|
I'm not a law student of anything, but I've seen a lot of comments in these forums which demonize one of the parties in the title. In this post, I want to clarify the concepts that each side is talking about, as well as provide my input. Feel free to add any corrections/additions but to the facts at hand. (Italicized text is my analysis.)
As for my background, while I did play Broodwar when it was first released, I wasn't really active with it (I've seen a few of the games on Arirang since it was available as a cable channel here but that's probably it). It's only with Starcraft 2 that I started taking interest in the game again.
IP Rights
Blizzard's claim:
First, GomTV is the exclusive business partner for SC1 and SC2 in South Korea. Because MBCGame and OnGameNet refused to sign the IP rights licensing contract, they are violating our IP rights. It is not right for them to broadcast when the negotiations are still in progress. So, I think our IP rights are being violated by some broadcasters.
Source: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=7158393
KeSPA's claim:
KeSPA and the negotiation team have recognized Blizzard's intellectual property rights from the beginning of the negotiations as Blizzard is the original author. This agreement regarding recognizing Intellectual Property rights was something that was agreed upon even within the negotiations, and this was also the reason why negotiations were possible to the present, and KeSPA and the negotiation team had sincerely applied themselves to the negotiations.
But because recognizing the IP rights shouldn't be a chain that constrains the organizations involved via license fees, demanding complete ownership rights to derivative works, and to even demanding auditing rights to KeSPA, KeSPA has repeatedly been in discussions to try and reach a common ground where both sides can agree with with regards to IP rights acknowledgement.
Source: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=7171870
I want to clarify, the conflict between the two is the interpretation of what it means to own "IP Rights". With Blizzard, they mean Starcraft and all its derivative works (i.e. broadcasting rights, competitions, etc.). For KeSPA, it seems that they're willing to acknowledge Starcraft: Broodwar is Blizzard's product, but not quite so much when it comes to everything else (i.e. derivative works).
Here's an analogy: For Blizzard, they own a hamburger retail shop (the hamburger is Broodwar in its entirety). KeSPA suddenly got their hamburgers, and started selling pieces (the bread, the hamburger) individually or even repacking them, but claiming it as their own. Blizzard wants acknowledgment that whatever KeSPA is selling belongs to them since it can all be traced to their hamburger (Broodwar).
For KeSPA, Broodwar is a tree in Blizzard's backyard. They acknowledge that the tree belongs to Blizzard. However, occasionally, fruit (derivative works) from the tree will fall on public property or KeSPA's property, such as the street. Thus KeSPA claims that Blizzard has no claims over the fallen fruit, since it fell on public property/KeSPA's property, and that they appropriated it (worked on it, refined it, etc.).
The gist of the conflict is the interpretation between these "IP Rights", and each side attaches different meanings to them. To be fair to Blizzard, it's a common acceptance in the rest of the world that they should own the rights to everything derived from their IP (there are exceptions of course). To be fair to KeSPA, in their mind, they developed the BroodWar scene without help from Blizzard (minus the game itself of course) and then here comes a third party suddenly asking for a share of the profits from all their hard work (similarly, if you're familiar with how franchise work [I'm not saying KeSPA is a franchise of Blizzard], some people don't like franchises because they perceive it as them doing the hard work yet the parent company gets a percentage of their profits; if you're this type of person, then you'll understand how KeSPA feels).
This IP Rights conflict however has to happen. If Blizzard doesn't defend their IP, they will be setting a precedent should others "steal" their IP for profit in the future. The longer they let this past, the longer it works against them. For KeSPA, the popularity of eSports in their country is unique, so they could attempt to present that their product isn't infringing on Blizzard's IP. Should they succeed, this has huge legal implications when it comes to the video game industry, not just in Korea, but in the world, due to this legal precedent.
More on KeSPA's definition of "derivative works":
KeSPA has expressed its position of being willing to pay for a rational level of usage fee and appeal its support of marketing and promotion for product line-up of Blizzard with continuous investment such as sharing all contents which belong to KeSPA like pro gamers, broadcasting and sponsorship.
However, Blizzard has asserted not the right as a copyright but unreasonable demands as following.
1. Set the contract term for using its games to 1 year
2. Prior approvals about all league operations such as contracting sponsorship, marketing materials, broadcasting plan
3. License fee for running of league and all license fee of sponsorship inducement
4. Ownership of all broadcasted programs, program videos
5. Right to audit KeSPA
Source: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=5170767
"Blizzard is out to kill Broodwar"
Now many fans claim that Blizzard is out to kill Broodwar, especially with the release of Starcraft 2. I don't think this is the case, as it is more of protecting their IP Rights (see above). Most attribute this claim because Blizzard unveiled Starcraft 2 in Korea in May 2007, but Blizzard actually attempted to negotiate with KeSPA as early as February of the same year (source: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=5170767), most likely in light of KeSPA's Broadcast Rights Controversy (source: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=1680175).
I'd like to add that if you read through those old post on the subject (such as this http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=1718118), it's hilarious to see history repeating itself. KeSPA/IEG for example claims rights to Broodwar, tries to prevent OGN/MBC from airing Broodwar, and antagonizes fans (but not the players/sponsors) source: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=1704839. Now it seems the roles are reversed, with Blizzard enforcing their rights.
If Blizzard wanted to stop the airing of Broodwar, they could have filed an injunction--which would stop the broadcasts until everything could be legally resolved, but didn't:
Why didn't you request an injunction to stop broadcasting?
Blizzard and GomTV has always been participating in the negotiations in the good faith. Any other companies in our situation would never have the same patience we have. We still acknowledge South Korea as an important market. But now, I think there is no answer other than the lawsuit. If we really wanted to get done with this faster, we would have filed an injunction. I think that in order to broadcast, a proper license is required. So, we filed an lawsuit in the basis of IP rights violation without filing an injunction first.
Source: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=7158393
It also makes consistent sense in the fact that Blizzard hasn't gone after iCCup for example, which isn't a for-profit organization. Nor has Blizzard stopped selling Starcraft: Broodwar for that matter. And at the end of the day, Broodwar is still additional revenue, so why kill it?
Blizzard on Profits
From Blizzard:
South Korea only brings in 5% of overall global sales.
Source: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=7158393
The fact of the matter is, this is both good and bad. 5% of global sales is a significant market share, especially considering Korea's niche, size, and population density. However, the number is also thrown about to diffuse the exagerration that the public have, that Korea is where Blizzard is deriving majority of its profits. It's also there, in my opinion, to alleviate Korean public opinion that a foreign company is deriving significant profits from them.
Some fans are complaining that the measurement of 3 years is unfair, that Blizzard should have mentioned their global sales in the past 10 years. I think it's necessary to limit the time frame to the present, since that's what's being discussed at hand. For example, Sega has sold a lot of consoles over the past three decades, but what's significant today when we're talking about console sales is how much Sega has sold in the past few years (i.e. they're not in the console-selling business anymore).
From Blizzard:
It is said Blizzard wants at least 700,000,000 won from the Korean market. Is that true?
The licensing fee is there to say that if they wish to use our content, they need to be capable of producing high quality content. When problems relating to intellectual rights is dealt with, the fee can be adjusted as needed.
[i]Some are confused by the fee with regards to "producing high quality content". I'll re-post my clarification from another thread:
Basically, the licensing fee is a barrier to entry. Whoever plans to broadcast the games needs to prove that they have the financial capability to produce such shows. It's not necessarily Kespa-specific (i.e. whether MBCGame is unable to produce good shows), but rather a general rule for Blizzard's terms when it comes to broadcasting their shows (in the event that another broadcaster wants to air Blizzard's games). The issue at hand though is the acknowledging of IP rights, which is the second of Blizzard's conditions. I don't think there's any doubt that MBCGame and OnGameNet can produce quality shows, but rather that they're not recognizing Blizzard's IP Rights.
To restate, Sam is saying that Blizzard wants its IP rights acknowledged and is suing on principle. That's the reason for the fee (which is less than what Kespa was charging for their broadcasting rights), why contest license fees (not to be confused w/ broadcasting fees) are just 1 won per year (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=6950901), or that profits from broadcasting fees will be donated to charity (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=6614875).
From KeSPA:
Blizzard said that because players and audiences have a right to demand and enjoy high quality eSports broadcasts, and said that they need a broadcast license fee so that only companies that reach a certain standard can enter the eSports industry.
But in the last 10 years, the broadcasting stations and the Progame teams, KeSPA, and other organizations had worked together to create the foundation and the model of an eSports industry, and it's becoming the standard of worldwide eSports. Many organizations around the world took interest in the growth of Korea's eSports scene and introduced it to the world, and many countries are using Korea's eSports system as a model to develop an eSports market in their country.
In order to develop Korea's eSports market, over the last 10 years the Progame teams invested billions of won every year. The government, civilian organization, and KeSPA has also continued to put in many costs and effort to expand the base of eSports in Korea and to enhance the status of Esports internationally.
Thus, Blizzard's argument about "License fee to have a high quality eSports broadcast" is a statement that ostracizes the broadcasting companies, the progame teams, KeSPA, the government, and all other involved organizations, while ignoring the efforts and accomplishments of these organizations in the past 10 years, and we express extreme disappointment regarding this statement.
Source: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=7171870
Rather than using a "barrier to entry" paradigm, KeSPA is making the assertion that the success of the success of e-sports is due to mutual cooperation and effort from everyone. This isn't necessarily incorrect, just a different paradigm.
As an analogy, Blizzard is selling you an encyclopedia: they've screened the contributors (not via fees of course but due to credentials) so that the reader knows that the information they're presenting is accurate.
KeSPA, on the other hand, is applying a Crowd Sourcing or Wikipedia model where everyone, regardless of their station in life, can contribute to deliver accurate information to you.
From KeSPA:
While Blizzard has mentioned that KeSPA had made 1.7 billion won in the three years KeSPA had run a licensing business, and that the amount Gretech requested is only 1/5th of the amount taken in by KeSPA, but in reality, the amount requested by the Gretech amounts to 700 million won a year minimum if you combine the Proleague and both Individual Leagues. This amounts to far more than 2 billion won even through a simple calculation. Furthermore, because Gretech continues to push for year long contracts, we don't know how much they will charge for extending the contract after the first year.
Source: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=7171870
In 2007, KeSPA originally charged 7,5000,0000 Won (approx. $3/4 million US) over 3 years and was lowered down to 3,9000,0000 Won (approx. $390,000 US) after negotiations. Source: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=1718118 (see KeSPA spoiler tag).
Gretech is currently charging 100,000,000 won per season (up to 3 seasons a year) and is good for one year. Source: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=6950901
Note: Other relevant info is how profits will be split, which I won't be going into here.
Again, KeSPA and Blizzard are working with 2 different paradigms. KeSPA was charging a large amount but was good for 3 years. Blizzard, on the other hand, was charging a small amount but was good, from my understanding, for one season.
As an analogy, KeSPA is asking you to make a huge downpayment on a car (spread over 3 years). How often you use the car is up to you (it's relevant because the stations air several seasons of Broodwar). Blizzard, on the other hand, is asking you to pay for this month's Internet connection. It's not a lot individually, but if you're airing a lot of seasons during a year, the cost IS indeed higher than what KeSPA is charging.
Having said that, why would Blizzard charge that amount today? Well, consider that this ultimatum came at the end of the year, so each station probably just has one or two seasons left to air within the year. Blizzard is looking at it from the short term perspective. Its current priority is:
Once the IP rights problem is dealt with, GomTV and Blizzard can adjust the licensing fee. This is not for the profits, but to protect our IP rights. To operate a business, it is important, as the holder of the IP, to get our IP rights protected.
All markets, including South Korea, request the rights to use our content. Of course, we cannot state exactly how much they needed to pay, but other markets do also pay as well. China and Taiwan came to us first, to get the license needed. We will finalize the licensing for broadcasting as well. It is not right to say that China has different situation than South Korea. This is same anywhere else including Europe.
Source: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=7158393
KeSPA, on the other hand, is looking at it from a long-term perspective. If Blizzard continues to charge 100,000,000 won per season, then it IS going to be expensive.
I do think Blizzard is willing to lower the fee once the initial fee is paid and the companies acknowledge their IP Rights. KeSPA, on the other hand, has other interpretations of "recognizing" IP Rights (derivative works), hence the negotiation of a lower broadcasting fee cannot be negotiated.
As far as arguments go, each one is attempting to position itself in a favorable position.
|
Shouldn't this be in the BW forums?
|
On December 04 2010 12:29 2WeaK wrote:
Shouldn't this be in the BW forums?
Thought it was equally important to both forums but I'll leave it to mods to decide whether it needs to be transferred.
|
Probably general if anything. As I understand it the 100mil per season only covers a single tournament, though. So if theres 5 MSL, an STX cup, and Proleague, that's 7 licenses, maybe 8 if its 2 for the 6 season Proleague?
|
|
|
Wow thanks very very much for this! Very solid information, thank you so much for gathering this, must have taken you a long time!
Also, GREAT analogies! The best I've seen! (omg like all the analogies I've seen regarding Kespa vs Blizzard have really really sucked) perhaps not perfect of course, but as good as an analagy could be ! (especially for such a complicated matter)
Also I really like the "unbiased" view, or rather just your informative/objective style of this. I've learned so much from this haha. The explanations help a lot too, like Blizzard wanting higher quality production etc.
Although I also do acknowledge, of course, that there still may be inaccurate information or that an explanation might have missed the main point or a side point or something, as humans aren't perfect. But, GREAT ARTICLE!
|
This is an excellent post that does a great job explaining the situation, well done.
All that said, I have a pretty big hunch that this is not so much about Blizzard vs Kespa, but rather Blizzard seeking precedent vs future derivatives of SC2, such as appearal, literature, etc. I have a hard time believing that fees collected will outweigh legal fees.
|
Interesting interpretation of what's going on. Thanks for posting.
|
This is well written. I recommend anyone confused about the subject give this a read. Thank you for taking the time to post this.
|
Spenguin
Australia3316 Posts
Very nice ideas and write-up, definitely has changed my perception on the situation, this needs to be spotlighted so everyone can read it.
Well done
|
On December 04 2010 12:34 Craton wrote:
Probably general if anything. As I understand it the 100mil per season only covers a single tournament, though. So if theres 5 MSL, an STX cup, and Proleague, that's 7 licenses, maybe 8 if its 2 for the 6 season Proleague?
Yes. Although I'm a bit confused by "100,000,000 won per season (up to 3 seasons a year)" so it might not necessarily be x7 or x8. I discussed this in the italicized parts (it's towards the end of the year).
On December 04 2010 12:59 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
Although I also do acknowledge, of course, that there still may be inaccurate information or that an explanation might have missed the main point or a side point or something, as humans aren't perfect/
Thanks. Feel free to raise points that need more clarification or you want me to expound.
|
I stopped reading when you said "irregardless". But everything up to that point was pretty good.
|
Interesting, but I don't think any of us knows what's actually going on behind the scene's and we will probably never will. I guess we'll just have to wait  .
|
United Kingdom16710 Posts
On December 29 2010 18:53 Ferago wrote:
I stopped reading when you said "irregardless". But everything up to that point was pretty good.
If the article was good up to that point, why would you let a single incorrect term force you to stop reading entirely? Loosen up, do yourself a favour and finish it.
|
Nice summary, thanks for the facts, jack.
|
SC1 and SC2 are like a hammer and saw. That doesn't mean blizzard should own any house or street built with said hammer and saw; especially when a building company or person makes something with them.
But the building company shouldn't be allowed to stop other people buildings houses.
Kespa isn't good in practice, but blizzard shouldn't own derivitive works either imo as it sets a bad precident for esports imo.
|
Wow, really glad this got bumped. Great OP, definitely deserves a little more interest than it got the first time around.
|
skimmed it... nothing new, interpretation kinda shallow... overall a nice conclusion would've been better after presenting the line of information.. at least i would read that part. other than that, ideas are one way
|
edit: oops it was old post dunno how to delete
|
On December 04 2010 12:21 charlesatan wrote:
KeSPA suddenly got their hamburgers, and started selling pieces (the bread, the hamburger) individually or even repacking them, but claiming it as their own. Blizzard wants acknowledgment that whatever KeSPA is selling belongs to them since it can all be traced to their hamburger (Broodwar).
It's more like KeSPA took a lot of photographs of the burger in different positions and then sold a book called Blizzurgers. And then Blizzard said "no, you can't do that, we created the logo on that burger wrapper and if it appears in your photographs then you're violating our rights". It's not really about the burger at all.
|
Very good post, only one thing wrong. No matter how it ends there will be no legal precedence because the trial was in a Korean court. If there were so I believe this issue would be solved because there was already a case about the same issue for another game.
|
I want to clarify something myself. The 5% margin is a gross understatement (no pun intended). When Blizzard says that they are talking about the total market share not Starcraft: Brood War alone. When KeSPA spoke out they implied the latter.
It's very easy to spin-doctor something when both parties are unclear.
|
This article help me understand the situation a lot more now.
Still, in the end, both of them is just trying to protect their interest.
|
charlesatan wrote:
Here's an analogy: For Blizzard, they own a hamburger retail shop (the hamburger is Broodwar in its entirety). KeSPA suddenly got their hamburgers, and started selling pieces (the bread, the hamburger) individually or even repacking them, but claiming it as their own. Blizzard wants acknowledgment that whatever KeSPA is selling belongs to them since it can all be traced to their hamburger (Broodwar).
For KeSPA, Broodwar is a tree in Blizzard's backyard. They acknowledge that the tree belongs to Blizzard. However, occasionally, fruit (derivative works) from the tree will fall on public property or KeSPA's property, such as the street. Thus KeSPA claims that Blizzard has no claims over the fallen fruit, since it fell on public property/KeSPA's property, and that they appropriated it (worked on it, refined it, etc.).
ion. [/i]
Those analogy's make them sound like two squibbling sevenyearolds... And both are ridiculously full of shit.
|
On December 30 2010 02:22 goldfishs wrote:Show nested quote +charlesatan wrote:
Here's an analogy: For Blizzard, they own a hamburger retail shop (the hamburger is Broodwar in its entirety). KeSPA suddenly got their hamburgers, and started selling pieces (the bread, the hamburger) individually or even repacking them, but claiming it as their own. Blizzard wants acknowledgment that whatever KeSPA is selling belongs to them since it can all be traced to their hamburger (Broodwar).
For KeSPA, Broodwar is a tree in Blizzard's backyard. They acknowledge that the tree belongs to Blizzard. However, occasionally, fruit (derivative works) from the tree will fall on public property or KeSPA's property, such as the street. Thus KeSPA claims that Blizzard has no claims over the fallen fruit, since it fell on public property/KeSPA's property, and that they appropriated it (worked on it, refined it, etc.).
ion. Those analogy's make them sound like two squibbling sevenyearolds... And both are ridiculously full of shit. [/i]
Well why don't you present us with your analogy, I'm sure you can clear things up just perfectly. Get off your horse sir, stop complaining just because this is the interwebs
|
i stopped reading after the hamburger's analogy, it was not well stated or you just have a point of view in the matter that i cant agree with, also, this belongs in BW forums, why? because its about Broodwar, not SC2, SC2 community have every right to be interested in this, but its not a SC2 topic.
To not just flame and actually make a contribution, here is my point of view in this, within the hamburger stuff:
Blizzard makes the bread for the hamburger's(game), KeSPA buys it, adds some meat(players), tomatoes(pro-teams), lettuce(pro league/survivor's league), pickles(all the technical stuff, computers, place to play, referees etc, etc), sauce(makes it so it can be broadcasted), and maybe some cheese too , then they pack it up, and sell the hamburgers to pay for bread and all other ingredients, then blizzard suddenly notices they can make a lot of money out of selling hamburgers, so they demand KeSPA that since everything is done with their bread, they should hold property rights over everything that is produced with that bread, KeSPA obviously refuses to give them more than they actually deserve, so Blizzard starts making a big issue over the bread to pull some attention into the matter and take it into court hoping they can force the money from the hamburgers(even when the only thing they did was the bread and NOTHING else) with the help of law.
Now before any jumped conclusions, this is from a neutral perspective, Blizzard DO deserves money from their creation, the problem is the amount they are asking for, and that is the breaking point in this matter, that's why they cant come to an agreement, Blizzard just wants too much.
That is my opinion on this.
|
Unless the international court decides to suddenly change their position on broadcasting materials that are sold with a license (movies, video games, books) then I can see no possible way that MBC or OGN will win this case.
If they do, then this will set the precedent for all future games in korea and possibly internationally and will cause the immediate widthdrawl of funds toward promoting sc2.
Anyone have any news on the case?
|
Seriously how naive are you ? Blizzard wants to kill SC1 in Korea. Its THAT simple. Are you telling me that Korean tournaments have run for years and years without blizzard interfeering and suddenly now that they have SC2 out they are interested in their precious IP rights ?
Come on.
I play SC2 now but i'm still man enough to admit that SC1 is the much better game as far as progaming goes.
I wouldn't even mind it that much if Blizzard killed SC1 in Korea IF GSL and Blizz would actually be a half decent substitute for Kespa. Which they are not.
Kespa with MapDori have given us 3 new maps every 3 months for the past 5 or6 Years. Blizzard has made some crappy imbalanced maps and is forcing everyone to play them all the time just like they did with WarCraft3.
There is no variety anymore. I cry myself to ladder each day on these ridiculous maps.
|
On December 30 2010 01:39 McDonalds wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2010 12:21 charlesatan wrote:
KeSPA suddenly got their hamburgers, and started selling pieces (the bread, the hamburger) individually or even repacking them, but claiming it as their own. Blizzard wants acknowledgment that whatever KeSPA is selling belongs to them since it can all be traced to their hamburger (Broodwar). It's more like KeSPA took a lot of photographs of the burger in different positions and then sold a book called Blizzurgers. And then Blizzard said "no, you can't do that, we created the logo on that burger wrapper and if it appears in your photographs then you're violating our rights". It's not really about the burger at all.
its much more like microsoft claiming to own every .doc file in the fucking planet
|
On December 30 2010 01:22 Adeeler wrote:
SC1 and SC2 are like a hammer and saw. That doesn't mean blizzard should own any house or street built with said hammer and saw; especially when a building company or person makes something with them.
But the building company shouldn't be allowed to stop other people buildings houses.
Kespa isn't good in practice, but blizzard shouldn't own derivitive works either imo as it sets a bad precident for esports imo.
Thats a ridiciolous notion.
The person who created the hammer (holds a patent if there is one) gets paid royalties from every single hammer made. The company that built the house bought a hammer and in turn the royalties of that sale went to the hammer inventor.
Blizzard created sc they get paid for every sale of the game. A company utilizing their product to make profits, are entitled to reinburse Blizzard for their game.
If there was no blizzard there is no sc in turn there is no Kespa. Everything kespa has they owe to Blizz for creating the game. Did kespa make esports into somethign great for bw, yes. Is there a selfish ulterior motive that blizzard is doing, yes. Does any of that matter? no.
|
On December 30 2010 01:39 McDonalds wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2010 12:21 charlesatan wrote:
KeSPA suddenly got their hamburgers, and started selling pieces (the bread, the hamburger) individually or even repacking them, but claiming it as their own. Blizzard wants acknowledgment that whatever KeSPA is selling belongs to them since it can all be traced to their hamburger (Broodwar). It's more like KeSPA took a lot of photographs of the burger in different positions and then sold a book called Blizzurgers. And then Blizzard said "no, you can't do that, we created the logo on that burger wrapper and if it appears in your photographs then you're violating our rights". It's not really about the burger at all.
This along with your username is extremely appropriate 
|
Can I just point out that one of Gretech's demands was for ogn/mbc to stop broadcasting broodwar during primetime hours? Its pretty clear that Blizzard's intention is to at least push bw to the sidelines so koreans will watch sc2.
+ Show Spoiler +On December 30 2010 03:53 GambleVII wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2010 01:22 Adeeler wrote:
SC1 and SC2 are like a hammer and saw. That doesn't mean blizzard should own any house or street built with said hammer and saw; especially when a building company or person makes something with them.
But the building company shouldn't be allowed to stop other people buildings houses.
Kespa isn't good in practice, but blizzard shouldn't own derivitive works either imo as it sets a bad precident for esports imo. Thats a ridiciolous notion. The person who created the hammer (holds a patent if there is one) gets paid royalties from every single hammer made. The company that built the house bought a hammer and in turn the royalties of that sale went to the hammer inventor. Blizzard created sc they get paid for every sale of the game. A company utilizing their product to make profits, are entitled to reinburse Blizzard for their game. If there was no blizzard there is no sc in turn there is no Kespa. Everything kespa has they owe to Blizz for creating the game.
Seriously? Stop with the stupid analogies, they can go both ways just as easily. I think the OP made that pretty clear with his examples.
|
On December 30 2010 03:53 GambleVII wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2010 01:22 Adeeler wrote:
SC1 and SC2 are like a hammer and saw. That doesn't mean blizzard should own any house or street built with said hammer and saw; especially when a building company or person makes something with them.
But the building company shouldn't be allowed to stop other people buildings houses.
Kespa isn't good in practice, but blizzard shouldn't own derivitive works either imo as it sets a bad precident for esports imo. Thats a ridiciolous notion. The person who created the hammer (holds a patent if there is one) gets paid royalties from every single hammer made. The company that built the house bought a hammer and in turn the royalties of that sale went to the hammer inventor. Blizzard created sc they get paid for every sale of the game. A company utilizing their product to make profits, are entitled to reinburse Blizzard for their game. If there was no blizzard there is no sc in turn there is no Kespa. Everything kespa has they owe to Blizz for creating the game.
Don't be silly. Blizzard didn't "invent" anything. They made and sold a product. Kespa, OGN / MBC are not selling SCBW copies, they are not selling anything that belongs to Blizzard. Morally Blizzard should get nothing from Kespa or anyone else for that matter.
Its like a shopkeeper selling paint but then claiming that the picture the artist drew belongs to him because he created the paint, even though he later sold the paint to the artist who now wants to sell his painting to make money.
This is the best analogy you could come up with and you can see how ludicrous the IP rights are in the US of A.
People watch OGN / MBC to watch the ProGamers and the matches THEY play, not the crappy graphics and pixelated units from a game that was made in 98. Nobody would watch TV if a SCBW Computer would play against another SCBW Computer.
Thats like people tunning in not to watch the Football players play the game, but to watch the Ball and the Field, or the chessboard and the chess pieces and not the match and the players.
Morally, Kespa is right.
Think about it. Right now in SC2, if FruitDealer plays the best game of his life and hits every critical timming and shows off incredible micro and multitasking, the replay belongs to Blizzard.
What kind of I.P. BS is that ? Thats not a world i want to live in honestly.
Basically, if the games played are just that, then the IP should belong to Blizzard, if the games played are MORE THAN THE SUM OF THEIR PARTS, meaning their value is higher than that of the game itself, then the IP should belong to the progamers who belong to Kespa. Problem solved.
|
Don't be silly. Blizzard didn't "invent" anything. They made and sold a product. Kespa, OGN / MBC are not selling SCBW copies, they are not selling anything that belongs to Blizzard. Morally Blizzard should get nothing from Kespa or anyone else for that matter.
They are utilizing the copies to make profits, therefore they own a share of those profits to Blizzard. Do you think Adobe charges that much for their programs because they feel like it. There tool is made to create other things.
Also Blizzard has a terms of service in all of there games. Read the broodwar one because KesPa had to agree to the terms of service when installing and utilizing the games.
Its like a shopkeeper selling paint but then claiming that the picture the artist drew belongs to him because he created the paint, even though he later sold the paint to the artist who now wants to sell his painting to make money.
This is the best analogy you could come up with and you can see how ludicrous the IP rights are in the US of A.
But its not, because this isnt a product used to create something. If that painter wanted he could get the paint from any other store anywhere. You cant get starcraft from any other company aside from blizzard.
People watch OGN / MBC to watch the ProGamers and the matches THEY play, not the crappy graphics and pixelated units from a game that was made in 98. Nobody would watch TV if a SCBW Computer would play against another SCBW Computer.
Morally, Kespa is right.
So why is wc3 and other rts liek command and conquer..etc not as popular as sc? because sc was made so damn good that its very enjoyable to watch.
Kespa utilized blizzards game to make a product for people to watch. Kespa owes blizzard everythign so they are moraly wrong.
Moraly you dont jsut lash out agaisnt the company that created the object that makes all your money. Hell have kespa do a OGN brodcastign red alert 2? I mean if its about the pros playing the game then it shouldnt matter what game right?
If I find a waller and it has 1000 dollars in it, and i return it to you? would you give me a reward? Because moraly you should. No matter how much you give me your still positive money.
Blizzard gave kespa a wallet, and kespa isnt rewarding blizzard for that. plain and simple.
Think about it. Right now in SC2, if FruitDealer plays the best game of his live and hits every critical timming and shows off incredible micro and multitasking, the replay belongs to Blizzard.
What kind of I.P. BS is that ? Thats not a world i want to live in honestly.
that he is allowed to share with everyone but not for profit?
If Kespa wants to do what they are doing for FREE then let them, but they are charging people and extorting companies to do it. Thats different.
|
I strongly dissagree with Common Law. We like to do things differently in the civilized world.
The Photoshop Analogy actually works against you and against Blizzard.
Morally, Blizzard should get nothing, and Laws and Legal systems have always been based on Morals.
Moreover Kespa added to the game before it became "such a great game", when they fine-tuned the balance using maps which as you can see Blizzard is unable to do themselves.
BroodWar would be imbalanced on the current SC2 maps just like SC2 is and thus a bad game.
My point is not that the terms of use for the game do not exist or that Kespa did not agree to them, but that they should be void if Blizzard is looking to gain profit from a product derived from their product after its already been sold.
And regarding the paint and artist analogy, lets imagine that the shopkeeper created a type of green that only he knows the recipe to.
Think about the following.
If an artist, today, in continental europe steals paint that does not belong to him and creates a painting that is worth more than the paint itself then the painting belongs to the artist who only has to give the owner of the paint the amount of money that the paint costs. Criminal Law and Civil Law are 2 different things. The painter would pay a criminal fine to the state for stealing, but the owner of the paint would only get the value of the paint back and not the painting.
Kespa has taken the paint and has created an industry thats much more than what they got from Blizzard.
Moreover just because they broke the terms of use agreement (which is not Criminal Law) they didn't commit any crime. So, because this is a Civil Trial and because the industry that Kespa has created is more than SCBW, Kespa could win.
FYI South Korea uses the Continental Legal System, not Common Law so there is actually the posibility of Kespa winning the trial.
|
On December 30 2010 03:09 [White]NaDa wrote:i stopped reading after the hamburger's analogy, it was not well stated or you just have a point of view in the matter that i cant agree with, also, this belongs in BW forums, why? because its about Broodwar, not SC2, SC2 community have every right to be interested in this, but its not a SC2 topic. To not just flame and actually make a contribution, here is my point of view in this, within the hamburger stuff: Blizzard makes the bread for the hamburger's(game), KeSPA buys it, adds some meat(players), tomatoes(pro-teams), lettuce(pro league/survivor's league), pickles(all the technical stuff, computers, place to play, referees etc, etc), sauce(makes it so it can be broadcasted), and maybe some cheese too , then they pack it up, and sell the hamburgers to pay for bread and all other ingredients, then blizzard suddenly notices they can make a lot of money out of selling hamburgers, so they demand KeSPA that since everything is done with their bread, they should hold property rights over everything that is produced with that bread, KeSPA obviously refuses to give them more than they actually deserve, so Blizzard starts making a big issue over the bread to pull some attention into the matter and take it into court hoping they can force the money from the hamburgers(even when the only thing they did was the bread and NOTHING else) with the help of law. Now before any jumped conclusions, this is from a neutral perspective, Blizzard DO deserves money from their creation, the problem is the amount they are asking for, and that is the breaking point in this matter, that's why they cant come to an agreement, Blizzard just wants too much. That is my opinion on this.
the hamburger analogy isn't very good but the OP gave a better one in the next paragraph. From what I can tell, the OP isn't really giving a point of view, but rather trying to clarify and make things more clear for people, since most of the previous posts on this topic are rather polarized.
It's very relevant to SC2 as many SC2 players are/were BW players and the SC2 scene will be tied to the BW scene regardless of what happens. Still, this would probably be better in the General forum or even just news.
|
On December 30 2010 04:22 decemberTV wrote:
I strongly dissagree with Common Law. We like to do things differently in the civilized world.
The Photoshop Analogy actually works against you and against Blizzard.
Morally, Blizzard should get nothing, and Laws and Legal systems have always been based on Morals.
Moreover Kespa added to the game before it became "such a great game", when they fine-tuned the balance using maps which as you can see Blizzard is unable to do themselves.
BroodWar would be imbalanced on the current SC2 maps just like SC2 is and thus a bad game.
Photoshop sells its product for over 500 dollars in many cases higher then 1000. To allow the users free reign over its item.
Blizzard does not offer their product for 1000 saying ok do whatever u want. No they have a TOS and thats their obligations for you to use their game.
Do u see Blizzard suing valve for dota2? because thats based on something created in their map editor on WC3. Because see Valve is making their own game.
Like i said, moraly Kespa owes blizzard, no matter how much kespa pays blizzard as long as they have some profits left they are posotive. because withought blizzard there would be no kespa.
If u lose a waller and i return it with all its money; moraly you should give me a reward right. Well blizzard provided the waller for kespa to fill with money. Some of that money deserves to be in Blizzards hand.
p.s i apologize for lack of capitalization and spelling errors.
|
On December 30 2010 04:34 GambleVII wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2010 04:22 decemberTV wrote:
I strongly dissagree with Common Law. We like to do things differently in the civilized world.
The Photoshop Analogy actually works against you and against Blizzard.
Morally, Blizzard should get nothing, and Laws and Legal systems have always been based on Morals.
Moreover Kespa added to the game before it became "such a great game", when they fine-tuned the balance using maps which as you can see Blizzard is unable to do themselves.
BroodWar would be imbalanced on the current SC2 maps just like SC2 is and thus a bad game. Photoshop sells its product for over 500 dollars in many cases higher then 1000. To allow the users free reign over its item. Blizzard does not offer their product for 1000 saying ok do whatever u want. No they have a TOS and thats their obligations for you to use their game. Do u see Blizzard suing valve for dota2? because thats based on something created in their map editor on WC3. Because see Valve is making their own game. Like i said, moraly Kespa owes blizzard, no matter how much kespa pays blizzard as long as they have some profits left they are posotive. because withought blizzard there would be no kespa. If u lose a waller and i return it with all its money; moraly you should give me a reward right. Well blizzard provided the waller for kespa to fill with money. Some of that money deserves to be in Blizzards hand. p.s i apologize for lack of capitalization and spelling errors.
you are making a lot of errors simply based on blind support to blizzard you know? its not like KeSPA does not pay anything to Blizzard
|
On December 30 2010 04:38 [White]NaDa wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2010 04:34 GambleVII wrote:On December 30 2010 04:22 decemberTV wrote:
I strongly dissagree with Common Law. We like to do things differently in the civilized world.
The Photoshop Analogy actually works against you and against Blizzard.
Morally, Blizzard should get nothing, and Laws and Legal systems have always been based on Morals.
Moreover Kespa added to the game before it became "such a great game", when they fine-tuned the balance using maps which as you can see Blizzard is unable to do themselves.
BroodWar would be imbalanced on the current SC2 maps just like SC2 is and thus a bad game. Photoshop sells its product for over 500 dollars in many cases higher then 1000. To allow the users free reign over its item. Blizzard does not offer their product for 1000 saying ok do whatever u want. No they have a TOS and thats their obligations for you to use their game. Do u see Blizzard suing valve for dota2? because thats based on something created in their map editor on WC3. Because see Valve is making their own game. Like i said, moraly Kespa owes blizzard, no matter how much kespa pays blizzard as long as they have some profits left they are posotive. because withought blizzard there would be no kespa. If u lose a waller and i return it with all its money; moraly you should give me a reward right. Well blizzard provided the waller for kespa to fill with money. Some of that money deserves to be in Blizzards hand. p.s i apologize for lack of capitalization and spelling errors. you are making a lot of errors simply based on blind support to blizzard you know? its not like KeSPA does not pay anything to Blizzard
Im supporting blizzard in a sense that they own the game and anything they are entitled too. If kespa doesnt like paying them, then go do this same thing in another game?
How did people make maps for bw? oh yeah BLIZZARD put in a map editor, so again they provided them with the means of creating those maps.
So if blizzard never provided a Map editor, kespa again woulda done shit all. Everythign kespa did was because of blizzard. I dont care how much they pay them, if blizzard wants more they owe them more. Thats just how it is.
the pro scene wouldnt have been popular if not for Blizzard simple. No game no pro scene, no map editor, no new map pools.
If Kespa doesnt like it, let them make a pro league with a different game? Why dont they? because they cant thats why.
|
On December 30 2010 04:34 GambleVII wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2010 04:22 decemberTV wrote:
I strongly dissagree with Common Law. We like to do things differently in the civilized world.
The Photoshop Analogy actually works against you and against Blizzard.
Morally, Blizzard should get nothing, and Laws and Legal systems have always been based on Morals.
Moreover Kespa added to the game before it became "such a great game", when they fine-tuned the balance using maps which as you can see Blizzard is unable to do themselves.
BroodWar would be imbalanced on the current SC2 maps just like SC2 is and thus a bad game. Photoshop sells its product for over 500 dollars in many cases higher then 1000. To allow the users free reign over its item. Blizzard does not offer their product for 1000 saying ok do whatever u want. No they have a TOS and thats their obligations for you to use their game. Do u see Blizzard suing valve for dota2? because thats based on something created in their map editor on WC3. Because see Valve is making their own game. Like i said, moraly Kespa owes blizzard, no matter how much kespa pays blizzard as long as they have some profits left they are posotive. because withought blizzard there would be no kespa. If u lose a waller and i return it with all its money; moraly you should give me a reward right. Well blizzard provided the waller for kespa to fill with money. Some of that money deserves to be in Blizzards hand. p.s i apologize for lack of capitalization and spelling errors.
The EULA or whatever is not law. Right now i could break the EULA (or whatever it is you call TOS), Sell my replay if anyone would actually buy it,( lol ) and all that Blizzard could do is close my Battle.net Account. They could sue me but under Continental Law if i prove to the judge that that is such an amaizing replay that its more valuable than the game then i would win the trial.
|
On December 30 2010 04:44 GambleVII wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2010 04:38 [White]NaDa wrote:On December 30 2010 04:34 GambleVII wrote:On December 30 2010 04:22 decemberTV wrote:
I strongly dissagree with Common Law. We like to do things differently in the civilized world.
The Photoshop Analogy actually works against you and against Blizzard.
Morally, Blizzard should get nothing, and Laws and Legal systems have always been based on Morals.
Moreover Kespa added to the game before it became "such a great game", when they fine-tuned the balance using maps which as you can see Blizzard is unable to do themselves.
BroodWar would be imbalanced on the current SC2 maps just like SC2 is and thus a bad game. Photoshop sells its product for over 500 dollars in many cases higher then 1000. To allow the users free reign over its item. Blizzard does not offer their product for 1000 saying ok do whatever u want. No they have a TOS and thats their obligations for you to use their game. Do u see Blizzard suing valve for dota2? because thats based on something created in their map editor on WC3. Because see Valve is making their own game. Like i said, moraly Kespa owes blizzard, no matter how much kespa pays blizzard as long as they have some profits left they are posotive. because withought blizzard there would be no kespa. If u lose a waller and i return it with all its money; moraly you should give me a reward right. Well blizzard provided the waller for kespa to fill with money. Some of that money deserves to be in Blizzards hand. p.s i apologize for lack of capitalization and spelling errors. you are making a lot of errors simply based on blind support to blizzard you know? its not like KeSPA does not pay anything to Blizzard Im supporting blizzard in a sense that they own the game and anything they are entitled too. If kespa doesnt like paying them, then go do this same thing in another game? How did people make maps for bw? oh yeah BLIZZARD put in a map editor, so again they provided them with the means of creating those maps. So if blizzard never provided a Map editor, kespa again woulda done shit all. Everythign kespa did was because of blizzard. I dont care how much they pay them, if blizzard wants more they owe them more. Thats just how it is. the pro scene wouldnt have been popular if not for Blizzard simple. No game no pro scene, no map editor, no new map pools. If Kespa doesnt like it, let them make a pro league with a different game? Why dont they? because they cant thats why.
You are just blindly following a greedy corporation. At least in the case of the Map Editor you should see that the maps themselves are a creation of the map-maker and the intensive balance testing that has gone into it and it belongs to the creator and not to the maker of the software REGARDLESS of what the maker of the software claims.
Blizzard lawyers do not make law.
|
On December 30 2010 04:49 decemberTV wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2010 04:44 GambleVII wrote:On December 30 2010 04:38 [White]NaDa wrote:On December 30 2010 04:34 GambleVII wrote:On December 30 2010 04:22 decemberTV wrote:
I strongly dissagree with Common Law. We like to do things differently in the civilized world.
The Photoshop Analogy actually works against you and against Blizzard.
Morally, Blizzard should get nothing, and Laws and Legal systems have always been based on Morals.
Moreover Kespa added to the game before it became "such a great game", when they fine-tuned the balance using maps which as you can see Blizzard is unable to do themselves.
BroodWar would be imbalanced on the current SC2 maps just like SC2 is and thus a bad game. Photoshop sells its product for over 500 dollars in many cases higher then 1000. To allow the users free reign over its item. Blizzard does not offer their product for 1000 saying ok do whatever u want. No they have a TOS and thats their obligations for you to use their game. Do u see Blizzard suing valve for dota2? because thats based on something created in their map editor on WC3. Because see Valve is making their own game. Like i said, moraly Kespa owes blizzard, no matter how much kespa pays blizzard as long as they have some profits left they are posotive. because withought blizzard there would be no kespa. If u lose a waller and i return it with all its money; moraly you should give me a reward right. Well blizzard provided the waller for kespa to fill with money. Some of that money deserves to be in Blizzards hand. p.s i apologize for lack of capitalization and spelling errors. you are making a lot of errors simply based on blind support to blizzard you know? its not like KeSPA does not pay anything to Blizzard Im supporting blizzard in a sense that they own the game and anything they are entitled too. If kespa doesnt like paying them, then go do this same thing in another game? How did people make maps for bw? oh yeah BLIZZARD put in a map editor, so again they provided them with the means of creating those maps. So if blizzard never provided a Map editor, kespa again woulda done shit all. Everythign kespa did was because of blizzard. I dont care how much they pay them, if blizzard wants more they owe them more. Thats just how it is. the pro scene wouldnt have been popular if not for Blizzard simple. No game no pro scene, no map editor, no new map pools. If Kespa doesnt like it, let them make a pro league with a different game? Why dont they? because they cant thats why. You are just blindly following a greedy corporation. At least in the case of the Map Editor you should see that the maps themselves are a creation of the map-maker and the intensive balance testing that has gone into it and it belongs to the creator and not to the maker of the software REGARDLESS of what the maker of the software claims. Blizzard lawyers do not make law.
So Kespa is innocent? in extorting other companies so that they control all broadcasts of bw in korea, or strong holding all their pros? because there are no other option?
Blizzard put in alot of hard work creating starcraft and sc2. If Kespa thinks that they are soo great and could do this with any game, why dont they use another rts for a pro-league.
kespa owes itself to Blizzard. Withought blizzard kespa would have made 0 dollars. Thats all there is too it. All money it gives blizzard as restitution still leaves them in a posotive. As withought BW there would be no kespa. With no Blizzard there would be no BW,
|
I'm done arguing However i am blown away how you, who are i assume an american thinks and how quickly you blindly follow greedy shallow corporations.
Have a nice day, and please excuse my spelling mistakes i didn't know i would come under criticism for not speaking english fluently like a native speaker, on an international website. I hope the same thing happens to you 20 years from now when you misspell some chinese words.
|
On December 30 2010 05:10 decemberTV wrote:I'm done arguing However i am blown away how you, who are i assume an american thinks and how quickly you blindly follow greedy shallow corporations. Have a nice day, and please excuse my spelling mistakes i didn't know i would come under criticism for not speaking english fluently like a native speaker, on an international website. I hope the same thing happens to you 20 years from now when you misspell some chinese words.
Im european.
also i never criticized your spelling? as i was apologizing for mine, as I tend to make a few here or there that i could fix but choose not to. So i dont see why that last part was needed.
I can make the same statment about you however.
Im done arguing however i am blown away how you, who are i assume asian thinks and how quickly you blindly follow a greedy, extorting, shallow company.
KeSpa has had terrible buisness practices when it came to how they treated other companies and their own pro players, so please dont blame blizzard whos protecting their property.
I support blizzard but i also go with whats moraly right.
Moraly Blizzard created everythign kespa has utilized to make itself a sucess, and therefore should provide restitution payment to blizzard in any amount they ask. Thats how it is.
|
Nice post! Very straight forward and seemingly unbiased post, which makes it's easy to follow your points.
I'm not gonna argue any points, since I don't think I know enough specifics to even do that. Instead, I'd just like to mention that brood war is the an amazing game and I hope the proscene doesn't end because of something like IP rights. Same goes for chess and I wonder who owns the IP rights for that game...
|
In that case i appologize.
Nevertheless, the progaming matches and the maps belong to Kespa and they can sell them to whomever they please. In return, Blizzard can ban the CD keys from Battle.net ^_^;
Luckily, SCBW has LAN... I wonder why they didn't put LAN into SC2... 
|
On December 30 2010 01:22 Adeeler wrote:
SC1 and SC2 are like a hammer and saw. That doesn't mean blizzard should own any house or street built with said hammer and saw; especially when a building company or person makes something with them.
But the building company shouldn't be allowed to stop other people buildings houses.
Kespa isn't good in practice, but blizzard shouldn't own derivitive works either imo as it sets a bad precident for esports imo.
This is a different thing from what you're saying. Kespa hasn't just built a house with said tools, they use a brand name, a specific IP to earn revenue in a public and broadcasted manner. If I were to advertise said house and sell it based on the brand of the tools used, and it made a difference on whether it was finally sold or not, I'd be using a registered brand to make a profit, and as such, I'd have to recognize the IP and pay to the owner for its usage.
This would be different if Kespa used, for example, a different game, with a different name, different units, music, etc, which played exactly the same and as such had a different registered IP, then they'd have the right to use it as they wished, as making an RTS isn't an IP, but "Starcraft" is.
IMO blizz can and should enforce IP rights over starcraft, otherwise other sources can use starcraft and future videogames however they please, creating a bad precedent for videogame companies around the world. The fee is excessive at this time though, but I'm sure they could negotiate a different type of contract.
|
This isn't relevant to SC2.
|
I can't believe people are actually getting trolled this way again.
Are EULAs law? No. They are contractual terms. Are contractual terms such as EULAs binding? Since ProCD, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996), generally such "shrinkwrap agreements" are binding, though it can depend on jurisdiction and judge. (Disagreement over them almost caused a schism in the ABA, actually).
So sure, you may have some wiggle room depending on how the EULAs are presented within the given product and other factors such as how absurd the terms of the contract are. But insofar as the terms are viewed as necessary to allow businesses ex ante to make the initial investments to make products (generally what EULAs, and patent law as a general field is meant to allow), they will be held as binding.
True terms of a contract are not "laws" that someone can enforce against you. But that doesn't mean you can break them without consequences, e.g. damages or injunctive relief.
Also I am a bit astonished that people are allowed to call entire legal systems on TL uncivilized. The Common Law has done us pretty well in the US, and in the UK, insofar as it's still adhered to there. But I would reckon that if an entire country's legal system declared EULAs invalid, most software companies would stop doing business there, at least those that depend on heavy initial investments to make their products. So the issue here, in my estimation, is less whether EULAs writ large are enforceable, but the extent to which Blizzard's EULA is enforceable here.
|
For KeSPA, the popularity of eSports in their country is unique, so they could attempt to present that their product isn't infringing on Blizzard's IP. Should they succeed, this has huge legal implications when it comes to the video game industry, not just in Korea, but in the world, due to this legal precedent.
A few others have mentioned this, but it's a fairly important distinction to make. Any legal decisions made in this case carry precedent solely in S. Korea. We still lack a decent regime for IP arbitration across international borders. This sort of case, in which a company in one country profits from a product developed in another country, is going to be common place in the next few decades. I think we'll see a lot more complicated licensing agreements built into ToS contracts (like with SC2), since contract agreements are sacrosanct across virtually all borders. Whatever the outcome, this conflict will/has produced some interesting questions in international law.
This would be different if Kespa used, for example, a different game, with a different name, different units, music, etc, which played exactly the same and as such had a different registered IP, then they'd have the right to use it as they wished, as making an RTS isn't an IP, but "Starcraft" is.
I think you're confusing a trademarked brand name with IP. If KESPA created their own RTS which, while visually unique, played exactly the same as BW, they would very clearly be violating IP rights. In fact, this would be a far more egregious violation than any licensing issues currently at hand. IP includes all unique aspects of an idea, not simply a brand name.
Disney, for example, has very strict IP ownership rights built into every contract they make. If, while working for them, you come up with an idea for a unique story, they own IP rights to that work. If you stop working for them, and try to produce a book or film using a variation on that unique story (similar story with a new title, place names, and character names), Disney can and will claim IP rights over that book or film (assuming it's profitable). You'll still get to make money from it, but they're going to want a chunk.
|
On December 04 2010 14:36 Spenguin wrote:
Very nice ideas and write-up, definitely has changed my perception on the situation, this needs to be spotlighted so everyone can read it.
Well done
yes spotlight this.... this isn't just SC2 specific....
|
On December 30 2010 02:39 myIRE wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2010 02:22 goldfishs wrote:charlesatan wrote:
Here's an analogy: For Blizzard, they own a hamburger retail shop (the hamburger is Broodwar in its entirety). KeSPA suddenly got their hamburgers, and started selling pieces (the bread, the hamburger) individually or even repacking them, but claiming it as their own. Blizzard wants acknowledgment that whatever KeSPA is selling belongs to them since it can all be traced to their hamburger (Broodwar).
For KeSPA, Broodwar is a tree in Blizzard's backyard. They acknowledge that the tree belongs to Blizzard. However, occasionally, fruit (derivative works) from the tree will fall on public property or KeSPA's property, such as the street. Thus KeSPA claims that Blizzard has no claims over the fallen fruit, since it fell on public property/KeSPA's property, and that they appropriated it (worked on it, refined it, etc.).
ion. Those analogy's make them sound like two squibbling sevenyearolds... And both are ridiculously full of shit. Well why don't you present us with your analogy, I'm sure you can clear things up just perfectly. Get off your horse sir, stop complaining just because this is the interwebs [/i]
Analogys can be interpreted in a billion different ways. Add to the fact that they are trying to compare 2 analogys with differen't settings. One is about hamburgers and the other about fallfruit, There is no way we can interpret that ---> we don't understand what they mean and that good sir is why they are full of shit. Now so if I wanted to make a point I promise you I would be clear and not go invent a bloody analogy about hamburgers so the people I was trying to reach wouldn't get all confused and wonder why I'm standing on the podium shouting muster.
|
On December 29 2010 18:53 Ferago wrote:
I stopped reading when you said "irregardless". But everything up to that point was pretty good.
=.= troll.
good writeup, thanks for clarifying the issue, i think blizzard's approach might be a little off, since they are stepping on korean pride in doing business, which from what i gather is a big deal. In that they are demanding a large fee up front, but is willing to re-negotiate after kespa "bows down" and accepts it. Maybe approaching it from this angle rubs kespa in the wrong way.
|
There are a lot of terrible analogies in this thread. A video game is a form of media and entertainment similar to a movie or book. When you purchase a movie you agree to the terms to not broadcast it with permission and to use it only for personal use. Similar for books. Basically when you buy starcraft (1 or 2) you agree that you will only use it for certain means. Some uses are specifically not allowed such as broadcasting or relicensing. Blizzard didn't have much of a case before 2007. Before 2007, it can be said that kespa was using the game in a fair use manner. Blizzard probably wanted for them to get permission to broadcast, but didn't care too much since it was so popular. Then kespa began relicensing the game and selling it to broadcasting companies. Now blizzard has a real case that they've been trying to negotiate for 3 years. The moment kespa began profiting from their work without their permission is when they started caring. If kespa never charged for broadcasting or licensing, I really doubt we are in the same spot we are today.
|
well we all talked about this things long ago , and it's clear we don't like blizzard
p.s i enjoy how illogical people are , saying hm this is my opinion and it's right cause it's my opinion , so u all midgets have to agree, so much stupidity in this world
|
This is a good post clearly sets out the different perspectives that are being put forward by both sides.
For myself i see the games used in esports as engines which are used then to create commercially avaliable entertainment. for example lets say im making a game useing the unreal engine i would have to pay the creator of the engine a fee or give them a percentage of my profits in order to use the engine that they have created.
I think this is more of wat blizzard is saying that becuase they own starcraft ( the engine) any creations produced for commercial reasons i.e. competitive esports game entitles them to economic compensation.
Kespa is saying that starcraft does beloing to blizzard but that it is just a game not an engine and thus though kespa will respect blizzards right to sell the game for a profit and release patches any competitive matches are classed as the same as non-competitive matches i.e. free and laking in subscription and license fees. therefore no economic compensation is required
(by compensation i mean it in the sense party A gives party B money in order to cover the oppurtunity cost of party B that arises from party A providing a service that party B has a legal monoply over)
|
great post charlesatan, this should spotlighted
|
On December 30 2010 08:40 darmousseh wrote:
There are a lot of terrible analogies in this thread. A video game is a form of media and entertainment similar to a movie or book. When you purchase a movie you agree to the terms to not broadcast it with permission and to use it only for personal use. Similar for books. Basically when you buy starcraft (1 or 2) you agree that you will only use it for certain means. Some uses are specifically not allowed such as broadcasting or relicensing. Blizzard didn't have much of a case before 2007. Before 2007, it can be said that kespa was using the game in a fair use manner. Blizzard probably wanted for them to get permission to broadcast, but didn't care too much since it was so popular. Then kespa began relicensing the game and selling it to broadcasting companies. Now blizzard has a real case that they've been trying to negotiate for 3 years. The moment kespa began profiting from their work without their permission is when they started caring. If kespa never charged for broadcasting or licensing, I really doubt we are in the same spot we are today.
I don't know which side I agree with, but even the book/movie analogies aren't perfect... One could argue Starcraft is more like Adobe Photoshop, windows 7, or any other software that allows for the creation of works. Starcraft produces replays...
Books and movies don't "produce" additional works.
|
On December 30 2010 06:56 Omnipresent wrote:Show nested quote +For KeSPA, the popularity of eSports in their country is unique, so they could attempt to present that their product isn't infringing on Blizzard's IP. Should they succeed, this has huge legal implications when it comes to the video game industry, not just in Korea, but in the world, due to this legal precedent. A few others have mentioned this, but it's a fairly important distinction to make. Any legal decisions made in this case carry precedent solely in S. Korea. We still lack a decent regime for IP arbitration across international borders. This sort of case, in which a company in one country profits from a product developed in another country, is going to be common place in the next few decades. I think we'll see a lot more complicated licensing agreements built into ToS contracts (like with SC2), since contract agreements are sacrosanct across virtually all borders. Whatever the outcome, this conflict will/has produced some interesting questions in international law. Show nested quote +This would be different if Kespa used, for example, a different game, with a different name, different units, music, etc, which played exactly the same and as such had a different registered IP, then they'd have the right to use it as they wished, as making an RTS isn't an IP, but "Starcraft" is. I think you're confusing a trademarked brand name with IP. If KESPA created their own RTS which, while visually unique, played exactly the same as BW, they would very clearly be violating IP rights. In fact, this would be a far more egregious violation than any licensing issues currently at hand. IP includes all unique aspects of an idea, not simply a brand name. Disney, for example, has very strict IP ownership rights built into every contract they make. If, while working for them, you come up with an idea for a unique story, they own IP rights to that work. If you stop working for them, and try to produce a book or film using a variation on that unique story (similar story with a new title, place names, and character names), Disney can and will claim IP rights over that book or film (assuming it's profitable). You'll still get to make money from it, but they're going to want a chunk.
If Blizzard loses in S.K. then they can sue right here in the US if they can establish personal jurisdiction over KeSPA in US courts, which they probably can given the recent trend in expanding personal jurisdiction.
If this doesn't reach a settlement, the thought that this will be over, and in accordance with one forum's law over the other, seems right out.
|
FUCK BLIZZARD!!
KeSPA has developed starcraft to the sense that blizzard can never do, and now they come to claim for rights for KeSPA to broadcast games. Those stupid people on top of me who mentioned
On December 30 2010 05:00 GambleVII wrote:
So Kespa is innocent? in extorting other companies so that they control all broadcasts of bw in korea, or strong holding all their pros? because there are no other option?
Blizzard put in alot of hard work creating starcraft and sc2. If Kespa thinks that they are soo great and could do this with any game, why dont they use another rts for a pro-league.
kespa owes itself to Blizzard. Withought blizzard kespa would have made 0 dollars. Thats all there is too it. All money it gives blizzard as restitution still leaves them in a posotive. As withought BW there would be no kespa. With no Blizzard there would be no BW,
just clearly have no brains of what he's saying. If there is no KeSPA, there wont be so many people supporting SC2 now. u r obviously not an scbw player, we can see that. it is an chicken and egg issue, Without Blizzard, there would be no BW and KeSPA would not have made that much money, but without KeSPA, SC and Blizzard wont be that recognized by so many now. And now the chicken is blaming the egg it laid for producing more eggs in the future?? and then claiming that the eggs produced should belong to the original chicken too?? wtf is this??
|
On December 30 2010 10:40 chipmunkrage wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2010 08:40 darmousseh wrote:
There are a lot of terrible analogies in this thread. A video game is a form of media and entertainment similar to a movie or book. When you purchase a movie you agree to the terms to not broadcast it with permission and to use it only for personal use. Similar for books. Basically when you buy starcraft (1 or 2) you agree that you will only use it for certain means. Some uses are specifically not allowed such as broadcasting or relicensing. Blizzard didn't have much of a case before 2007. Before 2007, it can be said that kespa was using the game in a fair use manner. Blizzard probably wanted for them to get permission to broadcast, but didn't care too much since it was so popular. Then kespa began relicensing the game and selling it to broadcasting companies. Now blizzard has a real case that they've been trying to negotiate for 3 years. The moment kespa began profiting from their work without their permission is when they started caring. If kespa never charged for broadcasting or licensing, I really doubt we are in the same spot we are today.
I don't know which side I agree with, but even the book/movie analogies aren't perfect... One could argue Starcraft is more like Adobe Photoshop, windows 7, or any other software that allows for the creation of works. Starcraft produces replays... Books and movies don't "produce" additional works.
The thing is, if you were to use said book's name or whatever to generate profit, then you'd have to pay rights to the owner to do so, it is a different thing altogether. I'm not making a moral statement whether I believe it is right or wrong for Blizzard to do this, since that'd be my opinion and it makes no sense to discuss in those terms since it's rather pointless, what I'm saying is that as far as I understand the regulations and laws behind this whole ordeal, Blizzard is on its right to demand payment for having its IP used to generate profit by a third party (Please excuse me if I use some terms in a somewhat wrong manner, I'm not a law student or anything).
|
How is what kespa is doing any different from what ICCup did?
|
I don't know why this thread got Necro'd but just want to remind everyone not to turn this into a KeSPA vs. Blizzard hate thread (there's some circular arguments going around).
Re: complaints on the hamburger analogy, I'd just like to point out that analogy is representing Blizzard's side. The next paragraph explains KeSPA's side. Why are they 2 different analogies (instead of being 2 different hamburger analogies)? Because each one's paradigm is that different. The analogies are there to give a better perspective of how each side sees itself. (Just look at the posts trying to subvert the hamburger analogy to be pro-KeSPA for example.)
On December 30 2010 06:56 Omnipresent wrote:
A few others have mentioned this, but it's a fairly important distinction to make. Any legal decisions made in this case carry precedent solely in S. Korea. We still lack a decent regime for IP arbitration across international borders. This sort of case, in which a company in one country profits from a product developed in another country, is going to be common place in the next few decades. I think we'll see a lot more complicated licensing agreements built into ToS contracts (like with SC2), since contract agreements are sacrosanct across virtually all borders. Whatever the outcome, this conflict will/has produced some interesting questions in international law.
Agreed.
On December 30 2010 13:49 Ursad0n wrote:
How is what kespa is doing any different from what ICCup did?
You need to elaborate. ICCup has many projects (ICCup server, competitions, etc.).
But if I were to guess at what you were driving at, it'd be the profit angle. ICCup isn't selling broadcast rights to any of Blizzard's properties.
|
Australia8532 Posts
great write up on the situation so thanks.. i like the use of analogies.. Demonization of the parties involved is pretty ridiculous - people come to conclusions without really understanding the entire situation - so thanks for adding a little perspective to this situation..
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
