|
On June 25 2010 22:17 sikyon wrote:Show nested quote +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.
i disagree with your argument about our own responsibility to protect ourselves.
in the case of SC2, its a video game. clearly, we can not expect under aged minors to be equipped with the necessary legal knowledge to protect themselves. even as adults, its not hard for lawyers to draft confusing contracts with the intention of deceiving customers.
|
There's a reason why in most countries minors aren't allowed to agree to contracts on their own.
People that refuse to take responsibility for their own actions irritate me without end.
|
Is it just me or did two people on the front page get temporarily banned for expressing an opinion that happened to be wrong? Isn't that kind of funny since this whole thread is about users' protections against unfairness? I supposed I may get temporarily banned for pointing this out. =]
|
On June 28 2010 02:14 carwashguy wrote:
Is it just me or did two people on the front page get temporarily banned for expressing an opinion that happened to be wrong? Isn't that kind of funny since this whole thread is about users' protections against unfairness? I supposed I may get temporarily banned for pointing this out. =]
I believe they got temp banned because they didn't read, not because they expressed a wrong opinion. The thread already pointed out that they had made the changes (as far as I know)
|
On June 21 2010 16:18 l10f wrote:
Blizzard has since changed their terms and agreements for Battle.net on the 17th according the commission's opinions.
Good for Korea.
|
Grats SK, I hope the other countries TOS will change similarly, but i doubt that it will be a big enough issue for other countries to warrant any kind of real legal squabble.
My general feelings on the mater:
It is sad to me that Blizzard has gone so far as to attempt to claim that they own all of this content, how it's used, who can use it, and to what end they are allowed to use the product the customer bought. Imo, game producers and perhaps even producers in general, should only have the exclusive right to sell the finished packaged product. Basically, I don't think that a finished product and related services should be allowed to be force linked to one another, so that you cannot use the finished product without applying only their services as well. Makes me feel like its some sort of pseudo-monopoly, barring any related competition and potential businesses that could arise out of this game that could benefit the economy, that would not be directly profitable to Blizzard, by forcing them to adhere to Blizzard's demands for unreasonable compensation if they were to use a SC2 product as a catalyst for any sort of profitable or non-profit business model. Blizzard is demanding an unjust gain, they seek many more avenues of profit and ways to ensure large sums from their product, than they should deserve or have rights to.
|
@shamanglove
I agree with you in regards to user created maps and posting replays, etc.
However your following statements seem to suggest that a company does not have the right to attempt to prevent unlawful sale or piracy of its products. I may have misintrepeted you in that regard.
|
@Deastin
Well, I'm actually trying to say that's one of the few rights I think Blizzard truly deserves for their products. Not all this extra hocus pocus. I also think that the weak precedent within related law, might have something to do with these sorts of things happening with computer games. Thus, Blizzard seems to be doing whatever it pleases without regard, just seeing what they can get away with.
Continued analogy:
I feel a phone company, that manufactures their own phones and provides a service for them, should not be able to own the conversation you have on their phone through their services and thus be able to record and sell/use your idea's without credit or compensation, just the same as they should not be allowed to force a link between their own product, a phone, and their own personal phone services. Blizzard takes this analogy even farther, claiming that everything that is created out of or a part of SC2 is theirs, meaning that if SC2 is used a a tool to create something it wasn't in it at the start, like a pen to create art or a CG using photoshop, it is owned by the original corporation that sold you the tool even though it had no hands in the knew finished product and, the customer has bought the tool to create it, not borrowed or loaned. The concept is utterly bogus and, results in the product and related services costing the public way more then they should, because competition and the growth of related services/features for the product is more or less completely stunted. (Keep in mind I'm by no means saying phone companies tend to do this or are doing it all the time, I really have no idea, since most seem to be just using incentives and not a TOS when you buy the phone, to get someone to use their services. Just seemed like a good analogy.)
|
This is very very interesting, and I'd want to see if any US court would come to the same conclusions as the KFTC. Especially that last clause in the ToS about being able to terminate service at any time...IANAL and all that, but it seems to me like that would be deemed unconscionable under US contract law (any reasonable legal system, actually). Pretty much that clause states, "OK, when you make a battle.net account, we're going to agree to these things, BUT I get to revoke my end of the promise (delivering the gaming experience) whenever and for whatever reason I wish." That makes the ToS not really a valid contract. It's pretty oppressive and one-sided.
|
On June 21 2010 17:05 Waxangel 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. dude.... a guy just got banned for posting what you just posted -.-
Some people never learn, It is really nice they changed it though.
|
So at the moment the rest of the world does not enjoy these new TOS rights? Is there anything we can do to push for these changes for the rest of the world?
|
The FTC in US will not care what the TOS is because the US does not have an economic interest in the sale of the game in this country. Its "just another game" being sold on shelves among hundreds of games. The federal government is not in place to make any sort of "moral" judgments on how players should be treated by companies. It only enforces laws that are created as the minimum moral standard.
In SK though, starcraft is a major player in the entertainment industry. Leaving the terms as they were would hurt major companies that play a key role in koreas economy. The korean government asking for these changes because the korean government has an interest in protecting its industries. Also the fact that korea has a reputation for using protectionist economic policies, this only lives up to that reputation.
Blizzard has an economic interest in korea as well because it is a significant share of their revenue. To simply ignore the requests would probably result in being excluded from the korean market, which would be a huge mistake on their part.
You people need to realize there is no "player" interest in these changes nor is anything being "made right" for anyone. It is all simply about money, because that is the bottom line in business.
|
On June 30 2010 04:33 shamanglove wrote:+ Show Spoiler +@Deastin
Well, I'm actually trying to say that's one of the few rights I think Blizzard truly deserves for their products. Not all this extra hocus pocus. I also think that the weak precedent within related law, might have something to do with these sorts of things happening with computer games. Thus, Blizzard seems to be doing whatever it pleases without regard, just seeing what they can get away with.
Continued analogy:
I feel a phone company, that manufactures their own phones and provides a service for them, should not be able to own the conversation you have on their phone through their services and thus be able to record and sell/use your idea's without credit or compensation, just the same as they should not be allowed to force a link between their own product, a phone, and their own personal phone services. Blizzard takes this analogy even farther, claiming that everything that is created out of or a part of SC2 is theirs, meaning that if SC2 is used a a tool to create something it wasn't in it at the start, like a pen to create art or a CG using photoshop, it is owned by the original corporation that sold you the tool even though it had no hands in the knew finished product and, the customer has bought the tool to create it, not borrowed or loaned. The concept is utterly bogus and, results in the product and related services costing the public way more then they should, because competition and the growth of related services/features for the product is more or less completely stunted. (Keep in mind I'm by no means saying phone companies tend to do this or are doing it all the time, I really have no idea, since most seem to be just using incentives and not a TOS when you buy the phone, to get someone to use their services. Just seemed like a good analogy.)
Actually a better analogy is where documents created by Microsoft Word never will be owned by microsoft even if microsoft decides put that in their EULA. Clear violation of rights.
HOWEVER. I'm sorry folks I studied copyright law so here comes the however.
In terms of replay, it is a recording of a game. The important issue is how much of materials Blizzard has provided in order to "create" that replay. To give you an example, what you say in a phone conversation is not limited, you can say anything. In a video game the actions you take are limited by the GUI, units and etc by the video game company. That is to say Blizzard's program directly interacts with a replay and majority portion of what happens in a replay is what "Blizzard" has done. The complication is court will find impossible to determine which parts of the replays are created by the user. Furthermore Blizzard's intention of the replay program is for users to watch what they have done or to show them to other people, not "create" replays.
In terms of UMS, Blizzard is in violating fundamental copyright principles. Anyone could see that the limitations given by the Editor is very little and majority of the portion belongs to the map maker in most cases (usually in custom maps). In this case a person could argue that the the Editor acts like a word processor. Blizzard's intention for the program is giving people the ability to "create" new maps or even games. Blizzard won't have a lot to argue about here if they were to go to court.
It's funny because the lawyers who wrote the EULA knows these materials belong to the user. Have a look at this line in EULA regarding the materials created by users.
To the extent permitted by applicable laws, you hereby waive any moral rights you may have in any Content.
Sad really, they can write "you hereby waive power of attorney to Blizzard" in their EULA but it doesn't make it applicable.
EDIT:
Okay that makes sense. They made the ToS so that it gives Blizzard "the right" to stop, reject and control all user created contents. Also it gives them right to pursue anyone who wrongfully use the user created content.
Important part and change in ToS
게임내에서 보여지지 않고 게임과 일체화되지 않은 귀하의 이용자 콘텐츠 (예컨대, 일반게시판등에의 게시물)에 대하여는 블리자드가 귀하의 명시적인 동의가 없이 상업적으로 이용하지 않으며, 귀하는 언제든지 이러한 이용자 콘텐츠를 삭제할 수 있습니다.
다만, 이러한 이용이 법률에 의하여 제한을 받을 경우, 블리자드는 해당 법률 규정에 따릅니다.
Blizzard no longer have ownership over them. They just added a condition that people have to abide the general law. Nothing has really changed, just that UMS/replay belong to the map creator now. However people still can't sell them or do anything that violates EULA.
Sense of ownership is nice though~~ Also now Blizzard can't "steal" your map idea. Though they probably wouldn't anyway. So nothing has changed.
I hope ToS changes for other countries too, I mean we all have the same copyright law, word for word T-T
|
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.
Thanks for clearing stuff up for me Empyrean.
Thanks for translating l10f.
|
This is very very interesting, and I'd want to see if any US court would come to the same conclusions as the KFTC. Especially that last clause in the ToS about being able to terminate service at any time...IANAL and all that, but it seems to me like that would be deemed unconscionable under US contract law (any reasonable legal system, actually). Pretty much that clause states, "OK, when you make a battle.net account, we're going to agree to these things, BUT I get to revoke my end of the promise (delivering the gaming experience) whenever and for whatever reason I wish." That makes the ToS not really a valid contract. It's pretty oppressive and one-sided.
The service termination clause makes sense for subscription games like WoW where both parties can terminate the contract at any time and stop supplying the other party with money/gametime.
When it comes to games like SC2 where the service is permanent, I'd suspect that you could go to small claims court and get your money back if they terminate your service since if they remove what you paid for, then you're usually entitled to your money.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
