EPT[T] KFTC Says Blizzard Must Change B.net Terms - Page 8
| Forum Index > News |
|
Disastorm
United States922 Posts
| ||
|
dybydx
Canada1764 Posts
On June 23 2010 09:14 Disastorm wrote: Are the copyright laws mentioned local to korea or are they the international laws? If they are international that would be interesting since it would mean blizzard no longer would have the rights to player accounts or player created content. there is no such thing as international copyright laws. each country has their own set of copyright laws. even if the 2 laws are identical, its still different. there was a famous case where a russian phd student broke an encryption algorithm and was arrested in USA for breaking "copyright laws", despite the action was done in russia and was LEGAL. the matter went to court in US and the court found nothing against him. | ||
|
FakeGuy
United States13 Posts
| ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On June 23 2010 10:07 dybydx wrote: there is no such thing as international copyright laws. each country has their own set of copyright laws. even if the 2 laws are identical, its still different. there was a famous case where a russian phd student broke an encryption algorithm and was arrested in USA for breaking "copyright laws", despite the action was done in russia and was LEGAL. the matter went to court in US and the court found nothing against him. Things get a bit more complicated when the countries involved have legally binding agreements on the subject. | ||
|
Number41
United States130 Posts
I am very interested to learn how they changed their terms, but I think everybody is reading too much into the whole thing. It's basic contracts law and interpretation. | ||
|
Nemesis
Canada2568 Posts
On June 21 2010 23:04 bjwithbraces wrote: 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). The sad thing is the other countries probably do not care about a EULA on a video game except for South Korea. | ||
|
Impervious
Canada4170 Posts
On June 22 2010 05:00 illu wrote: Wait. Say I wrote a novel using Microsoft Word, since I used tools created by Microsoft, does that mean that Microsoft owns the copyright of my novel? Similarly, if I make a movie using Microsoft Movie maker specifically to be played by Microsoft Media Player, does Microsoft own copyright for that, too? Now, if I make a map using Blizzard's map maker specifically to be played for a Blizzard's game, should Blizzard own copyright for that,too? I believe replays and maps should be free, but not owned by Blizzard. I think it's more fair if they were under some sort of GNU license. I've gotta show some love for this post. It really shows some of the idiocy that comes along with Blizzard's TOS..... I've been anticipating the release of SC2 long before I even knew of the Korean pro-scene, or ICCUP. It's one of the most anticipated games ever. And the game itself is living up to the hype (there are things that everyone wants to see different, but that's the same for any game). I got a key for the beta. I enjoyed playing it. I've fooled around with the editor, and I can see some amazing potential for UMS games (although they technically aren't UMS anymore, but whatever, anyone with a brain knows what I mean). It is going to be a game that gets 5 stars or 10/10 all around. Unfortunately, I'm disappointed with Blizzard. Not because the game is bad..... No, far from it. The game is great. I had pretty high expectations, and it exceeded them. I'm disappointed because they are making this much, much too complicated, and they're removing some features that I believe are essential to a multiplayer game. They're releasing what could possibly be the game of the decade, yet it won't be without some changes. And those changes have nothing to do with the actual game-play..... I mean, I want to be able to go over to a friends house for a LAN, without problems with internet connections. I want to be able to play single-player campaign games when I'm stuck waiting at an airport for a few hours without being charged an arm and a leg for access to the internet (from what I understand, you have to access the internet every time you want to play it). I want to be able to chat with people, and if they're assholes, squelch them. And, with my experience running a CSL team, I can't imagine how difficult it would be to run a tournament without those same chat channels.If I travel to Europe (I have family there), I think it would be nice to be able to connect to the Euro server while I'm there for lower latency, without having to buy a 2nd copy of the game. I initially pre-ordered a copy of SC2. When I found out how big of a pile of bullshit Blizzard came up with, I cancelled my pre-order. I might get it, but I'll wait and see what Blizzard does with these concerns that I have. I'd be willing to pay 100+ bucks for the game. It would be well worth it. But, at the moment, it's not worth 60..... On the bright side, it'll have facebook integration. | ||
|
dogabutila
United States1437 Posts
On June 22 2010 16:41 dybydx wrote: there is an offline mode, but my understanding is you need to connect to bnet server to authenticate each time before you play single player games. Command & Conquer 4 uses the same method of "offline" play. Its not the same as CnC4. The game will be playable without an internet connection present. Normally when one plays SP, SC2 will connect to authenticate, and then ingame achievements will update your profile online etc. Playing in offline mode will not update your bnet profile. | ||
|
Deyster
Jordan579 Posts
However, those 2 paragraphs are interesting: 12.4 User Content.“User Content” means any communications, images, sounds, and all the material and information that you upload or transmit through a Game client or the Service, or that other users upload or transmit, including without limitation any chat text. You hereby grant Blizzard a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, paid-up, non-exclusive, license, including the right to sublicense to third parties, and right to reproduce, fix, adapt, modify, translate, reformat, create derivative works from, manufacture, introduce into circulation, publish, distribute, sell, license, sublicense, transfer, rent, lease, transmit, publicly display, publicly perform, or provide access to electronically, broadcast, communicate to the public by telecommunication, display, perform, enter into computer memory, and use and practice such User Content as well as all modified and derivative works thereof. To the extent permitted by applicable laws, you hereby waive any moral rights you may have in any User Content. I guess this means anything from outside the game that you include in any Blizzard game becomes their property, I don't know if this is fair or not. 16.2 Blizzard Television Service. Upon your association of a World of Warcraft or StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty Game license with your Account, or by ordering any online services related to World of Warcraft or StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty, you shall receive as part of the fees paid for the online services, access to the online game(s) and access to a television service (ESL Turtle TV), which is an IP TV service featuring, among other content, Blizzard games, Blizzard products and other Blizzard related content. Anyone knew that? I really never seen this or seen Blizzard giving hints that we may be entitled to such service. | ||
|
dybydx
Canada1764 Posts
on the second thought.... the keywords in paragraph 12.4 is "non-exclusive", which means while you allow blizz to sell your user created contents, it does not say only blizzard may sell it. so technically you, the creator, is still owner of the content, but you simply waived all your rights over it. part of this make sense, because if you share your map on bnet. obviously blizz will have to let other players to download the map before the game can start. although blizz's ability of selling the map without mentioning paying the creator is somewhat disturbing. | ||
|
hifriend
China7935 Posts
On June 23 2010 18:27 dybydx wrote: deyster, on the second thought.... the keywords in paragraph 12.4 is "non-exclusive", which means while you allow blizz to sell your user created contents, it does not say only blizzard may sell it. so technically you, the creator, is still owner of the content, but you simply waived all your rights over it. part of this make sense, because if you share your map on bnet. obviously blizz will have to let other players to download the map before the game can start. although blizz's ability of selling the map without mentioning paying the creator is somewhat disturbing. Wow, you have a very exotic definition of the word "owner." I would be excited to hear you elaborate. | ||
|
Bibdy
United States3481 Posts
I really can't see any other reason that Blizzard would demand that kind of control. If its for profit-gain, by stealing people's maps/mods and selling them in a bargain bin, then that's a fantastic way for them to destroy their own company by pissing off their customers beyond the point of redemption. | ||
|
Sabu113
United States11035 Posts
I think Bibdy hit it on the head. | ||
|
Deyster
Jordan579 Posts
On June 24 2010 05:07 Bibdy wrote: I bet they're just trying to save their asses from Hot Coffee situations, where the company of the game itself gets blasted because somebody makes a sex-based mod for it. If they have this control, they can bring down the mod without issue. That is already covered by another segment of the ToU. + Show Spoiler + Content Screening and Disclosure. We do not, and cannot, pre-screen or monitor all User Content. However, our representatives may monitor and/or record your communications (including without limitation chat text) when you are using the Service or playing a Game, and you hereby provide your irrevocable consent to such monitoring and recording. You acknowledge and agree that you have no expectation of privacy concerning the transmission of any User Content, including without limitation chat text or voice communications. We do not assume any responsibility or liability for User Content that is generated by users. We have the right, but not the obligation, in our sole discretion to edit, refuse to post, or remove any User Content. WE ALSO RESERVE THE RIGHT, AT ALL TIMES AND IN OUR SOLE DISCRETION, TO DISCLOSE ANY USER CONTENT AND OTHER INFORMATION (INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION CHAT TEXT, VOICE COMMUNICATIONS, IP ADDRESSES, AND YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION) FOR ANY REASON, including without limitation (a) to satisfy any applicable law, regulation, legal process or governmental request; (b) to enforce the terms of this or any other agreement or Blizzard policy; (c) to protect our legal rights and remedies; (d) where we feel someone's health or safety may be threatened; or (e) to report a crime or other offensive behavior. | ||
|
LEGAsee
170 Posts
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. 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. Lawlwut indeed. Did you forget we are talking about a country where people play this game professionally and in a super competitive environment while receiving sponsorships from national airlines and huge communication firms? Besides, Its already been done. Boxer's greatest hits. | ||
|
sikyon
Canada1045 Posts
On June 22 2010 22:20 Back wrote: There's a lot more to law than just not enslaving anyone. Business law is extremely complicated and you cannot expect your average customer to be able to, after reading the EULA, understand all the potential loopholes. That's why most developed countries have some sort of agency to protect consumer rights. The vast majority of peeps don't know the ins and outs of criminal law, such as differences between degrees of murder, castle doctorine, etc. Ignorance is no defense in a court of law. On June 23 2010 06:46 dybydx wrote: just because its a contract "agreed upon" by both parties doesnt mean it is legit. there are many situations where a court will not honor the contract even if the terms are not fundamentally wrong. This is a real example from Microsoft's EULA on Windows 7 "By using the software, you accept these terms. If you do not accept them, do not use the software. Instead, contact the manufacturer or installer to determine its return policy. You must comply with that policy, which might limit your rights or require you to return the entire system on which the software is installed." So basically, the moment you open a PC and see the EULA, you've already lost your rights, no matter whether you agree (in which case Microsft fucks you over) or disagree with the EULA (in which case the manufacturer fucks you over). You can purchase a PC without Windows, or construct one from parts. The second portion about return only applies to OEM units with windows pre-installed, otherwise you can indeed return your retail version of windows. Remember: You don't have a right to a computer, to software, to play games. If you don't like it, don't buy it. I'm personally fine with it because I doubt they will enforce all of the rules, and if they do then I simply won't buy their product anymore. I don't believe there is any stipulation in law that suggestions contracts have to be "fair", since they are bilateral agreements entered into voluntarily, unlike criminal law which is pretty much involuntary. | ||
|
dybydx
Canada1764 Posts
u missed the pt. when u buy a PC off the fresh off shelf and turn it on, you see that windows 7 EULA pop out. if you click "agree", then u comply to whatever shit Microsoft throw at you. If you click "disagree", the EULA says you then MUST COMPLY to whatever term the manufacturer has against you. its like answer the following question by clicking the YES or NO button. "Have you stopped having sex with your mother" btw, there IS such thing as unfair contracts in law. employment contract is a great example. Microsoft once forced an exec to sign a contract agreeing to never work for another employer in the software industry. the court found the contract term to be unfair and ignored the entire contract. | ||
|
Gtks
Greece135 Posts
Bonus TIP: The nagotiations end it up in anoher theat. + Show Spoiler + its is not for you don't bug me about it. | ||
|
Tenz
Australia106 Posts
 | ||
|
sikyon
Canada1045 Posts
On June 24 2010 16:00 dybydx wrote: when u buy a PC off the fresh off shelf and turn it on, you see that windows 7 EULA pop out. if you click "agree", then u comply to whatever shit Microsoft throw at you. If you click "disagree", the EULA says you then MUST COMPLY to whatever term the manufacturer has against you. its like answer the following question by clicking the YES or NO button. "Have you stopped having sex with your mother" Heh that's a good analogy. But the thing is that you should also have read the manufacturer's terms when you purchased the unit in the first place... so really you've already agreed to them. It's YOUR responsibility to protect yourself, because YOU are the one that gets hurt. I hate it when people don't take responsibility for their actions and then complain like they did. On June 24 2010 16:00 dybydx wrote: btw, there IS such thing as unfair contracts in law. employment contract is a great example. Microsoft once forced an exec to sign a contract agreeing to never work for another employer in the software industry. the court found the contract term to be unfair and ignored the entire contract. Some areas will only strike down the single clause, some will strike down the whole document and some will reduce it to a reasonable length of time. However, the reason that non-compete agreements are not that legal is because they basically prevent you from making a living. It is not in society's best interests to prevent skilled, qualified people from obtaining employment. And really it's your fault for signing such a non-compete... I always read my hiring documents carefully and I have questioned (to the suprise of the employer) non-compete clauses in my contracts before. They were only restricted to 6 months but clarity is still important. What I'm saying is that you need to take responsibility for your actions and use common sense. Stop freaking out over nothing. Look at speed limits for example. In many major cities people are fully expected to drive over the speed limit. I remember one experiment where a number of university students drove, parallel to each other accross every lane, exactly the speed limit down the 401 major highway that powers Toronto. Traffic was backed up for miles. If anything, I find this to be more egrarious since you are bound to follow criminal law but it is expected that you will speed on highways... yet you can be fined for it. | ||
| ||
