| Forum Index > News |
|
deth2munkies
United States4051 Posts
All the others are textbook legal disclaimers you'd find on any product and are beyond fair, I think KeSPA is leaning on them a bit, although I won't pretend to understand Korean law. These terms were written to comply with American law and they do that very well. Also as a pre-empt: it doesn't mean anything the changes were already made, you can still debate the value and reasoning behind it, that's the fun of posting on an internet forum. | ||
|
Gtks
Greece135 Posts
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=131862¤tpage=61 Gtks post. | ||
|
dybydx
Canada1764 Posts
On June 22 2010 01:37 deth2munkies wrote: The biggest thing I see in there is that user-created content is still owned by Blizzard, and I find I must agree. All UMS maps and replays are created by and specifically for their software, so for someone to make the next DotA and sell access to it for $5 would be not only ripping off the playerbase, but Blizzard itself. All the others are textbook legal disclaimers you'd find on any product and are beyond fair, I think KeSPA is leaning on them a bit, although I won't pretend to understand Korean law. These terms were written to comply with American law and they do that very well. Also as a pre-empt: it doesn't mean anything the changes were already made, you can still debate the value and reasoning behind it, that's the fun of posting on an internet forum. munkies, 1. There is nothing wrong with ppl making DotA maps and selling it for money. many ppl write software that only work in Windows. not all of them pay Microsoft royalties and its perfectly legal. 2. the blizz EULA sounds rather awkward even in terms of US laws. b.net is claiming ownership of everything we play on b.net. even when one submits an article to be published in a newspaper, the author still has rights to the article. the author only granted rights to publish or use his work, he did not abandon his ownership of his work. 3. there is currently no way to legally play SC2 without connection to b.net. blizz's ability to discontinue your access to b.net with or without cause is extremely unfair. | ||
|
NuKedUFirst
Canada3139 Posts
On June 22 2010 01:56 dybydx wrote: 3. there is currently no way to legally play SC2 without connection to b.net. blizz's ability to discontinue your access to b.net with or without cause is extremely unfair. This makes me extremely angry, but alot of websites are like this, If Dustin Browder gets in a fight with his wife (just an example) he could go on a Battle.net banning spree just because he can, similar to Xbox, Youtube, etc. They claim they can take your account away without question, etc. | ||
|
neobowman
Canada3324 Posts
On June 22 2010 02:44 NuKedUFirst wrote: This makes me extremely angry, but alot of websites are like this, If Dustin Browder gets in a fight with his wife (just an example) he could go on a Battle.net banning spree just because he can, similar to Xbox, Youtube, etc. They claim they can take your account away without question, etc. Then they wouldl lose support from fans, Browder would be fired and Blizzard would make a letter of apology. | ||
|
NuKedUFirst
Canada3139 Posts
On June 22 2010 02:48 neobowman wrote: Then they wouldl lose support from fans, Browder would be fired and Blizzard would make a letter of apology. Legally he can do it. It was just an example, They own your account. | ||
|
sCCrooked
Korea (South)1306 Posts
On June 22 2010 02:48 neobowman wrote: Then they wouldl lose support from fans, Browder would be fired and Blizzard would make a letter of apology. Not unless the number was significant enough to affect their profit lines. If you kill off 46 subscribers' accounts out of 2,000,000 noone will care enough to raise a ruckus. If he killed off 5,000 subscribers' accounts, then yeah something might be done. | ||
|
WWJDD
India342 Posts
Wish Blizzard would just make the same changes to TOS in the US too. | ||
|
WWJDD
India342 Posts
On June 22 2010 01:56 dybydx wrote: munkies, 1. There is nothing wrong with ppl making DotA maps and selling it for money. many ppl write software that only work in Windows. not all of them pay Microsoft royalties and its perfectly legal. 2. the blizz EULA sounds rather awkward even in terms of US laws. b.net is claiming ownership of everything we play on b.net. even when one submits an article to be published in a newspaper, the author still has rights to the article. the author only granted rights to publish or use his work, he did not abandon his ownership of his work. 3. there is currently no way to legally play SC2 without connection to b.net. blizz's ability to discontinue your access to b.net with or without cause is extremely unfair. Agree 100% with 3. Corporations have too much power in the US, and the consumer too little. | ||
|
zul
Germany5427 Posts
| ||
|
illu
Canada2531 Posts
On June 21 2010 18:17 dogabutila wrote: Specifically, User Created content with a provided ingame editor can't really be copyrighted by the user if it uses anything created and copyrighted by blizzard. I imagine one might be able to make a case for creation of new units, but simply put, making an obs map or even a new map itself is not really copyrightable by the user. Wait. Say I wrote a novel using Microsoft Word, since I used tools created by Microsoft, does that mean that Microsoft owns the copyright of my novel? Similarly, if I make a movie using Microsoft Movie maker specifically to be played by Microsoft Media Player, does Microsoft own copyright for that, too? Now, if I make a map using Blizzard's map maker specifically to be played for a Blizzard's game, should Blizzard own copyright for that,too? I believe replays and maps should be free, but not owned by Blizzard. I think it's more fair if they were under some sort of GNU license. | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
On June 22 2010 02:44 NuKedUFirst wrote: This makes me extremely angry, but alot of websites are like this, If Dustin Browder gets in a fight with his wife (just an example) he could go on a Battle.net banning spree just because he can, similar to Xbox, Youtube, etc. They claim they can take your account away without question, etc. But they won't. They amount they have to lose by doing drastically outweigh your losses. Even if Dustin did so, he would be immediately fired, it would be written down and told to you as a "technical error", and you would receive support. This isn't a good example of how they could abuse this power. This is a good example of how they could abuse this power. http://play.tm/news/27790/valve-cracks-down-on-mw2-import-keys/ | ||
|
dukethegold
Canada5645 Posts
 Seriously, Blizzard just want to own everything that the users create in order to generate more money. They probably are thinking along the lines of collecting all the great videos of SC2 and make a profitable DVD sale. It's like a game company try to claim the right to every single free 3rd party mods made for their game and then try to sell the mods for a profit. | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
On June 22 2010 05:05 dukethegold wrote: A victory for the users. Seriously, Blizzard just want to own everything that the users create in order to generate more money. They probably are thinking along the lines of collecting all the great videos of SC2 and make a profitable DVD sale. lawlwut. Seriously. No. I mean, I just posted how we should all support this shit, but I still feel obligated to correct how delusional some of these claims are. Its to prevent someone from say, setting up a website and selling their replays. Which this law still prevents. However, it has a lower margin of abuse. For instance, while you couldn't own UMS's, you could own the ideas that went into their creation. You could trademark your own character, put it in a UMS, and it would remain yours. On June 22 2010 02:54 NuKedUFirst wrote: Legally he can do it. It was just an example, They own your account. Yes, and they would crash and burn if they treated their customers like that. Its an unjustified complaint. Its like saying all banks have to be controlled by the government because legally they could all just decide to shut down at the same time and the world would collapse onto itself. | ||
|
danl9rm
United States3111 Posts
On June 22 2010 05:05 dukethegold wrote: A victory for the users. Seriously, Blizzard just want to own everything that the users create in order to generate more money. They probably are thinking along the lines of collecting all the great videos of SC2 and make a profitable DVD sale. lol, funniest post ever please tell me u believe that :p | ||
|
dukethegold
Canada5645 Posts
On June 22 2010 05:06 Half wrote: lawlwut. Seriously. No. I mean, I just posted how we should all support this shit, but I still feel obligated to correct how delusional some of these claims are. Its to prevent someone from say, setting up a website and selling their replays. Which this law still prevents. However, it has a lower margin of abuse. For instance, while you couldn't own UMS's, you could own the ideas that went into their creation. You could trademark your own character, put it in a UMS, and it would remain yours. And what's stopping Blizzard from selling your replay if all the rights belong to them? | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
On June 22 2010 05:10 dukethegold wrote: And what's stopping Blizzard from selling your replay if all the rights belong to them? Nothing. But WOULD YOU BUY IT? Please explain to me who would buy that replay. Who would buy that DVD of fucking user machinama. Realize that could monetize everything. Charge you a dollar ever game. Charge you for every single thing. Charge for logging onto b-net. Who would buy that. srsly. | ||
|
dukethegold
Canada5645 Posts
On June 22 2010 05:11 Half wrote: Nothing. But WOULD YOU BUY IT? Please explain to me who would buy that replay. Who would buy that DVD of fucking user machinama. Realize that could monetize everything. Charge you a dollar ever game. Charge you for every single thing. Charge for logging onto b-net. Who would buy that. srsly. On June 22 2010 05:08 danl9rm wrote: lol, funniest post ever please tell me u believe that :p I was indeed serious about it. At this point, that idea is ludicrous. However, it is quite obvious to me that Blizzard want to get into the business of esport for the long run, becoming a pioneer in the next revolution of the entertainment industry so to speak. Such an idea may not be so far fetched if the public interest increases to a level that enables sustainable business. At this point, the majority of your average users would not be affected by those clauses in any sort of way and has no reason of caring. If a precedent is established at the infancy stage of a (possibly) potentially booming industry, then such clauses may successfully make their ways into future products and lead to a greater than current impact. | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
On June 22 2010 05:14 dukethegold wrote: I was indeed serious about it. At this point, that idea is ludicrous. However, it is quite obvious to me that Blizzard want to get into the business of esport for the long run, becoming a pioneer in the next revolution of the entertainment industry so to speak. Such an idea may not be so far fetched if the public interest increases to a level that enables sustainable business. The idea already exists in Korea. Its called subscription TV channels. I'm sure you've heard of it. At this point, the majority of your average users would not be affected by those clauses in any sort of way and has no reason of caring. If a precedent is established at the infancy stage of a (possibly) potentially booming industry, then such clauses may successfully make their ways into future products and lead to a greater than current impact. I agree.....except its a precedent established fifteen years ago that is now being revoked, thankfully. | ||
|
dukethegold
Canada5645 Posts
On June 22 2010 05:15 Half wrote: The idea already exists in Korea. Its called subscription TV channels. I'm sure you've heard of it. I agree.....except its a precedent established fifteen years ago that is now being revoked, thankfully. Indeed and your point is? Perhaps you agree with me that owning the exclusive rights to all contents generated by the producer company's gaming engine can be profitable. It gives them more rights to crack down streams as well. No company would alienate their customer. However, what is not known would not hurt. Take for example, 85% of TL want chat channels. Would Activision Blizzard listen? If chat channel negatively impacts Blizzard's financial gain (not that I am saying it would), it is better to play the deaf and blind bat rather than the active listener. The public opinion is NOT TL.net that commands the voice of about 1000 people at best. The public opinion is mainstream media. Why should Activation implement private servers for Modern Warfare 2 PC version if the games are selling just fine? What's the point of respecting the opinion of about 400+ members of Modern Warfare 2 boycott group if that does not benefit the company? Who do you think they are, Valve? HAHAHAHA! The bigger the company, the further distance that the management level has between them and the customer. Slipping hidden clauses (credit cards, anyone?) through the crack is standard business. | ||
| ||
|
|
The PondCast
HomeStory Cup
HomeStory Cup
SOOP
Oliveira vs Trap
HomeStory Cup
StarCraft2.fi
OlimoLeague
StarCraft2.fi
Sparkling Tuna Cup
StarCraft2.fi
|
|
|
EPT
