focus on the possibility of a lot of jobs being lost (including those of my most beloved progamers), others see a huge potential for E-sports united under Blizzard.
And yes, that split of opinions has led to flamewars earlier, and will in the future, since the community is actually pretty separated already. (Not wanting to downplay those who feel like they belong to both communities, it's just rarely brought up any more.)
|
Since when didn't they pay royalties to blizzard you are implying and expressively stating every non factual lies and even using analogies to support your facts? MBC: At the very beginning, we got the rights for broadcasting Starcraft from Blizzard's Korean partner, Hanbitsoft, and Hanbitsoft is a member of KeSPA. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=162136
|
On December 12 2010 01:22 DayJP wrote: I think the facts are pretty straight forward, rending the "badly informed" argument invalid
Maybe expecting mature responses to a poll is a bit too much to ask
And if a poll of opinions would split the community, maybe TL isn't as awesome as it is portrayed
If you think this way, you will be very surprised that many people dont take the time to read information provide in the forums. And these same people just jump straight into a discussion thinking they know everything, giving opinions left n right. Right now, for most of the information provided to us, i do not know which ones are fact, which ones are pure propaganda, and i would think it is the same for most everyone here.. Chances are the ones who claim that "facts are pretty straight forward" are the misinformed ones themselves (people who do not know hardly ever know that they do not know).
I would like to agree with Mustaju on this though, both sides see things differently. The very same event may mean different things depending on our (already set) mindset and whoever that we support. Heres hoping that these will end well. Rooting for BW
|
On December 11 2010 18:48 Devolved wrote: IMO, it's a pretty clear-cut case for Blizzard. It seems KeSPA & Co.'s main argument are that they are the ones that made E-sports what it is today and they are the ones that spent the money and sweat to elevate E-sports to the high level that it is at today. This seems to be a true statement, but it doesn't entitle them to earn a profit based on another company's copyrighted material without due compensation. It's like someone building a huge theater and showing movies there without paying royalties to the film companies and their reasoning for not paying royalties is because they're the ones that built the theater. Just because you built the screen doesn't give you the right to earn profit on someone else's copyrighted material.
That's a really bad analogy for what's happening here.
|
"we wish take this opportunity to know just how far the IP rights reach in regards to broadcasting content creation through a game." Goes to show that the Kespa associates never had any intention to truly negotiate withe Blizzard.
|
Estonia4504 Posts
On December 12 2010 04:52 JayDee_ wrote: Goes to show that the Kespa associates never had any intention to truly negotiate withe Blizzard. It isn't negotiating when one side shouts demands and expects the other to just roll over and hand them everything they've got. They gave up some of their stances, and that's negotiating, IMO. Where has Blizzard made concessions?
|
On December 12 2010 04:52 JayDee_ wrote: "we wish take this opportunity to know just how far the IP rights reach in regards to broadcasting content creation through a game." Goes to show that the Kespa associates never had any intention to truly negotiate withe Blizzard.
You do understand how far Blizzard wants to go on their definition of "IP rights" is a big reason why negotiations have failed?
|
United States17042 Posts
Thank you so much for keeping us updated on this case ^^
|
+ Show Spoiler +On December 11 2010 13:57 Zona wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2010 06:18 GhoSt[shield] wrote: Auditing a Business Partner with outside, independent auditors is done all the time in the financial industry. Blizzard has every right to ask for an independent audit wit help from any of the Big Four (Deloitte, KPMG, PWC, H&R Block). I imagine their intentions is to see where KeSPA's licensing fees actually went too.
Blizzard did not ask for Kespa to be audited privately by an independent auditor... Blizzard wants to look at Kespa's books (an entirely different demand), which is not "done all the time". It's almost never done - seeing another company's books basically lets you understand their entire business, even when companies partner on projects this doesn't happen.
Fair enough. I see your point and having another company audit your own operational objectives would be unusual. Thanks for the clarification. I can admit when I am wrong
+ Show Spoiler +On December 11 2010 06:18 GhoSt[shield] wrote: It seems everyone is forgetting that KeSPA forced MBC and OGN to pay licensing fees for BW, when they did not set up the leagues or organize them themselves. KeSPA represents sponsors for teams, they represent players in the sense that players need to join KeSPA to get a progaming card through courage and be recruited onto a team. You do know that in most professional sports (like the NBA, MLB, etc), the leagues are jointly owned by the team owners? Not the broadcasters. Kespa represents the team owners...so it's not unusual that they "own" Proleague.
In leagues such as that team owners also get a share of the broadcasting rights sold by the league's executive organization. I suppose what I am trying to get at is that the formation and the creation of the Proleague itself was by the broadcasting companies. The sponsors and their ability to act through KeSPA is not unwarranted as they control the players, but simply taking over an established league through no legal justification is also unwarranted.
|
Has anyone noticed that this has basically turned into BW fans supporting kespa and sc2 fans supporting blizzard? Pretty clear-cut case of sc2 fans caring more about blizzard making a few bucks than letting bw survive.
|
In leagues such as that team owners also get a share of the broadcasting rights sold by the league's executive organization. I suppose what I am trying to get at is that the formation and the creation of the Proleague itself was by the broadcasting companies. The sponsors and their ability to act through KeSPA is not unwarranted as they control the players, but simply taking over an established league through no legal justification is also unwarranted.
MBC and OGN can start a league if they want, they just won't get KeSPA's players. That's why they are paying *broadcasting fees*.
KeSPA should've just named it fees for player performance of some other name and blizzard probably would've never stepped in.
It's logical for KeSPA to ask for money from those that *dirrectly* profit from the broadcast to pay the player's salairies and lodging.
|
On December 12 2010 09:37 iamho wrote: Has anyone noticed that this has basically turned into BW fans supporting kespa and sc2 fans supporting blizzard? Pretty clear-cut case of sc2 fans caring more about blizzard making a few bucks than letting bw survive.
Thats just a knee-jerk reaction to the situation. SC2 fans don't want broodwar to die. I would imagine that most would love BW to thrive as we all want e-sports in general to do well.
Now, obviously there are clear IP rights violations with BW broadcasting and anyone who argues against that is not arguing rationally. The real debate is whether the terms set by Blizzard will put such constraints on BW pro leagues that it would kill the whole industry. I'm not going to argue for or against this point, I'm just trying to put it in context.
When you ask a SC2 fan what he thinks about the IP rights debate, he looks at what he has and can't see why BW fans would be so upset with that system. I would say that most SC2 fans have been happy with the GSL and gomtv.
I just don't think sc2 fans want blizzard to stomp on broodwar. Posts like yours just show how emotional people get over something like this and just morph everything into "my side" vs "your side".
|
On December 12 2010 10:28 Bijan wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2010 09:37 iamho wrote: Has anyone noticed that this has basically turned into BW fans supporting kespa and sc2 fans supporting blizzard? Pretty clear-cut case of sc2 fans caring more about blizzard making a few bucks than letting bw survive. Thats just a knee-jerk reaction to the situation. SC2 fans don't want broodwar to die. I would imagine that most would love BW to thrive as we all want e-sports in general to do well. Now, obviously there are clear IP rights violations with BW broadcasting and anyone who argues against that is not arguing rationally. The real debate is whether the terms set by Blizzard will put such constraints on BW pro leagues that it would kill the whole industry. I'm not going to argue for or against this point, I'm just trying to put it in context. When you ask a SC2 fan what he thinks about the IP rights debate, he looks at what he has and can't see why BW fans would be so upset with that system. I would say that most SC2 fans have been happy with the GSL and gomtv. I just don't think sc2 fans want blizzard to stomp on broodwar. Posts like yours just show how emotional people get over something like this and just morph everything into "my side" vs "your side".
While kespa did break IP rights, the breaking point in the negotiation i believe was the ownership of maps and replays and such. Blizzard wanted then because they created the game, kespa said it belonged to kespa and/or players because it was their work.
|
On December 12 2010 09:37 iamho wrote: Has anyone noticed that this has basically turned into BW fans supporting kespa and sc2 fans supporting blizzard? Pretty clear-cut case of sc2 fans caring more about blizzard making a few bucks than letting bw survive.
As Bijan said, that's a knee-jerk reaction. If you say that SC2 fans care more about Blizzard making a few bucks, one could posit the reverse: that Broodwar fans just want their game to continue on no matter whose rights gets violated. (That's not necessarily the case. Just because you're pro-BW doesn't necessarily mean you're pro-KeSPA and vice versa.)
Ironically, if you look at history, Blizzard's demands similar to KeSPA's three years ago.
- With the start of the 2007 seaon, KeSPA claims the rights of Proleague, then auctions it off. - Arguing that they created and made Proleague, OGN and MBC refuse to recognize KeSPA's rights, and refuses to participate in the auction: IEG buys the rights. - OGN/MBC meet with KeSPA officials, but neither agrees to the deals the other proposes. Time goes by but neither is willing to give in. - With the future of Proleague being jeopardized, Proteams get involved, threatening MBC/OGN that they will not send their players to the individual starleagues if they do not accept the deals by KeSPA. - OGN/MBC continue to fight back, and with the deadline coming up, KeSPA and IEG turn to other methods of broadcasting. - Fans are furious, mainly at KeSPA... KeSPA/IEG have the support of proteams, while OGN/MBC have the support of the fans. - If OGN/MBC continue to refuse, Proleague would open with completely new casters and commentators, making it different and less people would watch. Meanwhile proteams would not send playser to OSL or MSL, ruining OGN/MBC... and ultimately destroying progaming as we know it.
Source: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=50641#1
(Disclaimer: I'm not saying Blizzard and KeSPA's claims are identical. Also note that fans are reading this from a perspective of 3 years later, so when OGN says "OGN stated “OGN and MBC Game has conceded too many things in order to prevent ruin no matter what. In a situation where there is neither justice nor benefit, we have made strenuous efforts to prevent the e-sports industry, which we had cultivated so far, from collapsing. There was no way to accept a proposition that completely ignored a company’s intrinsic reasons for existing.”" [source: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=1718118] and they somehow managed to survive paying KeSPA's fees 3 years later, well...)
Also, legally and ethically speaking, things aren't as clear-cut as some people make it out to be. And there's a lot of biased conclusions that people jump to. I clarified some of them in this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=174061#1
|
Well there goes a lot of money. x.x
|
On December 12 2010 01:00 mustaju wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2010 00:49 BLinD-RawR wrote:On December 11 2010 23:56 DayJP wrote: is there like a TL pool to see "who's side" the community is? Absolutely against the idea....lets not try to split the community. It's funny that people actually want this. As if an unclear issue would be somehow resolved once a bunch of badly informed people start voting it. Some people also like flamewars, I guess.
thats the problem with democracy ..
|
On December 12 2010 11:07 charlesatan wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2010 09:37 iamho wrote: Has anyone noticed that this has basically turned into BW fans supporting kespa and sc2 fans supporting blizzard? Pretty clear-cut case of sc2 fans caring more about blizzard making a few bucks than letting bw survive. As Bijan said, that's a knee-jerk reaction. If you say that SC2 fans care more about Blizzard making a few bucks, one could posit the reverse: that Broodwar fans just want their game to continue on no matter whose rights gets violated. (That's not necessarily the case. Just because you're pro-BW doesn't necessarily mean you're pro-KeSPA and vice versa.) Ironically, if you look at history, Blizzard's demands similar to KeSPA's three years ago. Show nested quote +- With the start of the 2007 seaon, KeSPA claims the rights of Proleague, then auctions it off. - Arguing that they created and made Proleague, OGN and MBC refuse to recognize KeSPA's rights, and refuses to participate in the auction: IEG buys the rights. - OGN/MBC meet with KeSPA officials, but neither agrees to the deals the other proposes. Time goes by but neither is willing to give in. - With the future of Proleague being jeopardized, Proteams get involved, threatening MBC/OGN that they will not send their players to the individual starleagues if they do not accept the deals by KeSPA. - OGN/MBC continue to fight back, and with the deadline coming up, KeSPA and IEG turn to other methods of broadcasting. - Fans are furious, mainly at KeSPA... KeSPA/IEG have the support of proteams, while OGN/MBC have the support of the fans. - If OGN/MBC continue to refuse, Proleague would open with completely new casters and commentators, making it different and less people would watch. Meanwhile proteams would not send playser to OSL or MSL, ruining OGN/MBC... and ultimately destroying progaming as we know it. Source: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=50641#1(Disclaimer: I'm not saying Blizzard and KeSPA's claims are identical. Also note that fans are reading this from a perspective of 3 years later, so when OGN says "OGN stated “OGN and MBC Game has conceded too many things in order to prevent ruin no matter what. In a situation where there is neither justice nor benefit, we have made strenuous efforts to prevent the e-sports industry, which we had cultivated so far, from collapsing. There was no way to accept a proposition that completely ignored a company’s intrinsic reasons for existing.”" [source: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=1718118] and they somehow managed to survive paying KeSPA's fees 3 years later, well...) Also, legally and ethically speaking, things aren't as clear-cut as some people make it out to be. And there's a lot of biased conclusions that people jump to. I clarified some of them in this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=174061#1
Regarding your second quote, if you read further down the thread you would realise that it is a very biased and lop-sided summary of one person. As it was said before, same events can be viewed in different lights, so you should try to see it from a different perspective than simply that of your own.
|
MBC are stalling for time imho.
|
On December 12 2010 21:52 ffreakk wrote: Regarding your second quote, if you read further down the thread you would realise that it is a very biased and lop-sided summary of one person. As it was said before, same events can be viewed in different lights, so you should try to see it from a different perspective than simply that of your own.
Yes but it doesn't change the fact that a) KeSPA was charging OGN/MBC for Broodwar Broadcast rights and b) OGN/MBC didn't want to pay at first. (Source: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=50909#1)
The only relevant bias in that summary might be the part "Fans are furious, mainly at KeSPA... KeSPA/IEG have the support of proteams, while OGN/MBC have the support of the fans." but obviously some fans were angry at KeSPA at the time (only their numbers/percentages is a point of contention for the bias).
P.S. And if you read the thread that I'd link to, you'd see that I did a balanced job of summarizing each side's points.
|
MBC is somewhat irretating to me...is it ok to buy a movie from a dvd store and then broadcast it because you own the movie? its the same with the game imo. you cant just broadcast. you have at least to buy the game. on the other hand are all boradcasters with livestreams voilating blizzards rights? no...its more like mbc was giving out licences for money so others may broadcast and thats the problem isnt it....?
|
On December 13 2010 03:31 CuirassEU wrote: MBC is somewhat irretating to me...is it ok to buy a movie from a dvd store and then broadcast it because you own the movie? its the same with the game imo. you cant just broadcast. you have at least to buy the game. on the other hand are all boradcasters with livestreams voilating blizzards rights? no...its more like mbc was giving out licences for money so others may broadcast and thats the problem isnt it....?
No its not the same. The movie analogy falls apart in the fact that MBC/OGN are not taking footage straight out of the box as Blizzard produced it.
There is a lot of creative work involved in the production of Proleague and Starleagues. Commentators, camera work and direction, the starleagues, group ceremonies, the crowd, the stage, the custom maps, the players themselves.
OGN/MBC/KeSPA never disregarded Blizzard's IP of the in-box game, but they are not willing to accept Blizzard's "universal" definition of their IP rights. My problem with the pro-Blizzard argument is that it dismisses how important the non-Blizzard creative work is. And IMO, it needs to be recognized as its own for the sake of eSports's development. Afterall, competitive scenes have always started by the players themselves, not from the benevolence of Blizzard or any game's creator.
|
My problem with the pro-Blizzard argument is that it dismisses how important the non-Blizzard creative work is.
This. Most arguments coming off from Blizz's fans goes like "Blizzard made the game so its natural they want a slice of the cake". Truthfully, they didnt want a slice of the cake, they insist on having the WHOLE cake -.-
@ charlesatan
After reading ur summary again, i agree that it is actually mostly factual and not as biased or lop-sided as i thought it to be. I apologize
|
"we wish take this opportunity to know just how far the IP rights reach in regards to broadcasting content creation through a game" Nice idea, let's see how far it can go. I also think it might be over protected, BLZ should not have the right to charge them. Well, it is hard to draw a clear line on this issue, so let it to the court.
|
On December 13 2010 08:09 winners32 wrote: BLZ should not have the right to charge them. If GSN took Day9's vods and broadcast them on their TV channel don't you think they should owe Day9 compensation? And shouldn't Day9 be able to deny them from broadcasting his vods all together?
|
On December 13 2010 09:21 JayDee_ wrote: If GSN took Day9's vods and broadcast them on their TV channel don't you think they should owe Day9 compensation? And shouldn't Day9 be able to deny them from broadcasting his vods all together?
Bad analogy because taking Day9's videos and airing them on their station is directly copying content.
What the stations (and Day9) are doing is that they assemble their own production (i.e. players, commentators, tournaments, etc.) that centers around Blizzard's work. Whether this is infringing on Blizzard's IP or not is the point of contention. I'm not siding with KeSPA/OGN/MBC, but this is the perspective their supporters are taking. It's not simply airing Broodwar on TV, but airing Broodwar with their players, set-up, hosts, etc. (Again, I clarified some these points in http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=174061#1 because I'm tired of reading these false analogies and conclusions)
|
On December 13 2010 09:21 JayDee_ wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2010 08:09 winners32 wrote: BLZ should not have the right to charge them. If GSN took Day9's vods and broadcast them on their TV channel don't you think they should owe Day9 compensation? And shouldn't Day9 be able to deny them from broadcasting his vods all together?
Horrible analogy.
Day9 does exactly the same as OGN/MBC do: a derivative work. In fact, I should remind you that early Day9 Daylies are analysis of Proleague/Starleague matches.
So a proper analogy would be: Day9 : OGN/MBC :: OGN/MBC : Blizzard
As in: Day9's creative work is derivative to OGN/MBC's* as OGN/MBC's creative work is derivative to Blizzard's.
* or GOM or whoever produced the VODs
In a pro-Blizzard logic, what Day9 creates, just like any derivative work related to Starcraft, is property of Blizzard.
Under a pro-OGN/MBC logic, Sean Plott owns the creative work product of his analysis and commentary, OGN/MBC own the creative work product of Proleague/Starleagues, and Blizzard owns the creative work shipped in the Starcraft box.
Which is more fair to you? Which do you think will result in a healthier scene?
|
On December 13 2010 13:09 VManOfMana wrote:So a proper analogy would be: Day9 : OGN/MBC :: OGN/MBC : Blizzard
As in: Day9's creative work is derivative to OGN/MBC's as OGN/MBC's creative work is derivative to Blizzard's.
In a pro-Blizzard logic, what Day9 creates, just like any derivative work related to Starcraft, is property of Blizzard.
Under a pro-OGN/MBC logic, Sean Plott owns the creative work product of his analysis and commentary, OGN/MBC own the creative work product of Proleague/Starleagues, and Blizzard owns the creative work shipped in the Starcraft box.
Which is more fair to you? Which do you think will result in a healthier scene?
I just want to clarify that under a pro-Blizzard logic, Sean Plott still owns the creative work product of his analysis and the same goes for OGN/MBC (i.e. Blizzard can't suddenly air their shows or sell the rights to it, as is, without their permission).
However, should a third party include Broodwar in their broadcast, and it's for profit (this automatically excludes Day9's shows since he's not charging money for it), then Blizzard is asking that they be paid a fee. (Lots of their negotiations involve how much the split will be, from 50/50 to 100/0 or 0/100.) [Edit: Although at one point in time, according to KeSPA, Blizzard did claim 100% ownership of all broadcasted videos.]
Also noting again that Blizzard only started charging when KeSPA sold the broadcast rights and not before (nor are they asking for retroactive [pre-2007] compensation).
|
Once this case gets going in Earnest I think that Blizzard will win, thus having the right to allow other companies like GomTV to broadcast esports. Blizzard would not have sent MBC a warning unless they were in violation of their IP rights. It will be interesting to see how this plays out, perhaps MBC will cave when defeat seems imminent they will probably try to opt out for a mediation.
This is all just conjecture on my part.
|
Russian Federation4405 Posts
My opinion:
Blizzard = Flash (powerful and strong) MBC = Effort (because they made effort lol, on the e-sports i mean)
you all know who was the favorite and who won in the end ^_^ all IMHO
|
On December 13 2010 17:12 _Quasar_ wrote: My opinion:
Blizzard = Flash (powerful and strong) MBC = Effort (because they made effort lol, on the e-sports i mean)
you all know who was the favorite and who won in the end ^_^ all IMHO
EFFORT Nom Noms Flash enough said
|
[B] "While we can accept mediation, we wish take this opportunity to know just how far the IP rights reach in regards to broadcasting content creation through a game."
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.
|
As has been mentioned, the big issue is whether having a broadcast showing gameplay with commentary is a derivative work which requires a license from the maker of the game being used. This is one area where eSports is unprecedented. Here we have a sport which has an owner and an ultimate rule maker (remember, the league is not defining the rules/specifications of the game).
The other big thing is that the law is Korean, which I have heard is more civil than common law based. This is important because common law favors precedents. Precedents are why companies sometimes ignore violation of their rights unless they know they have a real case, out of the fear of setting a precedent where they lose.
Equating Day9 dailies with MBC's broadcast is a bit difficult as well, because what Day9 does can be considered fair use (In US law, there is a Fair Use Doctrine), I wonder if Korean law has something similar.
I think this would be an interesting poll. Does broadcasting a game between two players infringe on copyright of the art work? (I don't see how it does). The other question is, should a single entity who created a sport be able to control how it is shown? (No other sport in existence has this situation).
@iba001, I do not quite agree if your statement that Starcraft is meant for eSports. In 1998, nobody was thinking about such things.
Sincerely, BearJewSlava.584
|
@iba001, I do not quite agree if your statement that Starcraft is meant for eSports. In 1998, nobody was thinking about such things.
well maybe not sc1. but definitely sc2.
|
I hope this slow and painful process will finally lead to a resolution that people can settle on, like it or not.
|
On December 14 2010 10:12 iba001 wrote:Show nested quote +@iba001, I do not quite agree if your statement that Starcraft is meant for eSports. In 1998, nobody was thinking about such things. well maybe not sc1. but definitely sc2.
I believe the object of discussion is SC1 at the moment. Unless i misread and Blizz is sueing MBC because of Sc2? They should have just pulled the B.net plug then
|
tks for translate, mbc will won this.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
I took a look at a CN translation.
Blizzard is suing for 350 million won which doesn't seem to be a huge amount of money. Lawyer fees might exceed that. MBCGame asked the court to order the plaintiff to post a security collateral and the proceedings were adjourned.
After the first session of court, both sides seem set on seeing the lawsuit through to the end. Blizzard doesn't think that they will accept mediation outside of court, and MBCGame wants a court ruling on the extent of Blizzard's IP property rights.
|
The rate this case is going sc2 will have lan before BW gets shut down.
|
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 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).
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.
Sincerely, BearJewSlava.584
|
+ Show Spoiler +On December 15 2010 20:35 gslavik wrote:Show nested quote +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). 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. Sincerely, BearJewSlava.584
Patent law is different from IP law. Usually patents only last for a few years and IP can basically last indefinitely through the IP holder's estate.
Before people get a little bit narrow-minded here, respecting and upholding IP rights is a step towards E-sports growth. I do understand some of the conditions Blizzard wants restricts the freedom of KeSPA, but if any other E-Sports organization wanted to assert as much control over a game as KeSPA has done, then it can get very ugly in legal terms. What I don't understand is why is KeSPA taking such bad steps when they're in deep water right now. If they wanted to keep broadcasting, I think they should of just stopped and reformed their financial and league operations.
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.
|
Thank you for the translation. This is interesting, hoping for the best. :/
|
The thing is Football/American-Football/Basketball are no longer copyrighted, the copyright laws everyone country in the world (almost) has signed are there and StarCraft is still blizzards copyright, and as they say as a company the major thing you have to do is protect your IP, if kespa wants to treat SC as they own it, they should been the ones to develop it or they should just wait till SC:BW is out of copyright, (Blizzard can at anytime release a new expansion to it and push that date even further).
Maybe if KeSPA hadn't tried to use money made out of SC to sponsor other games (Like NCSoft's racer game) then Blizzard wouldn't had cared, but NC is a major Blizzard Competitor (Actually NC is probably Blizzards top competitor) then Blizzard would not have gotten on KeSPA's case.
|
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. 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).
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. 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.
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. 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.
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. 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.
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 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.
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. 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 18 2010 07:25 Pleiades wrote: respecting and upholding IP rights is a step towards E-sports growth.
Think about it, how in the hell does preventing a non-scarce good from being consumed help with the growth of the consumption of the non-scarce good? There is no scarcity involved, hence there exists no opportunity cost for the producer per each additional consumer.
The bottom line is, the justifications of IP(aka the business models that are claimed necessary for production of entertainment/content) all assume the existance of IP for their justification for it. It is the same thing as saying that robbery is necessary because without robbery the robberers would get no money. It is complete nonsense, and it ignores the true solution, which is to change the business model to one that doesnt require taking away one of the biggest blessings of our life, the existence of goods that everyone can enjoy consuming without there being any costs of its additional use.
And to make things worse, even in the context of accepting IP, IP law is totally arbitrary, being in practice applied however the people most appealing to those in power see fit. That is, there exists no fundamental laws which could be universally applied for the determination of just rules of protecting IP. Instead there exists a bundle of contradictory arbitrary rules with no common basis on their justification. Compare this to actual property, where the rules are universal and clear in their justification, all claiming the same thing: that the original owner and only the original owner of property has complete right over as to how use it or alter its ownership.
And to make things worse, even in the context of accepting IP, IP law is totally arbitrary, being in practice applied however the people most appealing to those in power see fit. That is, there exists no fundamental laws which could be universally applied for the determination of just rules of protecting IP. Instead there exists a bundle of contradictory arbitrary rules with no common basis on their justification. Compare this to actual property, where the rules are universal and clear in their justification, all claiming the same thing: that the original owner and only the original owner of property has complete right over as to how use it or alter its ownership.
In this light it is absurd to see appeal to ethics(as many posters in this thread have done) as a justification for IP, when the fact is, there exists no ethics of IP, it is all appeal to those in power.
|
1. Thanks for the translation.
2. Applying for security for costs is a fairly standard procedure. One which in this case would most likely be denied, due to Blizzard's considerable assets in RoK. However this is somewhat arguable, since licensing, trademark, and other non-physical assets may not be deemed to be sufficiently liquid for the purpose of paying costs.
3. The longer the lawsuit takes, the better for MBC, so long as no injuction is ordered. So it's pretty much guaranteed that MBC lawyers will throw all but the kitchen sink at this one. I'd figure after every possible appeal, a final decision will come in maybe three years.
4. Without commenting on how this case will be decided, I will say that IP laws desperately require reform. 100/150 year duration copyright protection in this day and age is fairly nonsensical.
|
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.
Actually no, Kespa has not bought any rights from Blizzard nor asked for their permission. Kespa, instead, sold rights to the "3rd parties" (aka channels like OGN and MBC) to use Kespa's starcraft players. According to Kespa, they set up the scene/community and the progamers, and so the TV channels have to ask for rights from Kespa to be able to use the progamers that Kespa has "grown" and therefore "owns."
Dang still waiting for the next court stuff! :D jan 28th seems so far away...
|
On December 13 2010 21:02 iba001 wrote:Show nested quote +[B] "While we can accept mediation, we wish take this opportunity to know just how far the IP rights reach in regards to broadcasting content creation through a game." 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.
thank you interesting post. I am a german lawstudent and this was exactly what I wanted to read ;-)
|
On December 23 2010 06:42 MozzarellaL wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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). Show nested quote +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. 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. Show nested quote +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. 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. Show nested quote +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. 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. Show nested quote +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 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. Show nested quote +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. 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.
1. Basketball the ball is patentable and actually was patented. Basketball the game is not, neither is it copyright-able. Also, we are talking about copyright, not patents.
2. Good point. Yes, it's not a good analogy since I am sure GOMtv doesn't own player likeness or team emblems and so on. Remember NBA Live series from mid 90s? (I played the '96 demo a lot) It didn't have Michael Jordan, instead it had Player 89 (I believe NBA did not own the rights to his likeness/number/etc by his contract). Also, not how there are no UFC fighters in EA's MMA (except Randy Couture, because his contract did not give likeness rights to UFC). Either way, I don't agree that Blizzard should be able to charge fees for tournaments/broadcasting of SC.
3. Nobody owns any kind of right (patent or copyright) on the following items (I took your suggestion and tried to search google.com/patents): - wood in rectangular shapes (2" by 4", plywood sheets, etc.). There might be a company with a patent on a method to produce a specific type of plywood, but not plywood as a whole. - hand held striking tool (hammer, sledgehammer, etc.), there are patents on methods for making special purpose hammers or making specific grips, but nothing on the hammer itself (stick with something solid and heavy at the end). According to wikipedia, there is evidence of first hammers to be from over 2.6 million years ago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammer). - nails, nothing on good old iron nails.
We don't have to go to a single vendor to buy the needed tools/items to build a house. Maybe the problem is that SC is a sport and not just RTS in general. Would be interesting to see an RTS designed as a sport. I am sure you know the approximate story of how chess came to be, so won't go there. There are also chess variations that are played (just look at the wikipedia page for chess for the numerous variations).
4. Agreed, that was an invalid argument I made.
5. EULA is subject to local law. EULA cannot be presented inside of a sealed packages (unless it is clearly visible and legible) and contain wording like "By opening this package you agree to all terms herein." I actually know someone who opened a package for a software package, read the EULA and returned it to the store which had a no refund policy because EULA said that it was not allowed to make copies of the software contained on the media included and that if you don't agree to the terms, return the package to the place of purchase. What is legal in one country might be illegal in another.
If you have a license to software and the media on which it is stored breaks for whatever reason. Are you entitled to another copy of the software? Think of this in terms before broadband Internet access became widespread (in many parts of US, there is still no broadband). You can even apply this question to console games.
Aside from above: It would be interesting to see someone release a generic RTS engine to allow people to make variations of it. Imagine something like Starcraft units with Age of Empires type economy (lots of small resource nodes) and Battle Realms mechanics (supply depots produce workers who can be trained into army units).
Also, for anyone old school out there. Z was an awesome strategy game.
|
ALLEYCAT BLUES49044 Posts
Today is Second Session.....What do you guys expect is going to happen?
|
|
|
|