|
On June 21 2010 16:18 l10f wrote:
⇒ Change the terms so that the producer can only use the contents of the game created by users (see above) for promotion and providing service to thse users. Change the terms so that the contents outside of the game belongs only to the users.
It is like I create an architectural plan with Autocad. I own that plan not the software company.
So it is 100% make sense if UMS or replay that i create belongs to me.
|
It makes you wonder why it took so long for this to be brought to the attention of the public. Wtf are the other lawyers in other countries doing(America included obv).
All in all good job to KFTC for representing us(consumers).
|
On June 21 2010 16:22 Go0g3n wrote:
Guess what, a 3rd party Lan Mode is now legal in Korea.
What? Where? How?
On topic: Best of luck to them, but I have the feeling that Activision will have a word or two to say about this. It's not like KFTC can claim anti-trust, since there are decidedly other games that are eSports.
|
I agree with most of these changes, it's silly for Blizzard to sell you a game and then say they own everything you do. I hope they change the North American Terms aswell, not just the Korean terms, It would be silly change the terms on 1 server but not the others.
And as for 3rd party lan mode? where did you see that?
|
Sad to see so many people rejecting real concerns about end-user protection and blindly defending Blizzard like sheep.
|
This is a pleasant surprise, now it's more likely that SC2 leagues will be broadcast by OGN and MBC.
|
I'm so happy to see an organization standing up to this garbage. The user agreements are getting absurd, "In order to use our product you must first agree to give up all consumer rights, creative rights, and by the way you must agree that we are not responsible to fulfill any part of this contract ever. We also are not responsible for any of the things the law says we are responsible for."
I wish someone would do this In the U.S. to a slew of companies including Microsoft, the windows and Xlive agreements are equally absurd.
These contracts are also useless because if your under 18 you can't be held to a contract, which may be an excuse to require a credit card #. The way Bnet2 and Blizzard is acting, I am almost certain this will be the case. They will find reasons and ways to charge you.
Want to play online with the account you already payed for with the game you've already bought and been playing for months? Well fork over 6$ for the new maps or you can't play in matchmaking. That's how it is on Xlive and that is what is coming for Blizzard. Thing I'm crazy? See Greg Cannessa (Xlive's manager for almost 10 years got hired by guess who, He's in charge of Battlenet 2.0)
|
17017 Posts
On June 21 2010 23:05 MangoTango wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2010 16:22 Go0g3n wrote:
Guess what, a 3rd party Lan Mode is now legal in Korea. What? Where? How? On topic: Best of luck to them, but I have the feeling that Activision will have a word or two to say about this. It's not like KFTC can claim anti-trust, since there are decidedly other games that are eSports.
Activision can't say anything about this. The KFTC is a governmental regulatory body, and as such, has complete say in this matter. There's nothing Activision can do to appeal this decision in Korea since the matter isn't under their purview.
|
HAHA, I knew something like this was going to happen. Blizzard needs to learn a thing or two about how business gets done in Asia.
|
On June 21 2010 23:49 Empyrean wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2010 23:05 MangoTango wrote:On June 21 2010 16:22 Go0g3n wrote:
Guess what, a 3rd party Lan Mode is now legal in Korea. What? Where? How? On topic: Best of luck to them, but I have the feeling that Activision will have a word or two to say about this. It's not like KFTC can claim anti-trust, since there are decidedly other games that are eSports. Activision can't say anything about this. The KFTC is a governmental regulatory body, and as such, has complete say in this matter. There's nothing Activision can do to appeal this decision in Korea since the matter isn't under their purview.
I'm obviously not an IP lawyer, but can you clarify? The KFTC is a branch of the Korean government. Activision is a primarily US-based, but international company. How does the KFTC have the reach to change Activision's policies?
|
17017 Posts
On June 22 2010 00:04 MangoTango wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2010 23:49 Empyrean wrote:On June 21 2010 23:05 MangoTango wrote:On June 21 2010 16:22 Go0g3n wrote:
Guess what, a 3rd party Lan Mode is now legal in Korea. What? Where? How? On topic: Best of luck to them, but I have the feeling that Activision will have a word or two to say about this. It's not like KFTC can claim anti-trust, since there are decidedly other games that are eSports. Activision can't say anything about this. The KFTC is a governmental regulatory body, and as such, has complete say in this matter. There's nothing Activision can do to appeal this decision in Korea since the matter isn't under their purview. I'm obviously not an IP lawyer, but can you clarify? The KFTC is a branch of the Korean government. Activision is a primarily US-based, but international company. How does the KFTC have the reach to change Activision's policies?
KFTC has the power to change Activision's EULAs in their area of jurisdiction. This is why Blizzard's EULA is changed only in South Korea.
Pretty much all regional laws supersede EULAs.
|
On June 22 2010 00:10 Empyrean wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2010 00:04 MangoTango wrote:On June 21 2010 23:49 Empyrean wrote:On June 21 2010 23:05 MangoTango wrote:On June 21 2010 16:22 Go0g3n wrote:
Guess what, a 3rd party Lan Mode is now legal in Korea. What? Where? How? On topic: Best of luck to them, but I have the feeling that Activision will have a word or two to say about this. It's not like KFTC can claim anti-trust, since there are decidedly other games that are eSports. Activision can't say anything about this. The KFTC is a governmental regulatory body, and as such, has complete say in this matter. There's nothing Activision can do to appeal this decision in Korea since the matter isn't under their purview. I'm obviously not an IP lawyer, but can you clarify? The KFTC is a branch of the Korean government. Activision is a primarily US-based, but international company. How does the KFTC have the reach to change Activision's policies? KFTC has the power to change Activision's EULAs in their area of jurisdiction. This is why Blizzard's EULA is changed only in South Korea. Pretty much all regional laws supersede EULAs.
Interesting. So KFTC's word is law, and cannot be appealed? Wow. But the changes I see listed here do not affect things such as broadcasting and IP rights. I see those as the most critical issues for t hose of us on the site who care about progaming (so, all of us).
|
17017 Posts
On June 22 2010 00:15 MangoTango wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2010 00:10 Empyrean wrote:On June 22 2010 00:04 MangoTango wrote:On June 21 2010 23:49 Empyrean wrote:On June 21 2010 23:05 MangoTango wrote:On June 21 2010 16:22 Go0g3n wrote:
Guess what, a 3rd party Lan Mode is now legal in Korea. What? Where? How? On topic: Best of luck to them, but I have the feeling that Activision will have a word or two to say about this. It's not like KFTC can claim anti-trust, since there are decidedly other games that are eSports. Activision can't say anything about this. The KFTC is a governmental regulatory body, and as such, has complete say in this matter. There's nothing Activision can do to appeal this decision in Korea since the matter isn't under their purview. I'm obviously not an IP lawyer, but can you clarify? The KFTC is a branch of the Korean government. Activision is a primarily US-based, but international company. How does the KFTC have the reach to change Activision's policies? KFTC has the power to change Activision's EULAs in their area of jurisdiction. This is why Blizzard's EULA is changed only in South Korea. Pretty much all regional laws supersede EULAs. Interesting. So KFTC's word is law, and cannot be appealed? Wow. But the changes I see listed here do not affect things such as broadcasting and IP rights. I see those as the most critical issues for t hose of us on the site who care about progaming (so, all of us).
I'm not sure if it's actually considered law or not, but it's legally binding and there's nothing Activision can do. They could probably appeal, but nothing would come of it.
|
i find the TOS on blizzards part very unfair, i hope the KFTC gets what they deserve. I Mean if it wasn't for koreans there wouldn't be a reason for all this mumbo jumbo. There wouldn't be all this control over sc if it wasn't for korean pro gaming. Blizzard got greedy as fuck over the past 2 years.. Correct me if im wrong of course.
|
Very good news. I'm still puzzled at why all this happened on the first place.
Or is all this going much farther than SC 2?
|
I Can understand the last one because back in broodwar, 2 friends died because they decided to play starcraft for 48 hours straight
|
On June 22 2010 00:23 Empyrean wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2010 00:15 MangoTango wrote:On June 22 2010 00:10 Empyrean wrote:On June 22 2010 00:04 MangoTango wrote:On June 21 2010 23:49 Empyrean wrote:On June 21 2010 23:05 MangoTango wrote:On June 21 2010 16:22 Go0g3n wrote:
Guess what, a 3rd party Lan Mode is now legal in Korea. What? Where? How? On topic: Best of luck to them, but I have the feeling that Activision will have a word or two to say about this. It's not like KFTC can claim anti-trust, since there are decidedly other games that are eSports. Activision can't say anything about this. The KFTC is a governmental regulatory body, and as such, has complete say in this matter. There's nothing Activision can do to appeal this decision in Korea since the matter isn't under their purview. I'm obviously not an IP lawyer, but can you clarify? The KFTC is a branch of the Korean government. Activision is a primarily US-based, but international company. How does the KFTC have the reach to change Activision's policies? KFTC has the power to change Activision's EULAs in their area of jurisdiction. This is why Blizzard's EULA is changed only in South Korea. Pretty much all regional laws supersede EULAs. Interesting. So KFTC's word is law, and cannot be appealed? Wow. But the changes I see listed here do not affect things such as broadcasting and IP rights. I see those as the most critical issues for t hose of us on the site who care about progaming (so, all of us). I'm not sure if it's actually considered law or not, but it's legally binding and there's nothing Activision can do. They could probably appeal, but nothing would come of it.
well its a trade comission, not a court. but i think if blizz do not change their TOS, the game will either not be sold in Korea or if the users do violate the EULA, the Korean courts will simply ignore the EULA because it was blatantly unfair and the user rights gets upheld.
|
On June 22 2010 01:14 dybydx wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2010 00:23 Empyrean wrote:On June 22 2010 00:15 MangoTango wrote:On June 22 2010 00:10 Empyrean wrote:On June 22 2010 00:04 MangoTango wrote:On June 21 2010 23:49 Empyrean wrote:On June 21 2010 23:05 MangoTango wrote:On June 21 2010 16:22 Go0g3n wrote:
Guess what, a 3rd party Lan Mode is now legal in Korea. What? Where? How? On topic: Best of luck to them, but I have the feeling that Activision will have a word or two to say about this. It's not like KFTC can claim anti-trust, since there are decidedly other games that are eSports. Activision can't say anything about this. The KFTC is a governmental regulatory body, and as such, has complete say in this matter. There's nothing Activision can do to appeal this decision in Korea since the matter isn't under their purview. I'm obviously not an IP lawyer, but can you clarify? The KFTC is a branch of the Korean government. Activision is a primarily US-based, but international company. How does the KFTC have the reach to change Activision's policies? KFTC has the power to change Activision's EULAs in their area of jurisdiction. This is why Blizzard's EULA is changed only in South Korea. Pretty much all regional laws supersede EULAs. Interesting. So KFTC's word is law, and cannot be appealed? Wow. But the changes I see listed here do not affect things such as broadcasting and IP rights. I see those as the most critical issues for t hose of us on the site who care about progaming (so, all of us). I'm not sure if it's actually considered law or not, but it's legally binding and there's nothing Activision can do. They could probably appeal, but nothing would come of it. well its a trade comission, not a court. but i think if blizz do not change their TOS, the game will either not be sold in Korea or if the users do violate the EULA, the Korean courts will simply ignore the EULA because it was blatantly unfair and the user rights gets upheld.
Well Blizz isn't going to accept not having Korean players, so they'll cave to pressure if it comes to that. But the progaming scene's biggest fears and concerns aren't being addressed here, and that's still worrying! 
|
On June 21 2010 17:40 Diminotoor wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2010 17:36 chongu wrote:▶ Unfair termination of service
ㅇBlizzard states that they can remove the service for whatever reason as long as they send a notification regarding the reasons for removal of service.
⇒ Change it so that the users are notified well beforehand, and a reasonable refund is given for the discontinuation of service.
◆ Reason
ㅇTermination of service is same as termination of contract so the reasons must be limited, and the users must be notified beforehand. Also, the producer has the duty to give a refund for the remainder of the service. Therefore, the current terms that state that the service may be removed at any time for any reason is unfair, and the terms are invalid. What does it mean by this? Seems a little unfair to Blizzard don't you think? You must be trippin balls right now if you think this is unfair. Company A provides you with a contracted service. Your existing contract is $7000 for their service for the entire decade. After 2 years of service, Company A decides they don't like your face and terminates your contract. According to you, you aren't deserving of a refund even though the agreement was 7k for 10 years and you only got 2 years out of it. Also, you had no say whatsoever in them just dropping you. No matter how you look at it, the original contract is 100% breached and legally is null and void. Compensations must then be issued.
actually, the way it SC 2 works right now is the game is completely unplayable unless you connect to bnet (even single player mode).
so if blizz is to discontinue b.net service, the game is useless unless you "liberate" your version of SC2. but "liberating" your software may be illegal in your country.
thus, it is extremely unfair to the users that blizz can terminate your access to b.net at their sole discretion without any refund.
|
Wow, that first one is huge (think DotA). Probably a good change! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
