|
On November 14 2010 17:07 Pleiades wrote:
Yeah... only for the fools who scroll down and agree to the EULA/TOS without actually reading it. Blizzard clearly states what you can do with their product and how much restrictions you have upon it.
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.
Of course not all EULAs are legally-bound, but they are a contract you make with the company/developer.
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.
|
On November 14 2010 17:13 Gonodactylus wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2010 17:07 Pleiades wrote:
Yeah... only for the fools who scroll down and agree to the EULA/TOS without actually reading it. Blizzard clearly states what you can do with their product and how much restrictions you have upon it. 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. Show nested quote +
Of course not all EULAs are legally-bound, but they are a contract you make with the company/developer.
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 court.
If there's a contract, and someone asks you to sign it, and you just sign it without reading it, would you be going into a contract? If yes, then you went into a contract with Blizzard when you agreed to the EULA without reading it. If not, anyone can breach contracts by saying "Oh, I signed without reading, it doesn't count."
|
On November 14 2010 17:06 Gonodactylus wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2010 17:02 Fraidnot wrote:
How is build order IP? Can you trademark it? Can you sue someone if they spread their marines like you do? And doesn't the software license agreement cover this if it is IP? Yes, SC2 EULA does cover this because this doesn't naturally belong to Blizzard. Blizzard didn't invent all BOs in SC2. They even admit players come up with new stuff. So how can third parties, Blizzard and broadcasters, make money off intellectual property that isn't theirs?
Maybe because you're using blizzard's IP to create your IP? Even then it's not like any of these things goes beyond what the game is capable of, it's not like dario sits down and creates some combination that goes outside the boundaries of the game state engine. I don't think just because blizzard didn't map out each and ever state that the game can be in, that you can call finding a combination that hasn't been done before is suddenly yours since it's still in the constraints of what really is just a state engine.
|
It's because being ignorant of a law does not make you immune from prosecution for breaking it.
|
An eye opening article.
Always had a feeling that this whole debacle was kespa's fault.
|
wow great read, fuck KeSPA!.
|
On November 14 2010 17:13 Gonodactylus wrote:
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 court.
LOL, now I know you're definitely not a "PhD in IP."
Never sign what you don't read. EULA are contracts between the consumer and the producer. When you agreed to it to install the game, you electronically signed the contract.
|
On November 14 2010 17:16 WeeKeong wrote:
If there's a contract, and someone asks you to sign it, and you just sign it without reading it, would you be going into a contract? If yes, then you went into a contract with Blizzard when you agreed to the EULA without reading it. If not, anyone can breach contracts by saying "Oh, I signed without reading, it doesn't count."
Yeah it does. There's plenty of cases in which this was found to be correct. EULA can only remind the customer of things that are already true in law.
EULAs are not valid contracts because one party has no say in the content, one party bought a product before being presented without even knowing there were going to be additional demands made on him. I made a contact with the shop I bought SC2 from, not with Blizzard.
EULAs are liability disclaimers, protecting companies from being sued by customers. Nothing more. You can't strip people of their law-given rights through EULAs. Not even in the US.
|
United States238 Posts
On November 14 2010 16:31 xBillehx wrote:
Anyone willing to translate this too?
I do love to read/hear what the Korean's think since they're more connected to the situation in Korea than we are, so thanks to Pizzapie for translating.
Sure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: http://pgr21.com/?b=6&n=43542
Translated upon request. :p
1) Individual League Broadcasting Rights Controversy
1. Artificial merging of MBCGame's team league and OGN's individual leagues
2. Steals the power to open individual leagues, which is made and operated jointly by OGN and MBCGame
3. Talks about rights to broadcasting without permission from Blizzard, who holds IP rights to the game, demands 1.7 billion won for 3 years from the broadcasters. This is the starting point of the IP rights controversy
4. Gave rights to broadcasting to a company that had nothing to do with e-sports, IBSports (parent company: IEG), then runs away with the money (Giving up operating estro)
5. MBCGame Survivor prelim boycott issue
6. KeSPACup, operated by KeSPA, becomes worse than random PC bang leagues
7. Artificially reduces individual leagues (revolving around individual players), while greatly increasing the size of Proleague (revolving around teams), in order to help with advertisement for the companies instead of for the fans
8. 5 days a week play, causing reduced interest in the matches
2) Various operation and rules controversy
9. DQ because a player typed "PP" instead of "PPP" to pause the game. (Later changed)
10. DQ because a player typed "a" in the chat. Controversy risen from the rule that said "-Can- give DQ", which can also mean "-Not- give DQ"
11. DQ for any other variation of "GG" / "gg", such as "WW", "지읒이읒", "zizi yO", "지지요".
12. Giving DQ for leaving the game during countdown due to control miss
13. Ignoring the issue of bug play using SCV (which was clear that the bug play happend) because "there was no rule for that"
14. During the infamous NATE MSL power outage, lied about having a replay when there wasn't
15. KeSPA gave different ranking point adjustment for MSL and StarLeague, causing controversy
16. Due to the "data errors" in KeSPA homepage, controversies happened regarding things like NaDa's win records
17. Due to no accurate data collection, relies on the broadcasting companies to do the data collection. Corporations that sell e-sports related data appears
18. When there was no clear plans for the KeSPA's member corporations, KeSPA demands 2 billion won from the member corporations
19. A player who has been selected by a team, if he declines, he would be barred from entering any progame teams for 3 years. As a result, all would-be progamers become like slaves by forcing to join any team regardless of their stance, once selected
20. Due to the FA policy in 2009, players cannot select what team they would like to join, since the policy forces them to join whichever team offers highest $. This ignores how long the contract would be, just how big of the money total is offered. This FA policy died later
21. Entry pre-announcement caused games to be boring even before they start, reducing popularity of proleague, and could potentially cause match fixing... which does end up happening. Finally, they return to old blinded entry list policy
22. Forcing 2 days of matches in Proleague 08-09 post season results in the infamy for having the least amount of audience ever
3) Attitude towards other games
23. While KeSPA is made because of StarCraft, support for other games are virtually nil. Especially, zero support for WarCraft 3, a game that's only behind StarCraft in terms of popularity
24. Ignoring Kart Rider leagues, causing it to stop for over a year
25. While various players have been selected through KeSPA cup, they did not create any leagues or any other needed support
26. Even the officially registered games such as Special Force and Kart Rider have no employees that manage them at KeSPA
27. Games that had no popularity as e-sports such as Special Force would end up having low viewership count, then infamy at the finals due to that
28. The "Proleague 5 days a week" is the worst system ever, as KeSPA, who should be focusing on even development of e-sports in general, caused StarCraft's pie way too big for other games to join e-sports scene
4) Match fixing controversy
29. They talked the talk during the start of this controversy, but didn't walk the walk during police investigation
30. Ignored rules of going through sanction commission during the process of retiring progamer Mr. Park.
31. Did not even announce progamer Mr. Won's retirement at all, causing concealment controversy
32. Those that had part in match fixing, if they weren't removed via expulsion, they are, by rules, allowed back in after 3 years if they so wish
33. No other way to prevent potential match fixing recurring except through removing entry pre-announcement
5) IP Rights Controversy with Blizzard-Gretech
34. There was a boycott of GOM Classic (sponsored by Gretech), there are suspicions that KeSPA either allowed it or even directed it themselves in secrecy
35. Ordered progamer teams to not participate in StarCraft 2 beta
36. In regards to negotiation with Blizzard about IP rights, KeSPA manipulated journalism then violated NDA
37. Blizzard clearly owns IP rights to StarCraft. Despite that, KeSPA talks about "public property" and even said how "[we] helped with making additional profits for Blizzard"
38. Even great oldbies such as NaDa and BoxeR were declared as the betrayers just because they switched to StarCraft 2
39. Talking nonsense about "effort of e-sports personnel" while using Jaedong as a sacrificial lamb during public hearing
40. KeSPA is trying hard to pass a law that would grant KeSPA a full, unlimited, total IP rights ownership to any and all games that would participate in e-sports
41. Threatening progamers, teams, and related personnel that "something undesirable" may happen should they contact Blizzard or participate in tournaments that Blizzard runs
42. Forced NaDa's StarCraft 2 match, taking place in Germany as an event, to end by calling him while match is still underway
43. The moment NaDa announces his switch to StarCraft 2, KeSPA deleted NaDa's records from the homepage
44. Blizzard said KeSPA's attitude was that they refuse to acknowledge any IP rights whatsoever during negotiation
45. OGN mysteriously canceled StarCraft 2 open broadcasting, there are suspicions that KeSPA had a hand in it
46. Forcing Proleague 10-11 season illegally while the negotiations hasn't ended yet
47. Authorizing MBCGame's forcing of BigFile MSL, Kyong-nam STX cup, and PDPop MSL, which are all illegal
48. Tells Gretech that KeSPA will pay 300 million won per year, which would include rights to open and operate proleague AND individual leagues. This is not fair considering how they took 1.7 billion won from IEG for 3 years
49. Tries to stall the talks by continually changing negotiation terms during negotiation talks
50. Trying to make KeSPA as the lead and operator of StarCraft 2 e-sports in negotiation
51. Ignoring the opinion of fans, KeSPA shows that their actions only focus on their own profits and using force to see it through
* For more information, take a look at '한국E스포츠협회', '프로리그 중계권 사태', '스타크래프트 승부조작스캔들', '스타크래프트 저작권 분쟁' from AngelHalo wiki (Editor's note: I use AngelHalo wiki a lot, and they have very in-depth details on those articles)
I described this as "50+a reasons" because I thought that 50 might not be all of the reason. I wanted to just shut up, not put up any reply, and stay quiet, but I wanted to state "It's already too late" to the opinions of "KeSPA must exist, even after all the faults". I don't see Gretech and Blizzard as the absolute right, and I've already criticized some of Gretech's actions through previous writings and replies. But, it is for certain that KeSPA is an absolute evil. They only care about the logic of the corporations and profits all the while ignoring the fans. My thought is that this doesn't even deserve any criticism, and only solution is complete dissolution of KeSPA.
Anyway, I want this situation to end in a happy note for e-sports fan, and I really hope for the day when we can watch progamers and their awesome plays in whatever games they may play -- whether it be StarCraft 1 or 2.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
On November 14 2010 14:46 LG)Sabbath wrote:isn't this actually a good argument though?
That would be like asking if the sc players have to pay blizz to play, which they don't. This is between kespa and blizz, not the players.
|
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.
You are possibly the most genuine idiot I've seen in my life. Not the troll-type idiot, but just the pure, genuine essence of idiocy leaks out of your mind.
You agree to Blizzard's EULA and have the permission to tie your bnet account to that game. Agreeing with the EULA means that you've entered into a contract with Blizzard. Just because you didn't read jack before playing the game does not equate to you not agreeing with Blizzard's contract.
|
On November 14 2010 14:46 LG)Sabbath wrote:isn't this actually a good argument though?
No I don't think so.
It's like buying a random movie DVD and make you own "cinema".
|
On November 14 2010 17:18 Gonodactylus wrote:
Yeah it does. There's plenty of cases in which this was found to be correct. EULA can only remind the customer of things that are already true in law.
EULAs are not valid contracts because one party has no say in the content, one party bought a product before being presented without even knowing there were going to be additional demands made on him. I made a contact with the shop I bought SC2 from, not with Blizzard.
EULAs are liability disclaimers, protecting companies from being sued by customers. Nothing more. You can't strip people of their law-given rights through EULAs. Not even in the US.
You just contradicted yourself. EULA is the contract to use the product. You can buy the physical product, but you can't use the game until you agree to the EULA. And yes, the EULA is to protect the company.
You don't have to use the product if you don't agree to the EULA, even if you bought the game. A copy of the game will always be yours to have if you bought it, but to use it is not. That is why it is intellectual property and not just property.
|
Why would I read and agree to a wall of text I wouldn't be able to understand without my IP law PhD no matter how smart I am when I know it has no legal significance outside of the US?
And yes, you said it was a contract. You were wrong on that, mr.undergrad. Look, I am both morally and legally correct as long as I am speaking outside of the US. And when in the US I am still morally right. You can argue any day about how US law is enforced. But that doesn't mean it makes sense that you go into contract and buy a product and then when you get home you are suddenly surprised by a wall of gibberish you have to click 'agree' to fight to use the product you already paid for. Not to mention a 'contract' which you have had no say in whatsoever in terms of what it contains.
So just have your cat accidentally jump enter key if you are in the US... No really, it makes no sense and hold up in court very rarely even in the US. Maybe you still have to do the classes that cover all the famous cases. Remember the Second Life one?
Ooh and don't lie to me about you reading and studying every EULA. Even people that wrote the EULA for Blizzard don't read the EULA of stuff they install themselves.
|
Thank you very much Selith! A few of those I didn't know at all.
One that stood out to me was this:
19. A player who has been selected by a team, if he declines, he would be barred from entering any progame teams for 3 years. As a result, all would-be progamers become like slaves by forcing to join any team regardless of their stance, once selected
This really sucks. I hope this has/will be changed very soon.
Also, I'm going to assume this is the law that was talked about earlier in the thread:
40. KeSPA is trying hard to pass a law that would grant KeSPA a full, unlimited, total IP rights ownership to any and all games that would participate in e-sports
That it's a load of crock itself. I pray this law will never come to exist.
I truly appreciate the effort to translate as I find what the Korean citizens know/think to be very interesting. Many thanks again! <3
|
On November 14 2010 17:06 Gonodactylus wrote:
Yet Blizzard already admits players do things they didn't conceive off. So this is clearly new IP not created by Blizzard. And it's worth money.
I also doubt you are an undergrad.
Okay then I have to make this argument. In football, coaches and sometimes player design plays to run (Things like the Wildcat and "Wild Horses" formations/plays). The NFL did not make these plays, but gets money from people watching them. The coaches/players don't actually get money from creating these plays. They get money for doing their "job" which is either training/coaching a team or playing the game itself. It's not like they get alittle bit of extra cash when they invent a new play or someone else uses it.
|
On November 14 2010 17:37 Atlas_550 wrote:
Okay then I have to make this argument. In football, coaches and sometimes player design plays to run (Things like the Wildcat and "Wild Horses" formations/plays). The NFL did not make these plays, but gets money from people watching them. The coaches/players don't actually get money from creating these plays. They get money for doing their "job" which is either training/coaching a team or playing the game itself. It's not like they get alittle bit of extra cash when they invent a new play or someone else uses it.
If anyone can broadcast NFL without having to pay money which will eventually end up with the players/teams, then how will they get paid for their 'job'.
What you think is not there yet is how it already works.
|
On November 14 2010 17:36 Gonodactylus wrote:
Why would I read and agree to a wall of text I wouldn't be able to understand without my IP law PhD no matter how smart I am when I know it has no legal significance outside of the US?
And yes, you said it was a contract. You were wrong on that, mr.undergrad. Look, I am both morally and legally correct as long as I am speaking outside of the US. And when in the US I am still morally right. You can argue any day about how US law is enforced. But that doesn't mean it makes sense that you go into contract and buy a product and then when you get home you are suddenly surprised by a wall of gibberish you have to click 'agree' to fight to use the product you already paid for. Not to mention a 'contract' which you have had no say in whatsoever in terms of what it contains.
So just have your cat accidentally jump enter key if you are in the US... No really, it makes no sense and hold up in court very rarely even in the US. Maybe you still have to do the classes that cover all the famous cases. Remember the Second Life one?
Ooh and don't lie to me about you reading and studying every EULA. Even people that wrote the EULA for Blizzard don't read the EULA of stuff they install themselves.
I said earlier that EULA are not legally bound, so why the hell are you arguing about that. They are a contract though, to protect the company and/or developer from what you can do or use with their product.
To dummy it down for you, if agreeing to the EULA and installing the content of the product is like agreeing to enter a porn site. If you don't agree to the terms and conditions, you can always leave. There is a reason to both EULA and porn sites do this, so that it protects whatever company that made them from the consumer/user that agreed upon it.
The physical/digital copy you bought of the game, that is your property. How you use it is agreed upon the EULA. Blizzard owns the IP rights of the game, and states what you can do with the game by the EULA/ToS.
Anyways, I'm done explaining things to you. If you keep arguing, seems like your ego is stronger than your argument, and I have derailed this thread long enough.
|
On November 14 2010 17:36 Gonodactylus wrote:
And yes, you said it was a contract. You were wrong on that, mr.undergrad. Look, I am both morally and legally correct as long as I am speaking outside of the US. And when in the US I am still morally right. You can argue any day about how US law is enforced. But that doesn't mean it makes sense that you go into contract and buy a product and then when you get home you are suddenly surprised by a wall of gibberish you have to click 'agree' to fight to use the product you already paid for. Not to mention a 'contract' which you have had no say in whatsoever in terms of what it contains.
First of all, morality has no place in this argument as it has nothing at all to do with how established laws can be enforced.
Second, both parties involved with a contract do not have to take part in the creation of it. Pretty much Blizzard can make a contract that you must agree with to play their game, and if you don't like it, tough luck.
Thirdly, and admittedly off topic, you're making undergrad seem a bit more prestigious than it is, haha. (No offense to the undergrad law dude. I'm headed to law school myself in about a year)
|
On November 14 2010 17:17 Highways wrote:
An eye opening article.
Always had a feeling that this whole debacle was kespa's fault.
I agree about the "eye opening" part for sure. I wonder how much of what was said is true. I know Blizzard is easy to blame because of Activision, I do honestly believe that they have too much influence over Blizzard in an effort to squeeze out every cent. So saying that Blizzard is screwing KeSPA isn't all that much of a stretch for people to get to. However, its really interesting to hear that KeSPA might be just as much/if not more to blame for the whole situation. I had no idea GOM went to Blizzard for permission to do the Intel Classic tournaments, I did know KeSPA didn't allow the progamers to continue attending it however.
Anyways, a very interesting read.
Man, my posts aren't very eloquent today. Sorry about that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
