|
Before I begin Gosu coaching does great content and I love those guys and all the VODs and Pod casts with Incontrol and the awesome ones. so don't ban me as I was looking for latest podcast! But instead I found the replay page and of course there is an interesting term and condition attached to it, I wish to discuss its validity with the community and see what people think.
Please note the following Terms and Conditions for use of replays found on Gosucoaching.com:
Use of replays or any other material found on Gosucoaching.com is for private use only unless express and written permission is provided by Gosucoaching.com or Blizzard Entertainment, Inc., with the following exceptions:
- Use of replays in a "re-cast" or stream of the replay, with or without commentary must include mention of Gosucoaching in the title of the cast, and if commentary is provided, mention of Gosucoaching.com at the beginning and end of hte cast, and information to encourage viewers of the re-cast or stream to visit Gosucoachin.com
- Use of replays specific to the Gosucoaching Premiere League (GCPL), whether or not they were downloaded off of this site or achieved otherwise, must including mention of the Gosucoaching Premiere League (GCPL) and instructions on how to find information on the GCPL on Gosucoaching.com or other media vehicles.
- Failure to adhere to these Terms and Conditions may result on users being banned from Gosucoaching.com or the removal of the replays page from Gosucoaching.com
So everyone, to what extent can a company or individual limit the way in which the replay content is used (if any) and are they allowed to impose terms and conditions on top of blizzards?. Obviously they can restrict physical access to some degree (unless blizzard opens up a system that allows anyone to locate a replay for any played game like HON).
I'm interested in this, because its a way of adding value to replays and as a community I think we can come up with some ground rules and ideas as to what we can do.
However with the way Gosucoashing has done it, I see a few flaws with this current approach, firstly if some fan posts a direct link to these replays, Mr Commentator follows link, say in skype or from site KoreaKoreaRep.Kr and doesn't get to see the Terms and Conditions the provider wishes him to follow. Then makes a youtube video causing the provider to become annoyed and possibly harras Mr Commentator or restrict access for everyone else... it seems a bit like self imposed destruction given the nature of the internet as someone is bound to do it.
Secondly if we go down the ownership route and allow companies to put rules on replays, to what extent can players also contribute to this? if Idra's opponent doesn't want a replay of him on company site HyperX can he ask for it to be removed? such as in the 'Pro Tips' section, and are they also entitled to a portion of funds for that commentary since it is partly the content they produced?
Thirdly a person may not follow the rules laid out by the company, now since this is all quite new, who is in the wrong, A) the person because he didn't do what company said, or B) the company because they asked him to do something which seemed quite wrong to him and possibly against the Blizzard spirit (lets try not getting into a KASPA debate unless its directly relevant to replays)
|
This is an interesting topic. Personally, I don't believe that even though a company other than Blizzard try to impose such "rules", they really have no way to implement it and force it on people since it is in the ownership of Blizzard.
Either way, these other companies can just keep the replays from being released; but once they do, they have no right to control the way you use these replays.
- Failure to adhere to these Terms and Conditions may result on users being banned from Gosucoaching.com or the removal of the replays page from Gosucoaching.com
Like the website says, the only thing they can do is keep people from accessing it.
|
- Use of replays specific to the Gosucoaching Premiere League (GCPL), whether or not they were downloaded off of this site or achieved otherwise, must including mention of the Gosucoaching Premiere League (GCPL) and instructions on how to find information on the GCPL on Gosucoaching.com or other media vehicles.
That doesn't seem right... This needs more attention
|
If gosucoaching has change the replay (by casting it) it make them owner of the replay and the replay they provide (the players) are provided by the players so they own the replays. If they host a tourney... its the same...
Otherwise I dont think any replay is own by anybody but the players playing in it.
|
It's a fair enough condition that you credit the place you got the replay from if you are using it in a cast or some other such venture.
The way they can enforce this condition is also quite clearly set out:
Failure to adhere to these Terms and Conditions may result on users being banned from Gosucoaching.com or the removal of the replays page from Gosucoaching.com
They are providing the replays for free at the benefit of the community, if they don't at least get some recognition or a "thank you" for what they provide they are entirely justified to either stop providing the replays or stop those that are taking unfair advantage of the resources they are providing.
What you are suggesting with taking action through a third party, such as youtube isn't listed in the T&C and wouldn't stand up anyway. Youtube is not going to take down a video without a concrete copyright claim, which gosucoashing cannot make with regards to replays. This is the reason entities like GSL do not release replays, you cannot police them.
The T&C for GC is a little misleading, as what it is really saying is that they reserve the right to withhold the replays if they are used without adhering to the t&c or crediting GC, which is completely reasonable.
|
Very understandable for me. Unfortunately, in most cases, when someone uploads a replay on his clans/organizations website, all the "bigger" replaysites will download that replay and then upload it on their own website. This means, the website of the sponsor of the player will get way less hits than the people who just leech the replays there to put it on their own website (because these sites are more known for replays). This again results in very few people uploading replays of themselves.
I know, the situation here is slighty different, but it is very similiar to what i described. I was already considering making a topic about it to think of how this can change, but im not sure if there is actually a way to do that easily..
|
i dont quite follow what you mean by replay, do you mean the actual replay file, or content released by gosu coaching?
my view is if its simply a replay, they have no power to say its their property, but if its a vod of some sort, then they have every right to make such terms and conditions.
i know the owners of gosu coaching browse TL a fair bit so hopefully they clear things up ITT 
|
Hmm...very interesting yet difficult topic. Let me start with stating that I've studied Law and actually worked in the intellectual property department of a big lawfirm for a while, so I do have a basic idea what I'm talking about.
The core problem in my opinion isn't the "right" of gosucoaching to ban you from their website, because you don't have a right to access their site to begin with. They can ban you whenever they please, they don't need a (legal) reason to do this. Same holds true for every webpage, nobody needs to give you access to anything at all.
The problem nevertheless is, what right gosucoaching has regarding the replays themselves. Because basicly just because they "sponsor" an event that doesn't mean they own the underlying code which is the replay. In my opinion there's a core difference between the VOD and the replay. While the technical code still belongs to Blizzard, the actual "game" imo has to belong to the players themselves. Kinda like actors who do Hamlet......you have to distinguish between the underlying "literatur" (the replaycode) and the actors doing their thing (players). Both is protected, yet in different ways. I highly doubt that the mere fact that gosucoaching is sponsering something gives them ownership of the replays.
In this regard, it would be up to the PLAYERS to CONVEY their rights on the games to their sponsor/tournament-host/whatever. Hence, in response to:
On January 31 2011 20:11 DarKFoRcE wrote:
Very understandable for me. Unfortunately, in most cases, when someone uploads a replay on his clans/organizations website, all the "bigger" replaysites will download that replay and then upload it on their own website. This means, the website of the sponsor of the player will get way less hits than the people who just leech the replays there to put it on their own website (because these sites are more known for replays). This again results in very few people uploading replays of themselves.
I know, the situation here is slighty different, but it is very similiar to what i described. I was already considering making a topic about it to think of how this can change, but im not sure if there is actually a way to do that easily..
What needed to be done, in my opinion, is a statement by all players that their respective replays belong to their sponsor and only the sponsor alone has the right to use the replays for distributionary purposes. Of course, the same should be done for tournaments, where the replays would belong to the tournament-host/sponsor/whatever. If this was done, then the re-hosting of replays (downloading from 3rd pages and rehosting it on once own page) would entitle the respective sponsor to damages against the re-hosting page.
Everything without guarantee whatsoever of course, just my 2 cents.
EDIT: this wouldn't destroy free access to replays, because all the big pages just needed to use links to the individual sponsor-pages instead. This way the big replay-pages would still get the hits because only there everything would be "collected"....but instead of downloading it right there you would have to go to the page of the respective sponsor/tournament-host/etc.
|
On January 31 2011 20:46 sleepingdog wrote:Hmm...very interesting yet difficult topic. Let me start with stating that I've studied Law and actually worked in the intellectual property department of a big lawfirm for a while, so I do have a basic idea what I'm talking about. The core problem in my opinion isn't the "right" of gosucoaching to ban you from their website, because you don't have a right to access their site to begin with. They can ban you whenever they please, they don't need a (legal) reason to do this. Same holds true for every webpage, nobody needs to give you access to anything at all. The problem nevertheless is, what right gosucoaching has regarding the replays themselves. Because basicly just because they "sponsor" an event that doesn't mean they own the underlying code which is the replay. In my opinion there's a core difference between the VOD and the replay. While the technical code still belongs to Blizzard, the actual "game" imo has to belong to the players themselves. Kinda like actors who do Hamlet......you have to distinguish between the underlying "literatur" (the replaycode) and the actors doing their thing (players). Both is protected, yet in different ways. I highly doubt that the mere fact that gosucoaching is sponsering something gives them ownership of the replays. In this regard, it would be up to the PLAYERS to CONVEY their rights on the games to their sponsor/tournament-host/whatever. Hence, in response to: Show nested quote +On January 31 2011 20:11 DarKFoRcE wrote:
Very understandable for me. Unfortunately, in most cases, when someone uploads a replay on his clans/organizations website, all the "bigger" replaysites will download that replay and then upload it on their own website. This means, the website of the sponsor of the player will get way less hits than the people who just leech the replays there to put it on their own website (because these sites are more known for replays). This again results in very few people uploading replays of themselves.
I know, the situation here is slighty different, but it is very similiar to what i described. I was already considering making a topic about it to think of how this can change, but im not sure if there is actually a way to do that easily.. What needed to be done, in my opinion, is a statement by all players that their respective replays belong to their sponsor and only the sponsor alone has the right to use the replays for distributionary purposes. Of course, the same should be done for tournaments, where the replays would belong to the tournament-host/sponsor/whatever. If this was done, then the re-hosting of replays (downloading from 3rd pages and rehosting it on once own page) would entitle the respective sponsor to damages against the re-hosting page. Everything without guarantee whatsoever of course, just my 2 cents. EDIT: this wouldn't destroy free access to replays, because all the big pages just needed to use links to the individual sponsor-pages instead. This way the big replay-pages would still get the hits because only there everything would be "collected"....but instead of downloading it right there you would have to go to the page of the respective sponsor/tournament-host/etc.
It's not really a difficult subject. It is 100% property of Blizzard. GC or any player for that matter have no legal rights over it. All GC can do is ban you.
|
On January 31 2011 20:56 boaecho wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2011 20:46 sleepingdog wrote:Hmm...very interesting yet difficult topic. Let me start with stating that I've studied Law and actually worked in the intellectual property department of a big lawfirm for a while, so I do have a basic idea what I'm talking about. The core problem in my opinion isn't the "right" of gosucoaching to ban you from their website, because you don't have a right to access their site to begin with. They can ban you whenever they please, they don't need a (legal) reason to do this. Same holds true for every webpage, nobody needs to give you access to anything at all. The problem nevertheless is, what right gosucoaching has regarding the replays themselves. Because basicly just because they "sponsor" an event that doesn't mean they own the underlying code which is the replay. In my opinion there's a core difference between the VOD and the replay. While the technical code still belongs to Blizzard, the actual "game" imo has to belong to the players themselves. Kinda like actors who do Hamlet......you have to distinguish between the underlying "literatur" (the replaycode) and the actors doing their thing (players). Both is protected, yet in different ways. I highly doubt that the mere fact that gosucoaching is sponsering something gives them ownership of the replays. In this regard, it would be up to the PLAYERS to CONVEY their rights on the games to their sponsor/tournament-host/whatever. Hence, in response to: On January 31 2011 20:11 DarKFoRcE wrote:
Very understandable for me. Unfortunately, in most cases, when someone uploads a replay on his clans/organizations website, all the "bigger" replaysites will download that replay and then upload it on their own website. This means, the website of the sponsor of the player will get way less hits than the people who just leech the replays there to put it on their own website (because these sites are more known for replays). This again results in very few people uploading replays of themselves.
I know, the situation here is slighty different, but it is very similiar to what i described. I was already considering making a topic about it to think of how this can change, but im not sure if there is actually a way to do that easily.. What needed to be done, in my opinion, is a statement by all players that their respective replays belong to their sponsor and only the sponsor alone has the right to use the replays for distributionary purposes. Of course, the same should be done for tournaments, where the replays would belong to the tournament-host/sponsor/whatever. If this was done, then the re-hosting of replays (downloading from 3rd pages and rehosting it on once own page) would entitle the respective sponsor to damages against the re-hosting page. Everything without guarantee whatsoever of course, just my 2 cents. EDIT: this wouldn't destroy free access to replays, because all the big pages just needed to use links to the individual sponsor-pages instead. This way the big replay-pages would still get the hits because only there everything would be "collected"....but instead of downloading it right there you would have to go to the page of the respective sponsor/tournament-host/etc. It's not really a difficult subject. It is 100% property of Blizzard. GC or any player for that matter have no legal rights over it. All GC can do is ban you.
This is different from broadcasting rights, therefore can't be compared to the whole KESPA-thingy.
To put it this way: say you are a write who writes a masterpiece of a play. Are you entitled to prevent anyone to ever play it on stage or even read it? Absolutely, you 100% can.
BUT: Do you own 100% of the rights of the actual play ITSELF after it has been performed on stage? Definitely not, the actors/etc. also have a "certain" intellectual property right based on their performance.
Of course I'm absolutely not sure if you could translate this 1:1...but, say, Jaedong and Flash play SC2 for the first time next week, all there is is a replay. I highly doubt that Blizz would own 100% of the rights of distribution, legally I'm more of the opinion that Jaedong and Flash, being the "actors/performers" also would have intellectual property rights. Because a Flash vs Jaedong replay is more than simple "computer code"...in my opinion.
|
Take a look at this... Blizzard owns EVERYTHING. This includes maps you make. Now I know that this is different from replays but take a look from this perspective. When you make maps, YOU create every single thing about it yet Blizzard owns it. If that is the case, what makes you think the replays will even stand a chance?
"You understand that the content required to create or modify STARCRAFT® II Modified Maps (as defined below) is included in the STARCRAFT® II game client, and that all such content is owned by Blizzard and governed by this Agreement. YOU ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT ALL MAPS, LEVELS AND OTHER CONTENT CREATED OR MODIFIED USING THE MAP EDITOR (COLLECTIVELY, “MODIFIED MAPS”) ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF BLIZZARD. WITHOUT LIMITING THE FOREGOING, YOU HEREBY ASSIGN TO BLIZZARD ALL OF YOUR RIGHTS, TITLE AND INTEREST IN AND TO ALL MODIFIED MAPS, AND AGREE THAT YOU WILL EXECUTE FUTURE ASSIGNMENTS PROMPTLY UPON RECEIVING SUCH A REQUEST FROM BLIZZARD."
Also Blizzard has stated that everything in the game belongs to Blizzard. Since replays are part of the game, it is not an exception to the rule.
"All title, ownership rights and intellectual property rights in and to the Game and all copies thereof (including without limitation any titles, computer code, themes, objects, characters, character names, stories, dialog, catch phrases, locations, concepts, artwork, structural or landscape designs, animations, sounds, musical compositions and recordings, audio-visual effects, storylines, character likenesses, methods of operation, moral rights, and any related documentation) are owned or licensed by Blizzard"
|
On January 31 2011 21:07 sleepingdog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2011 20:56 boaecho wrote:On January 31 2011 20:46 sleepingdog wrote:Hmm...very interesting yet difficult topic. Let me start with stating that I've studied Law and actually worked in the intellectual property department of a big lawfirm for a while, so I do have a basic idea what I'm talking about. The core problem in my opinion isn't the "right" of gosucoaching to ban you from their website, because you don't have a right to access their site to begin with. They can ban you whenever they please, they don't need a (legal) reason to do this. Same holds true for every webpage, nobody needs to give you access to anything at all. The problem nevertheless is, what right gosucoaching has regarding the replays themselves. Because basicly just because they "sponsor" an event that doesn't mean they own the underlying code which is the replay. In my opinion there's a core difference between the VOD and the replay. While the technical code still belongs to Blizzard, the actual "game" imo has to belong to the players themselves. Kinda like actors who do Hamlet......you have to distinguish between the underlying "literatur" (the replaycode) and the actors doing their thing (players). Both is protected, yet in different ways. I highly doubt that the mere fact that gosucoaching is sponsering something gives them ownership of the replays. In this regard, it would be up to the PLAYERS to CONVEY their rights on the games to their sponsor/tournament-host/whatever. Hence, in response to: On January 31 2011 20:11 DarKFoRcE wrote:
Very understandable for me. Unfortunately, in most cases, when someone uploads a replay on his clans/organizations website, all the "bigger" replaysites will download that replay and then upload it on their own website. This means, the website of the sponsor of the player will get way less hits than the people who just leech the replays there to put it on their own website (because these sites are more known for replays). This again results in very few people uploading replays of themselves.
I know, the situation here is slighty different, but it is very similiar to what i described. I was already considering making a topic about it to think of how this can change, but im not sure if there is actually a way to do that easily.. What needed to be done, in my opinion, is a statement by all players that their respective replays belong to their sponsor and only the sponsor alone has the right to use the replays for distributionary purposes. Of course, the same should be done for tournaments, where the replays would belong to the tournament-host/sponsor/whatever. If this was done, then the re-hosting of replays (downloading from 3rd pages and rehosting it on once own page) would entitle the respective sponsor to damages against the re-hosting page. Everything without guarantee whatsoever of course, just my 2 cents. EDIT: this wouldn't destroy free access to replays, because all the big pages just needed to use links to the individual sponsor-pages instead. This way the big replay-pages would still get the hits because only there everything would be "collected"....but instead of downloading it right there you would have to go to the page of the respective sponsor/tournament-host/etc. It's not really a difficult subject. It is 100% property of Blizzard. GC or any player for that matter have no legal rights over it. All GC can do is ban you. This is different from broadcasting rights, therefore can't be compared to the whole KESPA-thingy. To put it this way: say you are a write who writes a masterpiece of a play. Are you entitled to prevent anyone to ever play it on stage or even read it? Absolutely, you 100% can. BUT: Do you own 100% of the rights of the actual play ITSELF after it has been performed on stage? Definitely not, the actors/etc. also have a "certain" intellectual property right based on their performance. Of course I'm absolutely not sure if you could translate this 1:1...but, say, Jaedong and Flash play SC2 for the first time next week, all there is is a replay. I highly doubt that Blizz would own 100% of the rights of distribution, legally I'm more of the opinion that Jaedong and Flash, being the "actors/performers" also would have intellectual property rights. Because a Flash vs Jaedong replay is more than simple "computer code"...in my opinion.
I think you misunderstood boaecho's post.
You're making it more difficult than it is. Gosucoaching reserves its (their?) right to ban you from the site if you are using the replays that are posted on its site without sticking to the rules and that's it. Gosucoaching does not claim that the replays (or the game itself) are their property.
|
On January 31 2011 21:39 Mandalor wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2011 21:07 sleepingdog wrote:On January 31 2011 20:56 boaecho wrote:On January 31 2011 20:46 sleepingdog wrote:Hmm...very interesting yet difficult topic. Let me start with stating that I've studied Law and actually worked in the intellectual property department of a big lawfirm for a while, so I do have a basic idea what I'm talking about. The core problem in my opinion isn't the "right" of gosucoaching to ban you from their website, because you don't have a right to access their site to begin with. They can ban you whenever they please, they don't need a (legal) reason to do this. Same holds true for every webpage, nobody needs to give you access to anything at all. The problem nevertheless is, what right gosucoaching has regarding the replays themselves. Because basicly just because they "sponsor" an event that doesn't mean they own the underlying code which is the replay. In my opinion there's a core difference between the VOD and the replay. While the technical code still belongs to Blizzard, the actual "game" imo has to belong to the players themselves. Kinda like actors who do Hamlet......you have to distinguish between the underlying "literatur" (the replaycode) and the actors doing their thing (players). Both is protected, yet in different ways. I highly doubt that the mere fact that gosucoaching is sponsering something gives them ownership of the replays. In this regard, it would be up to the PLAYERS to CONVEY their rights on the games to their sponsor/tournament-host/whatever. Hence, in response to: On January 31 2011 20:11 DarKFoRcE wrote:
Very understandable for me. Unfortunately, in most cases, when someone uploads a replay on his clans/organizations website, all the "bigger" replaysites will download that replay and then upload it on their own website. This means, the website of the sponsor of the player will get way less hits than the people who just leech the replays there to put it on their own website (because these sites are more known for replays). This again results in very few people uploading replays of themselves.
I know, the situation here is slighty different, but it is very similiar to what i described. I was already considering making a topic about it to think of how this can change, but im not sure if there is actually a way to do that easily.. What needed to be done, in my opinion, is a statement by all players that their respective replays belong to their sponsor and only the sponsor alone has the right to use the replays for distributionary purposes. Of course, the same should be done for tournaments, where the replays would belong to the tournament-host/sponsor/whatever. If this was done, then the re-hosting of replays (downloading from 3rd pages and rehosting it on once own page) would entitle the respective sponsor to damages against the re-hosting page. Everything without guarantee whatsoever of course, just my 2 cents. EDIT: this wouldn't destroy free access to replays, because all the big pages just needed to use links to the individual sponsor-pages instead. This way the big replay-pages would still get the hits because only there everything would be "collected"....but instead of downloading it right there you would have to go to the page of the respective sponsor/tournament-host/etc. It's not really a difficult subject. It is 100% property of Blizzard. GC or any player for that matter have no legal rights over it. All GC can do is ban you. This is different from broadcasting rights, therefore can't be compared to the whole KESPA-thingy. To put it this way: say you are a write who writes a masterpiece of a play. Are you entitled to prevent anyone to ever play it on stage or even read it? Absolutely, you 100% can. BUT: Do you own 100% of the rights of the actual play ITSELF after it has been performed on stage? Definitely not, the actors/etc. also have a "certain" intellectual property right based on their performance. Of course I'm absolutely not sure if you could translate this 1:1...but, say, Jaedong and Flash play SC2 for the first time next week, all there is is a replay. I highly doubt that Blizz would own 100% of the rights of distribution, legally I'm more of the opinion that Jaedong and Flash, being the "actors/performers" also would have intellectual property rights. Because a Flash vs Jaedong replay is more than simple "computer code"...in my opinion. I think you misunderstood boaecho's post. You're making it more difficult than it is. Gosucoaching reserves its (their?) right to ban you from the site if you are using the replays that are posted on its site without sticking to the rules and that's it. Gosucoaching does not claim that the replays (or the game itself) are their property.
I wanted to contribute to a much broader and therefore more interesting discussion - especially answering to what darkforce has written, that many replay-hosting sites just "re-host" replays uploaded on other pages.
Of course gosucoaching can ban whoever they want at any time they want....I've also written this, no?
But the whole "who owns replays"-discussions goes far beyond that, and I don't agree with what boaecho wrote: to give an absurd example...say I make a computer-game stating:
"By playing the computer-game you hereby give me ownership of your house"
Ridiculous? Absolutely. What I want to say with this is, that just because Blizz "claims" ownership of something that doesn't automaticly means they indeed "have" it.
This means, Blizz can have certain intellectual property rights (the code itself) but ALSO other people can have intellectual property rights (the games themselves) under another...well..."category" if you want to put it that way. And the intellectual property of this 2nd category just can't simply be "claimed" by Blizzard, because it doesn't have anything to do with the code itself. It's intellectual property derived from actual "performance".
I have difficulty expressing this, hopefully this made any sense? I'm not saying Blizz doesn't own 100% of the "code" (they do) but the intellectual property you can derive from MATCHES have imo a second, quite different element...similar to art.
Therefore my whole example of the play: if I'm the writer of the play I can very well write a contract stipulating that I own every last letter of this play. But if anyone actually "plays" it on stage, he has a different intellectual property right....because of the "art" of acting itself. Simply because there's a certain intellectual property in it, if somebody acts "well" compared to a crappy actor. Similarly, if 2 super-pro-gamers play that's something different, something better, something more "artistic" compared to somebody elses play. And this intellectual property right derived from the player's performance can - IN MY OPINION (I can be very wrong here, again, just my 2 cents!) - not simply be "claimed" by Blizzard.
|
See...the issue here is that you AGREE to the EULA and that is the only reason why you are able to play or do whatever you want related to SC2. I see how you made an example about companies dictating everything but what you made was an absurd example which you acknowledge. The difference is that, the terms that Blizzard had applied ( which were not absurd at all btw) which you AGREED on before you did anything with the game is legal. Those terms are of fair standards and condition with the power of law. You forfeited all the rights to the game when you accepted the contract. It is as simple as that. Regardless of how much effort or whatever is put in those performances/replays, it just does not matter because of the EULA.
|
This is a highly technical legal question involving all sorts of computer mexchanics that I cannot begin to undserstand. But what I can do is apply the ordinary principles of copyright to the situation. However the outcome is most likely wrong because of aforementioned technicalities and various statutes which apply to technology.
The players themselves would hold copyright over the replay. Now, what "copyright" actually protects is NOT the IDEA, but the EXPRESSION.
If one player bunkerrushed, copyright does not protect the idea of bunkerrushing, but the actual expression of the bunkerrush, ie the replay file.
|
Alright, I guess I understand what you're trying to say now, sleepingdog.
Let's try a different example. I'm in no way an expert in law or anything, so this might sound absurd.
Let's imagine the game baseball is unknown to mankind. What if a company invented a baseball now. When you buy it, you accept their EULA that states that anything you do with this baseball (create major leagues, tv broadcasting of baseball games, selling shirts with a baseball on it, ...) has to be accepted by the company beforehand and any money you gain with it, belongs to the company which invented the baseball. Would these be legally binding terms in an EULA (in the US)? I sure hope not.
|
If you want to wait like 2 years I may be able to give you an answer  . In law school now but never did copy right infringement yet...
Either way honestly who cares. I say juts respect what they want but in honest I doubt gosucoaching is going to sue someone if they dont abide by it.. They may demand the website to take it down and what not but I dont think they will just start sueing everyone....
Why wouldnt they? Lawyers cost a boatload and your not going to be getting some huge settlement from a copy righted replay since you really wouldnt have made much money off it otherwise likely.. plus people are from different countries so that would make it even harder to get them in court and all that.... So its not in their economic advantage unless I am totally wrong on how much money they make off one replay....
|
On January 31 2011 22:17 boaecho wrote:
See...the issue here is that you AGREE to the EULA and that is the only reason why you are able to play or do whatever you want related to SC2. I see how you made an example about companies dictating everything but what you made was an absurd example which you acknowledge. The difference is that, the terms that Blizzard had applied ( which were not absurd at all btw) which you AGREED on before you did anything with the game is legal. Those terms are of fair standards and condition with the power of law. You forfeited all the rights to the game when you accepted the contract. It is as simple as that. Regardless of how much effort or whatever is put in those performances/replays, it just does not matter because of the EULA.
You still don't get my point unfortunately - what I wanted to show with the example is, that Blizz can only claim rights up to a certain extent, namely the rights of the code "itself".
In my opinion, it's legally impossible for Blizz to claim anything beyond that, simply because these rights don't have anything to do with the "code" at all. Therefore what I called them: a 2nd "source".
For US-law you may look into the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty
http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wppt/trtdocs_wo034.html#P89_8626
Implemented in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act by the WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act.
Just my approach:
"Article 2
Definitions
For the purposes of this Treaty:
(a) “performers” are actors, singers, musicians, dancers, and other persons who act, sing, deliver, declaim, play in, interpret, or otherwise perform literary or artistic works or expressions of folklore;"
Article 6
Economic Rights of Performers in their Unfixed Performances
Performers shall enjoy the exclusive right of authorizing, as regards their performances:
(i) the broadcasting and communication to the public of their unfixed performances except where the performance is already a broadcast performance; and
(ii) the fixation of their unfixed performances.
Article 7
Right of Reproduction
Performers shall enjoy the exclusive right of authorizing the direct or indirect reproduction of their performances fixed in phonograms, in any manner or form.
Article 8
Right of Distribution
(1) Performers shall enjoy the exclusive right of authorizing the making available to the public of the original and copies of their performances fixed in phonograms through sale or other transfer of ownership.
(2) Nothing in this Treaty shall affect the freedom of Contracting Parties to determine the conditions, if any, under which the exhaustion of the right in paragraph (1) applies after the first sale or other transfer of ownership of the original or a copy of the fixed performance with the authorization of the performer."
I don't have the time to research how exactly these provisions were implemented technicly in US-law, I only know they were.....somehow.
To cut the long story short: this basicly guarantees "performers" certain rights when they "perform" something. These rights have nothing to do with the copyrights to this "something" at all. This means, it doesn't matter who has the copyrights of, say, a book, a song or whatever, the "performer" has a unique copyright of its own when he performs.
The crucial question, I of course cannot answer: is a computer gamer who plays SC2 a "performer" in this sense. Which would basicly mean that we interpret SC2 as some kind of "art" which sure as hell could be difficult. Nevertheless regardless of this question: the EULA definitely would NOT limit the copyrights of the gamer in his function as a "performer".
EDIT:
Either way honestly who cares.
I do, because I find it interesting
@Mandalor: exactly, your example is spot-on
|
On January 31 2011 23:05 sleepingdog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2011 22:17 boaecho wrote:
See...the issue here is that you AGREE to the EULA and that is the only reason why you are able to play or do whatever you want related to SC2. I see how you made an example about companies dictating everything but what you made was an absurd example which you acknowledge. The difference is that, the terms that Blizzard had applied ( which were not absurd at all btw) which you AGREED on before you did anything with the game is legal. Those terms are of fair standards and condition with the power of law. You forfeited all the rights to the game when you accepted the contract. It is as simple as that. Regardless of how much effort or whatever is put in those performances/replays, it just does not matter because of the EULA. You still don't get my point unfortunately - what I wanted to show with the example is, that Blizz can only claim rights up to a certain extent, namely the rights of the code "itself". In my opinion, it's legally impossible for Blizz to claim anything beyond that, simply because these rights don't have anything to do with the "code" at all. Therefore what I called them: a 2nd "source". For US-law you may look into the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wppt/trtdocs_wo034.html#P89_8626Implemented in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act by the WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act. Just my approach: "Article 2 Definitions For the purposes of this Treaty: (a) “ performers” are actors, singers, musicians, dancers, and other persons who act, sing, deliver, declaim, play in, interpret, or otherwise perform literary or artistic works or expressions of folklore;" Article 6 Economic Rights of Performers in their Unfixed Performances Performers shall enjoy the exclusive right of authorizing, as regards their performances:(i) the broadcasting and communication to the public of their unfixed performances except where the performance is already a broadcast performance; and (ii) the fixation of their unfixed performances. Article 7 Right of Reproduction Performers shall enjoy the exclusive right of authorizing the direct or indirect reproduction of their performances fixed in phonograms, in any manner or form. Article 8 Right of Distribution (1) Performers shall enjoy the exclusive right of authorizing the making available to the public of the original and copies of their performances fixed in phonograms through sale or other transfer of ownership. (2) Nothing in this Treaty shall affect the freedom of Contracting Parties to determine the conditions, if any, under which the exhaustion of the right in paragraph (1) applies after the first sale or other transfer of ownership of the original or a copy of the fixed performance with the authorization of the performer." I don't have the time to research how exactly these provisions were implemented technicly in US-law, I only know they were.....somehow. To cut the long story short: this basicly guarantees "performers" certain rights when they "perform" something. These rights have nothing to do with the copyrights to this "something" at all. This means, it doesn't matter who has the copyrights of, say, a book, a song or whatever, the "performer" has a unique copyright of its own when he performs. The crucial question, I of course cannot answer: is a computer gamer who plays SC2 a "performer" in this sense. Which would basicly mean that we interpret SC2 as some kind of "art" which sure as hell could be difficult. Nevertheless regardless of this question: the EULA definitely would NOT limit the copyrights of the gamer in his function as a "performer". EDIT: I do, because I find it interesting @Mandalor: exactly, your example is spot-on
I do get your points but you don't seem to acknowledge the fact that its explicitly states that anything done or affiliated at ALL with the code is part of their property. You are not entitled to any of it . ANYTHING that has to do with SC2 is Blizzard's and can only be used with their permission and this extends to everything including the "code". Why? Because the progamers use the code regardless of what they do with it. Also, those terms would not be there if it was legally impossible.
|
On January 31 2011 23:14 boaecho wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2011 23:05 sleepingdog wrote:On January 31 2011 22:17 boaecho wrote:
See...the issue here is that you AGREE to the EULA and that is the only reason why you are able to play or do whatever you want related to SC2. I see how you made an example about companies dictating everything but what you made was an absurd example which you acknowledge. The difference is that, the terms that Blizzard had applied ( which were not absurd at all btw) which you AGREED on before you did anything with the game is legal. Those terms are of fair standards and condition with the power of law. You forfeited all the rights to the game when you accepted the contract. It is as simple as that. Regardless of how much effort or whatever is put in those performances/replays, it just does not matter because of the EULA. You still don't get my point unfortunately - what I wanted to show with the example is, that Blizz can only claim rights up to a certain extent, namely the rights of the code "itself". In my opinion, it's legally impossible for Blizz to claim anything beyond that, simply because these rights don't have anything to do with the "code" at all. Therefore what I called them: a 2nd "source". For US-law you may look into the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wppt/trtdocs_wo034.html#P89_8626Implemented in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act by the WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act. Just my approach: "Article 2 Definitions For the purposes of this Treaty: (a) “ performers” are actors, singers, musicians, dancers, and other persons who act, sing, deliver, declaim, play in, interpret, or otherwise perform literary or artistic works or expressions of folklore;" Article 6 Economic Rights of Performers in their Unfixed Performances Performers shall enjoy the exclusive right of authorizing, as regards their performances:(i) the broadcasting and communication to the public of their unfixed performances except where the performance is already a broadcast performance; and (ii) the fixation of their unfixed performances. Article 7 Right of Reproduction Performers shall enjoy the exclusive right of authorizing the direct or indirect reproduction of their performances fixed in phonograms, in any manner or form. Article 8 Right of Distribution (1) Performers shall enjoy the exclusive right of authorizing the making available to the public of the original and copies of their performances fixed in phonograms through sale or other transfer of ownership. (2) Nothing in this Treaty shall affect the freedom of Contracting Parties to determine the conditions, if any, under which the exhaustion of the right in paragraph (1) applies after the first sale or other transfer of ownership of the original or a copy of the fixed performance with the authorization of the performer." I don't have the time to research how exactly these provisions were implemented technicly in US-law, I only know they were.....somehow. To cut the long story short: this basicly guarantees "performers" certain rights when they "perform" something. These rights have nothing to do with the copyrights to this "something" at all. This means, it doesn't matter who has the copyrights of, say, a book, a song or whatever, the "performer" has a unique copyright of its own when he performs. The crucial question, I of course cannot answer: is a computer gamer who plays SC2 a "performer" in this sense. Which would basicly mean that we interpret SC2 as some kind of "art" which sure as hell could be difficult. Nevertheless regardless of this question: the EULA definitely would NOT limit the copyrights of the gamer in his function as a "performer". EDIT: Either way honestly who cares. I do, because I find it interesting @Mandalor: exactly, your example is spot-on I do get your points but you don't seem to acknowledge the fact that its explicitly states that anything done or affiliated at ALL with the code is part of their property. You are not entitled to any of it . ANYTHING that has to do with SC2 is Blizzard's and can only be used with their permission and this extends to everything including the "code". Why? Because the progamers use the code regardless of what they do with it. Also, those terms would not be there if it was legally impossible.
You are right and wrong 
They can only claim anything done or affiliated at all with the CODE - that's the very, oh so crucial point. My whole argument is, that the (copy)rights of the performer have nothing to do with the CODE, with the SOURCE (book, song, play, etc.) at all. It's a different "thing", the rights of a performer don't result from his "usage of something"....they are, well, unique, a "right of its own" that isn't derived from anything.
This right doesn't exist before the "acting" before the "performance" this right arises due to the performance itself and has no other origin beside the mere performance.
Again, this is not "all or nothing" - of course Blizzard still owns the code of the replay itself. There can be different kinds of property-rights on the same object.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
