MBCGame v. Blizzard - First Court Session

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.

On December 10 2010 16:39 infinitestory wrote:

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.

On December 10 2010 18:09 konadora wrote:
yay BW to continue until january :p (minimum!)

On December 10 2010 16:39 infinitestory wrote:

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.

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 #_#

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.

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.

On December 10 2010 21:24 cocoa_sg wrote:


Blizzard has to be WILLING to take a compromise on the extent of their IP rights.

On December 11 2010 04:14 GhoSt[shield] wrote:


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 23:15 Zona wrote:

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.

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?

when their ultimate trump card that they have over all of the broadcasting companies is the ability to kill BW.

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.

On December 11 2010 06:02 gyth 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.

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?

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.

On December 11 2010 05:46 _Quasar_ wrote:



the only truly unique game they have made (looong ago) is Starcraft.

On December 11 2010 08:11 xBillehx wrote:

OGN's creation.*** KeSPA stole it.

On December 10 2010 16:39 infinitestory wrote:

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.

On December 11 2010 09:21 VManOfMana wrote:


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 11 2010 09:31 Simplistik wrote:

But didn't they file an injunction? Did they withdraw it or did it get declined?

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...

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.

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.

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.

On December 11 2010 02:17 Milkis wrote:


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)

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

On December 12 2010 10:28 Bijan wrote:


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 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.

- 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.

On December 12 2010 01:00 mustaju wrote:

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.

On December 12 2010 11:07 charlesatan wrote:


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.



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

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.

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....?

My problem with the pro-Blizzard argument is that it dismisses how important the non-Blizzard creative work is.

On December 13 2010 08:09 winners32 wrote:
BLZ should not have the right to charge them.

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?

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?

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?

[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."

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

On December 14 2010 10:12 iba001 wrote:


well maybe not sc1. but definitely sc2.

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

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

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

Ergo, fuck blizzard (in this instance).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On December 13 2010 21:02 iba001 wrote:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On December 23 2010 06:42 MozzarellaL wrote:

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


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


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


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


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


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