|
On January 29 2014 03:28 emythrel wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2014 03:11 Ammanas wrote:On January 29 2014 03:01 emythrel wrote:On January 29 2014 02:35 Ammanas wrote:
Also all the exclusive rights were so much bullshit anyway. Imagine someone somewhere would be giving exclusive licenses to broadcast ALL of hockey or football or basketball or fucking chess... All those games (because that's what they are afterall) were created by someone somewhere, but the broadcasting licenses (or any licenses for that matter) belong to the creators of leagues, not creators of that game... Hate to tell you this, but the rights to broadcast all those sports ARE exclusive. in the UK, until 3 years ago, only Sky Sports could broadcast live Premiership matches, everyone else could only show highlights and they all had to state "Video courtesy of Sky Sports". In most countries, the rights to broadcast sporting events are exactly exclusive, thats how they make money selling the rights and how companies recoup money from advertising, if you want to watch X sport, you have to watch it on X channel. It might not be that way in the US, but I'd bet that there is one organisation, maybe 2, that have the rights to broadcast live american football, hockey, baseball and that they sub-let the rights to other companies within each state, or they simply broadcast on their syndicated networks. If you want to broadcast a sport, you have to pay their sporting board for the rights, wanna broadcast English football? Gotta pay the English FA. Wanna broadcast snooker? gotta pay the World Snooker Association. Wanna broadcast live snowboarding? Gotta pay the World Snowboard Association. Notice a pattern yet? Someone holds the rights to everything you see on TV and someone else had to pay for the right to broadcast it. If we knew exactly who created Soccer, I promise you that person would claim the rights to it and you would have to pay them instead of the FA or whomever, more liekly the FA would have to pay that person, then they would sell on the rights to Sky Sports etc. but in the case of Kespa vs Blizzard, Blizzard were the appropriate holder of any rights to Starcraft or Starcraft 2 The thing is, it was PREMIERSHIP who sold those rights. Not the person who created football, their heir or FIFA. It was the league. Same for Kespa - they create league, they can give the rights to broadcast to anyone. The sport creator shouldn't hold the rights for broadcast of said sport everywhere in the world, the leagues should. And they always are. If football were invented today, that wouldn't be the case. We don't know who invented football, even if we did, the laws protecting IP didn't exist when it was invented so it wouldn't matter. Any new sport would have the same protections that Starcraft does. The rights to broadcast most sports belong the the governing body of that sport, not the league. The FA does not run the non professional leagues but you have to pay licencing fees to them to have your team accredited, if you want to form your own league you have to pay for the rights to the FA. Its not the league creators at all that hold the rights, its just that most professional leagues are run by the governing body. If you want to have Deal or no Deal on TV in your country, you have to pay for the rights from whomever holds them, that might not be the person who created it, but the person who created the show sold the rights to a TV company usually, who can then sell them on to someone else, but they have to give a percentage to the original creator in most cases. Starcraft is a game, a trademarked game, therefore if you use its content in a direct fashion like SC2 is used, and you make money from that, you have to pay Blizzard. That is as it should be. Modern Soccer, Rugby, Baseball etc are significantly different from their original forms, if you could find the guy who first picked up the ball and ran with it (How rugby was "created") you would have no right to claim the modern game of Rugby as yours, it would be so vastly different in the centuries between, however what Kespa were broadcasting was Blizzards property, pretty much exactly how they designed it, and they didn't even show a logo with Blizzard on it until they were forced to! Anyone who tries to defend Kespa for not paying Blizzard to broadcast their game simply is living in a world where the creators of content are obviously not worthy of note. A songwriter has the rights to the broadcast of their music, an author has the rights to the reproduction of their writing, Movie studios have the rights to all films made by them, why should games be any different? They might not have been using BW as it was originally intended (simply as a game) but they were making money from it and not paying Blizzard for the privilege and that is wrong. Blizzard have every right to be paid when you use their work to make money for yourself, that is how everything else in the world works.
Dont use movie/songs because they are definitely not relevant to game. COPY right belongs to creator. If someone else came up with a song with different lyrics and 99% similar melody (like chinese/japanese/korean versions of popular songs) it is THEIR copyright. Movies same thing. 'Jaws' case is the main precedent. Similar but not same is sufficient against infringement claims. Ideas are not copyrightable. If we go by these standards blizzard is dead.
Blizzard refuses to use sports as a standard coz then blizzard claims are terrible. All sports broadcast rights belong to the organisers. FIFA doesnt own champions league. UEFA does as well as the Euro. FIFA do own world cup however.
1) Kespa never claimed Blizzards trademark (never claim to be blizzard, never misled others to think they're blizzard)
2) Property belongs to the OWNER. All rights belong to the OWNER unless otherwise stated. Thats why u always see copyright/trademarks are property of XXX. SC2 have an additional clause saying broadcast rights belong to blizzard.
3) Blizzard was PAID by kespa and all other gamers when they purchased the game. Half the BW sold was in korea.
4) Kespa NEVER COPIED BW. Never pirated it.
The only thing is IP which is governed by fair use (yes this is a legal term independent of 'fair use policy' created by developers which is actually a contract term which deprives users of the legal fair use right). Regretably Blizzard sue BW tournaments because it damages sc2. If schumacher drives his own BMW and the video is a viral hit, all revenues of the video belongs to schumacher. Cause the BMW owner is schumacher. And hes driving it around. And he made a video. Which was broadcasted and got lots of money. No questions.
|
On January 29 2014 04:12 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2014 04:08 Kheve wrote:On January 29 2014 03:33 Plansix wrote:On January 29 2014 03:28 Kheve wrote:On January 29 2014 03:24 Plansix wrote:On January 29 2014 03:16 Kheve wrote:On January 29 2014 02:59 Plansix wrote:On January 29 2014 02:53 Kheve wrote:On January 29 2014 02:37 Golondrin wrote:On January 29 2014 02:16 Plansix wrote:
You really need to read up on the subject, rather than spouting nonsense. That should apply to you. From what kheve is saying looks like he was reading about the subject as it was actually happening back in the day. Don't use google, the sites it brings are only taking on what blizzard told them about and didn't bother to contact the other side and have the two sides of the story because of the language barrier. Instead look on TL for milkis updates and translations about the whole issue. Thanks. Im not trying claim blizzard is devil incarnate. But I am trying to set some facts out straight to those who gets even the facts wrong. Blizzard cause of action was that BW tournaments was to the detriment of SC2 thus seeking an injunction against Kespa holding BW tournaments and damages from Kespa. As for plainsix, he is entitled to his opinion like everyone else. But I just wish he gets the facts right at least and not base his opinions on wrong facts. Blizzards internal reasoning for bringing the lawsuit are not known fact. You think it's to stop BW events and I think it was to secure broadcast rights and protect their IP. Both were things that could have happened during the law suit. You can't just declare that only one half of that mattered. Cause of action is the legal basis (Ive already mentioned it when I first brought up this term). If I sue under contract law for breach of contract, my cause of action would go X actions breach Y terms of the contract causing me damages, thus I ask for damages or specific performance (a type of judgement to compel the defendant to do something). That would be my cause of action. Lots of details involved (is the defendant the correct party, terms constant, interpretation of the terms, causation, actual damage assessment etc). Cause of action is the legal term of the writs contents. It has to be specific concise otherwise the court will throw it out. Blizzard internal/public reasoning does not come into play at all. It is what is claims to the courts. How does that prove me wrong again? At the end if the case blizzard got the broadcast rights and didn't get damages. And I work in law, I know that you have to ask for everything you are seeking upfront, even if you don't plan seeking everything you asked for. Blizzards cause of action in suing Kespa is that BW tournaments is detrimental to SC2 thus causing blizzard damage and thus blizzard seeks an injunction to stop BW tournaments. But that didn't happen. It was settled and resolved with with blizzard getting the broadcast rights to SC2. Blizzard alway has the option to file a TRO, but they never did. It did. It was the cause of action. They filed it. Not sure if korea has a registrar system. Nevertheless the cause of action was mentioned. Good, glad we agree on the facts and that a Injunction was never filed and BW broadcaster kept going on during the course of the lawsuit.
but of course. What judge would grant an injunction in such a case. You can file for one anytime you like. Doesnt mean the court must hear it immediately nor hearing it will grant it.
But the filing of the injunction did happen. Blizzard remains the only developer in the world to seek to stop organisers from holding their games tournament.
No one cares about SC2 broadcast right. Thats why blizzard has to pump its own money into it. They reap what they sow. You sue your own FOC game tournaments, now you have to use ur own money to support it.
|
All right Kheve, your have proved your point and we all get that you don't like Blizzard or what they did to Kepsa. Time to move on. No one want a to argue with you over who was the meaner business.
|
On January 29 2014 03:01 emythrel wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2014 02:35 Ammanas wrote:
Also all the exclusive rights were so much bullshit anyway. Imagine someone somewhere would be giving exclusive licenses to broadcast ALL of hockey or football or basketball or fucking chess... All those games (because that's what they are afterall) were created by someone somewhere, but the broadcasting licenses (or any licenses for that matter) belong to the creators of leagues, not creators of that game... Hate to tell you this, but the rights to broadcast all those sports ARE exclusive. in the UK, until 3 years ago, only Sky Sports could broadcast live Premiership matches, everyone else could only show highlights and they all had to state "Video courtesy of Sky Sports". In most countries, the rights to broadcast sporting events are exactly exclusive, thats how they make money selling the rights and how companies recoup money from advertising, if you want to watch X sport, you have to watch it on X channel. It might not be that way in the US, but I'd bet that there is one organisation, maybe 2, that have the rights to broadcast live american football, hockey, baseball and that they sub-let the rights to other companies within each state, or they simply broadcast on their syndicated networks. If you want to broadcast a sport, you have to pay their sporting board for the rights, wanna broadcast English football? Gotta pay the English FA. Wanna broadcast snooker? gotta pay the World Snooker Association. Wanna broadcast live snowboarding? Gotta pay the World Snowboard Association. Notice a pattern yet? Someone holds the rights to everything you see on TV and someone else had to pay for the right to broadcast it. If we knew exactly who created Soccer, I promise you that person would claim the rights to it and you would have to pay them instead of the FA or whomever, more liekly the FA would have to pay that person, then they would sell on the rights to Sky Sports etc. but in the case of Kespa vs Blizzard, Blizzard were the appropriate holder of any rights to Starcraft or Starcraft 2. All the sports u mentioned were being broadcast long before IP laws went in to effect, if a new sport was invented tomorrow, and one person, collection of people or company could prove they created it, they could easily trademark the game and have exclusive rights to its use. Board games work this way, everything else works this way, so why should an eSport be any different? The company who make the game have all the rights to its use and rightly so.
I lol'ed at this arguments. Premiership is the one who holds the UK League, which in this case is equivalent to Kespa. I can't even understand why you can think of premiership as the creator of football. Lol.
|
|
|
Foregone conclusion at this point but still sad. For those like me who did not follow BW whatsoever, eSF was the source of the vast majority of our great SC2 memories.
Edit: As someone with a (vague) familiarity with IP law, I can say that a very large portion of purported statements of law by both sides of this "debate" are not, in fact, correct. No one can stop people from making random assertions as to what the law is (this is the Internet, after all), but for anyone who happens to be reading this thread, please don't believe the various conclusory statements made here about IP law no matter how certain the poster sounds about it.
|
On January 29 2014 04:45 Yakikorosu wrote:
Foregone conclusion at this point but still sad. For those like me who did not follow BW whatsoever, eSF was the source of the vast majority of our great SC2 memories.
eSF was not the source of great SC2 memories. That was the players that made the great memories and plays, and GSL which gave them the medium to showcase those plays and great games. eSF was just a political entity that was more interested in power than SC2
|
On January 29 2014 04:48 Bagration wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2014 04:45 Yakikorosu wrote:
Foregone conclusion at this point but still sad. For those like me who did not follow BW whatsoever, eSF was the source of the vast majority of our great SC2 memories. eSF was not the source of great SC2 memories. That was the players that made the great memories and plays, and GSL which gave them the medium to showcase those plays and great games. eSF was just a political entity that was more interested in power than SC2
I'm not a KeSPA hater at all, and am aware that GOM and eSF aren't the same thing, but eSF certainly had more to do with those memories (especially the GSTL ones) than KeSPA did.
|
On January 29 2014 04:25 Kheve wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2014 03:28 emythrel wrote:On January 29 2014 03:11 Ammanas wrote:On January 29 2014 03:01 emythrel wrote:On January 29 2014 02:35 Ammanas wrote:
Also all the exclusive rights were so much bullshit anyway. Imagine someone somewhere would be giving exclusive licenses to broadcast ALL of hockey or football or basketball or fucking chess... All those games (because that's what they are afterall) were created by someone somewhere, but the broadcasting licenses (or any licenses for that matter) belong to the creators of leagues, not creators of that game... Hate to tell you this, but the rights to broadcast all those sports ARE exclusive. in the UK, until 3 years ago, only Sky Sports could broadcast live Premiership matches, everyone else could only show highlights and they all had to state "Video courtesy of Sky Sports". In most countries, the rights to broadcast sporting events are exactly exclusive, thats how they make money selling the rights and how companies recoup money from advertising, if you want to watch X sport, you have to watch it on X channel. It might not be that way in the US, but I'd bet that there is one organisation, maybe 2, that have the rights to broadcast live american football, hockey, baseball and that they sub-let the rights to other companies within each state, or they simply broadcast on their syndicated networks. If you want to broadcast a sport, you have to pay their sporting board for the rights, wanna broadcast English football? Gotta pay the English FA. Wanna broadcast snooker? gotta pay the World Snooker Association. Wanna broadcast live snowboarding? Gotta pay the World Snowboard Association. Notice a pattern yet? Someone holds the rights to everything you see on TV and someone else had to pay for the right to broadcast it. If we knew exactly who created Soccer, I promise you that person would claim the rights to it and you would have to pay them instead of the FA or whomever, more liekly the FA would have to pay that person, then they would sell on the rights to Sky Sports etc. but in the case of Kespa vs Blizzard, Blizzard were the appropriate holder of any rights to Starcraft or Starcraft 2 The thing is, it was PREMIERSHIP who sold those rights. Not the person who created football, their heir or FIFA. It was the league. Same for Kespa - they create league, they can give the rights to broadcast to anyone. The sport creator shouldn't hold the rights for broadcast of said sport everywhere in the world, the leagues should. And they always are. If football were invented today, that wouldn't be the case. We don't know who invented football, even if we did, the laws protecting IP didn't exist when it was invented so it wouldn't matter. Any new sport would have the same protections that Starcraft does. The rights to broadcast most sports belong the the governing body of that sport, not the league. The FA does not run the non professional leagues but you have to pay licencing fees to them to have your team accredited, if you want to form your own league you have to pay for the rights to the FA. Its not the league creators at all that hold the rights, its just that most professional leagues are run by the governing body. If you want to have Deal or no Deal on TV in your country, you have to pay for the rights from whomever holds them, that might not be the person who created it, but the person who created the show sold the rights to a TV company usually, who can then sell them on to someone else, but they have to give a percentage to the original creator in most cases. Starcraft is a game, a trademarked game, therefore if you use its content in a direct fashion like SC2 is used, and you make money from that, you have to pay Blizzard. That is as it should be. Modern Soccer, Rugby, Baseball etc are significantly different from their original forms, if you could find the guy who first picked up the ball and ran with it (How rugby was "created") you would have no right to claim the modern game of Rugby as yours, it would be so vastly different in the centuries between, however what Kespa were broadcasting was Blizzards property, pretty much exactly how they designed it, and they didn't even show a logo with Blizzard on it until they were forced to! Anyone who tries to defend Kespa for not paying Blizzard to broadcast their game simply is living in a world where the creators of content are obviously not worthy of note. A songwriter has the rights to the broadcast of their music, an author has the rights to the reproduction of their writing, Movie studios have the rights to all films made by them, why should games be any different? They might not have been using BW as it was originally intended (simply as a game) but they were making money from it and not paying Blizzard for the privilege and that is wrong. Blizzard have every right to be paid when you use their work to make money for yourself, that is how everything else in the world works. Dont use movie/songs because they are definitely not relevant to game. COPY right belongs to creator. If someone else came up with a song with different lyrics and 99% similar melody (like chinese/japanese/korean versions of popular songs) it is THEIR copyright. Movies same thing. 'Jaws' case is the main precedent. Similar but not same is sufficient against infringement claims. Ideas are not copyrightable. If we go by these standards blizzard is dead. Blizzard refuses to use sports as a standard coz then blizzard claims are terrible. All sports broadcast rights belong to the organisers. FIFA doesnt own champions league. UEFA does as well as the Euro. FIFA do own world cup however. 1) Kespa never claimed Blizzards trademark (never claim to be blizzard, never misled others to think they're blizzard) 2) Property belongs to the OWNER. All rights belong to the OWNER unless otherwise stated. Thats why u always see copyright/trademarks are property of XXX. SC2 have an additional clause saying broadcast rights belong to blizzard. 3) Blizzard was PAID by kespa and all other gamers when they purchased the game. Half the BW sold was in korea. 4) Kespa NEVER COPIED BW. Never pirated it. The only thing is IP which is governed by fair use (yes this is a legal term independent of 'fair use policy' created by developers which is actually a contract term which deprives users of the legal fair use right). Regretably Blizzard sue BW tournaments because it damages sc2. If schumacher drives his own BMW and the video is a viral hit, all revenues of the video belongs to schumacher. Cause the BMW owner is schumacher. And hes driving it around. And he made a video. Which was broadcasted and got lots of money. No questions.
Wow, you claim to have LLB qualifications, but can spout out stuff like this?
Movies and Songs are completely relevant to games, because copyright law does not make a distinction between any creative works unless they are listed specifically under certain clauses. In fact, most copyright laws tend to describe "copyrightable" works in general terms, like "creative, intellectual or artistic works", with some examples listed under what would qualify.
Copyright law gives the Copyright holder exclusive rights to:
- Creation of Derivative works
- Public displays or performances of the work
- Transmissions of the work via Radio or Video
Obviously with some discrepancies between countries, but the laws are mostly homogenous because of treaties and agreements.
Also, your Schumacher analogy is totally off. If the video was taken by a third party, the revenue goes to the person taking the video (though actually a greyish area, depending on Publicity Rights). If Schumacher is just recording a video of himself driving in a normal day, and the BMW just happens to be what he was driving at that time, then yes, that's Fair Use, so he'd retain all rights to the video. However, if he recorded the video specifically with the intent of advertising himself in association with the BMW, using the car as a marketing prop, then that crosses into BMW's copyright.
Still a grey area across all fronts, because there's a lot of circumstances that have to be evaluated, and intent has to be considered and weighed.
|
On January 28 2014 18:41 Greenei wrote:
the esf prevented kespa from fucking gom in the ass at the beginning of the transition to sc2. so im sad to see them gone and kespa still around.
this. 100%.
Also, esf showed an example, that when u wanna win audience hearts u gotta listen to them and care about what they say (at least the reasonable bits). Compare 1st proleague or OGN (when Grubby was gonna be the english caster and the english part of casting and production was generally not given a shit about at all, most of you gotta remember those times) efforts and how it looks like now. It's all thanks to kespa seeing they don't hold a candle to how viewer friendly gstl was and deciding they gotta change or they'll always hold this 'evil corporation' look 'who bans players for writing 'p' more than twice for pause etc.'. They changed the image completely to remain competetive, but now with almost no competition in Korea (except GOM who might be aggressively taken over just as esf was) I'm not sure they will remain so 'saint' anymore.
Generally, I can't believe people saying equivalence of 'good riddance', 'they didn't do anything' and 'great news' in this thread. Must be either heartless or ignorant.
Also, this (if anyone prefers all-kill format in a teamleague, instead of watching ALL-MIRROR format):
On January 28 2014 18:53 -Celestial- wrote:Lets just hope KesPA doesn't go full on with the power-plays again and going control mad and trying to stomp out the GSL now that eSF is out of the way. -_- Show nested quote +On January 28 2014 16:15 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:
You can always stay up till 2 am to watch proleague, which is still good. Not the same. Personally I really, really dislike the format for Proleague to the point that I just don't find it interesting to watch. This confirmation that GSTL is basically completely dead is pretty devastating. No team league to watch anymore.
|
On January 29 2014 05:07 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2014 04:25 Kheve wrote:On January 29 2014 03:28 emythrel wrote:On January 29 2014 03:11 Ammanas wrote:On January 29 2014 03:01 emythrel wrote:On January 29 2014 02:35 Ammanas wrote:
Also all the exclusive rights were so much bullshit anyway. Imagine someone somewhere would be giving exclusive licenses to broadcast ALL of hockey or football or basketball or fucking chess... All those games (because that's what they are afterall) were created by someone somewhere, but the broadcasting licenses (or any licenses for that matter) belong to the creators of leagues, not creators of that game... Hate to tell you this, but the rights to broadcast all those sports ARE exclusive. in the UK, until 3 years ago, only Sky Sports could broadcast live Premiership matches, everyone else could only show highlights and they all had to state "Video courtesy of Sky Sports". In most countries, the rights to broadcast sporting events are exactly exclusive, thats how they make money selling the rights and how companies recoup money from advertising, if you want to watch X sport, you have to watch it on X channel. It might not be that way in the US, but I'd bet that there is one organisation, maybe 2, that have the rights to broadcast live american football, hockey, baseball and that they sub-let the rights to other companies within each state, or they simply broadcast on their syndicated networks. If you want to broadcast a sport, you have to pay their sporting board for the rights, wanna broadcast English football? Gotta pay the English FA. Wanna broadcast snooker? gotta pay the World Snooker Association. Wanna broadcast live snowboarding? Gotta pay the World Snowboard Association. Notice a pattern yet? Someone holds the rights to everything you see on TV and someone else had to pay for the right to broadcast it. If we knew exactly who created Soccer, I promise you that person would claim the rights to it and you would have to pay them instead of the FA or whomever, more liekly the FA would have to pay that person, then they would sell on the rights to Sky Sports etc. but in the case of Kespa vs Blizzard, Blizzard were the appropriate holder of any rights to Starcraft or Starcraft 2 The thing is, it was PREMIERSHIP who sold those rights. Not the person who created football, their heir or FIFA. It was the league. Same for Kespa - they create league, they can give the rights to broadcast to anyone. The sport creator shouldn't hold the rights for broadcast of said sport everywhere in the world, the leagues should. And they always are. If football were invented today, that wouldn't be the case. We don't know who invented football, even if we did, the laws protecting IP didn't exist when it was invented so it wouldn't matter. Any new sport would have the same protections that Starcraft does. The rights to broadcast most sports belong the the governing body of that sport, not the league. The FA does not run the non professional leagues but you have to pay licencing fees to them to have your team accredited, if you want to form your own league you have to pay for the rights to the FA. Its not the league creators at all that hold the rights, its just that most professional leagues are run by the governing body. If you want to have Deal or no Deal on TV in your country, you have to pay for the rights from whomever holds them, that might not be the person who created it, but the person who created the show sold the rights to a TV company usually, who can then sell them on to someone else, but they have to give a percentage to the original creator in most cases. Starcraft is a game, a trademarked game, therefore if you use its content in a direct fashion like SC2 is used, and you make money from that, you have to pay Blizzard. That is as it should be. Modern Soccer, Rugby, Baseball etc are significantly different from their original forms, if you could find the guy who first picked up the ball and ran with it (How rugby was "created") you would have no right to claim the modern game of Rugby as yours, it would be so vastly different in the centuries between, however what Kespa were broadcasting was Blizzards property, pretty much exactly how they designed it, and they didn't even show a logo with Blizzard on it until they were forced to! Anyone who tries to defend Kespa for not paying Blizzard to broadcast their game simply is living in a world where the creators of content are obviously not worthy of note. A songwriter has the rights to the broadcast of their music, an author has the rights to the reproduction of their writing, Movie studios have the rights to all films made by them, why should games be any different? They might not have been using BW as it was originally intended (simply as a game) but they were making money from it and not paying Blizzard for the privilege and that is wrong. Blizzard have every right to be paid when you use their work to make money for yourself, that is how everything else in the world works. Dont use movie/songs because they are definitely not relevant to game. COPY right belongs to creator. If someone else came up with a song with different lyrics and 99% similar melody (like chinese/japanese/korean versions of popular songs) it is THEIR copyright. Movies same thing. 'Jaws' case is the main precedent. Similar but not same is sufficient against infringement claims. Ideas are not copyrightable. If we go by these standards blizzard is dead. Blizzard refuses to use sports as a standard coz then blizzard claims are terrible. All sports broadcast rights belong to the organisers. FIFA doesnt own champions league. UEFA does as well as the Euro. FIFA do own world cup however. 1) Kespa never claimed Blizzards trademark (never claim to be blizzard, never misled others to think they're blizzard) 2) Property belongs to the OWNER. All rights belong to the OWNER unless otherwise stated. Thats why u always see copyright/trademarks are property of XXX. SC2 have an additional clause saying broadcast rights belong to blizzard. 3) Blizzard was PAID by kespa and all other gamers when they purchased the game. Half the BW sold was in korea. 4) Kespa NEVER COPIED BW. Never pirated it. The only thing is IP which is governed by fair use (yes this is a legal term independent of 'fair use policy' created by developers which is actually a contract term which deprives users of the legal fair use right). Regretably Blizzard sue BW tournaments because it damages sc2. If schumacher drives his own BMW and the video is a viral hit, all revenues of the video belongs to schumacher. Cause the BMW owner is schumacher. And hes driving it around. And he made a video. Which was broadcasted and got lots of money. No questions. Wow, you claim to have LLB qualifications, but can spout out stuff like this? Movies and Songs are completely relevant to games, because copyright law does not make a distinction between any creative works unless they are listed specifically under certain clauses. In fact, most copyright laws tend to describe "copyrightable" works in general terms, like "creative, intellectual or artistic works", with some examples listed under what would qualify. Copyright law gives the Copyright holder exclusive rights to: - Creation of Derivative works - Public displays or performances of the work - Transmissions of the work via Radio or Video Obviously with some discrepancies between countries, but the laws are mostly homogenous because of treaties and agreements. Also, your Schumacher analogy is totally off. If the video was taken by a third party, the revenue goes to the person taking the video (though actually a greyish area, depending on Publicity Rights). If Schumacher is just recording a video of himself driving in a normal day, and the BMW just happens to be what he was driving at that time, then yes, that's Fair Use, so he'd retain all rights to the video. However, if he recorded the video specifically with the intent of advertising himself in association with the BMW, using the car as a marketing prop, then that crosses into BMW's copyright. Still a grey area across all fronts, because there's a lot of circumstances that have to be evaluated, and intent has to be considered and weighed.
Using copyright of artistic works like songs and movies have long been shown to be defined narrowly. Ever since the time of 'Jaws' a very old movie the precedent has already been set. While the law does not differentiate, the precedents set have long been differentiated for movies and songs. Thus it is terrible and no one suing on copyright for software would use those precedents. While laws may differ in text, its interpretation are usually defined by comparable case law on which movies and songs have plentiful already. Its very weak.
Schumacher analogy is apt. It has long been establish in the advertising industry (since commercials are broadcasted and they show a BMW) cases where owner legally owns the money paid by the commercial for use of its car. Infringement is either when the commercial claim to be BMW/mislead into believing BMW is involved Or the commercial causes damage to BMW (reputation etc maybe cause the commercial belittles BMW). I quoted cars and commercials because it was one of the case research I did where Im forced to pore over every little detail. There is no instance of any infringement ever other than the 3 I listed. This was more than 10 years ago not sure if any new cases in commercials happened.
When kespa started, they started from zero. There was not much revenue etc etc. But plenty of costs. Organizing, prizepool, rent etc etc. Ask any of the small tourney organisers how difficult it is even today and then think what it was like 15 years ago when esports doesnt exist yet. Would you seriously even consider venturing into this for profit. Heck would you even believe someone who told you theres profit? It was a passion thing.
Yes I'm LLB qualified believe it or not. Thus I do know the finer points of law. Which is why I know movies and songs are terrible precedents to claim copyrights. Even for novels its terrible I heard due to da vinci code case which I only read in news. But basically da vinci code copies all the main idea of a previous work except da vinci was a thriller and the previous was not.
|
Lol, he keeps bringing up the jaws case, which was based on all movies having to do with sharks. All shark movies. Of course the case was thrown out. It has little to do with the case for SC2, since they are not claiming to have rights to all broadcasts featuring stars.
Also, I have reviewed Kheves previous posts. The bias is strong with this one. We are not get an objective viewpoint on Kepsa.
|
On January 29 2014 05:53 Plansix wrote:
Lol, he keeps bringing up the jaws case, which was based on all movies having to do with sharks. All shark movies. Of course the case was thrown out. It has little to do with the case for SC2, since they are not claiming to have rights to all broadcasts featuring stars.
Also, I have reviewed Kheves previous posts. The bias is strong with this one. We are not get an objective viewpoint on Kepsa.
No one is talking about SC2. Korea esports doesnt care about SC2. Only Kespa bothers with SC2. How did this suddenly turn into SC2. It was always about Blizzard suing BW tournament organisers claiming they are damaging blizzard by holding tournaments.
|
On January 29 2014 06:47 Kheve wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2014 05:53 Plansix wrote:
Lol, he keeps bringing up the jaws case, which was based on all movies having to do with sharks. All shark movies. Of course the case was thrown out. It has little to do with the case for SC2, since they are not claiming to have rights to all broadcasts featuring stars.
Also, I have reviewed Kheves previous posts. The bias is strong with this one. We are not get an objective viewpoint on Kepsa. No one is talking about SC2. Korea esports doesnt care about SC2. Only Kespa bothers with SC2. How did this suddenly turn into SC2. It was always about Blizzard suing BW tournament organisers claiming they are damaging blizzard by holding tournaments.
I really don't get this common misconception. There is something between being irrelevant and being the most popular game you know. SC2 is far from being what BW was before and even after matchfixing and it is not what LoL is right now, but it sure as hell isn't completely irrelevant. If it was there wouldn't be 10 teams full of players, there wouldn't be GSL and there wouldn't be proleague. Maybe it is because BW was THE game in Korea and in 2011 SC2 was THE game in the rest of the world, but a game doesn't need to be the number 1 to be relevant.
|
On January 29 2014 06:47 Kheve wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2014 05:53 Plansix wrote:
Lol, he keeps bringing up the jaws case, which was based on all movies having to do with sharks. All shark movies. Of course the case was thrown out. It has little to do with the case for SC2, since they are not claiming to have rights to all broadcasts featuring stars.
Also, I have reviewed Kheves previous posts. The bias is strong with this one. We are not get an objective viewpoint on Kepsa. No one is talking about SC2. Korea esports doesnt care about SC2. Only Kespa bothers with SC2. How did this suddenly turn into SC2. It was always about Blizzard suing BW tournament organisers claiming they are damaging blizzard by holding tournaments.
Not that they're damage Blizzard. That they were damaging Blizzard's IP rights by broadcasting and holding tournaments without licensing or permission.
I don't necessarily believe in the extent that Copyright and Trademark laws cover, but I more than acknowledge that they exist. And no matter what irrelevant examples you bring up like Jaws and Da Vinci Code (both which were about creating similar works, by the way, not using the original in unauthorized manners), it doesn't change the fact that copyright law explicitly grants Blizzard Broadcast rights over their games.
|
On January 29 2014 07:03 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2014 06:47 Kheve wrote:On January 29 2014 05:53 Plansix wrote:
Lol, he keeps bringing up the jaws case, which was based on all movies having to do with sharks. All shark movies. Of course the case was thrown out. It has little to do with the case for SC2, since they are not claiming to have rights to all broadcasts featuring stars.
Also, I have reviewed Kheves previous posts. The bias is strong with this one. We are not get an objective viewpoint on Kepsa. No one is talking about SC2. Korea esports doesnt care about SC2. Only Kespa bothers with SC2. How did this suddenly turn into SC2. It was always about Blizzard suing BW tournament organisers claiming they are damaging blizzard by holding tournaments. Not that they're damage Blizzard. That they were damaging Blizzard's IP rights by broadcasting and holding tournaments without licensing or permission. I don't necessarily believe in the extent that Copyright and Trademark laws cover, but I more than acknowledge that they exist. And no matter what irrelevant examples you bring up like Jaws and Da Vinci Code (both which were about creating similar works, by the way, not using the original in unauthorized manners), it doesn't change the fact that copyright law explicitly grants Blizzard Broadcast rights over their games.
No it doesnt. Copyright is the right to replicate. Thats all it is. Trademarks is claims of being someone, misleading into being someone. Naturally copyrights law have come some ways since the late 90s but the essence is mostly the same among countries with specific variations. That all encompassing rights is property cause its so old. Inside joke is law was essentially created to protect property. Many derivative rights (broadcast, licensing etc are actually contract). Thus unless otherwise stated, all rights to usage and enjoyment of a property always belong to the owner. I stream starcraft? the stream rights belong to me unless signed away to twitch etc.
Hence Blizzard suing BW tournaments organizers because it causes damage to SC2. This was the cause of action in the case. Not because Kespa charges for tourney. Not because Kespa infringes on their trademark. the claim was that BW tournaments are damaging SC2. Only way blizzard was getting in was IP and claims that kespa is not using BW fairly to the detriment of Blizzard. Blizzard seek an injunction to stop BW tournaments organised FOC. That is something only blizzard have done.
|
On January 29 2014 04:37 Bagration wrote:
Good riddance!
What? What did esf ever do?
|
On January 29 2014 07:42 tili wrote:What? What did esf ever do?
nothing, that's the point ^^
(nah, j/k but tbh the only time we have ever heard of them was when they threatened to pull from OSL).
|
On January 29 2014 05:28 Stye wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2014 18:41 Greenei wrote:
the esf prevented kespa from fucking gom in the ass at the beginning of the transition to sc2. so im sad to see them gone and kespa still around. this. 100%. Also, esf showed an example, that when u wanna win audience hearts u gotta listen to them and care about what they say (at least the reasonable bits). Compare 1st proleague or OGN (when Grubby was gonna be the english caster and the english part of casting and production was generally not given a shit about at all, most of you gotta remember those times) efforts and how it looks like now. It's all thanks to kespa seeing they don't hold a candle to how viewer friendly gstl was and deciding they gotta change or they'll always hold this 'evil corporation' look 'who bans players for writing 'p' more than twice for pause etc.'. They changed the image completely to remain competetive, but now with almost no competition in Korea (except GOM who might be aggressively taken over just as esf was) I'm not sure they will remain so 'saint' anymore. Generally, I can't believe people saying equivalence of 'good riddance', 'they didn't do anything' and 'great news' in this thread. Must be either heartless or ignorant. Also, this (if anyone prefers all-kill format in a teamleague, instead of watching ALL-MIRROR format): Show nested quote +On January 28 2014 18:53 -Celestial- wrote:Lets just hope KesPA doesn't go full on with the power-plays again and going control mad and trying to stomp out the GSL now that eSF is out of the way. -_- On January 28 2014 16:15 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:
You can always stay up till 2 am to watch proleague, which is still good. Not the same. Personally I really, really dislike the format for Proleague to the point that I just don't find it interesting to watch. This confirmation that GSTL is basically completely dead is pretty devastating. No team league to watch anymore.
I see you conveniently left out the part where KeSPA supported Team 8 for 2 years until they could find a sponsor. Meanwhile, the eSF forbid their players from practicing with slayers member. You also fail to mention the fact that KeSPA got the power to negotiate with big name sponsors like SKT, KT, CJ and Jin Air while the eSF is so powerless when it comes to dealing with sponsor that IM actually ask KeSPA for help.
|
eSF was a good attempt but at the end of the day KeSPA had a huge advantage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
