EPTIt sucks for you that it happened but you don't have any right to be upset. Their actions are understandable and justified. Especially since you've been entering competitions with it.
[BarCraft] Has been removed from StarCraft II - Page 4
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
risk.nuke
Sweden2825 Posts
It sucks for you that it happened but you don't have any right to be upset. Their actions are understandable and justified. Especially since you've been entering competitions with it. | ||
|
SSVnormandy
France392 Posts
| ||
|
TigerKarl
1757 Posts
| ||
|
Mauldo
United States750 Posts
I'm sorry, but Blizzard has no legal or moral need to defend you on this one. I know everyone likes to shit on Blizzard every chance they get, but this is pretty far-fetched. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 16 2013 20:47 Mauldo wrote: So....you get popped for copyright infringement and Blizzard is painted as the bad guy for taking down your maps and avoiding any real legal issues on their end. You were using their gaming engine to deliver a (potentially? outright?) copyright violating material. It's the same thing with Youtube - if Youtube doesn't honor all of the bullshit Viacom notices, then Viacom can (and has) sue Youtube as essential accessories to copyright infringement. I'm sorry, but Blizzard has no legal or moral need to defend you on this one. I know everyone likes to shit on Blizzard every chance they get, but this is pretty far-fetched. Yeah, really I think the mod makers are lucky to have Blizzard as a buffer for this stuff. Getting a cease and desist or legal action brought against when some believes you infringed on their game totally sucks. Even if you didn't copy their game, it still sucks. That is the part that people don't talk about. Even if the modder is right and they didn't copy the game, it cost a shit ton of money to be proven right. And after that, the court may not award you all your legal fees. Its nice that Blizzard acts as a buffer for stuff like this. | ||
|
Caihead
Canada8550 Posts
On June 16 2013 20:27 TigerKarl wrote: These guys profited from naming their stuff after a popular thing, now they suffer from naming their stuff after a popular thing. Stop crying. How did they profit when they named it BarCraft which has nothing to do with Bang! ? Not to mention they didn't actually profit... | ||
|
Gorribal
Canada186 Posts
On June 15 2013 16:05 sc2modders wrote: We don’t know if such things happened before, and we don’t know how to make BarCraft online again. We can understand the necessity of removing our game after they get charged by davinci, but we are very upset about Blizzard didn’t help us on reviving BarCraft. When everything is OKAY all profits goes into their pocket and now they leave us to an army of lawyers alone and just be a looker, besides that it is very hard for us to accept any reason why they disqualified BarCraft even before we came to a conclusion whether BarCraft is a copy work or not, and DMCA is an American law but the contest is held in China. Blizzard has always been like this, I guess some people were around and paying attention a few years ago. | ||
|
Xapti
Canada2473 Posts
On June 16 2013 20:47 Mauldo wrote: Copyright doesn't cover game mechanics; it's that simple. Starcraft maps are not YouTube videos; The comparison is entirely inaccurate. If someone was to re-draw all the characters of the Simpsons, re-do the voice overs, and give all character/place names new and different names (and possibly remove unique/trademarked catchphrases like D'oh) and upload it to Youtube I'd argue that they could get away with it despite having the same events take place and the same jokes as the Simpsons. Even if they couldn't get away with it, it's not an accurate example of the scenario taking place here.So....you get popped for copyright infringement and Blizzard is painted as the bad guy for taking down your maps and avoiding any real legal issues on their end. You were using their gaming engine to deliver a (potentially? outright?) copyright violating material. It's the same thing with Youtube - if Youtube doesn't honor all of the bullshit Viacom notices, then Viacom can (and has) sue Youtube as essential accessories to copyright infringement. Blizzard copied Bejeweled entirely. Other developers have done the same thing to bejeweled and other games, and there hasn't been lawsuits based off the similar (identical) mechanics. Occasionally you see lawsuits, but it ends up just resulting in minor changes such as naming. Hasbro (makers of Scrabble) was attempted to act against the makers of Scrabulous (online scrabble clone), but nearly the only thing Scrabulous did was change their name to Lexulous and they were essentially fine. The court's ruling was that scrabble was not a copyrightable game. Blizzard is conceding to a challenge that they cannot lose. At the worst, all they need to do is order Barcraft to make some minor changes. | ||
|
coolheart
China3 Posts
On June 16 2013 13:15 Nerski wrote: Your example is way off base. The idea of a card game isn't what's in question...what was brought into questions was did the game in fact 100% copy an existing card game. According to what was posted it did, which is a lot different then suing over making an FPS game. You wouldn't see Valve sue Activision over COD, because while they are both an FPS they are not the same past that fact. In this case it's not just that he made a card game mod, he 100% copied an existing card game and just re skinned it. What he did would be the equivalent to me re skinning CS:GO with SC2 skins and names and calling it my own game and trying to give it away. Which is worlds different then the example you gave. Did you have played our game carefully, could you say it copied 100%, i think our game is different, you can play it , we have rage, and others, and player played it, you can pay different attention to bang. You can ask some body who played our game. | ||
|
coolheart
China3 Posts
So i believe this game will come back and player can play it again. | ||
|
Tibbroar
United States161 Posts
| ||
|
SyDe
France355 Posts
| ||
|
Kreydon
Germany11 Posts
On June 16 2013 13:15 Nerski wrote: Your example is way off base. The idea of a card game isn't what's in question...what was brought into questions was did the game in fact 100% copy an existing card game. According to what was posted it did, which is a lot different then suing over making an FPS game. You wouldn't see Valve sue Activision over COD, because while they are both an FPS they are not the same past that fact. In this case it's not just that he made a card game mod, he 100% copied an existing card game and just re skinned it. What he did would be the equivalent to me re skinning CS:GO with SC2 skins and names and calling it my own game and trying to give it away. Which is worlds different then the example you gave. You must never have heard of Zynga. | ||
|
coolheart
China3 Posts
On June 17 2013 17:41 SyDe wrote: ETA for "Clash on Abaddon" upload on EU? The game looks awesome! That's made by us too, thanks for playing it, and please enjoy it. Good luck. | ||
|
algorithm0r
Canada486 Posts
| ||
|
c0ldfusion
United States8293 Posts
On June 16 2013 00:50 R1CH wrote: The map was pretty much 100% Bang! mechanics with name changes. Wait seriously? Wow. Shouldn't you just close this thread then? | ||
|
leova
266 Posts
as for the actual OP, if they copied the game and changed the names/pictures, they deserve every bit of crap they get | ||
|
AiurTemplar
China12 Posts
On June 17 2013 09:44 Xapti wrote: Copyright doesn't cover game mechanics; it's that simple. Starcraft maps are not YouTube videos; The comparison is entirely inaccurate. If someone was to re-draw all the characters of the Simpsons, re-do the voice overs, and give all character/place names new and different names (and possibly remove unique/trademarked catchphrases like D'oh) and upload it to Youtube I'd argue that they could get away with it despite having the same events take place and the same jokes as the Simpsons. Even if they couldn't get away with it, it's not an accurate example of the scenario taking place here. Blizzard copied Bejeweled entirely. Other developers have done the same thing to bejeweled and other games, and there hasn't been lawsuits based off the similar (identical) mechanics. Occasionally you see lawsuits, but it ends up just resulting in minor changes such as naming. Hasbro (makers of Scrabble) was attempted to act against the makers of Scrabulous (online scrabble clone), but nearly the only thing Scrabulous did was change their name to Lexulous and they were essentially fine. The court's ruling was that scrabble was not a copyrightable game. Blizzard is conceding to a challenge that they cannot lose. At the worst, all they need to do is order Barcraft to make some minor changes. Yes, you are right, you can't copyright a mechanics, at least not in America. | ||
|
skipdog172
United States331 Posts
On June 16 2013 07:52 Nerski wrote: After reading a lot of posts in this thread I have no sympathy for the OP. It's common sense if you essentially copy a product to release a new product, you run a massive risk of getting busted for copyright infringement. No matter how different you make it look if it works exactly the same, you will have one heck of a hard time proving you didn't copy the other peoples work. Maybe in the future if you don't want to have your work go to waste, you do this new hip thing all the kids are doing. You sit down with your team and you come up with your own idea from scratch, and build that into a product. If that's to much investment in time for you then quit bothering to make things. | ||
|
skipdog172
United States331 Posts
On June 16 2013 00:50 R1CH wrote: The map was pretty much 100% Bang! mechanics with name changes. are people not seeing this post or what? if its clear that it was completely copied just with name changes, how can you all defend the OP so much? screaming 'but china doesn't have copyright laws' doesn't make it right. | ||
| ||
