EPT@ 12:50 min.
He typed pp not ppp for "Press Pause Please" so he got disqualified by Kespa...... nothing more to say about kespa.
A Korean fan explains why he hates KeSPA - Page 14
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
XequR
Germany33 Posts
@ 12:50 min. He typed pp not ppp for "Press Pause Please" so he got disqualified by Kespa...... nothing more to say about kespa. | ||
|
zeru
8156 Posts
| ||
|
Mioraka
Canada1353 Posts
On November 14 2010 17:13 Gonodactylus wrote: Which means every actual customer, no matter what their expertize on IP law is... No one reads them. No one agrees to them. This isn't even disputed so don't try it. There's actual research done on how often these things get read. You only have your lawyers read them if you are an organization/corporation that deals with Blizzard. I never went into contract with Blizzard. I had no say in whatever they put in the EULA and I didn't read it. I bought a box with a disc for both SC and SC2. I installed it and as everyone I didn't spend 5 hours reading and translating that wall of text. I never went into any contract with Blizzard. I don't know how you can claim I did, even though I would lose claiming this in US court. Of course I would win anywhere in the EU, which is where I am located. What you are saying here undermines our entire modern business contract law and business surrounding it. If the court allows the simple argument of "TL;DR" as legal defense, then everybody could go into a contract without worrying about it being enforced. Then our entire business world would be left in ruins. Court agrees that's retarded, so they enforce the contract even if you didnt read it, carelessness is not a defense here. In fact, carelessness is something that totally destroys your defense. I have various cases in common law to back up my argument, like the case of 2 law grads against Microsoft, they used the exact same argument-- TL;DR, therefore not enforceable. What did the judge say? The freakin contract is right in front of you, clearly presented, if you don't read it and click "I AGREE" in bold letters-- hey, its your problem. if you want to read these cases, i will link them. | ||
|
Teddyman
Finland362 Posts
OGN/MBC need permission from Blizzard to broadcast Starcraft. Graphics and sound are copyrighted works that cannot be broadcasted without permission. In return for a license Blizzard can ask for anything they wish and it's up to the broadcaster whether to accept. Should Blizzard sue OGN/MBC if the negotiations don't work? Yes, or otherwise there wouldn't have been any reason to have negotiations in the first place. Also if they didn't sue, their partner Gretech would have been at a competitive disadvantage, having some limitations from their contract while their competition could just ignore all demands. You do support your business partners, do you not?
Competitive performances most likely not protected by copyright law. Source
I haven't ever heard of anyone losing IP rights due to non-reinforcement, only happens in patent law. Would most likely deter Blizzard from asking for excessive compensation for damages retroactively though.
Morally, maybe. You don't get to tell a company "that's enough money for now" or "you have another successful project so you shouldn't look to make any more money from this one" legally. Would companies want to make ESPORTS-viable games if it means less sales than single player games without compensation from licenses? Irrelevant argument extravaganza:
| ||
|
hellsan631
United States695 Posts
| ||
|
AyJay
1515 Posts
On November 15 2010 02:49 Teddyman wrote: Why does everybody drag it into details when it's actually quite clear if you look at the relevant things? OGN/MBC need permission from Blizzard to broadcast Starcraft. Graphics and sound are copyrighted works that cannot be broadcasted without permission. In return for a license Blizzard can ask for anything they wish and it's up to the broadcaster whether to accept. Should Blizzard sue OGN/MBC if the negotiations don't work? Yes, or otherwise there wouldn't have been any reason to have negotiations in the first place. Also if they didn't sue, their partner Gretech would have been at a competitive disadvantage, having some limitations from their contract while their competition could just ignore all demands. You do support your business partners, do you not?
Competitive performances most likely not protected by copyright law. Source
I haven't ever heard of anyone losing IP rights due to non-reinforcement, only happens in patent law. Would most likely deter Blizzard from asking for excessive compensation for damages retroactively though.
Morally, maybe. You don't get to tell a company "that's enough money for now" or "you have another successful project so you shouldn't look to make any more money from this one" legally. Would companies want to make ESPORTS-viable games if it means less sales than single player games without compensation from licenses? Irrelevant argument extravaganza:
wow you said everything better in 1 post than I do in 10 posts  | ||
|
nokz88
Brazil1253 Posts
| ||
|
Ketara
United States15065 Posts
On November 15 2010 02:49 Teddyman wrote: Why does everybody drag it into details when it's actually quite clear if you look at the relevant things? OGN/MBC need permission from Blizzard to broadcast Starcraft. Graphics and sound are copyrighted works that cannot be broadcasted without permission. In return for a license Blizzard can ask for anything they wish and it's up to the broadcaster whether to accept. Should Blizzard sue OGN/MBC if the negotiations don't work? Yes, or otherwise there wouldn't have been any reason to have negotiations in the first place. Also if they didn't sue, their partner Gretech would have been at a competitive disadvantage, having some limitations from their contract while their competition could just ignore all demands. You do support your business partners, do you not?
Competitive performances most likely not protected by copyright law. Source
I haven't ever heard of anyone losing IP rights due to non-reinforcement, only happens in patent law. Would most likely deter Blizzard from asking for excessive compensation for damages retroactively though.
Morally, maybe. You don't get to tell a company "that's enough money for now" or "you have another successful project so you shouldn't look to make any more money from this one" legally. Would companies want to make ESPORTS-viable games if it means less sales than single player games without compensation from licenses? Irrelevant argument extravaganza:
Teddyman owns. This is 100% the way I feel about this issue. | ||
|
Innsmouth-Zerg
Austria137 Posts
On November 14 2010 14:55 mustache wrote: no it isnt, the ball is to the keyboard as the game is to the stadium. EDIT: double beat -_- how is a stadium like a game o_O | ||
|
hinnolinn
212 Posts
Even knowing that a battle.net account is required after the PURCHASE of the game from a retail store. Why, after, say, a week or two of playing, can't we resell the game to another person to play? Why is there no way to transfer the game ownership to another account? It seems like the first sale doctrine would be very clear on this. So a EULA, stating that you could not resell the copy of the game would already be deeply flawed, as law already covers this. Not to mention case law already covers this. Specifically Timothy S. Vernor v Autodesk Inc. As the EULA is definitely not legally binding therefore, how can you say that he has agreed to a contract by clicking accept. It seems a flawed premise. EDIT: Additionally, for the people stating that it's a licensing agreement. Because it resembles a sale, the first sale doctrine held for that case, so it seems that it could be extended to apply to Blizzard's games. Therefore, you should be able to transfer ownership of the product, for any price you chose, to another person, without Blizzard's agreement. | ||
|
tbrown47
United States1235 Posts
it isnt, people are dumb | ||
|
Pleiades
United States472 Posts
On November 15 2010 03:36 hinnolinn wrote: So I have a quick question for everybody talking about EULA's and the like. Even knowing that a battle.net account is required after the PURCHASE of the game from a retail store. Why, after, say, a week or two of playing, can't we resell the game to another person to play? Why is there no way to transfer the game ownership to another account? It seems like the first sale doctrine would be very clear on this. So a EULA, stating that you could not resell the copy of the game would already be deeply flawed, as law already covers this. Not to mention case law already covers this. Specifically Timothy S. Vernor v Autodesk Inc. As the EULA is definitely not legally binding therefore, how can you say that he has agreed to a contract by clicking accept. It seems a flawed premise. You can resell your physical copy of the game (CD) but not your battle.net account. Blizzard even allows you to give your copy of the game for people to use their guest passes with. EULA is not legally bound at first, but Blizzard can use it against you if you go to court with them, since you hereby agreed to the terms and conditions if you installed and used it with your battle.net account. Anyways, you can always try to ask Blizzard to remove starcraft 2 from your battle.net account, but you have to have a good reason to do so. | ||
|
syllogism
Finland5948 Posts
| ||
|
dcemuser
United States3248 Posts
On November 15 2010 03:36 hinnolinn wrote: So I have a quick question for everybody talking about EULA's and the like. Even knowing that a battle.net account is required after the PURCHASE of the game from a retail store. Why, after, say, a week or two of playing, can't we resell the game to another person to play? Why is there no way to transfer the game ownership to another account? It seems like the first sale doctrine would be very clear on this. So a EULA, stating that you could not resell the copy of the game would already be deeply flawed, as law already covers this. Not to mention case law already covers this. Specifically Timothy S. Vernor v Autodesk Inc. As the EULA is definitely not legally binding therefore, how can you say that he has agreed to a contract by clicking accept. It seems a flawed premise. EDIT: Additionally, for the people stating that it's a licensing agreement. Because it resembles a sale, the first sale doctrine held for that case, so it seems that it could be extended to apply to Blizzard's games. Therefore, you should be able to transfer ownership of the product, for any price you chose, to another person, without Blizzard's agreement. Timothy S. Vernor v Autodesk Inc. was completely and fully overturned in the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The judges sided with Autodesk and enforced its EULA. http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/09/10/09-35969.pdf Since the rest of your post hinged on that incorrect case law, there isn't any reason to respond to the rest of it. | ||
|
TheGreatHegemon
61 Posts
On November 15 2010 02:49 Teddyman wrote: Why does everybody drag it into details when it's actually quite clear if you look at the relevant things? OGN/MBC need permission from Blizzard to broadcast Starcraft. Graphics and sound are copyrighted works that cannot be broadcasted without permission. In return for a license Blizzard can ask for anything they wish and it's up to the broadcaster whether to accept. Should Blizzard sue OGN/MBC if the negotiations don't work? Yes, or otherwise there wouldn't have been any reason to have negotiations in the first place. Also if they didn't sue, their partner Gretech would have been at a competitive disadvantage, having some limitations from their contract while their competition could just ignore all demands. You do support your business partners, do you not?
Competitive performances most likely not protected by copyright law. Source
I haven't ever heard of anyone losing IP rights due to non-reinforcement, only happens in patent law. Would most likely deter Blizzard from asking for excessive compensation for damages retroactively though.
Morally, maybe. You don't get to tell a company "that's enough money for now" or "you have another successful project so you shouldn't look to make any more money from this one" legally. Would companies want to make ESPORTS-viable games if it means less sales than single player games without compensation from licenses? Irrelevant argument extravaganza:
The only feedback is that, until the courts or laws distinctly define the issue, we can't assume that Blizzard has performance rights to Starcraft. With the Korean climate, it may actually end up being ruled in KESPA's favor. That being said, the outcome I hope for is that Blizzard doesn't have performance rights over SCII. Not necessarily just because of KESPA, but because this impacts every tournament, ever. A game can't grow if it's being choked. | ||
|
TheGreatHegemon
61 Posts
On November 15 2010 02:47 Mioraka wrote: What you are saying here undermines our entire modern business contract law and business surrounding it. If the court allows the simple argument of "TL;DR" as legal defense, then everybody could go into a contract without worrying about it being enforced. Then our entire business world would be left in ruins. Court agrees that's retarded, so they enforce the contract even if you didnt read it, carelessness is not a defense here. In fact, carelessness is something that totally destroys your defense. I have various cases in common law to back up my argument, like the case of 2 law grads against Microsoft, they used the exact same argument-- TL;DR, therefore not enforceable. What did the judge say? The freakin contract is right in front of you, clearly presented, if you don't read it and click "I AGREE" in bold letters-- hey, its your problem. if you want to read these cases, i will link them. I would, actually. I was under the strong impression that Click Through EULAs have - repeatedly - been ruled as non-enforceable. Maybe district to district variations may apply? Believe it or not, TL;DR; is a valid defense in many ways. Edit: Actually, Wiki has a pretty good summary on the issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_license_agreement#Enforceability_of_EULAs_in_the_United_States | ||
|
hinnolinn
212 Posts
But, I do have to ask whether sales of autocad are not covered by first sale because they are sold directly from autodesk and not a retailer. If so, I wonder whether a video game sold through a third party retailer such as Gamestop would then have first sale accompanied. | ||
|
dcemuser
United States3248 Posts
On November 15 2010 03:50 TheGreatHegemon wrote: I would, actually. I was under the strong impression that Click Through EULAs have - repeatedly - been ruled as non-enforceable. Maybe district to district variations may apply? Believe it or not, TL;DR; is a valid defense in many ways. Edit: Actually, Wiki has a pretty good summary on the issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_license_agreement#Enforceability_of_EULAs_in_the_United_States Actually, Clickwrap EULAs are covered much better in this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clickwrap They're usually enforced. | ||
|
latan
740 Posts
On November 15 2010 04:12 dcemuser wrote: Actually, Clickwrap EULAs are covered much better in this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clickwrap They're usually enforced. usually? no. sometimes they are, sometimes they're not. as far as the law is concerned there is nothing accepted as a general rule. that means they're not seen as legal contracts by any court, the evaluation of the enforceability of them comes from the circumsances of the case. it's a grey area. | ||
|
Quasimoto3000
United States471 Posts
On November 14 2010 15:27 Kammalleri wrote: I'm gonna sound stupid, but what is kaspa? kaspa is kespa korean esports association | ||
| ||
