|
On October 29 2010 19:39 Caek wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2010 18:59 Smog wrote:I don't get why noone pointed this out yet: Even though intellectual property experts have advised us that it is excessive to request joint ownership of broadcast materials created through the expertise of TV stations and the performance of players in addition to charging a licensing fee for a tournament, we have accepted a limited form of joint ownership for the sake of promoting e-Sports and to improve negotiations. I imagine that this is why Blizz/Gretech want a decent amount of money. Kespa wants some form of Joint Ownership. Is this common in a contract for IP rights? I would say no, but I'm not certain. Either way, I imagine this is is what's causing the legality issues, not the money at stake. Anyone agree or enlighten me? I think it's the other way round, Blizzard/Gretech wants joint ownership of the broadcast content on top of charging a licencing fee for the tournament. KeSPA is saying here that, even though IP experts told them that that is excessive, they agreed to it.
Ahh, you're right. I had to re-read it. Thanks!
|
On October 30 2010 02:20 jgad wrote:
What really sucks about this is the fact that SC2 is largely as popular as it is - and was so hotly expected as it was - because Korea kept the Starcraft spirit alive for an entire decade with BW eSports. ESports exists because of KeSPA - for whatever good or bad you want to say about them, on this point there can be no debate. Blizzard now is riding a wave of commercial eSports that KeSPA is responsible for starting. They have new opportunities for income and influence in the gaming sector exactly because someone before them had the vision and the drive to lay down a foundation for them to recognize as potential and build upon. And for this wonderful gift that Blizzard can now profit from, they repay KeSPA by stomping them in the face.
Why?
Because IP rights are so dodgy to begin with and, furthermore, are so poorly defined. If there was any justice in the world, KeSPA should have IP rights over the entire concept of televised professional eSPORTS. Blizzard could just as justifiably be required to pay KeSPA to use THEIR idea of taking what was otherwise a box-on-shelf video game for basement dwellers and turning it into a media and celebrity sensation. Why is it that KeSPA does not have as much right to the genius idea and implementation of broadcasted eSPORTS as Blizzard has to the genius and implementation of Starcraft?
There is no defensible argument here. There are fundamental problems with the letter of the law regarding the entire concept and framework of what intellectual property is and isn't and the mechanisms by which government power can and can not be used to leverage power in cases of dispute. This isn't about true negotiation and cooperation, justice, or fairness - it's about a badly constructed legal system that Blizzard and Gretech have demonstrated the poor judgement to use mercilessly to their own advantage with zero respect or acknowledgement of the fact that they are now stabbing in the back the very organization whose members, teams, and sponsors have sacrificed and worked towards building the professional eSPORTS institution they now profit from and enjoy.
Just think of how much money Blizzard has made from KeSPA's decade of free advertizing for the Starcraft franchise! How many millions of copies of BW have sold in Korea alone SOLELY because KeSPA has been stoking the starcraft fire with their innovative application of an otherwise home-use video game product. How many millions of copies of SC2 will they have helped Blizzard sell also because of this. And to repay this incredibly mutually beneficial symbiosis what does Blizzard do? They treat KeSPA like a parasite rather than a cooperative, free, and highly profitable asset. This is not good business sense and, ethically, is a deplorable way to treat what was otherwise and could have continued to be a helpful friend.
For the service of a decade of keeping SC1 alive - a game that would otherwise have been buried in the closet along with other legacy dinosaurs of its age as a piece of quaint history - and for creating a heavily primed environment for Blizzard to blast onto the scene with SC2, the very least that Blizzard could do to show that they are respectable and honourable human beings is to just let KeSPA keep their BroodWar scene with no strings attached until it finally dies in peace on its own. Anything less is just disrespectful.
Please stop spreading misinformation. The intellectual property laws are clearly and precisely defined and are agreed upon by all members of the United Nations. What you are talking about are liberal criticisms of the law, such as how it creates artificial scarcity and benefits concentrated few instead of the masses, but the law itself is enforceable and well suited for what Blizzard can challenge in court. The fact is Kespa will even have a hard time claiming that they are broadcasting derivative work. As creative as the plays of progamers, they are still playing the game the way Blizzard meant it to be played within the confines of the game it created, nothing is altered or derived out of it. Games like DOTA will have a much easier time going that legal path than ProLeague, etc.
Also, while Blizzard most definitely have reaped the benefit of Kespa's popularity in terms of advertising, they are still a form of advertisement or promotion. Advertising, be it free or paid, does not automatically make the advertisers part owners of the goods it advertises no matter how successful the campaign. I'm sure you've heard of companies that entirely abandon paid advertising and choose to spread their name through word of mouth or news agencies. Popular high class restaurants are a good example. When I tell a friend of how good that restaurant is, I can't automatically claim part ownership or is given stock options of that restaurant, neither does my local newspaper when they write a good review of the restaurant. If Blizzard does somehow reward Kespa for what they have been doing for E-Sport, it is out of good will or its own business strategy, not anything Blizzard is required to do either by law or by ethical business practices.
Finally, Kespa needs to stop raising how it is an NPO (which is still very shady, but I've already discussed that). It does not matter if they are gaining a huge profit, operating at a huge loss or doing it completely for free, IP rights intrusion is in play as long as there is a lack of authorization. The bottom line is that legally, Kespa has little to no ground in this potential lawsuit (unless SK goes the path of its northern brethren and stops giving a fuck about international agreements). For those of us who wish to see BW to continue be backed by Kespa, our best hope is that they cave in further to the demands and reach some sort of agreement out of court.
|
On October 30 2010 05:34 JeBronLames wrote:
Please stop spreading misinformation. The intellectual property laws are clearly and precisely defined and are agreed upon by all members of the United Nations. What you are talking about are liberal criticisms of the law, such as how it creates artificial scarcity and benefits concentrated few instead of the masses, but the law itself is enforceable and well suited for what Blizzard can challenge in court. The fact is Kespa will even have a hard time claiming that they are broadcasting derivative work. As creative as the plays of progamers, they are still playing the game the way Blizzard meant it to be played within the confines of the game it created, nothing is altered or derived out of it. Games like DOTA will have a much easier time going that legal path than ProLeague, etc.
Also, while Blizzard most definitely have reaped the benefit of Kespa's popularity in terms of advertising, they are still a form of advertisement or promotion. Advertising, be it free or paid, does not automatically make the advertisers part owners of the goods it advertises no matter how successful the campaign. I'm sure you've heard of companies that entirely abandon paid advertising and choose to spread their name through word of mouth or news agencies. Popular high class restaurants are a good example. When I tell a friend of how good that restaurant is, I can't automatically claim part ownership or is given stock options of that restaurant, neither does my local newspaper when they write a good review of the restaurant. If Blizzard does somehow reward Kespa for what they have been doing for E-Sport, it is out of good will or its own business strategy, not anything Blizzard is required to do either by law or by ethical business practices.
Finally, Kespa needs to stop raising how it is an NPO (which is still very shady, but I've already discussed that). It does not matter if they are gaining a huge profit, operating at a huge loss or doing it completely for free, IP rights intrusion is in play as long as there is a lack of authorization. The bottom line is that legally, Kespa has little to no ground in this potential lawsuit (unless SK goes the path of its northern brethren and stops giving a fuck about international agreements). For those of us who wish to see BW to continue be backed by Kespa, our best hope is that they cave in further to the demands and reach some sort of agreement out of court.
You speaketh the truth my man. It bothered me that they say that "We are non-profit, we only care about what we do. But this lack of profit is totally bumming us out, we'd like to make some more."
|
On October 30 2010 05:34 JeBronLames wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2010 02:20 jgad wrote:
What really sucks about this is the fact that SC2 is largely as popular as it is - and was so hotly expected as it was - because Korea kept the Starcraft spirit alive for an entire decade with BW eSports. ESports exists because of KeSPA - for whatever good or bad you want to say about them, on this point there can be no debate. Blizzard now is riding a wave of commercial eSports that KeSPA is responsible for starting. They have new opportunities for income and influence in the gaming sector exactly because someone before them had the vision and the drive to lay down a foundation for them to recognize as potential and build upon. And for this wonderful gift that Blizzard can now profit from, they repay KeSPA by stomping them in the face.
Why?
Because IP rights are so dodgy to begin with and, furthermore, are so poorly defined. If there was any justice in the world, KeSPA should have IP rights over the entire concept of televised professional eSPORTS. Blizzard could just as justifiably be required to pay KeSPA to use THEIR idea of taking what was otherwise a box-on-shelf video game for basement dwellers and turning it into a media and celebrity sensation. Why is it that KeSPA does not have as much right to the genius idea and implementation of broadcasted eSPORTS as Blizzard has to the genius and implementation of Starcraft?
There is no defensible argument here. There are fundamental problems with the letter of the law regarding the entire concept and framework of what intellectual property is and isn't and the mechanisms by which government power can and can not be used to leverage power in cases of dispute. This isn't about true negotiation and cooperation, justice, or fairness - it's about a badly constructed legal system that Blizzard and Gretech have demonstrated the poor judgement to use mercilessly to their own advantage with zero respect or acknowledgement of the fact that they are now stabbing in the back the very organization whose members, teams, and sponsors have sacrificed and worked towards building the professional eSPORTS institution they now profit from and enjoy.
Just think of how much money Blizzard has made from KeSPA's decade of free advertizing for the Starcraft franchise! How many millions of copies of BW have sold in Korea alone SOLELY because KeSPA has been stoking the starcraft fire with their innovative application of an otherwise home-use video game product. How many millions of copies of SC2 will they have helped Blizzard sell also because of this. And to repay this incredibly mutually beneficial symbiosis what does Blizzard do? They treat KeSPA like a parasite rather than a cooperative, free, and highly profitable asset. This is not good business sense and, ethically, is a deplorable way to treat what was otherwise and could have continued to be a helpful friend.
For the service of a decade of keeping SC1 alive - a game that would otherwise have been buried in the closet along with other legacy dinosaurs of its age as a piece of quaint history - and for creating a heavily primed environment for Blizzard to blast onto the scene with SC2, the very least that Blizzard could do to show that they are respectable and honourable human beings is to just let KeSPA keep their BroodWar scene with no strings attached until it finally dies in peace on its own. Anything less is just disrespectful. Please stop spreading misinformation. The intellectual property laws are clearly and precisely defined and are agreed upon by all members of the United Nations. What you are talking about are liberal criticisms of the law, such as how it creates artificial scarcity and benefits concentrated few instead of the masses, but the law itself is enforceable and well suited for what Blizzard can challenge in court. The fact is Kespa will even have a hard time claiming that they are broadcasting derivative work. As creative as the plays of progamers, they are still playing the game the way Blizzard meant it to be played within the confines of the game it created, nothing is altered or derived out of it. Games like DOTA will have a much easier time going that legal path than ProLeague, etc. Also, while Blizzard most definitely have reaped the benefit of Kespa's popularity in terms of advertising, they are still a form of advertisement or promotion. Advertising, be it free or paid, does not automatically make the advertisers part owners of the goods it advertises no matter how successful the campaign. I'm sure you've heard of companies that entirely abandon paid advertising and choose to spread their name through word of mouth or news agencies. Popular high class restaurants are a good example. When I tell a friend of how good that restaurant is, I can't automatically claim part ownership or is given stock options of that restaurant, neither does my local newspaper when they write a good review of the restaurant. If Blizzard does somehow reward Kespa for what they have been doing for E-Sport, it is out of good will or its own business strategy, not anything Blizzard is required to do either by law or by ethical business practices. Finally, Kespa needs to stop raising how it is an NPO (which is still very shady, but I've already discussed that). It does not matter if they are gaining a huge profit, operating at a huge loss or doing it completely for free, IP rights intrusion is in play as long as there is a lack of authorization. The bottom line is that legally, Kespa has little to no ground in this potential lawsuit (unless SK goes the path of its northern brethren and stops giving a fuck about international agreements). For those of us who wish to see BW to continue be backed by Kespa, our best hope is that they cave in further to the demands and reach some sort of agreement out of court.
The bottom line is that legally, Kespa has little to no ground in this potential lawsuit
Of course they don't. That really wasn't the point of anything I wrote, however.
|
On October 30 2010 05:34 JeBronLames wrote:
Please stop spreading misinformation. The intellectual property laws are clearly and precisely defined and are agreed upon by all members of the United Nations.
I'm pretty sure there's no WIPO mediation clause in the Brood War EULA--and indeed the very existence of "mediation" and "arbitration", "lawyers", "lawsuits" etc. are a testament to how the law is far from precisely defined. After all, if it were so precise, there would be no such things as lengthy legal battles to begin with, since it would be simple to rule on a case quickly. Besides, plenty of countries do things like blatantly violating WTO agreements--I don't think it would be shocking for a country to violate a particular interpretation of how some treaty (you don't even mention which) applies to broadcasting videogames.
|
Personally I think that Blizzard has the legal upper hand, whereas Kespa has the moral high ground. Without Kespa then BW probably would have never evolved into what it is today. It probably would have become a classic that we reminisce about today (much like Golden Eye). But I had always assumed that Blizzard and Kespa were in some sort of agreement. One other question I need to ask is "Why now?" I mean Blizzard couldn't have just gotten wind of Kespa surely.
|
On October 30 2010 16:09 HunterX11 wrote:
I'm pretty sure there's no WIPO mediation clause in the Brood War EULA--and indeed the very existence of "mediation" and "arbitration", "lawyers", "lawsuits" etc. are a testament to how the law is far from precisely defined. After all, if it were so precise, there would be no such things as lengthy legal battles to begin with, since it would be simple to rule on a case quickly.
Wait a minute, what does that have to do with how well written the law is? Are you telling me we need to define the laws of rape and murder more clearly because those trials can also take years and involve teams of lawyers?
Ok, I guess there's no point to be too harsh on someone clearly without any basic understanding of the legal system in developed societies. The process takes time because in order to reach justice, all sides of the stories must be told and all evidences must be cross-examined. This procedure includes pre-trial (pleadings, discovery, bargains, jury selection etc), trial (presentation, examination, motions, rebuttals, jury instruction/deliberation etc), verdict, and last but perhaps most important in civil cases, appeals. That's not even taking consideration how much lag there is between stages of the trial simply because the courthouse is always overcapacity with cases in queue.
Sigh, it's really annoying how uninformed people can be and yet so blindly confident of what they are posting.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On October 31 2010 05:14 ricerocket wrote:
Ok, I guess there's no point to be too harsh on someone clearly without any basic understanding of the legal system in developed societies.
You have been calling others "peasants" and act like ur the only educated and civilised person around for a while now. I think many would have liked it if you would maintain a more friendly attitude.. There is really no need to fill ur post with disdain and trashtalk for it to make a good argument.
Also fact is that while the law is fairly clear and accurate on certain areas (rape, murder as you mentioned), it is not quite the same in some others. As it has been mentioned many times before, this "broadcasted video-games" case is without a precedent, and depending on how it is argued, either side could win. Since none of us seem to be capable of judging the weightage of either side's argument objectively, the likelyhood of them winning is entirely up to one's opinion. Thats why there is a(n) discussion/argument in the first place.
Again please cut down on that patronizing attitude.
|
On October 31 2010 06:29 ffreakk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2010 05:14 ricerocket wrote:
Ok, I guess there's no point to be too harsh on someone clearly without any basic understanding of the legal system in developed societies. You have been calling others "peasants" and act like ur the only educated and civilised person around for a while now. I think many would have liked it if you would maintain a more friendly attitude.. There is really no need to fill ur post with disdain and trashtalk for it to make a good argument.
If you are referring to how I was amazed at the rampant display of peasant mentality in the other thread, you should know that "peasant mentality" is a learned socio-psychological term: the belief that those who are wealthy and/or in power must also be evil and trying to do me harm. It is quite different from, and frankly quite more pitiful than, being called a "peasant."
On October 31 2010 06:29 ffreakk wrote:
Also fact is that while the law is fairly clear and accurate on certain areas (rape, murder as you mentioned), it is not quite the same in some others. As it has been mentioned many times before, this "broadcasted video-games" case is without a precedent, and depending on how it is argued, either side could win. Since none of us seem to be capable of judging the weightage of either side's argument objectively, the likelyhood of them winning is entirely up to one's opinion. Thats why there is a(n) discussion/argument in the first place.
Again please cut down on that patronizing attitude.
I didn't argue for whether the law is clear or precise. That's for the other guy and those more educated with the law to decide. I simply said the length of trials and the necessity of lawyers and trial protocols have nothing to do with how clearly or precisely defined a piece of law is, which the comments I responded to comically tried to claim. Although I have to say, while there is perhaps no precedent specific to video game broadcasting, there is indeed plenty of precedents to performing and broadcasting intellectual properties. It seems so bizarre to me how you BW zealots keep trying tirelessly to differentiate video game ownership from other IP rights.
And please cut down on those uninformed opinions stated as facts.
|
"It seems so bizarre to me how you BW zealots keep trying tirelessly to differentiate video game ownership from other IP rights."
Maybe because IP rights on a movie kinda differ from the rights on a computer game?
|
Players create the IP of an esports match, not Blizzard.
|
L. O. L.
Thanks for that laugh. I needed one after the Jets got shut out.
|
On October 31 2010 23:12 Xtar wrote:
Players create the IP of an esports match, not Blizzard.
God... Dam it.
What are you smoking?
|
I've been working in a law firm that specializes in IP law for about a year now.
I fail to see how Blizzard can win this argument.
It's basic derivative copyright law.
For example, Microsoft doesn't have copyright ownership over documents created with MS Word.
Unless it's specifically in the terms of sale/use, no company owns the copyright to works created as a result of the use of goods that they have sold.
|
On October 31 2010 05:14 ricerocket wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2010 16:09 HunterX11 wrote:
I'm pretty sure there's no WIPO mediation clause in the Brood War EULA--and indeed the very existence of "mediation" and "arbitration", "lawyers", "lawsuits" etc. are a testament to how the law is far from precisely defined. After all, if it were so precise, there would be no such things as lengthy legal battles to begin with, since it would be simple to rule on a case quickly. Wait a minute, what does that have to do with how well written the law is? Are you telling me we need to define the laws of rape and murder more clearly because those trials can also take years and involve teams of lawyers? Ok, I guess there's no point to be too harsh on someone clearly without any basic understanding of the legal system in developed societies. The process takes time because in order to reach justice, all sides of the stories must be told and all evidences must be cross-examined. This procedure includes pre-trial (pleadings, discovery, bargains, jury selection etc), trial (presentation, examination, motions, rebuttals, jury instruction/deliberation etc), verdict, and last but perhaps most important in civil cases, appeals. That's not even taking consideration how much lag there is between stages of the trial simply because the courthouse is always overcapacity with cases in queue. Sigh, it's really annoying how uninformed people can be and yet so blindly confident of what they are posting.
The law in criminal cases is quite clear, the lengthy court cases is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the alleged crimes were committed.
In cases such as these, often things already ARE in a grey area of the law where there are few, if any, precedents. It's not just a file charge, present evidence, make testimony type case. This case will take a while before even being brought to a jury, if it even goes in front of a jury. It's not about whether one party broke the law, the actions done are quite clear. It's about whether these actions constitute breaking IP law.
|
Edit: quote and edit are not the same thing.
|
On November 01 2010 12:09 raviy wrote:
I've been working in a law firm that specializes in IP law for about a year now.
I fail to see how Blizzard can win this argument.
It's basic derivative copyright law.
For example, Microsoft doesn't have copyright ownership over documents created with MS Word.
Unless it's specifically in the terms of sale/use, no company owns the copyright to works created as a result of the use of goods that they have sold.
Wow, you are either lying your ass off, or you are working in some pretty fail law firm. Comparing MS Word and Starcraft? Has anyone ever even given you a lessen about basic functionality classifications?
And go and ask your boss about forensics competitions and interpretation festivals vs copyright laws and the two exceptions set in the Copyright Act of 1976 (the very first thing you learn in law school regarding IPs, btw). Or don't, might get yourself fired.
|
On November 01 2010 13:44 sylverfyre wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2010 05:14 ricerocket wrote:On October 30 2010 16:09 HunterX11 wrote:
I'm pretty sure there's no WIPO mediation clause in the Brood War EULA--and indeed the very existence of "mediation" and "arbitration", "lawyers", "lawsuits" etc. are a testament to how the law is far from precisely defined. After all, if it were so precise, there would be no such things as lengthy legal battles to begin with, since it would be simple to rule on a case quickly. Wait a minute, what does that have to do with how well written the law is? Are you telling me we need to define the laws of rape and murder more clearly because those trials can also take years and involve teams of lawyers? Ok, I guess there's no point to be too harsh on someone clearly without any basic understanding of the legal system in developed societies. The process takes time because in order to reach justice, all sides of the stories must be told and all evidences must be cross-examined. This procedure includes pre-trial (pleadings, discovery, bargains, jury selection etc), trial (presentation, examination, motions, rebuttals, jury instruction/deliberation etc), verdict, and last but perhaps most important in civil cases, appeals. That's not even taking consideration how much lag there is between stages of the trial simply because the courthouse is always overcapacity with cases in queue. Sigh, it's really annoying how uninformed people can be and yet so blindly confident of what they are posting. The law in criminal cases is quite clear, the lengthy court cases is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the alleged crimes were committed. In cases such as these, often things already ARE in a grey area of the law where there are few, if any, precedents. It's not just a file charge, present evidence, make testimony type case. This case will take a while before even being brought to a jury, if it even goes in front of a jury. It's not about whether one party broke the law, the actions done are quite clear. It's about whether these actions constitute breaking IP law.
Are you even reading the post you are responding to?
Let me help you with your reading comprehension issues: again, what does the length of the trial and the existence of lawyers and trial protocols have to do with the clarity of the laws being argued?
And I already commented on you BW zealots' claim that there are "few, if any, precedents." It's still pretty LOL-worthy, though.
|
On November 01 2010 13:47 ricerocket wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2010 12:09 raviy wrote:
I've been working in a law firm that specializes in IP law for about a year now.
I fail to see how Blizzard can win this argument.
It's basic derivative copyright law.
For example, Microsoft doesn't have copyright ownership over documents created with MS Word.
Unless it's specifically in the terms of sale/use, no company owns the copyright to works created as a result of the use of goods that they have sold. Wow, you are either lying your ass off, or you are working in some pretty fail law firm. Comparing MS Word and Starcraft? Has anyone ever even given you a lessen about basic functionality classifications? And go and ask your boss about forensics competitions and interpretation festivals vs copyright laws and the two exceptions set in the Copyright Act of 1976 (the very first thing you learn in law school regarding IPs, btw). Or don't, might get yourself fired.
Oh I see, the US assumes copyright subsists in the performance of works.
No such copyright exists in my jurisdiction except for dramatic/music works. It's not an exception to copyright, because copyright is not assumed to exist in that circumstance.
Also, there is no difference in the legal argument here as to the use of MS Word and Starcraft, as functionality is not an issue. Although I can see how it would be in the US.
Oh well, that point is moot, since the issue would likely be dealt with under SK law.
|
ricerocket the point he's trying to make is if it was so blindingly obvious as you say it is, there wouldn't be a need for all this negotiation, mediation, and all that bs. Unless you are of the opinion blizzard are nice guys who tried to cut kespa a break or something.
The real reason this is so drawn out, is because it isn't clear cut, and we really dont know who will win. You are obviously pro blizzard on the issue, but you have to admit that if it was so black and white, this wouldn't have taken over 3 years.
Now niether side is able to really discuss this objectively, especially because none of us are IP experts. But its a good point to argue and consider, does blizzard really automatically own a video of 2 pro gamers playing starcraft?
We all know that kespa should pay licensing fees, lets point out that is obvious to both sides, its all the other demands that could never have been agreed upon.
Also, you are being a bastard to people who don't agree with you, a real condescending one. I can say im guilty of this before, but we can't have a decent discussion on the matter when everyone thinks they have enough knowledge to single handedly win the case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
