My name is Lizzare Atisione. Many of you may not know me now, but in the year of our Lord 1493 I brought a particularly successful brand of oil paint to the Italian shores.
It was a mixture I'd spent years perfecting: balancing out each ingredient to complement all the others. It was long, tedious and delicate work, but it proved to be my masterpiece. I sold my paint from small stores in Italy, travelling around the country as I went, trying to offer my product to whomever would be willing to try it out for their recreation. Thus, I hoped to make a good living. Only, I was more fortunate than that.
I was truly blessed to have lived in this era of our world's history - the birth of the Renaissance. As people all around Europe started exploring their artistic capabilities, looking back at the glorious past and progressing into aesthetics in its purest forms, craftsmen, sculptors, writers and painters alike flourished among my contemporaries.
It was the last group that noticed my particular brand of paint and word of its grand quality spread rapidly. At first, sales only steadily grew, but soon I was overwhelmed by the demand for my work. It quickly became the most used and most appreciated among Italy's most renowned painters.
Raffaello Sanzio da Urbino, the famed architect used my paint. Leonardo da Vinci, inventor and savant used my paint. Michelangelo Buonarroti, the would-be creator of the Sistine Chapel used my paint.
My paint. My child. My legacy.
My business thrived and I lived happily. I had more success than I could have ever hoped for and it was only surpassed by these artists who used the fruit of my labour. Their paintings were numerous and each one more beautiful than the last. They invented and discovered. New techniques surfaced - perspective, scaling, and creating three dimensionality on a two dimensional surface. They gained acclaim, becoming both famous and loved by the people. For many years, their works were displayed in galleries and the public looked on in awe, astounded by these masterpieces.
Ten years later I developed a new formula. The new oil paint was mixed with varnish and anything made with it would shine like the silver moon itself. Sure of my success, I returned to Italy after spending many years abroad. To my amazement, people were still looking at the old paintings, not giving my new product a second thought or seeming to desire change at all.
I sent out letters to the painters to tell them I had decided they had to recall their paintings, taking them from the galleries and storing them away. It was my paint after all.
It did come to my mind that people might miss looking at the beautiful art that was once created from my efforts. I decided I needed to fill this hole. I visited my friend Gomi Televiccini and paid him handsomely to take up painting. I was sure people would love the works made with my new, shiny paint and ensured all who asked that my actions were beneficial to the development of our new day's art.
Thus I made the artistic world of Italy's renaissance a better place, making sure the works then created were supervised by a capable figure and with the optimal equipment. There is no need to thank me, I lived to serve.
Many a dart Of sore lament assail’d me, headed all With points of thrilling pity, that I closed Both ears against the volley with mine hands. As were the torment, if each lazar-house Had heap’d their maladies all in one foss Together; such was here the torment: dire The stench, as issuing streams from fester’d limbs.
A lake, whose frozen surface liker seem'd To glass than water. Blue pinch'd and shrined in ice the spirits stood, Moving their teeth in shrill note like the stork. His face each downward held; their mouth the cold, Their eyes express'd the dolour of their heart.
Dante's Inferno - 9th Circle: Betrayers
Thanks to Delerium, flamewheel, flicky and disciple
On May 31 2010 08:26 LunarDestiny wrote: I am totally confused. Nice article but I can't find any starcraft 2 reference in it.
On May 31 2010 08:31 elmizzt wrote: Too vague. Also, you didn't bother to try to make a point with all this fancy metaphor.
Seriously?
Anyhow, I really like the metaphor, although there is quite a difference between paint and a game. Since, well, Blizzard isn't selling you the game. They are selling you the right to use the game under a specific set on conditions.
Interesting style for commentary on the broadcast rights issue (if I'm interpreting the OP correctly) however I don't think there were patent laws to protect others from producing Lizzare Atisione's paint in renaissance Italy nor would Atisione have the authority to force patrons to take down art they had purchased simply b/c the inventor of the paint the artist used didn't want them displayed.
Of course debating the historical context is pointless but it is the contemporaneous context of ownership rights and potential profit that drive the current debate about Kespa/Blizzard so I'm not sure I buy the arguments advanced by the OP.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the writing style, and lol'd at the metaphor. I just don't think the discussion that this thread is supposed to contribute is anything that hasn't been discussed hundreds of times in other threads.
Still, I guess this is worth it for the funny name "Lizzare Atisione" haha xD
This analogy does a good job speaking to the morality of how one should assert their intellectual property rights. However, legally it kinda breaks down. The paint maker has a utility patent on his paint, whereas Blizzard also has a copyright (and that's where it derives the authority to license the transmitting and broadcasting of its product).
Can someone explain how the OP is a metaphor for the Starcraft situation? Do people just see lots of words + shitting on blizzard and automatically think the post is good?
Paint is more like a programming language then the game itself. The artist would be blizzard, and KeSPA would be some gallery that charges money for the public to see the painting.
If I create the Mona Lisa. I then allow an art gallery to display it at their gallery for 3 years, for a nominal fee. After the 3 years, the Mona Lisa is supposed to come back to me possession, but the Art Gallery won't give it back to me. Who's painting is it?
On May 31 2010 08:50 Slow Motion wrote: This analogy does a good job speaking to the morality of how one should assert their intellectual property rights. However, legally it kinda breaks down. The paint maker has a utility patent on his paint, whereas Blizzard also has a copyright (and that's where it derives the authority to license the transmitting and broadcasting of its product).
It's not nearly as much about that as it is about the original paint allowing painters to make beautiful things with it, and thinking that making better paint will make better paintings and trying to enforce it to give you the credit.
Heheh, well done, I skim read it at first like i always do and got totally confused so had to re read it properly from the start before understanding it :p
Meh. Screw the Mona Lisa.. Postcard sized painting hidden behind sheets of glass and hundreds of people, hardly worth your time except to say you've seen it. :D
On May 31 2010 08:50 Slow Motion wrote: This analogy does a good job speaking to the morality of how one should assert their intellectual property rights. However, legally it kinda breaks down. The paint maker has a utility patent on his paint, whereas Blizzard also has a copyright (and that's where it derives the authority to license the transmitting and broadcasting of its product).
It's not nearly as much about that as it is about the original paint allowing painters to make beautiful things with it, and thinking that making better paint will make better paintings and trying to enforce it to give you the credit.
That's part of it, but I was talking about the withdrawal of the painting made with original paint and licensing the new painter. Basically the Kespa/Gom situation. The whole SC2 thing is all entangled in this whole thing too though.
On May 31 2010 09:33 jackofclubs81 wrote: IMO this is almost as good (if not better) than the MSL finals hype article that copied 300. Very well written.
I'd agree with you, but I didn't copy 300. Only the pictures did :<
Elegant post, terrible metaphor. Kespa has spent the past decade getting a "free ride" from Blizzard. They have made plenty of money off of another company's product while trying really hard to prevent anyone else from broadcasting SC:BW. I shed no tears over their getting shut down by Blizzard. If Kespa loses the ensuing legal battle, all the good players will go to gomtv.
Going off of my patent/copyright point, I think Blizzard would say that BW and SC2 is not analogous to paint. They would argue that the game is a painting in itself, and they have the right to control its distribution.
Now you may argue that BW is merely the canvas on which players such as Boxer and NaDa have painted masterpieces, but the law (in the U.S.) is on Blizzard's side. Not only does Blizzard have a right to the actual code of the game, it also has a potential property right in all possible visuals and other media that flow from the code (ex. the actual games that you see on tv).
Isn't this just a passive-aggressive, condescending way of casting Blizzard into the deepest bit of hell for the same grievances we've all had for weeks? I see no new ideas in this, it's just the old talking-points wrapped up in elegant writing and metaphor.
On May 31 2010 10:39 Redmark wrote: Isn't this just a passive-aggressive, condescending way of casting Blizzard into the deepest bit of hell for the same grievances we've all had for weeks? I see no new ideas in this, it's just the old talking-points wrapped up in elegant writing and metaphor.
/golfclap
If you can't appreciate elegant writing and metaphor, I pity you.
Wow. I'm fairly amazed that you were able to come up with such a beautifully accurate metaphor only a day or two after that announcement, never mind coming up with the very cute italian-sounding names based off of Blizzard and Gom. Well written, and great thinking. I just can't give you enough praise.
On May 31 2010 11:31 deathgod6 wrote: I don't know why so many people are complaining. Great writing, if this isn't on the front page yet it should be.
It's because even though it's very well written and clever the analogy isn't the greatest.
The thing with the analogy is the paint is a relatively cheap and easy element to find or replace, and there has never been a situation when artists had to completely stop their work if they can't buy a specific brand of paint.
Meanwhile Starcraft is far ahead of any other eSport games and the entire progaming industry totally relies on it.
On May 31 2010 09:11 Titan48 wrote: Paint is more like a programming language then the game itself. The artist would be blizzard, and KeSPA would be some gallery that charges money for the public to see the painting.
If I create the Mona Lisa. I then allow an art gallery to display it at their gallery for 3 years, for a nominal fee. After the 3 years, the Mona Lisa is supposed to come back to me possession, but the Art Gallery won't give it back to me. Who's painting is it?
On May 31 2010 08:22 Pholon wrote: Thus I made the artistic world of Italy's renaissance a better place, making sure the works then created were supervised by a capable figure and with the optimal equipment. There is no need to thank me, I lived to serve.
Pretty much the best thread ever... finally someone who knows his stylistic devices. Also, everyone using la divina comedia for a post gets an autowin in my diamond division of OPs.
Except you forgot the part where Raffaello, Leonardo and Michelangelo actually couldn't paint, and instead owned a dungeon full of talented artists. They would piss all over the majority of these artists, forcing them to paint hours on end under inhumane conditions in this dungeon, except two or three, whom they would give a decent wage. The Raffaello, Leonardo and Michelangelo team, (RLM), also owns all the museums in which the works are displayed, collecting large bags of renaissance dollars from the church who wants to promote their religion to the fans of these artists. Infact some of these church leaders decided to jump aboard and join RLM to help in ensuring art continues to be cranked.
Since RLM owns all the major artists and museums, any independant artists or museums get pushed into having no renaissance dollars and having to move out of art altogether. There were even some artists who attempted to try using a different paint, or a different medium such as sculpture, but RLM pushed them out as well.
So although we acknowledge Lizzare Atisone is an ignorant bumbling baffoon, and with the downfall of RLM we might see the destruction of some beautiful art, as long as Lizzare Atisone gets his act together, impressionism might be right around the corner.
On May 31 2010 09:11 Titan48 wrote: The artist would be blizzard, and KeSPA would be some gallery that charges money for the public to see the painting.
On May 31 2010 22:41 ImSkeptical wrote: A nice metaphor.
Except you forgot the part where Raffaello, Leonardo and Michelangelo actually couldn't paint, and instead owned a dungeon full of talented artists. They would piss all over the majority of these artists, forcing them to paint hours on end under inhumane conditions in this dungeon, except two or three, whom they would give a decent wage. The Raffaello, Leonardo and Michelangelo team, (RLM), also owns all the museums in which the works are displayed, collecting large bags of renaissance dollars from the church who wants to promote their religion to the fans of these artists. Infact some of these church leaders decided to jump aboard and join RLM to help in ensuring art continues to be cranked.
Since RLM owns all the major artists and museums, any independant artists or museums get pushed into having no renaissance dollars and having to move out of art altogether. There were even some artists who attempted to try using a different paint, or a different medium such as sculpture, but RLM pushed them out as well.
So although we acknowledge Lizzare Atisone is an ignorant bumbling baffoon, and with the downfall of RLM we might see the destruction of some beautiful art, as long as Lizzare Atisone gets his act together, impressionism might be right around the corner.
Finally some discussion =)
The artists in the allegory don't represent kespa though, or even the players. They are the entirety of the Korean scene, the enormous number of people who've worked hard for 10 years to get Starcraft where it is now and without whom Starcraft would have been nowhere near where it is now. Sure, I don't particularly like kespa either, but they are part of that group of people that cultured and helped Starcraft grow.
However, don't think the metaphor works. As someone has posted already. The paint would be the programming language (like C++ or similar) and the initial painter would be blizzard. Now, the e-sport community would be the those that take the painting and do other amazing creative work with it. In other words, the problem is complex and the solution is probably no less complicated. If I am the supreme ruler of the world, I would suggest each party having the ability to take a FAIR cut of the profit generated from it.
On May 31 2010 09:11 Titan48 wrote: Can someone explain how the OP is a metaphor for the Starcraft situation? Do people just see lots of words + shitting on blizzard and automatically think the post is good?
Paint is more like a programming language then the game itself. The artist would be blizzard, and KeSPA would be some gallery that charges money for the public to see the painting.
If I create the Mona Lisa. I then allow an art gallery to display it at their gallery for 3 years, for a nominal fee. After the 3 years, the Mona Lisa is supposed to come back to me possession, but the Art Gallery won't give it back to me. Who's painting is it?
everyone should get like this guy because this metaphor is crazy inaccurate and you should actually look past how elegantly written it is and look at what it actually means
On May 31 2010 09:11 Titan48 wrote: Can someone explain how the OP is a metaphor for the Starcraft situation? Do people just see lots of words + shitting on blizzard and automatically think the post is good?
Paint is more like a programming language then the game itself. The artist would be blizzard, and KeSPA would be some gallery that charges money for the public to see the painting.
If I create the Mona Lisa. I then allow an art gallery to display it at their gallery for 3 years, for a nominal fee. After the 3 years, the Mona Lisa is supposed to come back to me possession, but the Art Gallery won't give it back to me. Who's painting is it?
everyone should get like this guy because this metaphor is crazy inaccurate and you should actually look past how elegantly written it is and look at what it actually means
I've read people think it's inaccurate and flimsy but noone explains why.
People who complain about the metaphor and that it's inaccurate etc, should just try to appriciate some good writing tbh. I can agree to some extent, but it doesnt make it bad.
On May 31 2010 08:23 flamewheel wrote: First! No kids, don't do this.
I very much like this. People don't flame in here :<
On May 31 2010 08:31 blabber wrote: I hate Lizzare Atisione
On May 31 2010 08:31 elmizzt wrote: Too vague. Also, you didn't bother to try to make a point with all this fancy metaphor.
You must be fucking kidding me... Why do people choose to post shit without skimming the posts? Nobody cares if you hate the guy or if you want to insult the writer of the post, is it really worth it to chime in and tell us you dislike the man? If you don't like what is being posted just don't post anything at all... It's a time saver.
On May 31 2010 09:11 Titan48 wrote: Can someone explain how the OP is a metaphor for the Starcraft situation? Do people just see lots of words + shitting on blizzard and automatically think the post is good?
Paint is more like a programming language then the game itself. The artist would be blizzard, and KeSPA would be some gallery that charges money for the public to see the painting.
If I create the Mona Lisa. I then allow an art gallery to display it at their gallery for 3 years, for a nominal fee. After the 3 years, the Mona Lisa is supposed to come back to me possession, but the Art Gallery won't give it back to me. Who's painting is it?
everyone should get like this guy because this metaphor is crazy inaccurate and you should actually look past how elegantly written it is and look at what it actually means
I've read people think it's inaccurate and flimsy but noone explains why.
I think it is that some people try to relate objects' physical properties as a metaphor, rather than their function.
On May 31 2010 09:11 Titan48 wrote: Can someone explain how the OP is a metaphor for the Starcraft situation? Do people just see lots of words + shitting on blizzard and automatically think the post is good?
Paint is more like a programming language then the game itself. The artist would be blizzard, and KeSPA would be some gallery that charges money for the public to see the painting.
If I create the Mona Lisa. I then allow an art gallery to display it at their gallery for 3 years, for a nominal fee. After the 3 years, the Mona Lisa is supposed to come back to me possession, but the Art Gallery won't give it back to me. Who's painting is it?
everyone should get like this guy because this metaphor is crazy inaccurate and you should actually look past how elegantly written it is and look at what it actually means
The point of the article was to show that too much control stifles creativity. That there would be no Mona Lisa (great Starcraft for the fans) without letting the artists (the players, coaches, commentators etc.) be free to display their skills. It doesn't have to make perfect analogous sense.
On May 31 2010 22:41 ImSkeptical wrote: A nice metaphor.
Except you forgot the part where Raffaello, Leonardo and Michelangelo actually couldn't paint, and instead owned a dungeon full of talented artists. They would piss all over the majority of these artists, forcing them to paint hours on end under inhumane conditions in this dungeon, except two or three, whom they would give a decent wage. The Raffaello, Leonardo and Michelangelo team, (RLM), also owns all the museums in which the works are displayed, collecting large bags of renaissance dollars from the church who wants to promote their religion to the fans of these artists. Infact some of these church leaders decided to jump aboard and join RLM to help in ensuring art continues to be cranked.
Since RLM owns all the major artists and museums, any independant artists or museums get pushed into having no renaissance dollars and having to move out of art altogether. There were even some artists who attempted to try using a different paint, or a different medium such as sculpture, but RLM pushed them out as well.
So although we acknowledge Lizzare Atisone is an ignorant bumbling baffoon, and with the downfall of RLM we might see the destruction of some beautiful art, as long as Lizzare Atisone gets his act together, impressionism might be right around the corner.
Finally some discussion =)
The artists in the allegory don't represent kespa though, or even the players. They are the entirety of the Korean scene, the enormous number of people who've worked hard for 10 years to get Starcraft where it is now and without whom Starcraft would have been nowhere near where it is now. Sure, I don't particularly like kespa either, but they are part of that group of people that cultured and helped Starcraft grow.
Well if you put it that way thats no fun. Its a perfectly agreeable sentiment xD. A certain level of respect and a certain level of awareness needs to be shown and its not clear that Blizzard at all acknowledges this.
On May 31 2010 09:11 Titan48 wrote: Can someone explain how the OP is a metaphor for the Starcraft situation? Do people just see lots of words + shitting on blizzard and automatically think the post is good?
Paint is more like a programming language then the game itself. The artist would be blizzard, and KeSPA would be some gallery that charges money for the public to see the painting.
If I create the Mona Lisa. I then allow an art gallery to display it at their gallery for 3 years, for a nominal fee. After the 3 years, the Mona Lisa is supposed to come back to me possession, but the Art Gallery won't give it back to me. Who's painting is it?
everyone should get like this guy because this metaphor is crazy inaccurate and you should actually look past how elegantly written it is and look at what it actually means
The point of the article was to show that too much control stifles creativity. That there would be no Mona Lisa (great Starcraft for the fans) without letting the artists (the players, coaches, commentators etc.) be free to display their skills. It doesn't have to make perfect analogous sense.
I liked it.
Thank you. Please, if you took the time to read the OP, don't obsess over the minutiae of the analogy. Focus on what Blizzard-Activision is doing to E-sports.
Blizzard back in 2003 didn't care that Starcraft was being broadcasted, and this was before they were making mega-millions with WoW subscriptions. Blizzard has not been the company I was loyal to for many years... not since the Activision merger.
Think about it. If I give you a seed, and then you cultivate it and let it grow into a tree, I can't very well come back to you later and say "I'll have that tree now, thx". Korea turned Starcraft into something amazing. They balanced the game, they made the maps, the developed the gameplay. They turned it into a spectator sport. Blizzard did none of this.
Activision-Blizzard doesn't care about E-sports, they care about CONTROLLING E-sports to make a profit. Micro-transactions for an RTS? LOL?
It's all absolutely ridiculous. Why am I able to watch Super Street Fighter 4 tournaments and other events? Because those companies aren't pissing all over e-sports, that's why.
Also, my contribution:
Sun-11:13:10 <Pholon> think of a way to make TV sound like an Italian name.. Sun-11:13:31 <Delerium> Televiccini? Sun-11:13:34 <Pholon> Tivo.. Sun-11:13:39 <Pholon> oh Sun-11:13:43 <Pholon> that's good
On May 31 2010 08:50 Slow Motion wrote: This analogy does a good job speaking to the morality of how one should assert their intellectual property rights. However, legally it kinda breaks down. The paint maker has a utility patent on his paint, whereas Blizzard also has a copyright (and that's where it derives the authority to license the transmitting and broadcasting of its product).
Intellectual property has always struck me as fairly thin, as legal concepts go. But that's just my wacky opinion.
On May 31 2010 09:11 Titan48 wrote: Can someone explain how the OP is a metaphor for the Starcraft situation? Do people just see lots of words + shitting on blizzard and automatically think the post is good?
Paint is more like a programming language then the game itself. The artist would be blizzard, and KeSPA would be some gallery that charges money for the public to see the painting.
If I create the Mona Lisa. I then allow an art gallery to display it at their gallery for 3 years, for a nominal fee. After the 3 years, the Mona Lisa is supposed to come back to me possession, but the Art Gallery won't give it back to me. Who's painting is it?
Generally, the painting is purchased or even comissioned by a wealthy patron, who has physical ownership of the painting. Who then keeps it in his gigantic house for quite a while. Eventually a museum may acquire a piece or a few or all of a wealthy art collector's stash of priceless dutch oils.
As I understand the OP's metaphor, the public is the wealthy patron, blizzard the manufacturer of supplies, the whole SC scene is the community of professional artists including the great maestros. But it doesn't have to hold up to your close analysis, it's just a poetic and timely piece of writing.
I don't think this metaphor compares very well because the entire creative process (IP) is essentially in the hands of the painters. The metaphor assumes Starcraft is simply a tool to make creative art. The equivalent would be more like the computers that Blizzard uses to make the game would be the paint. Starcraft is the painting and Blizzard is the painter. KESPA is the art gallery that decided to make a big show/ charge money without contacting the painter to see if that would be okay. (I don't know how the art gallery would've gotten the painting without that though- all analogies eventually break down.)
The point is that the gaming community got good at Blizzard's work of art, but to comparing gamers to painters is analogous to comparing racecar drivers to manufacturers of the F1. Sure a better driver will win more races, but it's still a hell of a car no matter who drives it. The creativeness lies with Blizzard. The gamers use that as platform to be creative within the system that Blizzard already created.
As I see it, the creativity of the painter is greater than that of the person that creates the paint. (Ignoring the fact that painters are often experimenting with paints anyways.) But if you counter that the gaming communities' creativity exceeds that of Blizzard, then I think you are delusional. Yes the community figured out weird micro tricks and things that Blizzard probably didn't consider when they made it. However, it's all using their platform and really the sum of the game is greater than the fact that someone figured out how to stack mutas. It makes the game better, but it doesn't replace or exceed the level of sophistication that makes up the entirety of SCBW.
On May 31 2010 08:50 Slow Motion wrote: This analogy does a good job speaking to the morality of how one should assert their intellectual property rights. However, legally it kinda breaks down. The paint maker has a utility patent on his paint, whereas Blizzard also has a copyright (and that's where it derives the authority to license the transmitting and broadcasting of its product).
Intellectual property has always struck me as fairly thin, as legal concepts go. But that's just my wacky opinion.
On May 31 2010 09:11 Titan48 wrote: Can someone explain how the OP is a metaphor for the Starcraft situation? Do people just see lots of words + shitting on blizzard and automatically think the post is good?
Paint is more like a programming language then the game itself. The artist would be blizzard, and KeSPA would be some gallery that charges money for the public to see the painting.
If I create the Mona Lisa. I then allow an art gallery to display it at their gallery for 3 years, for a nominal fee. After the 3 years, the Mona Lisa is supposed to come back to me possession, but the Art Gallery won't give it back to me. Who's painting is it?
Generally, the painting is purchased or even comissioned by a wealthy patron, who has physical ownership of the painting. Who then keeps it in his gigantic house for quite a while. Eventually a museum may acquire a piece or a few or all of a wealthy art collector's stash of priceless dutch oils.
As I understand the OP's metaphor, the public is the wealthy patron, blizzard the manufacturer of supplies, the whole SC scene is the community of professional artists including the great maestros. But it doesn't have to hold up to your close analysis, it's just a poetic and timely piece of writing.
I actually completely agree that the idea of Intellectual Property is pretty ridiculous... how can you own an idea? That's the secret cyberpunk in me; information just wants to be free.
I know that companies feel the need to push IP very hard because that's how they make their money, but it completely rubs me the wrong way.
On May 31 2010 08:31 elmizzt wrote: Too vague. Also, you didn't bother to try to make a point with all this fancy metaphor.
Seriously?
Anyhow, I really like the metaphor, although there is quite a difference between paint and a game. Since, well, Blizzard isn't selling you the game. They are selling you the right to use the game under a specific set on conditions.
And yeah, everyone still buys it. :|
See, this is the part I don't get. When did this become legitimate? Certainly, when we all bought SC1, we were purchasing a game, and we owned that game. At what point did it become ok to gruesomely mangle that simple concept of ownership and turn it into this "licensing" BS? "Oh, you're not buying a game for $60. You're buying the favor of this company, and in return we will permit you to play our game, but only for as long as we feel like it. We can retract this right at our pleasure."
I still don't feel like that would stand up in a courtroom. I think that if it came down to it, the common understanding is that we're still buying a game, and Blizzard cannot confiscate our properly at a whim. EULA be damned.
On May 31 2010 08:26 LunarDestiny wrote: I am totally confused. Nice article but I can't find any starcraft 2 reference in it.
On May 31 2010 08:31 elmizzt wrote: Too vague. Also, you didn't bother to try to make a point with all this fancy metaphor.
Seriously?
Anyhow, I really like the metaphor, although there is quite a difference between paint and a game. Since, well, Blizzard isn't selling you the game. They are selling you the right to use the game under a specific set on conditions.
And yeah, everyone still buys it. :|
See, this is the part I don't get. When did this become legitimate? Certainly, when we all bought SC1, we were purchasing a game, and we owned that game. At what point did it become ok to gruesomely mangle that simple concept of ownership and turn it into this "licensing" BS? "Oh, you're not buying a game for $60. You're buying the favor of this company, and in return we will permit you to play our game, but only for as long as we feel like it. We can retract this right at our pleasure."
I still don't feel like that would stand up in a courtroom. I think that if it came down to it, the common understanding is that we're still buying a game, and Blizzard cannot confiscate our properly at a whim. EULA be damned.
No, you own the game, but you cannot do whatever the hell you want with it. The concept is not particularly new- the same goes with song artists, book writers, inventors. People cannot simply start writing sequels to someone else's book. (Imagine the amount of Harry Potter and Twilight rip-offs that would flood the market.) You cannot show films in large public settings and charge money without permission. If you write a film, you need permission to use an artists song in your movie. Compensation for creative work.
It's great that people are people are so dead set against IP, but very rarely have I seen very much creative output from said people. (And yes there is the occasional eccentric artist, but that's their choice. I'm just not sure about making that choice for the artists.) People want to rebel against the system? Create your own art and give away the copyrights and IP on it.
On May 31 2010 08:26 LunarDestiny wrote: I am totally confused. Nice article but I can't find any starcraft 2 reference in it.
On May 31 2010 08:31 elmizzt wrote: Too vague. Also, you didn't bother to try to make a point with all this fancy metaphor.
Seriously?
Anyhow, I really like the metaphor, although there is quite a difference between paint and a game. Since, well, Blizzard isn't selling you the game. They are selling you the right to use the game under a specific set on conditions.
And yeah, everyone still buys it. :|
See, this is the part I don't get. When did this become legitimate? Certainly, when we all bought SC1, we were purchasing a game, and we owned that game. At what point did it become ok to gruesomely mangle that simple concept of ownership and turn it into this "licensing" BS? "Oh, you're not buying a game for $60. You're buying the favor of this company, and in return we will permit you to play our game, but only for as long as we feel like it. We can retract this right at our pleasure."
I still don't feel like that would stand up in a courtroom. I think that if it came down to it, the common understanding is that we're still buying a game, and Blizzard cannot confiscate our properly at a whim. EULA be damned.
No, you own the game, but you cannot do whatever the hell you want with it. The concept is not particularly new- the same goes with song artists, book writers, inventors. People cannot simply start writing sequels to someone else's book. (Imagine the amount of Harry Potter and Twilight rip-offs that would flood the market.) You cannot show films in large public settings and charge money without permission. If you write a film, you need permission to use an artists song in your movie. Compensation for creative work.
It's great that people are people are so dead set against IP, but very rarely have I seen very much creative output from said people. (And yes there is the occasional eccentric artist, but that's their choice. I'm just not sure about making that choice for the artists.) People want to rebel against the system? Create your own art and give away the copyrights and IP on it.
Maybe I can't do whatever the hell I want with it, but I'm pretty confident that I can play it. I think that's part of the deal. I don't really see where you're going with your analogy about Harry Potter sequels. I wasn't arguing that KESPA should be able to hold tournaments without paying licensing fees. I was arguing that Blizzard shouldn't (and I believe, doesn't) have the right to simply retract my right to play the game whenever it feels like it.
On May 31 2010 08:26 LunarDestiny wrote: I am totally confused. Nice article but I can't find any starcraft 2 reference in it.
On May 31 2010 08:31 elmizzt wrote: Too vague. Also, you didn't bother to try to make a point with all this fancy metaphor.
Seriously?
Anyhow, I really like the metaphor, although there is quite a difference between paint and a game. Since, well, Blizzard isn't selling you the game. They are selling you the right to use the game under a specific set on conditions.
And yeah, everyone still buys it. :|
See, this is the part I don't get. When did this become legitimate? Certainly, when we all bought SC1, we were purchasing a game, and we owned that game. At what point did it become ok to gruesomely mangle that simple concept of ownership and turn it into this "licensing" BS? "Oh, you're not buying a game for $60. You're buying the favor of this company, and in return we will permit you to play our game, but only for as long as we feel like it. We can retract this right at our pleasure."
I still don't feel like that would stand up in a courtroom. I think that if it came down to it, the common understanding is that we're still buying a game, and Blizzard cannot confiscate our properly at a whim. EULA be damned.
No, you own the game, but you cannot do whatever the hell you want with it. The concept is not particularly new- the same goes with song artists, book writers, inventors. People cannot simply start writing sequels to someone else's book. (Imagine the amount of Harry Potter and Twilight rip-offs that would flood the market.) You cannot show films in large public settings and charge money without permission. If you write a film, you need permission to use an artists song in your movie. Compensation for creative work.
It's great that people are people are so dead set against IP, but very rarely have I seen very much creative output from said people. (And yes there is the occasional eccentric artist, but that's their choice. I'm just not sure about making that choice for the artists.) People want to rebel against the system? Create your own art and give away the copyrights and IP on it.
Maybe I can't do whatever the hell I want with it, but I'm pretty confident that I can play it. I think that's part of the deal. I don't really see where you're going with your analogy about Harry Potter sequels. I wasn't arguing that KESPA should be able to hold tournaments without paying licensing fees. I was arguing that Blizzard shouldn't (and I believe, doesn't) have the right to simply retract my right to play the game whenever it feels like it.
Do you know what EULA stands for? End User LICENSE Agreement. You're buying a license to use the game, nothing more. You don't buy the game itself. Now I don't know what's written in the EULA exactly, but normally those things handle all broadcast rights and other stuff in a way that you can't just make profit out of it. I'm quite sure you can play it, but I don't think there's a lot other things that Blizzard cannot take away if they want.
As for the original post, as many said, nice writing but not so good metaphor. I can't think of the perfect metaphor myself though, so respect for your intense writeup.
On June 01 2010 02:29 jdschw wrote: See, this is the part I don't get. When did this become legitimate? Certainly, when we all bought SC1, we were purchasing a game, and we owned that game.
On June 01 2010 01:57 Falling wrote: But if you counter that the gaming communities' creativity exceeds that of Blizzard, then I think you are delusional. Yes the community figured out weird micro tricks and things that Blizzard probably didn't consider when they made it.
See this is where I disagree. Blizzard only made a game. Not just any game, it's a great game. But they didn't make "art". That's what the Korean community did. We have 12 years of continuous gameplay development behind us. The strategies are so intricate and the game is so so much more than Blizzard could realistically have hoped for. I don't feel this is delusional at all.
Also, I want to focus on Blizzard's actions, not Kespa's. I don't care much about the legal side of things. To use Delerium's analogy - if you sell someone a seed and he cultivates it without you telling him not to, you can't just claim the tree after 12 years. I don't care about it being legal or not, it's damn well immoral.
Think about it. If I give you a seed, and then you cultivate it and let it grow into a tree, I can't very well come back to you later and say "I'll have that tree now, thx".
One of the reasons people think of the corn conglomerates as evil is because they do exactly this. I know you said you don't care about the legal side Pholon but this isn't the most apt analogy because the law is pretty clear with agriculture and this kind of lawsuit is common.
On June 01 2010 01:57 Falling wrote: But if you counter that the gaming communities' creativity exceeds that of Blizzard, then I think you are delusional. Yes the community figured out weird micro tricks and things that Blizzard probably didn't consider when they made it.
See this is where I disagree. Blizzard only made a game. Not just any game, it's a great game. But they didn't make "art". That's what the Korean community did. We have 12 years of continuous gameplay development behind us. The strategies are so intricate and the game is so so much more than Blizzard could realistically have hoped for. I don't feel this is delusional at all.
Also, I want to focus on Blizzard's actions, not Kespa's. I don't care much about the legal side of things. To use Delerium's analogy - if you sell someone a seed and he cultivates it without you telling him not to, you can't just claim the tree after 12 years. I don't care about it being legal or not, it's damn well immoral.
But all those intricate strategies are dependent on there being a good gaming platform. If all that is required is 12 years of gamer innovation, then we should have seem the same out of C&C, Age of Empires, and any other of the RTS (Don't get me wrong, I'm not hating on them. I'm a RTS junky.) The intricacy and level of play never matched SCBW because the capability was never there to begin with.
Sudden Attack should have been viable, but it was not. I agree 12 years of gaming brough SCBW far beyond what Blizzard could have hoped. But if all you think SCBW was is a seed, then we have a fundamental disagreement.The creativity of the gamers is limited to utilizing the existant game to it's fullest capabilities. But with no game, you have nothing. Or a game with little room for creativity (A move strats), you've got very little room for innovation. Even looking at the mapmakers- I acknowledge they have gone a long ways to making the game what it is today. However, if we had boring gameplay- no amount of map changes will fix an inherently boring design.
Furthermore, SCBW if not art, contains art- graphics, music, storyline, video- cutscenes. Video games are a strange mish-mash of the arts (though will probably never be considered high art.) If any one of these things- video, story, music, pictures was a separate entity and just as popular and KESPA tried to do the same thing (sell broadcasting rights without permission) then we'd have lawsuits all over the place.
Maybe I can't do whatever the hell I want with it, but I'm pretty confident that I can play it. I think that's part of the deal. I don't really see where you're going with your analogy about Harry Potter sequels. I wasn't arguing that KESPA should be able to hold tournaments without paying licensing fees. I was arguing that Blizzard shouldn't (and I believe, doesn't) have the right to simply retract my right to play the game whenever it feels like it.
Thing is you can play the game. Blizzard is not looking to stop that and I'm not sure why you would think Blizzard would retract the game whenever it feels like it. (Is there a particular interview you are thinking of?)
Falling, the paint was analogous to the game. The paint was a very good paint that everyone wanted to paint with. Much like Broodwar was a very good game that everyone wanted to play.
When you're comparing Starcraft to a piece of art and saying that's why the analogy is bad, you're looking too deeply into the metaphor.
For the record, though I posted the seed/tree analogy, it was also Pholon's.
What's at issue here is the corporate mentality. Even Google has lost sight of their old motto, "don't be evil." It's a simple motto and easy enough to follow, but Google of today is not the same Google I was enthralled with when they hit the IT scene. I posted a similar statement earlier in this thread about Blizzard.
From now on, I'm going to stop calling them Blizzard. I prefer the pejorative "Activision," because that was the company everybody bad-mouthed when I was growing up. Nobody discerning liked Activision or its games. I said to a friend, how did Activision get so big and powerful? He replied: "by focusing on the profit margin."
Now we are all wrapped up in this cosmic joke where Activision is trying to claim ownership over all of E-sports. Here's what I am trying to say: Activision needs to get with the times and realize that something amazing was created by Korea. People like it. It brings people together. They want to destroy it? Really? Or they want to make it into an ugly, disabled cash cow that they can milk, like WoW.
Activision needs to wake up. The reason you work for a company should not be to please shareholders, get a bonus, get a pat on the back, get rich. It should have something to do with what your company actually DOES. You should care about that. Activision is breaking stuff, and it's not doing anybody any favors. They'll lose on this deal, period. And so will the rest of us.
On June 01 2010 01:57 Falling wrote: But if you counter that the gaming communities' creativity exceeds that of Blizzard, then I think you are delusional. Yes the community figured out weird micro tricks and things that Blizzard probably didn't consider when they made it.
See this is where I disagree. Blizzard only made a game. Not just any game, it's a great game. But they didn't make "art". That's what the Korean community did. We have 12 years of continuous gameplay development behind us. The strategies are so intricate and the game is so so much more than Blizzard could realistically have hoped for. I don't feel this is delusional at all.
Also, I want to focus on Blizzard's actions, not Kespa's. I don't care much about the legal side of things. To use Delerium's analogy - if you sell someone a seed and he cultivates it without you telling him not to, you can't just claim the tree after 12 years. I don't care about it being legal or not, it's damn well immoral.
But all those intricate strategies are dependent on there being a good gaming platform. If all that is required is 12 years of gamer innovation, then we should have seen the same out of C&C, Age of Empires, and any other of the RTS (Don't get me wrong, I'm not hating on them. I'm a RTS junky.) The intricacy and level of play never matched SCBW because the capability was never there to begin with.
Agreed with this point, but although we can discuss the relative sizes of the part that the game itself contributed and the part that the community contributed to the overall success of the game, it doesn't take away that the Korean part has been huge.
On June 01 2010 01:57 Falling wrote: I don't think this metaphor compares very well because the entire creative process (IP) is essentially in the hands of the painters. The metaphor assumes Starcraft is simply a tool to make creative art. The equivalent would be more like the computers that Blizzard uses to make the game would be the paint. Starcraft is the painting and Blizzard is the painter. KESPA is the art gallery that decided to make a big show/ charge money without contacting the painter to see if that would be okay. (I don't know how the art gallery would've gotten the painting without that though- all analogies eventually break down.)
The point is that the gaming community got good at Blizzard's work of art, but to comparing gamers to painters is analogous to comparing racecar drivers to manufacturers of the F1. Sure a better driver will win more races, but it's still a hell of a car no matter who drives it. The creativeness lies with Blizzard. The gamers use that as platform to be creative within the system that Blizzard already created.
As I see it, the creativity of the painter is greater than that of the person that creates the paint. (Ignoring the fact that painters are often experimenting with paints anyways.) But if you counter that the gaming communities' creativity exceeds that of Blizzard, then I think you are delusional. Yes the community figured out weird micro tricks and things that Blizzard probably didn't consider when they made it. However, it's all using their platform and really the sum of the game is greater than the fact that someone figured out how to stack mutas. It makes the game better, but it doesn't replace or exceed the level of sophistication that makes up the entirety of SCBW.
Agreed here. OP makes for a rather cute and flowery attempt at satire, but doesn't quite hit it on the nail with the analogy and the heart of the matter. Heck, I would even modify your analogy further the transcribing it within the realm of music - with Blizzard being the composer, Starcraft the composition, and the Korean progamer scene as the most virtuosic and interpretive performers of the composition. And there have certainly been many situations where the great acclaim/popularity were due more to the efforts of the key performers than the composer. But still, would that entitle the performer to have more rights over the piece than composer?
On June 01 2010 01:57 Falling wrote: I don't think this metaphor compares very well because the entire creative process (IP) is essentially in the hands of the painters. The metaphor assumes Starcraft is simply a tool to make creative art. The equivalent would be more like the computers that Blizzard uses to make the game would be the paint. Starcraft is the painting and Blizzard is the painter. KESPA is the art gallery that decided to make a big show/ charge money without contacting the painter to see if that would be okay. (I don't know how the art gallery would've gotten the painting without that though- all analogies eventually break down.)
The point is that the gaming community got good at Blizzard's work of art, but to comparing gamers to painters is analogous to comparing racecar drivers to manufacturers of the F1. Sure a better driver will win more races, but it's still a hell of a car no matter who drives it. The creativeness lies with Blizzard. The gamers use that as platform to be creative within the system that Blizzard already created.
As I see it, the creativity of the painter is greater than that of the person that creates the paint. (Ignoring the fact that painters are often experimenting with paints anyways.) But if you counter that the gaming communities' creativity exceeds that of Blizzard, then I think you are delusional. Yes the community figured out weird micro tricks and things that Blizzard probably didn't consider when they made it. However, it's all using their platform and really the sum of the game is greater than the fact that someone figured out how to stack mutas. It makes the game better, but it doesn't replace or exceed the level of sophistication that makes up the entirety of SCBW.
Agreed here. OP makes for a rather cute and flowery attempt at satire, but doesn't quite hit it on the nail with the analogy and the heart of the matter. Heck, I would even modify your analogy further the transcribing it within the realm of music - with Blizzard being the composer, Starcraft the composition, and the Korean progamer scene as the most virtuosic and interpretive performers of the composition. And there have certainly been many situations where the great acclaim/popularity were due more to the efforts of the key performers than the composer. But still, would that entitle the performer to have more rights over the piece than composer?
Don't tell me the analogy is weak if you don't understand it. The paint is not computers or whatever. I don't want to have to stoop down and explain what I mean, figure it out yourself. If I need to extend my metaphor to music, Blizzard would be the guys making the instruments. Awesome instruments, but only instruments.
On May 31 2010 08:31 elmizzt wrote: Too vague. Also, you didn't bother to try to make a point with all this fancy metaphor.
You must be fucking kidding me... Why do people choose to post shit without skimming the posts? Nobody cares if you hate the guy or if you want to insult the writer of the post, is it really worth it to chime in and tell us you dislike the man? If you don't like what is being posted just don't post anything at all... It's a time saver.
EDIT: Great post.
What? I don't see any personal attacks here. I think you misinterpreted these posts.
On June 01 2010 01:47 Jimmy Raynor wrote: Sorry man, Jimmy Raynor ain't a metaphor fan. Direct approach, alright?
On June 01 2010 01:57 Falling wrote: I don't think this metaphor compares very well because the entire creative process (IP) is essentially in the hands of the painters. The metaphor assumes Starcraft is simply a tool to make creative art. The equivalent would be more like the computers that Blizzard uses to make the game would be the paint. Starcraft is the painting and Blizzard is the painter. KESPA is the art gallery that decided to make a big show/ charge money without contacting the painter to see if that would be okay. (I don't know how the art gallery would've gotten the painting without that though- all analogies eventually break down.)
The point is that the gaming community got good at Blizzard's work of art, but to comparing gamers to painters is analogous to comparing racecar drivers to manufacturers of the F1. Sure a better driver will win more races, but it's still a hell of a car no matter who drives it. The creativeness lies with Blizzard. The gamers use that as platform to be creative within the system that Blizzard already created.
As I see it, the creativity of the painter is greater than that of the person that creates the paint. (Ignoring the fact that painters are often experimenting with paints anyways.) But if you counter that the gaming communities' creativity exceeds that of Blizzard, then I think you are delusional. Yes the community figured out weird micro tricks and things that Blizzard probably didn't consider when they made it. However, it's all using their platform and really the sum of the game is greater than the fact that someone figured out how to stack mutas. It makes the game better, but it doesn't replace or exceed the level of sophistication that makes up the entirety of SCBW.
Agreed here. OP makes for a rather cute and flowery attempt at satire, but doesn't quite hit it on the nail with the analogy and the heart of the matter. Heck, I would even modify your analogy further the transcribing it within the realm of music - with Blizzard being the composer, Starcraft the composition, and the Korean progamer scene as the most virtuosic and interpretive performers of the composition. And there have certainly been many situations where the great acclaim/popularity were due more to the efforts of the key performers than the composer. But still, would that entitle the performer to have more rights over the piece than composer?
Don't tell me the analogy is weak if you don't understand it. The paint is not computers or whatever. I don't want to have to stoop down and explain what I mean, figure it out yourself. If I need to extend my metaphor to music, Blizzard would be the guys making the instruments. Awesome instruments, but only instruments.
I don't think theres a :smug: face big enough in the world for this post. KeSPA failed to secure a license extension with blizzard. The Mona Lisa is no longer being displayed at KeSPA's art gallery, its now at the famous GOMTV Gallery instead. The work of art still exists, its just moving. The only reason there is any issue is because some teams are owned by the current broadcasters.
Loved the article. Great writing, clever, well thought out. I couldn't ask for more
People complaining about the metaphor are complaining for the wrong reasons. It's just an analogy. I hate posting things from dictionaries, so I won't. A metaphor doesn't have to be absolutely correct to work out. When we call iloveoov a Gorilla its not because he is literally a Gorilla, but because the way he plays resembles one.
If Pholon's article was simply a recap of the events with some noun's changed it would have been a boring article with little to no insight and not nearly as enjoyable.
On June 01 2010 01:57 Falling wrote: I don't think this metaphor compares very well because the entire creative process (IP) is essentially in the hands of the painters. The metaphor assumes Starcraft is simply a tool to make creative art. The equivalent would be more like the computers that Blizzard uses to make the game would be the paint. Starcraft is the painting and Blizzard is the painter. KESPA is the art gallery that decided to make a big show/ charge money without contacting the painter to see if that would be okay. (I don't know how the art gallery would've gotten the painting without that though- all analogies eventually break down.)
The point is that the gaming community got good at Blizzard's work of art, but to comparing gamers to painters is analogous to comparing racecar drivers to manufacturers of the F1. Sure a better driver will win more races, but it's still a hell of a car no matter who drives it. The creativeness lies with Blizzard. The gamers use that as platform to be creative within the system that Blizzard already created.
As I see it, the creativity of the painter is greater than that of the person that creates the paint. (Ignoring the fact that painters are often experimenting with paints anyways.) But if you counter that the gaming communities' creativity exceeds that of Blizzard, then I think you are delusional. Yes the community figured out weird micro tricks and things that Blizzard probably didn't consider when they made it. However, it's all using their platform and really the sum of the game is greater than the fact that someone figured out how to stack mutas. It makes the game better, but it doesn't replace or exceed the level of sophistication that makes up the entirety of SCBW.
Agreed here. OP makes for a rather cute and flowery attempt at satire, but doesn't quite hit it on the nail with the analogy and the heart of the matter. Heck, I would even modify your analogy further the transcribing it within the realm of music - with Blizzard being the composer, Starcraft the composition, and the Korean progamer scene as the most virtuosic and interpretive performers of the composition. And there have certainly been many situations where the great acclaim/popularity were due more to the efforts of the key performers than the composer. But still, would that entitle the performer to have more rights over the piece than composer?
Don't tell me the analogy is weak if you don't understand it. The paint is not computers or whatever. I don't want to have to stoop down and explain what I mean, figure it out yourself. If I need to extend my metaphor to music, Blizzard would be the guys making the instruments. Awesome instruments, but only instruments.
I don't think theres a :smug: face big enough in the world for this post. KeSPA failed to secure a license extension with blizzard. The Mona Lisa is no longer being displayed at KeSPA's art gallery, its now at the famous GOMTV Gallery instead. The work of art still exists, its just moving. The only reason there is any issue is because some teams are owned by the current broadcasters.
On June 01 2010 01:57 Falling wrote: I don't think this metaphor compares very well because the entire creative process (IP) is essentially in the hands of the painters. The metaphor assumes Starcraft is simply a tool to make creative art. The equivalent would be more like the computers that Blizzard uses to make the game would be the paint. Starcraft is the painting and Blizzard is the painter. KESPA is the art gallery that decided to make a big show/ charge money without contacting the painter to see if that would be okay. (I don't know how the art gallery would've gotten the painting without that though- all analogies eventually break down.)
The point is that the gaming community got good at Blizzard's work of art, but to comparing gamers to painters is analogous to comparing racecar drivers to manufacturers of the F1. Sure a better driver will win more races, but it's still a hell of a car no matter who drives it. The creativeness lies with Blizzard. The gamers use that as platform to be creative within the system that Blizzard already created.
As I see it, the creativity of the painter is greater than that of the person that creates the paint. (Ignoring the fact that painters are often experimenting with paints anyways.) But if you counter that the gaming communities' creativity exceeds that of Blizzard, then I think you are delusional. Yes the community figured out weird micro tricks and things that Blizzard probably didn't consider when they made it. However, it's all using their platform and really the sum of the game is greater than the fact that someone figured out how to stack mutas. It makes the game better, but it doesn't replace or exceed the level of sophistication that makes up the entirety of SCBW.
Agreed here. OP makes for a rather cute and flowery attempt at satire, but doesn't quite hit it on the nail with the analogy and the heart of the matter. Heck, I would even modify your analogy further the transcribing it within the realm of music - with Blizzard being the composer, Starcraft the composition, and the Korean progamer scene as the most virtuosic and interpretive performers of the composition. And there have certainly been many situations where the great acclaim/popularity were due more to the efforts of the key performers than the composer. But still, would that entitle the performer to have more rights over the piece than composer?
Don't tell me the analogy is weak if you don't understand it. The paint is not computers or whatever. I don't want to have to stoop down and explain what I mean, figure it out yourself. If I need to extend my metaphor to music, Blizzard would be the guys making the instruments. Awesome instruments, but only instruments.
No we understand your analogy perfectly well. We just disagree that it makes any meaningful comparison. You seem to be mixing up tools and products.
As someone else has said, Starcraft is itself a product. Not a tool. Applying your analogy to any other creative work would make the comparison non-nonsensical. Applied to Shakespeare or JRR Tolkien we would call their work the ink and paper and completely ignore the content which makes up the product. In the case of Tolkien, people have been inspired to create other works would be the artists and their own work based on the inspiration of LotR be the painting. But Tolkien's own work would be considered only ink and paper. Just tools of the trade. (Stratovarius' Lord of the Rings song, Peter Jackson's movie adaptation, Alan Lee's paintings, DnD, Blizzard's Warcraft universe. They have all contributed to creating a phenomenon far greater than the author could have managed. However, none of these people or organizations have the right to sell licenses or copies of the original Lord of the Rings books. If they use his universe, they must acknowledge it and gain the right to do so. Because the books are a product.)
In the same way Starcraft is a product. Any time it is used for commercial, financial, or advertisement purposes, Blizzard has a say. Doesn't matter what the game inspired or the great skill that people have developed playing their game. It is still Blizzard's game. It's a product. And you are still playing in Blizzard's universe. So yes, the art gallery or the music reviewers are a far better comparison then to say progamers are the artists.
On June 01 2010 08:54 Falling wrote: In the same way Starcraft is a product. Any time it is used for commercial, financial, or advertisement purposes, Blizzard has a say. Doesn't matter what the game inspired or the great skill that people have developed playing their game. It is still Blizzard's game. It's a product. And you are still playing in Blizzard's universe.
This is where I don't agree, if you allow people to take of with your product and make it something more (like how Tolkien's one book inspired a whole universe around it) you can not claim property to the whole of it like they do. That's how I feel at least.
On June 01 2010 08:54 Falling wrote: In the same way Starcraft is a product. Any time it is used for commercial, financial, or advertisement purposes, Blizzard has a say. Doesn't matter what the game inspired or the great skill that people have developed playing their game. It is still Blizzard's game. It's a product. And you are still playing in Blizzard's universe.
This is where I don't agree, if you allow people to take of with your product and make it something more (like how Tolkien's one book inspired a whole universe around it) you can not claim property to the whole of like they do. That's how I feel at least.
I was very careful on how I worded that. I don't think that the Tolkien estates should have control of DnD or the Warcraft universe. Those were merely inspired by it, but do not contain Tolkien's characters or storyline in it. However, those same companies cannot take Tolkien's story and make their own movie out of it, or sell off the rights to do so. That's what the problem with Kespa is. They use the actual Blizzard product in their advertisements (Using a Dark Templar vs using Frodo in an advertisement- that's IP whether you agree with it or not.) They are selling off the rights to broadcast Starcraft, not an inspiration of Starcraft (or a clone- Sudden Attack) but the actual game of Starcraft with all it's graphics, characters, music, and video. It would be the same as starting your own sequel to LotR (or in actual lawsuit territory- Catcher in the Rye by JD Salinger vs "60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye" by JD California.
Being inspired by something is one thing (Beowulf and several other old stories inspires LotR's, LotR's inspires a slew of fantasy books- but they are all in their separate universes.) Using some one else's universe without permission for commercial or advertisement purposes is entirely something else- lawsuit territory.
On May 31 2010 09:33 jackofclubs81 wrote: IMO this is almost as good (if not better) than the MSL finals hype article that copied 300. Very well written.
I'd agree with you, but I didn't copy 300. Only the pictures did :<
Yeah this is true. Your work on the Hype thread was waaay better than 300 as well. Keep up the nice writing flamewheel.
On June 01 2010 08:54 Falling wrote: In the same way Starcraft is a product. Any time it is used for commercial, financial, or advertisement purposes, Blizzard has a say. Doesn't matter what the game inspired or the great skill that people have developed playing their game. It is still Blizzard's game. It's a product. And you are still playing in Blizzard's universe.
This is where I don't agree, if you allow people to take of with your product and make it something more (like how Tolkien's one book inspired a whole universe around it) you can not claim property to the whole of it like they do. That's how I feel at least.
Agree here too. Your metaphor works fine Pholon. If people don't like it they can write their own metaphor/thread and stop crapping on your good work
On June 01 2010 08:54 Falling wrote: In the same way Starcraft is a product. Any time it is used for commercial, financial, or advertisement purposes, Blizzard has a say. Doesn't matter what the game inspired or the great skill that people have developed playing their game. It is still Blizzard's game. It's a product. And you are still playing in Blizzard's universe.
This is where I don't agree, if you allow people to take of with your product and make it something more (like how Tolkien's one book inspired a whole universe around it) you can not claim property to the whole of like they do. That's how I feel at least.
I was very careful on how I worded that. I don't think that the Tolkien estates should have control of DnD or the Warcraft universe. Those were merely inspired by it, but do not contain Tolkien's characters or storyline in it. However, those same companies cannot take Tolkien's story and make their own movie out of it, or sell off the rights to do so. That's what the problem with Kespa is. They use the actual Blizzard product in their advertisements (Using a Dark Templar vs using Frodo in an advertisement- that's IP whether you agree with it or not.) They are selling off the rights to broadcast Starcraft, not an inspiration of Starcraft (or a clone- Sudden Attack) but the actual game of Starcraft with all it's graphics, characters, music, and video. It would be the same as starting your own sequel to LotR (or in actual lawsuit territory- Catcher in the Rye by JD Salinger vs "60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye" by JD California.
Being inspired by something is one thing (Beowulf and several other old stories inspires LotR's, LotR's inspires a slew of fantasy books- but they are all in their separate universes.) Using some one else's universe without permission for commercial or advertisement purposes is entirely something else- lawsuit territory.
Well okay, I can't just make a movie out of the Tolkien book, but it's exactly what Blizzard -let- the Koreans do. Blizzard was like "hey, here's some paint" and the Koreans went "oh okay, you mind if we make some awesome paintings with it? People will come to love your paint and you'll make a bundle because of it." and Blizzard said yes. In that scenario, you can't afterwards claim you own the paintings.
Well I'll just have to agree to disagree- I still don't think Starcraft is simply a tool (paint) and the creative work/ product was mainly by the Koreans (painting), but whatever.
I do agree that Blizzard's protest timing was strange (or not strange- it was timed to the selling of broadcast rights and when SC2 was in the foreseeable future.)
On June 01 2010 18:16 Falling wrote: Well I'll just have to agree to disagree- I still don't think Starcraft is simply a tool (paint) and the creative work/ product was mainly by the Koreans (painting), but whatever.
I do agree that Blizzard's protest timing was strange (or not strange- it was timed to the selling of broadcast rights and when SC2 was in the foreseeable future.)
Fair enough, but even if you don't feel Korea took the Game and made it Art (or at least More), don't you at least agree that they are for a massive part responsible for the success of SC1 and doesn't, consequently, the argument still hold?
IP laws should be abolished and rebuild from scratch but there's no way this is going to happen with all the government support the corporations are getting.
There is still a difference of selling off the broadcasting rights which KESPA shouldn't have done since the source material is Blizzard's property. The rights of any reproduction of any kind belong to Blizzard.
On June 01 2010 22:11 shin ken wrote: This comparison has very wrong relations.
It's more like Blizzard has created a very beautiful set of paintings.
If you just put them randomly in a room, they're not that meaningful. But some Koreans have mastered the art of arranging and rearranging them.
Still, those pictures belong to Blizzard and if those Koreans arranged them without permission, Blizzard has all rights to stop them!
They didn't tell them not too. The allowed the arranging of the paintings, even encourage it (why not - more sales right?). It is only now that after the paintings are arranged that they claim ownership of the whole arrangement. Also this analogy doesn't do the Korean's work justice imo.
Also, from now on maybe we can focus on how you'd disagree with the original analogy and not go "no it's like this" and then have some other paint-related metaphor?
The metaphor works very well, it's well written and constructively comments on the topic. Thank you, I hope Blizzard reads it and take note. =)
This comparison has very wrong relations.
It's more like Blizzard has created a very beautiful set of paintings.
If you just put them randomly in a room, they're not that meaningful. But some Koreans have mastered the art of arranging and rearranging them.
Still, those pictures belong to Blizzard and if those Koreans arranged them without permission, Blizzard has all rights to stop them!
I'm sorry but that's just plain wrong. The korean gamers took this engine with little 2D animations that kill each other based on maths and turned it into an art form that could be innovated within and, to a degree, perfected.
The game is the paint.
If Blizzard made the game (paint), then played the games we wanted to watch (painted), then they could say exactly what becomes of them.
I need not say any more (Honestly I need not even say what I did) because the story summed it up beautifully.
I'm sorry for being alittle blunt after such a great metaphor. It might not be 100% accurate, but it perfectly describes the greedy mindset of Activision (Blizzard).
The point is, KespA and the korean e-sports community is probably responsible for the better part of any Starcraft1 sales after the first hype of SC and BW calmed down. Also, by keeping the game alive for 12 years, they have contributed in raising the expectation and hype around the release of Starcraft 2. Hence, more or less directly spitting money into the greedy entity that is Activision Blizzard. How do they respond? Out of the blue they want more money from the non-profit organization KespA for something they have been doing for years without any objections.
Uh, back on topic: Great analogy, not 100% accurate, but very descriptive and beatifully written. 6/6.
Fun read, although the metaphor isn't all that accurate. I'd say the computers used to make SC are the paint, Blizzard are the painters and KespA are the guys who put the paintings on show and collect fees.
I enjoyed reading this but the metaphor isn't based in reality. Blizzard did not create a tool like paint, they created a product like paintings. Innovative people took those paintings and made galleries out of them and added value through exposure but the painter has the right at any time can dictate how the paintings are displayed in a gallery and the right to move said paintings to another location and give control to a gallery director that better represents their interests, period.
The korean gamers took this engine with little 2D animations that kill each other based on maths and turned it into an art form that could be innovated within and, to a degree, perfected.
The game is the paint.
If Blizzard made the game (paint), then played the games we wanted to watch (painted), then they could say exactly what becomes of them.
To those who might disagree, this makes it abundantly clear.
The game itself is just a set of textures and rules governing how those textures interact. No doubt they took a lot of work and Blizzard is rightfully compensated for having worked on them when people buy their game.
If you want to consider computer games an 'e-sport' then you have to play by the rules of all other sports. Every sport is just a set of rules defining player interaction. The creator of those rules have no rights over the people who play the sport. The rights to televised matches are owned by a variety of different organizations. Sometimes, they are owned by the body representing the players, eg the Football Association of England owns the rights to English Premiere League games. Sometimes, they are owned by the tournament organizers, eg FIFA owns the rights to the World Cup. The equivalent in the Korean scene would be Kespa which represent players, or OGN/MBC which organize tournaments.
The people who made up the rules of the sport have NO claim over matches played unless they happen to also do either of the other 2 functions, eg International Automobile Federation for F1 racing.
It's fashionable to hate Kespa but they represent players and I believe they have the right to claim ownership of games played by their members.
On June 01 2010 23:35 Pholon wrote: Also, from now on maybe we can focus on how you'd disagree with the original analogy and not go "no it's like this" and then have some other paint-related metaphor?
The problem we have with your original analogy is that it drastically undervalues Blizzard's role while similarly overvaluing the progamers' role.
The great artists of the Renaissance you use to make your point didn't deal exclusively with a specific composition of oil paint. They often worked in a variety of media, and enjoyed similar success in them.
Yet in the Blizzard/Korea dispute, to my knowledge no game has come within two orders of magnitude of the Starcraft's success. Starcraft is the linchpin.
Starcraft, a creative effort by artists certainly no less skilled than the programers you so admire, is far more responsible for the success of said progamers than your fictional paint maker is responsible for the success of the Renaissance artists.
Your metaphor is mind numbingly awful. Developing a game is nothing like making a paint. It is different in every single way with the exception that in both cases somebody created something. That you would even make this metaphor shows that you have no idea what it takes to design and create a game as well as a lack of respect for those who do.
On June 02 2010 04:20 KingPants wrote: Your metaphor is mind numbingly awful. Developing a game is nothing like making a paint. It is different in every single way with the exception that in both cases somebody created something. That you would even make this metaphor shows that you have no idea what it takes to design and create a game as well as a lack of respect for those who do.
All I've done is praise the paint. It took years to develop, balancing the ingredients and the result is one of the greatest paint ever. Also, it is a METAPHOR. If I say "man, your room's as dirty as a pigsty" you don't go "WHAT, IT IS NOTHING LIKE IT THERE ARE NO PIGS IN IT DERP".
There is something in common between a dirty room and a pigsty in that both are dirty. There is nothing in common between a video game and paint. Your analogy is inane.
Furthermore I do not consider it a compliment to the developers to compare a video game to paint and then immediately compare somebody playing the the game to a painting, it suggests that playing the game is much more complex and respectable than making the game. You are belittling the game developers and their achievements. I know that you don't understand that but words do mean things and being a poor communicator is no excuse.
I think the metaphor was apt. It may not have been spot on (much to the chagrin of KingPants lol wtf is your problem dude?), but it did a damn fine job of making the point.
On June 02 2010 03:26 RiOrius wrote: The problem we have with your original analogy is that it drastically undervalues Blizzard's role while similarly overvaluing the progamers' role.
Agreed that the metaphor might undervalue Blizzard, but really how popular would the game be were it not for the pro scene? I really don't think there could be such a thing as overvaluing the progamers in this case.
I can compare it to whatever I like as long as I point out the common ground can't I? Also, I never did compare gamers to painters, this has been pointed out by me and other several times. And fair enough, I'm not even asking to to agree with me on culturing the game being MORE complex than making the game, only that you acknowledge that to a certain degree (whatever degree) the Koreans contributed greatly to the success of StarCraft and consequently Blizzard.
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'm sorry that I missed your explanation of what the painters represent. If the painters represent the entirety of the Korean scene what does the painting represent?
On June 02 2010 04:20 KingPants wrote: Your metaphor is mind numbingly awful. Developing a game is nothing like making a paint. It is different in every single way with the exception that in both cases somebody created something. That you would even make this metaphor shows that you have no idea what it takes to design and create a game as well as a lack of respect for those who do.
All I've done is praise the paint. It took years to develop, balancing the ingredients and the result is one of the greatest paint ever. Also, it is a METAPHOR. If I say "man, your room's as dirty as a pigsty" you don't go "WHAT, IT IS NOTHING LIKE IT THERE ARE NO PIGS IN IT DERP".
Agreed. However that doesn't make it a good metaphor. Despite the pseudo-intelligence of this article it doesn't make it a good metaphor. Nor does it make it unique in that a number of other threads are already discussing this.
You just took an idea already being heavily kicked around in other threads and "painted" it with a new face. Bravo.
Holy shit you guys are batshit insane, dont try to Analyze every single aspect of it, the metaphor is not the best, but is great and a deferent approach on this Blizz vs Kespa argument.
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.
People getting vigilant on what constitutes a good or bad metaphor should probably note that this is an allegory, not a single isolated metaphor. And it's a good allegory at that.
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 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.
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.
This is because professional sports don't involve someone else's intellectual property.
If, hypothetically, some pro sports team wanted to change its mascot to Spongebob Squarepants, they'd need to get Nickelodeon's okay on it.
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.
Footballs and baseball bats aren't intellectual property. Zerglings and firebats are.
Pholon, wonderful post. I'm sorry to see people not seeing it for what it is, and narrowing it down to pot shots at the industry.
Apparently there is no praise for a creative soul when it involves a metaphor that questions corporate behavior, in an era where the modern fanboy can be heard, or read for that matter.
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.
This is because professional sports don't involve someone else's intellectual property.
If, hypothetically, some pro sports team wanted to change its mascot to Spongebob Squarepants, they'd need to get Nickelodeon's okay on it.
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.
Footballs and baseball bats aren't intellectual property. Zerglings and firebats are.
This!
Plus, it seems that a lot of this stuff could be traced to the simple progression of technology, and how it impacts on quite dated copyright and intellectual property laws. The changes in the music industry, along with YouTube copyright 'infringements' are similar examples.
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 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.
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 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 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.
EPT
![[image loading]](/staff/Pholon/dante1.png)
![[image loading]](/staff/Pholon/dante2.png)
![[image loading]](http://madtown.cc/d/27616-1/Slow-Clap.gif)
![[image loading]](http://a-m-p.gr/media/image/large/EGConsidermymindblown.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://friendsoftheprogram.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/its-a-trap.jpg)
