|
On June 22 2010 05:19 dukethegold wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2010 05:15 Half wrote: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.
The idea already exists in Korea. Its called subscription TV channels. I'm sure you've heard of it.
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.
I agree.....except its a precedent established fifteen years ago that is now being revoked, thankfully. Indeed and your point is? Perhaps you agree with me that owning the exclusive rights to all contents generated by the producer company's gaming engine can be profitable. It gives them more rights to crack down streams as well.
well ye, I just felt compelled to point how how absurd that movie idea wuz lol.
|
On June 22 2010 05:22 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2010 05:19 dukethegold wrote:On June 22 2010 05:15 Half wrote: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.
The idea already exists in Korea. Its called subscription TV channels. I'm sure you've heard of it.
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.
I agree.....except its a precedent established fifteen years ago that is now being revoked, thankfully. Indeed and your point is? Perhaps you agree with me that owning the exclusive rights to all contents generated by the producer company's gaming engine can be profitable. It gives them more rights to crack down streams as well. well ye, I just felt compelled to point how how absurd that movie idea wuz lol.
Bill Gate's idea of privatizing software copyright was absolutely absurd as well and it took a court battle to win the right to sell his own software for profit.
Not funny now, is it?
|
hope they will change that
|
well this is a direct government order, if Blizzard wants to stay in Korea they have to.
|
I have to say that I agree with most of the changes, except the liability one.
Blizzard should not be liable for the consumer's stupidity. That is just absurd.
|
Looks like a major bitch slap 
|
On June 21 2010 17:01 ZlaSHeR wrote:
That's a bold move towards players rights, but that literally opens the doors to KeSPA winning all their arguments under the court of law, there is NO WAY blizzard agrees to removing all this.
User was temp banned for this post.
I'm a new user ( coming from the quake community ), but this concerns me. Why was this user banned for this post? It isn't spam or malicious, he's just stating his opinion on the subject.
|
Good, their language was blatantly unfair to consumers, and more importantly, to people who actually contribute to the lifespan of the game. Hopefully more changes to follow.
|
I can definitely see why they're upset! For the sake of all of us, I hope that the KFTC has their demands met.
That's like Craftsman demanding ownership of every house constructed using their tools.
|
Does this affect all versions of the game, or just Koreas?
|
On June 22 2010 07:45 JayDee_ wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2010 17:01 ZlaSHeR wrote:
That's a bold move towards players rights, but that literally opens the doors to KeSPA winning all their arguments under the court of law, there is NO WAY blizzard agrees to removing all this.
User was temp banned for this post. I'm a new user ( coming from the quake community ), but this concerns me. Why was this user banned for this post? It isn't spam or malicious, he's just stating his opinion on the subject.
He didn't read the post, which already stated that Blizzard agreed to it. If he had, he wouldn't be spouting "there is NO WAY blizzard agrees to removing all this". It's important to read what you are replying to before you reply to it, otherwise we're no better than metagamers.
|
On June 21 2010 16:10 Mindcrime wrote:
KFTC fighting~
My feelings.
|
On June 21 2010 16:10 Mindcrime wrote:
KFTC fighting~
Great. Obviously the users have some rights of the games they create. This has to be picked out against Blizzard.
Did anyone read the title as 'KFC ... Blizzard...'? Guess who will KO who if there really is a fight between these two...
|
On June 22 2010 08:35 duuuke wrote:Great. Obviously the users have some rights of the games they create. This has to be picked out against Blizzard. Did anyone read the title as 'KFC ... Blizzard...'? Guess who will KO who if there really is a fight between these two...
Hahaha, I read that as the title too.
KFC will obviously win with their popcorn chicken.
|
I'm glad Blizzard was forced to make these changes even if it was only in South Korea. It's certainly a victory for consumers everywhere when these corporations are kept in check. For those complaining about the Korean government dictating how an American company runs its business, please remember that they need to follow Korean laws if they wish to conduct business within its borders just like Samsung has to abide by American laws in the business it conducts within the USA. It's a perfectly normal practice to adjust contract terms or business models to fall in line with local laws and it's something that happens all the time. I suspect the only reason this is making waves in the community is the speculation over what implications this might have on the negotiations between Blizzard/Gretech and KeSPA.
Much of Blizzard's initially absurd demands in the negotiations stemmed from concepts that have since been invalidated by this decision. Blizzard now knows that they can't negotiate under the pretense that they alone have ownership of user-created content, player replays, and everything under the sun that is created from their game. I don't know how much this will actually change in terms of negotiations, but I can't imagine it not having some sort of impact on the overall tone of those negotiations. One could argue that Starleagues and broadcasted matches are technically user-created content for which those users own the intellectual property rights to (rather than Blizzard). If that's the case, then that can open the path for a situation similar to the one we have today with KeSPA not having to ask for Blizzard's permission to sell broadcasting rights to their tournaments since what they would be selling is not the right to broadcast Starcraft 2, but rather the right to broadcast the new intellectual property they created through it.
Who knows where all of this will go?
|
I'm happy that Blizzard has agreed with the changes. Those rules were a bit silly.
|
Point of Clarification: Did Blizzard agree to change the Terms of Service for just Korean users or all users?
|
I bet the Korean Commission was under a lot of pressure. I think lots of lives would be affected if BW shut down in Korea beyond players and coaches.
I always thought that Blizzard always had power and leverage in negogiations because they could just shut down the servers if they wanted to, but with the new terms they would have to refund everybody who bought a copy, right?
|
On June 22 2010 05:02 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2010 02:44 NuKedUFirst wrote: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. 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. But they won't. They amount they have to lose by doing drastically outweigh your losses. Even if Dustin did so, he would be immediately fired, it would be written down and told to you as a "technical error", and you would receive support. This isn't a good example of how they could abuse this power. This is a good example of how they could abuse this power. http://play.tm/news/27790/valve-cracks-down-on-mw2-import-keys/
This situation happened at least once in WoW with a forum moderator going on a ban spree and afaik none of those people had their access restored.
|
On June 22 2010 05:06 Half wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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. Show nested quote +On June 22 2010 02:54 NuKedUFirst wrote:On June 22 2010 02:48 neobowman wrote:On June 22 2010 02:44 NuKedUFirst wrote: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. 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. Then they wouldl lose support from fans, Browder would be fired and Blizzard would make a letter of apology. Legally he can do it. It was just an example, They own your account. Yes, and they would crash and burn if they treated their customers like that. Its an unjustified complaint. Its like saying all banks have to be controlled by the government because legally they could all just decide to shut down at the same time and the world would collapse onto itself.
How about banks should be controlled by the government because their executives can behave recklessly and force the taxpayers to give them hundreds of billions of dollars so the economy doesn't collapse? I'm not sure what your experience is with Blizzard but this is not the same Blizzard that put out Starcraft and Warcraft 3.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
