[T] KFTC Says Blizzard Must Change B.net Terms - Page 5

On June 22 2010 01:37 deth2munkies wrote:
The biggest thing I see in there is that user-created content is still owned by Blizzard, and I find I must agree. All UMS maps and replays are created by and specifically for their software, so for someone to make the next DotA and sell access to it for $5 would be not only ripping off the playerbase, but Blizzard itself.

All the others are textbook legal disclaimers you'd find on any product and are beyond fair, I think KeSPA is leaning on them a bit, although I won't pretend to understand Korean law. These terms were written to comply with American law and they do that very well.

Also as a pre-empt: it doesn't mean anything the changes were already made, you can still debate the value and reasoning behind it, that's the fun of posting on an internet forum.

On June 22 2010 01:56 dybydx wrote:

3. there is currently no way to legally play SC2 without connection to b.net. blizz's ability to discontinue your access to b.net with or without cause is extremely unfair.

On June 22 2010 02:44 NuKedUFirst wrote:


This makes me extremely angry, but alot of websites are like this, If Dustin Browder gets in a fight with his wife (just an example) he could go on a Battle.net banning spree just because he can, similar to Xbox, Youtube, etc. They claim they can take your account away without question, etc.

On June 22 2010 02:48 neobowman wrote:


Then they wouldl lose support from fans, Browder would be fired and Blizzard would make a letter of apology.

On June 22 2010 02:48 neobowman wrote:


Then they wouldl lose support from fans, Browder would be fired and Blizzard would make a letter of apology.

On June 22 2010 01:56 dybydx wrote:

munkies,

1. There is nothing wrong with ppl making DotA maps and selling it for money. many ppl write software that only work in Windows. not all of them pay Microsoft royalties and its perfectly legal.

2. the blizz EULA sounds rather awkward even in terms of US laws. b.net is claiming ownership of everything we play on b.net. even when one submits an article to be published in a newspaper, the author still has rights to the article. the author only granted rights to publish or use his work, he did not abandon his ownership of his work.

3. there is currently no way to legally play SC2 without connection to b.net. blizz's ability to discontinue your access to b.net with or without cause is extremely unfair.

On June 21 2010 18:17 dogabutila wrote:

Specifically, User Created content with a provided ingame editor can't really be copyrighted by the user if it uses anything created and copyrighted by blizzard. I imagine one might be able to make a case for creation of new units, but simply put, making an obs map or even a new map itself is not really copyrightable by the user.

On June 22 2010 02:44 NuKedUFirst wrote:


This makes me extremely angry, but alot of websites are like this, If Dustin Browder gets in a fight with his wife (just an example) he could go on a Battle.net banning spree just because he can, similar to Xbox, Youtube, etc. They claim they can take your account away without question, etc.

On June 22 2010 05:05 dukethegold wrote:
A victory for the users.
Seriously, Blizzard just want to own everything that the users create in order to generate more money. They probably are thinking along the lines of collecting all the great videos of SC2 and make a profitable DVD sale.

On June 22 2010 02:54 NuKedUFirst wrote:


Legally he can do it.
It was just an example, They own your account.

On June 22 2010 05:05 dukethegold wrote:
A victory for the users.
Seriously, Blizzard just want to own everything that the users create in order to generate more money. They probably are thinking along the lines of collecting all the great videos of SC2 and make a profitable DVD sale.

On June 22 2010 05:06 Half wrote:




lawlwut.

Seriously. No. I mean, I just posted how we should all support this shit, but I still feel obligated to correct how delusional some of these claims are.


Its to prevent someone from say, setting up a website and selling their replays. Which this law still prevents. However, it has a lower margin of abuse. For instance, while you couldn't own UMS's, you could own the ideas that went into their creation. You could trademark your own character, put it in a UMS, and it would remain yours.

On June 22 2010 05:10 dukethegold wrote:


And what's stopping Blizzard from selling your replay if all the rights belong to them?

On June 22 2010 05:11 Half wrote:


Nothing. But WOULD YOU BUY IT?

Please explain to me who would buy that replay.

Who would buy that DVD of fucking user machinama.



Realize that could monetize everything. Charge you a dollar ever game. Charge you for every single thing. Charge for logging onto b-net.


Who would buy that. srsly.

On June 22 2010 05:08 danl9rm wrote:


lol, funniest post ever
please tell me u believe that :p

On June 22 2010 05:14 dukethegold wrote:
I was indeed serious about it. At this point, that idea is ludicrous. However, it is quite obvious to me that Blizzard want to get into the business of esport for the long run, becoming a pioneer in the next revolution of the entertainment industry so to speak. Such an idea may not be so far fetched if the public interest increases to a level that enables sustainable business.

At this point, the majority of your average users would not be affected by those clauses in any sort of way and has no reason of caring. If a precedent is established at the infancy stage of a (possibly) potentially booming industry, then such clauses may successfully make their ways into future products and lead to a greater than current impact.

On June 22 2010 05:15 Half wrote:


The idea already exists in Korea. Its called subscription TV channels. I'm sure you've heard of it.



I agree.....except its a precedent established fifteen years ago that is now being revoked, thankfully.