EPTOn January 31 2011 23:22 sleepingdog wrote:
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.
Show nested quote +
On January 31 2011 23:14 boaecho wrote:
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 23:05 sleepingdog wrote:
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:
I do, because I find it interesting
@Mandalor: exactly, your example is spot-on
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.
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
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.
Then what would you say their rights are? It is clearly not the rights or ownership of the replay or anything related to it for that matter.
