|
On June 03 2010 04:11 Pholon wrote:
Also I'm sorry if my shindig is too complicated. I really don't wanna go and spell it all out, but it pissed me off that people come in here and calling it weak and feeble while they don't understand what's going on.
It is not so much complicated as it is simply too strongly biased towards the progamer's contribution in all of this. Sure, many people can see their performance as art-like, but it's still too much to comfortably swallow compared to disparate distribution from your analogy. Also, the fact that you stubbornly refuse to clearly explain it and instead belittle other for not understanding what you really mean makes this whole mess feels like sophistry - hiding behind satire leaves you quite a bit room to bend your subtle arguments against your detractors as you see fit.
|
On June 03 2010 00:26 Klockan3 wrote:
A game is however also a lot like a movie, you are not free to broadcast movies however you please. In conventional sports the players is the only relevant thing but for E-sports both are equally important which is why no analogy like this will ever work.
If you want to think of SC as an 'e-sport' then you have to use the rules of professional sport. You're sort of right that they're like movies. The movie rights are owned by the studio (FIFA/Kespa) which represents the actors (players). If you want to broadcast the movie (match), you have to pay the studio (FIFA/Kespa).
The game itself is more like the script of a movie. The writer owns the rights and studios buy them. Blizzard owns the rights to their game and we buy it.
On June 03 2010 00:30 RiOrius wrote:
This is because professional sports don't involve someone else's intellectual property.
Actually they do. Very prominently too. Professional sports survive on advertising revenue and athletes make the kind of money they do because of endorsements. Product placement features prominently in every broadcast. Nike gets more airtime on the shirts of athletes than all their direct advertising combined. And they pay more for it too.
In professional sports, you are PAID to use someone else's intellectual property. Kespa/OGN/MBC is actually providing Blizzard with free advertising for their game. If anything, they have the right to demand payment for it.
On June 03 2010 00:30 RiOrius wrote:
Similarly, is some guys want to make money by broadcasting a game composed entirely of art and game mechanics created and owned by Blizzard, said guys should really have to get Blizzard's permission to do so.
Hence the paint analogy. In the same way the artist BUYS paint from the paint maker, gamers BUY SC from Blizzard. Blizzard has already been remunerated for their game, in the same way that the paint maker has.
Perhaps a more contemporary example might be clearer. Adobe makes Photoshop and sells it to photographers who use it to edit their photos.Those photos could not exist in that form without Photoshop because the sophisticated manipulations afforded are unique to Photoshop, the intellectual property of Adobe. Yet legally, Adobe has no rights over the photos edited by their program.
|
On June 03 2010 23:21 theSAiNT wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2010 00:30 RiOrius wrote:
This is because professional sports don't involve someone else's intellectual property.
Actually they do. Very prominently too. Professional sports survive on advertising revenue and athletes make the kind of money they do because of endorsements. Product placement features prominently in every broadcast. Nike gets more airtime on the shirts of athletes than all their direct advertising combined. And they pay more for it too. In professional sports, you are PAID to use someone else's intellectual property. Kespa/OGN/MBC is actually providing Blizzard with free advertising for their game. If anything, they have the right to demand payment for it.
There is a huge difference here, they are not advertising new products! The sports teams are not paid to use the same old shoes that everyone already got, instead they are paid to use the brand new shoes to get them out on the market. If we would have it your way Blizzard would pay everyone to stop playing starcraft and instead force them to play starcraft 2, that is how they do it in every other sport. Then to get this rolling they would make a new game every year as well, then that would earn them a huge amount of money which they can fuel into e-sports which would fuel their sales and we now got the same model as conventional sports!!
Is that really what you want?
No, so as an incentive for them to focus on quality instead of quantity they should get a share of the money generated by E-sports.
On June 03 2010 04:11 Pholon wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2010 00:26 Klockan3 wrote:I don't understand why you said that Blizzard retracted the paintings, all the games played and all the vods made are still there. Also lets call it a frame for paintings instead of paint, then what just happened is that the frame manufacturer wants money for you to show off his frames. You say that it is the paintings that is the most important aspect but to totally ignore the frame is ridiculous. Of course the paintings is the biggest aspect but I don't think that Blizzard wants that big of a share... And the reason people are bitching now is since you can't switch the frames since there are no alternatives that are even comparable, a huge reason the painting community flourishes like it does is due to these excellent frames so why should the frame maker get totally ignored? It is like, as it is now every artist bought one set of frames, then he painted a painting in it and shows it off. Then he removes the frame and paints another painting to show off etc. Only that with electronic things you don't remove, you copy. It costs more to buy a movie than to go to the cinema, and even more to buy a movie that you are allowed to lease. It is exactly the same movie, you are just buying more rights. According to most people on TL if you are a cinema owner and buys a movie in a normal store and then sells tickets to that movie the movie maker would be out of his mind if he wanted compensation for that since all he did was the movie. You bought it legally in the store so you should be allowed to do whatever you want with it and he didn't provide the cinema experience which is the biggest reason people go to a cinema instead of just renting the movie but still he comes and complains thinking that you stole his IP... On June 02 2010 23:34 theSAiNT wrote:On June 02 2010 07:10 KingPants wrote:
I agree that Koreans contributed greatly to the success of Starcraft, I don't believe said Koreans should gain ownership of Starcraft because of that.
I really don't understand how people still think this way. Think of EVERY professional sport in the world. Who owns the rights to sell tickets and broadcasting rights? Either, 1) a body representing the players or 2) the tournament organizer. Blizzard is NEITHER of these. A game is however also a lot like a movie, you are not free to broadcast movies however you please. In conventional sports the players is the only relevant thing but for E-sports both are equally important which is why no analogy like this will ever work. Stop creating different paint-like metaphors. If everyone comes up with new ones it'll jsut confuse. In stead focus on what's wrong with mine. So no, let's not call it that. And to get to your post: No, the -games- are not the -paintings-. The paintings are the art created with the paint and therefore represent the "art" created from BroodWar. I'm not saying Blizzard is deleting VODs, I dunno where you got that, it's that they're taking the art away from the people responsible for having created the art which is a giant kick in the metaphoric balls. Also I'm sorry if my shindig is too complicated. I really don't wanna go and spell it all out, but it pissed me off that people come in here and calling it weak and feeble while they don't understand what's going on.
I am not calling your metaphor weak, you just don't explain what you are really talking about. Okay, so the paintings is the community... The problem with that metaphor is that it is kinda strange, they are not killing the old community and they are not forcing anyone to use the new paint. However they are trying to get their share, my metaphor explains perfectly why it isn't strange for them to ask for this.
|
On June 03 2010 23:21 theSAiNT wrote:
The game itself is more like the script of a movie. The writer owns the rights and studios buy them. Blizzard owns the rights to their game and we buy it.
This was so close to being an appropriate analogy. But you got tripped up at the end.
Studios buy not just the script, but the rights to produce and market a movie from said script. We haven't bought the rights to broadcast Starcraft games, only to play them. Blizzard still gets to manage the right to broadcast the games.
Compare to purchasing a DVD copy of a movie. You've bought the movie, but you're not allowed to broadcast it in a theater and charge admission.
On June 03 2010 23:21 theSAiNT wrote:
In professional sports, you are PAID to use someone else's intellectual property. Kespa/OGN/MBC is actually providing Blizzard with free advertising for their game. If anything, they have the right to demand payment for it.
*sigh*
When it comes to IP and product placement, the person who decides whether something is "advertising" or "using the IP to turn a profit" is the IP owner.
So for instance, if I wanted to make a line of Star Wars action figures, I don't get to say that such action figures are free advertising for George Lucas. I need his permission, and he gets to decide: does he benefit from letting me use the IP, or do I?
IP goes both ways. Sometimes it's good for the IP for the IP to be prominently displayed (product placement, for instance). Sometime's it's good for the displayer for the IP to be prominently displayed (Star Wars action figures sell a heck of a lot better than generic sci-fi action figures).
Blizzard gets to decide whether they think Blizzard benefits from Kespa, or vice-versa. It's their right to make that decision.
On June 03 2010 23:21 theSAiNT wrote:
Perhaps a more contemporary example might be clearer. Adobe makes Photoshop and sells it to photographers who use it to edit their photos.Those photos could not exist in that form without Photoshop because the sophisticated manipulations afforded are unique to Photoshop, the intellectual property of Adobe. Yet legally, Adobe has no rights over the photos edited by their program.
That's because of the license that Photoshop comes with. It's intended for professional use, and the license accounts for that. Usually. The student edition, for instance, comes with a license that only allows it to be installed on personal computers. So even if you're a student (and thus eligible for the student edition), you can't use the student edition of photoshop at work: you need a different (and more expensive) license to have that right.
The Starcraft license, meanwhile, isn't intended for professional and broadcast use. It's intended for personal use only. Purchasing the game does not give you the right to broadcast it for a profit, any more than purchasing a DVD of Toy Story gives you the right to show it in a theater.
|
United States17042 Posts
|
|
|
"Gomi Televiccini" :D Beautiful read, although admittedly i only got it at the '10 years later..." part
|
FREEAGLELAND26781 Posts
Dude I just realized that this had been FPed :>
|
i love the metaphor and i lol'd at the gomi televiccini
well done
|
United States335 Posts
Hey remember when we were paranoid enough to worry about this? Good times.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
