|
On January 29 2014 07:39 Kheve wrote:
No it doesnt. Copyright is the right to replicate. Thats all it is.
Now I know you're absolutely full of it. Since I'm guessing you're a US citizen, here's the US law for you to read: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/106
I would happily link you to the WIPO's view on exclusive rights granted by Copyright as well, if you cared about that. Obviously not the law, but in general what most countries tend to adhere to (for better or worse).
You might be LLB qualified, but it's fairly obvious that IP Law is not remotely within your field.
|
On January 29 2014 08:03 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2014 07:39 Kheve wrote:
No it doesnt. Copyright is the right to replicate. Thats all it is. Now I know you're absolutely full of it. Since I'm guessing you're a US citizen, here's the US law for you to read: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/106I would happily link you to the WIPO's view on exclusive rights granted by Copyright as well, if you cared about that. Obviously not the law, but in general what most countries tend to adhere to (for better or worse). You might be LLB qualified, but it's fairly obvious that IP Law is not remotely within your field.
Im not US citizen btw. Anyway that is statutary law. Its principles apply in US. But even in US Blizzard would have a hard time negating the fair use.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107
Is holding a playing a game with an opponent fair use of the BW. obviously. Is the players streaming the game fair use?
Furthermore law principles apply across all bodies of law.
Is OSL broadcast a derivative of Blizzards copyright?
or is the broadcast derivative of the copyrighted OSL tournaments? Players signed their rights to OSL when they join the tourney. Are the broadcast starcraft broadcasts? or are they OSL tournament broadcast?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/122
Furthermore
(c) No Royalty Fee Required for Certain Secondary Transmissions.— A satellite carrier whose secondary transmissions are subject to statutory licensing under paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of subsection (a) shall have no royalty obligation for such secondary transmissions.
Thus the fact that we purchase BW is the licensing agreement. As we paid for BW starcraft and the broadcast is derived from our copy of BW I would also claim the rights that its a secondary transmission licensed by my purchase of BW. No broadcast rights was reserved for blizzard.
Lastly
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
That which is specific excludes the unspecified. Thus exclusive rights to public broadcast is also not covered for games. However a tournament then can be would be covered by propriety rights. And the subsequent license given by the players to OSL.
Ofc how the judge would rule is up in the air. Im not up to date with cases after 2000. And bear in mind this is according to US copyright law which is pretty comprehensive.
I make no claims on knowledge on korean copyright law nor do I know korea case law tradition since I follow common law interpretations. However if copyright was infringed Kespa, I doubt Blizzard would sue due to BW tournaments causing damage (detrimental) to SC2. This is mostly IP rights covered by korean law.
Remember OGN holds the trademarks to OSL. Most of the copyright here can apply to OSL matches. Ie you may not rebroadcast OSL matches without their permission. And it is explicitly stated including players rights to the matches. Kespa trademarks are included naturally. So even by US law standards, Kespa/OGN do have rights to their tournaments. Blizzard thus can make exclusive derivative of starcraft, but Kespa can make exclusive derivative of OSL ie talkshows etc etc.
Bear in mind I merely gave a few minutes to the US law quoted to see how the law can apply. I make no claims on how the case law is actually decided on these laws as I have no research on those.
|
On January 29 2014 08:54 Kheve wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2014 08:03 WolfintheSheep wrote:On January 29 2014 07:39 Kheve wrote:
No it doesnt. Copyright is the right to replicate. Thats all it is. Now I know you're absolutely full of it. Since I'm guessing you're a US citizen, here's the US law for you to read: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/106I would happily link you to the WIPO's view on exclusive rights granted by Copyright as well, if you cared about that. Obviously not the law, but in general what most countries tend to adhere to (for better or worse). You might be LLB qualified, but it's fairly obvious that IP Law is not remotely within your field. Im not US citizen btw. Anyway that is statutary law. Its principles apply in US. But even in US Blizzard would have a hard time negating the fair use. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107Is holding a playing a game with an opponent fair use of the BW. obviously. Is the players streaming the game fair use? Furthermore law principles apply across all bodies of law. Is OSL broadcast a derivative of Blizzards copyright? or is the broadcast derivative of the copyrighted OSL tournaments? Players signed their rights to OSL when they join the tourney. Are the broadcast starcraft broadcasts? or are they OSL tournament broadcast? http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/122Furthermore (c) No Royalty Fee Required for Certain Secondary Transmissions.— A satellite carrier whose secondary transmissions are subject to statutory licensing under paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of subsection (a) shall have no royalty obligation for such secondary transmissions. Thus the fact that we purchase BW is the licensing agreement. As we paid for BW starcraft and the broadcast is derived from our copy of BW I would also claim the rights that its a secondary transmission licensed by my purchase of BW. No broadcast rights was reserved for blizzard. Lastly (5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and That which is specific excludes the unspecified. Thus exclusive rights to public broadcast is also not covered for games. However a tournament then can be would be covered by propriety rights. And the subsequent license given by the players to OSL. Ofc how the judge would rule is up in the air. Im not up to date with cases after 2000. And bear in mind this is according to US copyright law which is pretty comprehensive. I make no claims on knowledge on korean copyright law nor do I know korea case law tradition since I follow common law interpretations. However if copyright was infringed Kespa, I doubt Blizzard would sue due to BW tournaments causing damage (detrimental) to SC2. This is mostly IP rights covered by korean law. Remember OGN holds the trademarks to OSL. Most of the copyright here can apply to OSL matches. Ie you may not rebroadcast OSL matches without their permission. And it is explicitly stated including players rights to the matches. Kespa trademarks are included naturally. So even by US law standards, Kespa/OGN do have rights to their tournaments
Man Wolfinthesheep just got punked.
|
On January 29 2014 08:55 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2014 08:54 Kheve wrote:On January 29 2014 08:03 WolfintheSheep wrote:On January 29 2014 07:39 Kheve wrote:
No it doesnt. Copyright is the right to replicate. Thats all it is. Now I know you're absolutely full of it. Since I'm guessing you're a US citizen, here's the US law for you to read: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/106I would happily link you to the WIPO's view on exclusive rights granted by Copyright as well, if you cared about that. Obviously not the law, but in general what most countries tend to adhere to (for better or worse). You might be LLB qualified, but it's fairly obvious that IP Law is not remotely within your field. Im not US citizen btw. Anyway that is statutary law. Its principles apply in US. But even in US Blizzard would have a hard time negating the fair use. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107Is holding a playing a game with an opponent fair use of the BW. obviously. Is the players streaming the game fair use? Furthermore law principles apply across all bodies of law. Is OSL broadcast a derivative of Blizzards copyright? or is the broadcast derivative of the copyrighted OSL tournaments? Players signed their rights to OSL when they join the tourney. Are the broadcast starcraft broadcasts? or are they OSL tournament broadcast? http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/122Furthermore (c) No Royalty Fee Required for Certain Secondary Transmissions.— A satellite carrier whose secondary transmissions are subject to statutory licensing under paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of subsection (a) shall have no royalty obligation for such secondary transmissions. Thus the fact that we purchase BW is the licensing agreement. As we paid for BW starcraft and the broadcast is derived from our copy of BW I would also claim the rights that its a secondary transmission licensed by my purchase of BW. No broadcast rights was reserved for blizzard. Lastly (5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and That which is specific excludes the unspecified. Thus exclusive rights to public broadcast is also not covered for games. However a tournament then can be would be covered by propriety rights. And the subsequent license given by the players to OSL. Ofc how the judge would rule is up in the air. Im not up to date with cases after 2000. And bear in mind this is according to US copyright law which is pretty comprehensive. I make no claims on knowledge on korean copyright law nor do I know korea case law tradition since I follow common law interpretations. However if copyright was infringed Kespa, I doubt Blizzard would sue due to BW tournaments causing damage (detrimental) to SC2. This is mostly IP rights covered by korean law. Remember OGN holds the trademarks to OSL. Most of the copyright here can apply to OSL matches. Ie you may not rebroadcast OSL matches without their permission. And it is explicitly stated including players rights to the matches. Kespa trademarks are included naturally. So even by US law standards, Kespa/OGN do have rights to their tournaments Man Wolfinthesheep just got punked.
Not really, he looked up a bunch of laws from another country that have nothing to do with the case that Blizzard filed. The copy and paste tool is pretty cool, but does not mean he properly applied the law correctly. There is no guarantee that anything he just cited in on point. IP and copyright law is super complicated and you can't just copy two regulations and say "look I'm right". Finally, we should trust the attorneys who were in the country, working on the case, rather than one from another country who's laws may not be similar. He also cites fair use, which is used in artistic works that don't involve making money and is very far from on point.
I personally have limited knowledge into IP law, but I do know that Blizzard was able to get a settlement out of Kespa. The fact that Blizzard prevailed in getting the broadcast rights and Kespa settled shows that Kespa was not 100% confident they would win the case outright. At the end of the day, no judge is going to tell Blizzard they don't have the right to decide who broadcast their IP.
|
On January 29 2014 09:06 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2014 08:55 Xiphos wrote:On January 29 2014 08:54 Kheve wrote:On January 29 2014 08:03 WolfintheSheep wrote:On January 29 2014 07:39 Kheve wrote:
No it doesnt. Copyright is the right to replicate. Thats all it is. Now I know you're absolutely full of it. Since I'm guessing you're a US citizen, here's the US law for you to read: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/106I would happily link you to the WIPO's view on exclusive rights granted by Copyright as well, if you cared about that. Obviously not the law, but in general what most countries tend to adhere to (for better or worse). You might be LLB qualified, but it's fairly obvious that IP Law is not remotely within your field. Im not US citizen btw. Anyway that is statutary law. Its principles apply in US. But even in US Blizzard would have a hard time negating the fair use. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107Is holding a playing a game with an opponent fair use of the BW. obviously. Is the players streaming the game fair use? Furthermore law principles apply across all bodies of law. Is OSL broadcast a derivative of Blizzards copyright? or is the broadcast derivative of the copyrighted OSL tournaments? Players signed their rights to OSL when they join the tourney. Are the broadcast starcraft broadcasts? or are they OSL tournament broadcast? http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/122Furthermore (c) No Royalty Fee Required for Certain Secondary Transmissions.— A satellite carrier whose secondary transmissions are subject to statutory licensing under paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of subsection (a) shall have no royalty obligation for such secondary transmissions. Thus the fact that we purchase BW is the licensing agreement. As we paid for BW starcraft and the broadcast is derived from our copy of BW I would also claim the rights that its a secondary transmission licensed by my purchase of BW. No broadcast rights was reserved for blizzard. Lastly (5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and That which is specific excludes the unspecified. Thus exclusive rights to public broadcast is also not covered for games. However a tournament then can be would be covered by propriety rights. And the subsequent license given by the players to OSL. Ofc how the judge would rule is up in the air. Im not up to date with cases after 2000. And bear in mind this is according to US copyright law which is pretty comprehensive. I make no claims on knowledge on korean copyright law nor do I know korea case law tradition since I follow common law interpretations. However if copyright was infringed Kespa, I doubt Blizzard would sue due to BW tournaments causing damage (detrimental) to SC2. This is mostly IP rights covered by korean law. Remember OGN holds the trademarks to OSL. Most of the copyright here can apply to OSL matches. Ie you may not rebroadcast OSL matches without their permission. And it is explicitly stated including players rights to the matches. Kespa trademarks are included naturally. So even by US law standards, Kespa/OGN do have rights to their tournaments Man Wolfinthesheep just got punked. Not really, he looked up a bunch of laws from another country that have nothing to do with the case that Blizzard filed. The copy and paste tool is pretty cool, but does not mean he properly applied the law correctly. There is no guarantee that anything he just cited in on point. IP and copyright law is super complicated and you can't just copy two regulations and say "look I'm right". Finally, we should trust the attorneys who were in the country, working on the case, rather than one from another country who's laws may not be similar. He also cites fair use, which is used in artistic works that don't involve making money and is very far from on point. I personally have limited knowledge into IP law, but I do know that Blizzard was able to get a settlement out of Kespa. The fact that Blizzard prevailed in getting the broadcast rights and Kespa settled shows that Kespa was not 100% confident they would win the case outright. At the end of the day, no judge is going to tell Blizzard they don't have the right to decide who broadcast their IP.
Wrong again. Why would Blizzard settle if they can 100% win? The settlement gave all OSL trademarks and rights to their tournaments to OGN and MBC. All of the osl or msl matches belongs to OGN and MBC in the settlement. All the BW matches we love in the early days all belong to OGN and MBC.
All the settlement does is affirm Blizzard rights to SC2 which was never questioned since Blizzard SC2 T&C covered many of those things thus falls under contract law.
What blizzard is most afraid of thus they settled was the courts settling the esports issue once and for all. Ie courts could find that Esports is a fair use of copyrighted products and that organizers owns all rights to the tournaments. Thus setting a precedent to potentially challenge even contractual terms of the SC2 T&C.
|
On January 29 2014 09:19 Kheve wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2014 09:06 Plansix wrote:On January 29 2014 08:55 Xiphos wrote:On January 29 2014 08:54 Kheve wrote:On January 29 2014 08:03 WolfintheSheep wrote:On January 29 2014 07:39 Kheve wrote:
No it doesnt. Copyright is the right to replicate. Thats all it is. Now I know you're absolutely full of it. Since I'm guessing you're a US citizen, here's the US law for you to read: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/106I would happily link you to the WIPO's view on exclusive rights granted by Copyright as well, if you cared about that. Obviously not the law, but in general what most countries tend to adhere to (for better or worse). You might be LLB qualified, but it's fairly obvious that IP Law is not remotely within your field. Im not US citizen btw. Anyway that is statutary law. Its principles apply in US. But even in US Blizzard would have a hard time negating the fair use. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107Is holding a playing a game with an opponent fair use of the BW. obviously. Is the players streaming the game fair use? Furthermore law principles apply across all bodies of law. Is OSL broadcast a derivative of Blizzards copyright? or is the broadcast derivative of the copyrighted OSL tournaments? Players signed their rights to OSL when they join the tourney. Are the broadcast starcraft broadcasts? or are they OSL tournament broadcast? http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/122Furthermore (c) No Royalty Fee Required for Certain Secondary Transmissions.— A satellite carrier whose secondary transmissions are subject to statutory licensing under paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of subsection (a) shall have no royalty obligation for such secondary transmissions. Thus the fact that we purchase BW is the licensing agreement. As we paid for BW starcraft and the broadcast is derived from our copy of BW I would also claim the rights that its a secondary transmission licensed by my purchase of BW. No broadcast rights was reserved for blizzard. Lastly (5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and That which is specific excludes the unspecified. Thus exclusive rights to public broadcast is also not covered for games. However a tournament then can be would be covered by propriety rights. And the subsequent license given by the players to OSL. Ofc how the judge would rule is up in the air. Im not up to date with cases after 2000. And bear in mind this is according to US copyright law which is pretty comprehensive. I make no claims on knowledge on korean copyright law nor do I know korea case law tradition since I follow common law interpretations. However if copyright was infringed Kespa, I doubt Blizzard would sue due to BW tournaments causing damage (detrimental) to SC2. This is mostly IP rights covered by korean law. Remember OGN holds the trademarks to OSL. Most of the copyright here can apply to OSL matches. Ie you may not rebroadcast OSL matches without their permission. And it is explicitly stated including players rights to the matches. Kespa trademarks are included naturally. So even by US law standards, Kespa/OGN do have rights to their tournaments Man Wolfinthesheep just got punked. Not really, he looked up a bunch of laws from another country that have nothing to do with the case that Blizzard filed. The copy and paste tool is pretty cool, but does not mean he properly applied the law correctly. There is no guarantee that anything he just cited in on point. IP and copyright law is super complicated and you can't just copy two regulations and say "look I'm right". Finally, we should trust the attorneys who were in the country, working on the case, rather than one from another country who's laws may not be similar. He also cites fair use, which is used in artistic works that don't involve making money and is very far from on point. I personally have limited knowledge into IP law, but I do know that Blizzard was able to get a settlement out of Kespa. The fact that Blizzard prevailed in getting the broadcast rights and Kespa settled shows that Kespa was not 100% confident they would win the case outright. At the end of the day, no judge is going to tell Blizzard they don't have the right to decide who broadcast their IP. Wrong again. Why would Blizzard settle if they can 100% win? The settlement gave all OSL trademarks and rights to their tournaments to OGN and MBC. All of the osl or msl matches belongs to OGN and MBC in the settlement. All the BW matches we love in the early days all belong to OGN and MBC. All the settlement does is affirm Blizzard rights to SC2 which was never questioned since Blizzard SC2 T&C covered many of those things thus falls under contract law. What blizzard is most afraid of thus they settled was the courts settling the esports issue once and for all. Ie courts could find that Esports is a fair use of copyrighted products and that organizers owns all rights to the tournaments. Thus setting a precedent to potentially challenge even contractual terms of the SC2 T&C.
Yeah, it was equally(if not more so) likely that it would go the other way. That is why most law suits end is settlement, because neither side is sure they will win. Again, we are not experts on Korea law and mostly talking out of our asses, but it appears in the end that both sides got what they wanted out of the deal.
|
So KESPAAAAAAAAA won... ;'/
|
Lol why are people who are not IP lawyers trying to discuss IP law
I'm not an IP lawyer but I know that people who are NOT IP lawyers are not even remotely qualified to discuss it. That's why IP lawyers exist in the first place. They have to go through years of school and are paid big bucks. People are trying to reason things out on their own and discuss what would make sense logically. That's not how it works.
|
On January 29 2014 08:55 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2014 08:54 Kheve wrote:On January 29 2014 08:03 WolfintheSheep wrote:On January 29 2014 07:39 Kheve wrote:
No it doesnt. Copyright is the right to replicate. Thats all it is. Now I know you're absolutely full of it. Since I'm guessing you're a US citizen, here's the US law for you to read: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/106I would happily link you to the WIPO's view on exclusive rights granted by Copyright as well, if you cared about that. Obviously not the law, but in general what most countries tend to adhere to (for better or worse). You might be LLB qualified, but it's fairly obvious that IP Law is not remotely within your field. Im not US citizen btw. Anyway that is statutary law. Its principles apply in US. But even in US Blizzard would have a hard time negating the fair use. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107Is holding a playing a game with an opponent fair use of the BW. obviously. Is the players streaming the game fair use? Furthermore law principles apply across all bodies of law. Is OSL broadcast a derivative of Blizzards copyright? or is the broadcast derivative of the copyrighted OSL tournaments? Players signed their rights to OSL when they join the tourney. Are the broadcast starcraft broadcasts? or are they OSL tournament broadcast? http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/122Furthermore (c) No Royalty Fee Required for Certain Secondary Transmissions.— A satellite carrier whose secondary transmissions are subject to statutory licensing under paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of subsection (a) shall have no royalty obligation for such secondary transmissions. Thus the fact that we purchase BW is the licensing agreement. As we paid for BW starcraft and the broadcast is derived from our copy of BW I would also claim the rights that its a secondary transmission licensed by my purchase of BW. No broadcast rights was reserved for blizzard. Lastly (5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and That which is specific excludes the unspecified. Thus exclusive rights to public broadcast is also not covered for games. However a tournament then can be would be covered by propriety rights. And the subsequent license given by the players to OSL. Ofc how the judge would rule is up in the air. Im not up to date with cases after 2000. And bear in mind this is according to US copyright law which is pretty comprehensive. I make no claims on knowledge on korean copyright law nor do I know korea case law tradition since I follow common law interpretations. However if copyright was infringed Kespa, I doubt Blizzard would sue due to BW tournaments causing damage (detrimental) to SC2. This is mostly IP rights covered by korean law. Remember OGN holds the trademarks to OSL. Most of the copyright here can apply to OSL matches. Ie you may not rebroadcast OSL matches without their permission. And it is explicitly stated including players rights to the matches. Kespa trademarks are included naturally. So even by US law standards, Kespa/OGN do have rights to their tournaments Man Wolfinthesheep just got punked.
Lol, not even close.
He thinks playing a game of Starcraft on stream is what "Secondary Transmission" refers to.
He also thinks wording like "other audiovisual work" or "pictorial, graphic...works" don't cover games.
If he really is a law student, he's a pretty piss poor one.
EDIT: Look, I'm not saying I know what a court or a judge would decide on, because IP Case Law is weak, and fair use claims generally are untested. But saying that copyright is only about the right to copy is blatantly wrong, when it's written in (basically) plain English in most country's laws, and in multiple international agreements.
And the part about secondary transmissions is especially hilarious, because that refers to rebroadcasting of someone else's work. For example, Universal had to pay royalties to the Tolkein Estate to make and distribute Lord of the Rings. TV Stations, Cable networks, Netflix, etc. don't because they are secondary transmissions of a product that has already paid for licensing.
It's also the same exclusion that allows Twitch.tv to broadcast tournament content without needing a license for that event...because they're not producing, only acting as a transmission source.
|
I'm sorry for sparking up the Kheve IP law debate, I hope everyone can drop it since it's not relevant to eSF.
As for people saying "good riddance" and equivalents, what did eSF ever do to you and your favourite players? Seriously, the only thing I can think of is kespa fanboyism, and BW player prejudice. eSF uniting all the teams in the scene (at the time) under one flag was an amazing and glorious moment, and gave the scene (which was overinflated) some coherence.
|
United States97277 Posts
I imagine most of the people saying stuff like that are Slayers fans who are still bitter about the whole practice blackout thing among other stuff where basically every team but Prime refused to practice with Slayers. Apparently Prime just practiced with everyone anyways because they also practiced with a lot of the kespa teams early on
|
Sheeeeeeeeeit that's bad for esports.
|
On January 29 2014 10:15 xAdra wrote:
I'm sorry for sparking up the Kheve IP law debate, I hope everyone can drop it since it's not relevant to eSF.
As for people saying "good riddance" and equivalents, what did eSF ever do to you and your favourite players? Seriously, the only thing I can think of is kespa fanboyism, and BW player prejudice. eSF uniting all the teams in the scene (at the time) under one flag was an amazing and glorious moment, and gave the scene (which was overinflated) some coherence.
It's the other way around, they didn't do anything. They were supposed to be governing body, but they held no real power. Also listening to Incontrol right now speaking about them on ITG, he mentioned they were screwing around foreign tournament organizers threatening to pull out all Koreans from tournaments if all doesn't go according to their conditions (see NASL, where it didn't go as per their conditions. Incontrol implied there was more also with other tournaments, that never got out).
Also mentioned that they were threatening players who wanted to transfer from eSF teams to other ones that if they transfer they will not be allowed to train with eSF players, play in eSF leagues and ever return to eSF team (not hard to beliebe - see, Slayers for something similar). Also apparently they were not only not paying most of their players anything (that's widely known fact) but also they were telling them just being in progaming house is an honor and more they deserve. Also some of the teams were taking half of the winnings from their players in order to 'operate the team-house' and eSF knew about it and did nothing.
He characterized them well in the show imo, they were that little bastard brother to Kespa, who killed your puppy when he was little and then grew up into serial killer. Governing body without any real power? What were they good for anyway? When IM had problems with LG, they ran to Kespa for help, even when they were still members of eSF...
|
eSF served its purpose as a spare tire, it's time to switch back to regular tire, can't rely on spare tire forever.
|
On January 29 2014 10:39 Ammanas wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2014 10:15 xAdra wrote:
I'm sorry for sparking up the Kheve IP law debate, I hope everyone can drop it since it's not relevant to eSF.
As for people saying "good riddance" and equivalents, what did eSF ever do to you and your favourite players? Seriously, the only thing I can think of is kespa fanboyism, and BW player prejudice. eSF uniting all the teams in the scene (at the time) under one flag was an amazing and glorious moment, and gave the scene (which was overinflated) some coherence. It's the other way around, they didn't do anything. They were supposed to be governing body, but they held no real power. Also listening to Incontrol right now speaking about them on ITG, he mentioned they were screwing around foreign tournament organizers threatening to pull out all Koreans from tournaments if all doesn't go according to their conditions (see NASL, where it didn't go as per their conditions. Incontrol implied there was more also with other tournaments, that never got out). Also mentioned that they were threatening players who wanted to transfer from eSF teams to other ones that if they transfer they will not be allowed to train with eSF players, play in eSF leagues and ever return to eSF team (not hard to beliebe - see, Slayers for something similar). Also apparently they were not only not paying most of their players anything (that's widely known fact) but also they were telling them just being in progaming house is an honor and more they deserve. Also some of the teams were taking half of the winnings from their players in order to 'operate the team-house' and eSF knew about it and did nothing. He characterized them well in the show imo, they were that little bastard brother to Kespa, who killed your puppy when he was little and then grew up into serial killer. Governing body without any real power? What were they good for anyway? When IM had problems with LG, they ran to Kespa for help, even when they were still members of eSF...
Oh schnap, I always knew that there were some shady dealings inside ESF's infrastructure but god damn didn't know that they were filled with THIS kind of scumbagary.
|
On January 29 2014 12:18 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2014 10:39 Ammanas wrote:On January 29 2014 10:15 xAdra wrote:
I'm sorry for sparking up the Kheve IP law debate, I hope everyone can drop it since it's not relevant to eSF.
As for people saying "good riddance" and equivalents, what did eSF ever do to you and your favourite players? Seriously, the only thing I can think of is kespa fanboyism, and BW player prejudice. eSF uniting all the teams in the scene (at the time) under one flag was an amazing and glorious moment, and gave the scene (which was overinflated) some coherence. It's the other way around, they didn't do anything. They were supposed to be governing body, but they held no real power. Also listening to Incontrol right now speaking about them on ITG, he mentioned they were screwing around foreign tournament organizers threatening to pull out all Koreans from tournaments if all doesn't go according to their conditions (see NASL, where it didn't go as per their conditions. Incontrol implied there was more also with other tournaments, that never got out). Also mentioned that they were threatening players who wanted to transfer from eSF teams to other ones that if they transfer they will not be allowed to train with eSF players, play in eSF leagues and ever return to eSF team (not hard to beliebe - see, Slayers for something similar). Also apparently they were not only not paying most of their players anything (that's widely known fact) but also they were telling them just being in progaming house is an honor and more they deserve. Also some of the teams were taking half of the winnings from their players in order to 'operate the team-house' and eSF knew about it and did nothing. He characterized them well in the show imo, they were that little bastard brother to Kespa, who killed your puppy when he was little and then grew up into serial killer. Governing body without any real power? What were they good for anyway? When IM had problems with LG, they ran to Kespa for help, even when they were still members of eSF... Oh schnap, I always knew that there were some shady dealings inside ESF's infrastructure but god damn didn't know that they were filled with THIS kind of scumbagary.
There are some Slayers fans here on TL that hate ESF with a passion, and for a good reason.
|
Surprised that no one mentions all the incidents around TSL. This had more to do with sc2con but they were basically the same amateur so-called "governing body" whos only good at lying & bullying
|
It's always nice to know that teamliquid is full of law professionals who have intimate knowledge of the inner workings of IP law.
|
On January 29 2014 13:39 Eventine wrote:
It's always nice to know that the internet is full of law professionals who have intimate knowledge of the inner workings of IP law.
Fixed that for you. Everyone is an expert on the internet.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On January 29 2014 09:30 ZenithM wrote:
So KESPAAAAAAAAA won... ;'/
Well Kespa became the head body for Korean esports like 6 months back or something. I guess you can think of it as Kespa won lol but esf wasn't doing much and was likely to eventually disband.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
