|
l10f
United States3241 Posts
Korean Fair Trade Commission (Chairman Jung Ho Yeol) said that Blizzard Entertainment needs to change or remove 17 parts of their terms/end user agreement for Battle.net use.
The commission said on the 18th that Blizzard needed to change or remove 17 unfair sections of their Battle.net terms regarding user contents right and others.
The commission said "Blizzard's battle.net terms and agreements exclude the duties that the producer (Blizzard) must address, while being unfair to their users and even violating their rights, making them invalid."
They added, "The game user does not have enough technical knowledge about the game compared to the producer, so there is often unfair agreements for the users. Nowadays, users don't stop at simply using the game, but they create new contents using the game, so the rights to user created contents become the main point when dealing with these user agreements."
"We hope with this decision, there will be less damage done to the users due to unfair trade between the game producers and the users in the games to come. Especially we hope that the users rights to their created content will be guaranteed by the terms and agreements."
The following is the main points that the commission saw to be unfair.
▶ Exclusion of the rights of the users to their own created content ㅇBlizzard's terms state that all of the user created contents and their rights belong to Blizzard Entertainment *User created content is defined as the contents in and outside the game created by the users themselves. *Contents of the game created by users - Decided by whether the content is made of aspects in the game. Example) A replay, UMS map. These are made with the images and music in the game, so they are considered contents of the game. *Contents out of the game created by users - These are separated from the game itself and include such things posted on the forums. ⇒ Change the terms so that the producer can only use the contents of the game created by users (see above) for promotion and providing service to thse users. Change the terms so that the contents outside of the game belongs only to the users. ◆ The reason for this change ㅇAccording to copyright laws, the copyright belongs to the person who creates the content. - If the creativity of a content created by a user is accepted by the copyright laws, it must of course belong to the user. Especially those not specifically integrated into the game should belong to the user that creates it. Those contents that are integrated with the game itself can either be considered creative by the copyright laws or not, so the owner may be the user or the producer of the game, depending on the content. The game itself of course belongs to the producer but the ownership of the user created contents integrated within the game differs for each content. * Copyright belongs to the user that created the content if the creator's ideas and sentiments are expressed in a creative way. Therefore, the original terms and agreements break the copyright laws since it gives all the rights of the user created content to the producer, when in fact it may belong to the user.
▶ Exclusion of the rights of the users to their account ㅇBlizzard's terms state that all of the accounts and items of the users belong to Blizzard Entertainment. * Definition of account: a game account that contains the user's ID, character, and other information that would prevent the user from playing if it becomes banned or removed. * Definition of item: A thing used by a user's online character. ⇒ Change so it clearly states the users' rights to be able to use their account and item. This way, if an account is stolen or lost, they can receive legal assistance or assistance from the producer. ◆ Reason ㅇThe user agreement is a game user agreement so it must state the user's rights to use their account and contents. Right now it only states that the accounts and contents only belong to the producer. Like this, the user cannot receive assistance if their accounts or contents get unjustly denied. So, the producer may ignore the users' complaints regarding their accounts saying that they had no rights to them from the beginning. Therefore, the current terms are invalid because it excludes the users' rights to being able to use their accounts and contents.
▶ Unfair termination of service ㅇBlizzard states that they can remove the service for whatever reason as long as they send a notification regarding the reasons for removal of service. ⇒ Change it so that the users are notified well beforehand, and a reasonable refund is given for the discontinuation of service. ◆ Reason ㅇTermination of service is same as termination of contract so the reasons must be limited, and the users must be notified beforehand. Also, the producer has the duty to give a refund for the remainder of the service. Therefore, the current terms that state that the service may be removed at any time for any reason is unfair, and the terms are invalid.
▶ Exclusion of the duties of the producer ㅇ Blizzard states that they are not responsible for any loss or damage caused by the game. ⇒ Change so that they are only excluded from taking the responsibility when the damage was not purposely caused. ◆ Reason ㅇ The producer is required to compensate for damages related to the security of the information, the stability of the server, and the stability of the game program if they are responsible for causing the incident. Also, the producer is responsible if the game is unable to be used, unless caused by the gamer's misuse or client sided issues. The current terms that don't include the legal responsibilities of the producers, therefore putting the responsibilities to the users, makes the terms invalid.
Blizzard has since changed their terms and agreements for Battle.net on the 17th according the commission's opinions.
+ Show Spoiler [Original Article] +
공정거래위원회(위원장 정호열, 이하 공정위)가 블리자드엔터테인먼트(이하 블리자드)이 배틀넷 이용약관 가운데 17개 조항을 자진하여 수정 또는 삭제하도록 조치했다.
공정위는 지난 18일 공식 홈페이지 보도자료를 통해 블리자드의 배틀넷 이용약관 중 이용자 콘텐츠 권리귀속 조항, 사업자 콘텐츠에 대한 이용자 권리 불인정 조항 및 사업자 면책조항 등 이용자에게 일방적으로 불리한 불공정 약관 17개 조항을 자진하여 수정 또는 삭제하도록 조치했다고 밝혔다.
공정위는 “블리자드의 배틀넷 이용약관은 법률상 사업자가 부담하여야 하는 책임․의무를 배제하거나 완화시키는 반면 고객의 정당한 권리를 침해하는 등 고객에게 일방적으로 불리하므로 약관법상 무효에 해당된다”면서 “게임이용자는 사업자에 비해 게임에 대한 기술적 지식․정보가 현저히 부족하고 게임프로그램에 의존하여 게임을 이용할 수밖에 없으므로 게임이용자에게 불리한 약관이 상존할 가능성 높다”고 말한 뒤 “최근에는 게임을 단순히 이용하는 것에 그치지 않고 게임을 소재로 하여 새로운 작성물을 만들어 서로 공유하는 문화가 확산되고 있어 이용자가 만든 콘텐츠의 권리귀속 문제 등이 중요한 쟁점으로 부각될 것이 예상된다”고 말했다.
이어 공정위는 “이번 조치를 통해 해마다 성장하고 있는 온라인게임시장에서 게임사업자와 게임이용자간의 불공정한 거래행태가 개선되어 소비자의 피해가 크게 줄어들 것으로 기대한다”면서 “특히, 게임이용자의 권리가 보장될 수 있도록 사업자 또는 이용자가 만든 콘텐츠에 대한 권리관계를 명확히 규정함으로써 사전에 분쟁을 예방하고 소비자의 정당한 권익이 보호될 것으로 기대한다”고 덧붙였다.
다음은 공정위에서 밝힌 주요 불공정 조항 및 개선 내용.
▶ 이용자의 저작권을 배제하는 조항 ◆ 불공정 약관 내용 및 개선내용 ㅇ 블리자드는 게임 저작권자임을 이유로 이용자가 제작한 콘텐츠(이용자콘텐츠)를 비롯하여 게임과 관련된 모든 콘텐츠에 관한 저작권 등 일체의 권리가 블리자드에 귀속된다고 규정 * 이용자콘텐츠에는 게임과 결합된 콘텐츠와 게임과 분리된 게시물 등의 콘텐츠로 구분 * 게임과 일체화된 이용자콘텐츠 - 게임을 구성하는 요소로 이루어진 콘텐츠인지 여부에 따라 결정됨 예) 동영상(리플레이), 유저맵 등 - 리플레이는 게임에 등장하는 이미지, 음악 등으로 구성된 것이므로 일체화된 콘텐츠로 인정됨 * 게임과 일체화되지 않은 이용자콘텐츠 - 게임의 요소와는 분리되어 있는 콘텐츠로서 보통 게시판의 이용자게시물을 의미함 ⇒ 게임과 결합된 이용자콘텐츠는 사업자가 서비스제공과 홍보 목적으로만 이용하는 것으로 제한 - 게임과 일체화되지 않은 이용자콘텐츠에 대한 권리는 원칙적으로 이용자에게 있는 것으로 수정 ◆ 불공정 사유 ㅇ 저작권법상 창작물에 대한 저작권은 이를 창작한 자에게 있는 것이 원칙임 - 이용자가 만든 콘텐츠가 저작권법에 의해 창작성이 인정되어 저작권이 존재하는 경우 당해 콘텐츠에 대한 저작권은 이용자가 가지는 것이 당연 - 특히, 이용자 게시물은 게임과 직접 결합되어 있지 않으므로 이에 대한 저작권은 이용자에게 귀속시키는 것이 바람직 - 게임과 일체화된 콘텐츠의 경우, 저작권의 요건인 창작성이 인정되는지 여부는 게임과 콘텐츠의 결합정도 및 해당 콘텐츠의 내용 등에 따라 달라질 수 있으므로 이에 대한 권리귀속을 미리 사업자로 한정하는 것은 부당 - 게임자체의 저작권은 사업자에 있음이 분명하나 게임과 일체화된 콘텐츠의 2차저작권 등의 인정여부는 개별 콘텐츠에 따라 다름 * 저작권은 작성물에 창작자의 사상과 감정이 창의적인 방식으로 표현된 경우 저작권법에 의해 별도의 절차적 요건 없이 인정되는 창작자의 법률상 권리임 ㅇ 따라서, 저작권법 등에 의해 게임이용자의 권리로 인정될 수 있는 콘텐츠에 대한 권리를 사업자에게 귀속시키는 당해 약관조항은 고객의 법률상의 권리를 제한하므로 약관법상 무효
▶ 이용자의 계정․아이템에 관한 권리를 배제하는 조항 ◆ 불공정 약관 내용 및 개선내용 ㅇ 블리자드가 제공하는 게임계정 및 콘텐츠(아이템 포함)등에 대한 모든 권리가 블리자드에 있다고 규정 *게임계정 : 이용자의 ID, 캐릭터, 기타 정보가 저장되는 가상의 기억공간으로서 계정을 이용금지하거나 계정을 몰수할 경우 실질적으로 이용자의 게임이용은 불가함 *아 이 템 : 온라인게임상에서 이용자의 캐릭터가 사용하는 물건(방어구, 무기, 보조물품 등) 또는 특정능력을 일시적으로 부여 또는 향상시키는 것 을 통칭 ⇒ 이용자의 게임 및 아이템 등 콘텐츠에 대한 이용권을 명시적으로 규정하는 방향으로 개정 - 콘텐츠에 대한 명시적인 이용권을 인정함으로써 아이템 유실 및 계정도용 등의 문제가 발생할 경우 법적 구제조치를 받거나 사업자와 해결할 수 있는 근거 마련 ◆ 불공정 사유 ㅇ 이용자와 블리자드의 계약은 게임이용계약이기 때문에 게임내의 계정, 콘텐츠 등을 이용할 권리를 당연히 포함하고 있음 ㅇ 그런데, 당해 약관조항은 계약내용에 불구하고 계정 및 콘텐츠에 관한 모든 권리가 사업자에게만 귀속되는 것으로 규정하여 이용자의 정당한 콘텐츠 이용권을 침해할 수 있음 - 계정․콘텐츠의 이용권이 명시적으로 부정될 경우 콘텐츠이용 관련 피해가 발생하더라도 이용자가 제대로 피해구제를 받을 수 없게 됨 - 즉, 이용자의 권리구제를 담당하는 기관 또는 사업자가 이용자에게 콘텐츠 이용권 자체가 없다는 이유로 이용자의 피해구제신청 등이 외면할 우려 발생 * 이용자의 아이템이 어떤 이유로 유실된 경우, 이용자가 아이템 이용권을 근거로 사업자에게 유실된 아이템의 복구를 요구할 수 있음 ㅇ 따라서, 계약상 당연히 인정되는 계정․콘텐츠 이용권까지 배제할 수 있는 것으로 규정된 당해 약관조항은 고객에게 부당하게 불리하여 약관법상 무효
▶ 서비스를 일방적으로 중지할 수 있는 조항 ◆ 불공정 약관 내용 및 개선내용 ㅇ 블리자드는 임의로 사전사후 불문하고 통지만 하면 게임이용계약을 언제든지 해지할 수 있다고 규정 ⇒ 서비스 중단사유를 사업의 종료, 합병 등에 준하는 경우로 제한하고 서비스를 중단하는 경우 사전통지를 의무화하였을 뿐만 아니라 잔여 계약기간에 해당하는 이용요금을 환불하도록 개정 ◆ 불공정 사유 ㅇ 서비스 제공 중단은 사실상 계약해지와 다름이 없기 때문에 그 요건은 엄격하게 제한되어야 하고, 미리 이용자에게 통지되어야 함 ㅇ 또한, 서비스가 중단되는 경우 사업자는 고객이 이용하지 않은 잔여기간에 대한 서비스 이용요금을 환불해 줄 의무가 있음 - 즉, 계약해지의 원인을 제공한 자는 계약해지에 따른 책임(채무불이행책임, 손해배상책임, 원상회복책임 등)을 부담하는 것임 ㅇ 따라서, 사업자가 아무런 제약 없이 서비스를 일방적으로 중단할 수 있도록 규정한 당해 약관조항은 급부의 내용을 일방적으로 변경할 수 있는 권한 등을 부여하는 조항이므로 약관법상 무효
▶ 사업자의 책임을 면제하는 조항 ◆ 불공정 약관 내용 및 개선내용 ㅇ 블리자드는 게임으로 인해 발생하는 각종 분쟁, 손해, 피해 등에 있어서 어떠한 경우에도 책임을 지지 않는 것으로 규정 ⇒ 서비스의 이용 또는 이용불가로 인한 손해에 대해 사업자의 고의․중과실이 없는 경우에만 면책이 가능하도록 수정 ◆ 불공정 사유 ㅇ 게임 이용과 관련하여 로그인 정보의 관리, 서버의 안정성, 게임 프로그램의 안전성 등에 대해 사업자에게 귀책사유가 있다면 사업자가 책임지는 것이 원칙 *「정보통신망 이용촉진 및 정보보호 등에 관한 법률」상 블리자드는 정보통신서비스제공업자로서 이용자의 권익 보호, 서비스의 안정성 및 신뢰성 확보 조치의 책임이 있음 ㅇ 또한, 게임 서비스 이용 및 클라이언트 이용으로 발생하는 손해 이외에 사업자의 귀책사유로 게임을 이용하지 못하는 경우에도 사업자에게 손해배상의 책임이 발생함 * 게임서비스이용으로 인한 손해 : 해킹으로 인한 손해, 아이템으로 인한 분쟁 또는 유실로 인한 손해 등 게임이용으로 인한 제반 손해 * 클라이언트로 인한 손해 : 클라이언트 설치, 구동, 업데이트 등으로 인한 이용자 컴퓨터의 바이러스감염, 시스템 손상 등의 손해 ㅇ 따라서, 당해 약관조항은 사업자의 법적 책임을 상당한 이유 없이 배제하고 있고 사업자의 위험부담을 고객에게 부당하게 이전시키므로 약관법상 무효
한편 블리자드는 공정위에서 제시한 의견을 수용해 지난 10일 배틀넷 '이용약관 및 개인정보취급방침 개정안내'를 공지하고 6월 17일자로 약관을 수정했다.
Source: Fomos.kr
T/N: I used the words "agreements" and "terms" interchangeably. Also, translating at 2AM was tough, especially for such a tough article with a lot of difficult vocab so I'm sorry if it doesn't 100% make sense.
On June 21 2010 16:24 l10f wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2010 16:18 Waxangel wrote: I looked at the TOS, and without an older version of the TOS to look at, I really don't see how any of it has changed to meet the requirements of the FTC. It still says blizzard reserves the sole rights to create derivative works, and most if it is pretty much word to word with the USA TOS, except a little part expressly forbidding the operation of game tournaments without consent. Strange, maybe FOMOS is wrong? Show nested quote +한편 블리자드는 공정위에서 제시한 의견을 수용해 지난 10일 배틀넷 '이용약관 및 개인정보취급방침 개정안내'를 공지하고 6월 17일자로 약관을 수정했다. unless I horribly misinterpreted that last line.
I just checked http://kr.blizzard.com/ko-kr/company/about/termsofuse.html , and all the changes are there. (the ones mentioned in the article at least, anyway)
I'm really off now, goodnight.
|
Thanks for the translation. I wonder how this will affect copyright agreements for the starleagues. Edit; the 18th is my birthday. What an awesome present.
|
|
Blizzard isn't going to change their TOS for Korea. KFTC is just going to have to live with it.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On June 21 2010 16:11 machinus wrote: Blizzard isn't going to change their TOS for Korea. KFTC is just going to have to live with it.
Microsoft Decision
On December 7, 2005, the KFTC reached the decision to order Microsoft Corporation and Microsoft Korea, inter alia, to unbundle certain tied products, including Windows Media Player and MSN Messenger, and to impose surcharges amounting to 33 billion won (31 million US dollars) for violation of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (MRFTA), including the abuse of market dominant position provision. On October 16th, 2007, the Associated Press reported that Microsoft has stopped appealing the December 2005 decision and has withdrawn the appeal.
If they could crack Microsoft, Blizzard will be a breeze.
|
On June 21 2010 16:11 machinus wrote: Blizzard isn't going to change their TOS for Korea. KFTC is just going to have to live with it.
1. lol? 2.
Blizzard has since changed their terms and agreements for Battle.net on the 17th according the commission's opinions.
|
Australia3596 Posts
On June 21 2010 16:11 machinus wrote: Blizzard isn't going to change their TOS for Korea. KFTC is just going to have to live with it. Did you even read the article?
EDIT: Too slow!
|
United States32493 Posts
I looked at the TOS, and without an older version of the TOS to look at, I really don't see how any of it has changed to meet the requirements of the FTC. It still says blizzard reserves the sole rights to create derivative works, and most if it is pretty much word to word with the USA TOS, except a little part expressly forbidding the operation of game tournaments without consent.
|
I am...surprised they changed them. Perhaps there is hope after all. I hope this means that they will change them outside of Korea as well, though I doubt it. Allowing users rights to content that they imagine and create? Madness! ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL.
|
Russian Federation410 Posts
Guess what, a 3rd party Lan Mode is now legal in Korea.
|
l10f
United States3241 Posts
On June 21 2010 16:18 Waxangel wrote: I looked at the TOS, and without an older version of the TOS to look at, I really don't see how any of it has changed to meet the requirements of the FTC. It still says blizzard reserves the sole rights to create derivative works, and most if it is pretty much word to word with the USA TOS, except a little part expressly forbidding the operation of game tournaments without consent.
Strange, maybe FOMOS is wrong?
한편 블리자드는 공정위에서 제시한 의견을 수용해 지난 10일 배틀넷 '이용약관 및 개인정보취급방침 개정안내'를 공지하고 6월 17일자로 약관을 수정했다.
unless I horribly misinterpreted that last line.
|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
Did it say anything about derivative products such as esports productions etc?
|
l10f
United States3241 Posts
On June 21 2010 16:24 Kennigit wrote: Did it say anything about derivative products such as esports productions etc?
No, at least not on that fomos article.
|
Wow, i never read tos, but this looks pretty scary. Hope it gets fixed.
Thanks for the article, this is useful information.
|
l10f
United States3241 Posts
On June 21 2010 16:24 l10f wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2010 16:18 Waxangel wrote: I looked at the TOS, and without an older version of the TOS to look at, I really don't see how any of it has changed to meet the requirements of the FTC. It still says blizzard reserves the sole rights to create derivative works, and most if it is pretty much word to word with the USA TOS, except a little part expressly forbidding the operation of game tournaments without consent. Strange, maybe FOMOS is wrong? Show nested quote +한편 블리자드는 공정위에서 제시한 의견을 수용해 지난 10일 배틀넷 '이용약관 및 개인정보취급방침 개정안내'를 공지하고 6월 17일자로 약관을 수정했다. unless I horribly misinterpreted that last line.
I just checked http://kr.blizzard.com/ko-kr/company/about/termsofuse.html , and all the changes are there. (the ones mentioned in the article)
I'm really off now, goodnight.
|
I sure wish the FTC in the U.S. made companies change ridiculous Terms of Use.
|
United States32493 Posts
On June 21 2010 16:30 l10f wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2010 16:24 l10f wrote:On June 21 2010 16:18 Waxangel wrote: I looked at the TOS, and without an older version of the TOS to look at, I really don't see how any of it has changed to meet the requirements of the FTC. It still says blizzard reserves the sole rights to create derivative works, and most if it is pretty much word to word with the USA TOS, except a little part expressly forbidding the operation of game tournaments without consent. Strange, maybe FOMOS is wrong? 한편 블리자드는 공정위에서 제시한 의견을 수용해 지난 10일 배틀넷 '이용약관 및 개인정보취급방침 개정안내'를 공지하고 6월 17일자로 약관을 수정했다. unless I horribly misinterpreted that last line. I just checked http://kr.blizzard.com/ko-kr/company/about/termsofuse.html , and all the changes are there. (the ones mentioned in the article) I'm really off now, goodnight.
Ah ok, I saw the thing, section 15.iv
+ Show Spoiler +“이용자 콘텐츠”는 게임이나 서비스와 관련하여 귀하 또는 다른 이용자가 게임 클라이언트 또는 서비스를 통해 업로드 또는 전송하는 대화 텍스트를 포함한 커뮤니케이션, 이미지, 사운드 및 모든 자료 및 정보를 의미합니다. 귀하는 게임내에서 보여지거나 게임과 일체화된 이용자 콘텐츠에 대하여 블리자드가 다음과 같은 방법과 조건으로 이용하는 것을 허락합니다 (a) 해당 이용자 콘텐츠를 게임이나 서비스의 제공 및 홍보의 목적으로 이용, 편집, 형식의 변경 및 기타 변형 (공표, 복제, 공연, 전송, 배포, 방송, 2차적 저작물 작성 등 어떠한 형태로든 이용 가능하며, 이용기간과 지역에는 제한이 없음) (b) 이용자 콘텐츠를 제작한 이용자의 사전 동의 없이 거래를 목적으로 이용자 콘텐츠를 판매, 대여, 양도 행위를 하지 않음 (c) 컴퓨터 메모리에의 접속 (d) 해당 이용자 콘텐츠의 작성자로서의 귀하의 성명은 표시하지 않을 수 있음. 게임내에서 보여지지 않고 게임과 일체화되지 않은 귀하의 이용자 콘텐츠 (예컨대, 일반게시판등에의 게시물)에 대하여는 블리자드가 귀하의 명시적인 동의가 없이 상업적으로 이용하지 않으며, 귀하는 언제든지 이러한 이용자 콘텐츠를 삭제할 수 있습니다. 다만, 이러한 이용이 법률에 의하여 제한을 받을 경우, 블리자드는 해당 법률 규정에 따릅니다.
It's so ambiguous though as to what it means, since they are putting up "forum posts" as an example of user created content that's not created wholly within the game. Does that mean what I think it does: that Blizzard previously had the right profit off anything you had written about their games in a forum (and still can outside Korea?).
In any case, it doesn't really help this BW league situation at all, since section 2-iii forbids game leagues without consent, and 8-i still says they reserve the right to all derivative works.... Although, now I'm confused as to what the legal difference between "user created content" and "derivative work" is.
|
That's a bold move towards players rights, but that literally opens the doors to KeSPA winning all their arguments under the court of law, there is NO WAY blizzard agrees to removing all this.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
United States32493 Posts
On June 21 2010 17:01 ZlaSHeR wrote: That's a bold move towards players rights, but that literally opens the doors to KeSPA winning all their arguments under the court of law, there is NO WAY blizzard agrees to removing all this.
dude.... a guy just got banned for posting what you just posted -.-
|
On June 21 2010 17:01 ZlaSHeR wrote: That's a bold move towards players rights, but that literally opens the doors to KeSPA winning all their arguments under the court of law, there is NO WAY blizzard agrees to removing all this.
Seriously someone just said that like 10 posts up and was promptly corrected. They already not only accepted them, but made them.
|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
Not reading. It's bannable (if you post :D )
|
▶ Unfair termination of service ㅇBlizzard states that they can remove the service for whatever reason as long as they send a notification regarding the reasons for removal of service. ⇒ Change it so that the users are notified well beforehand, and a reasonable refund is given for the discontinuation of service. ◆ Reason ㅇTermination of service is same as termination of contract so the reasons must be limited, and the users must be notified beforehand. Also, the producer has the duty to give a refund for the remainder of the service. Therefore, the current terms that state that the service may be removed at any time for any reason is unfair, and the terms are invalid.
What does it mean by this? Seems a little unfair to Blizzard don't you think?
|
On June 21 2010 17:36 chongu wrote:Show nested quote +▶ Unfair termination of service ㅇBlizzard states that they can remove the service for whatever reason as long as they send a notification regarding the reasons for removal of service. ⇒ Change it so that the users are notified well beforehand, and a reasonable refund is given for the discontinuation of service. ◆ Reason ㅇTermination of service is same as termination of contract so the reasons must be limited, and the users must be notified beforehand. Also, the producer has the duty to give a refund for the remainder of the service. Therefore, the current terms that state that the service may be removed at any time for any reason is unfair, and the terms are invalid. What does it mean by this? Seems a little unfair to Blizzard don't you think?
You must be trippin balls right now if you think this is unfair. Company A provides you with a contracted service. Your existing contract is $7000 for their service for the entire decade. After 2 years of service, Company A decides they don't like your face and terminates your contract. According to you, you aren't deserving of a refund even though the agreement was 7k for 10 years and you only got 2 years out of it. Also, you had no say whatsoever in them just dropping you. No matter how you look at it, the original contract is 100% breached and legally is null and void. Compensations must then be issued.
|
well i guess it's time to go through all the agreements i skip over without reading again and see what kinda things i might be facing because of them......still seems that blizzard might be pushing their own rights and privileges a bit too far...i mean i'd love to see the user created content left in the hands of the user creating it but thats just me and i guess peoples views on what "user created" is differs.
|
On June 21 2010 17:05 Waxangel wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2010 17:01 ZlaSHeR wrote: That's a bold move towards players rights, but that literally opens the doors to KeSPA winning all their arguments under the court of law, there is NO WAY blizzard agrees to removing all this. dude.... a guy just got banned for posting what you just posted -.-
Sorry, I'll elaborate more, it was just kind of a in the moment comment I'm sorry. What I wanted to say is that what they're asking for really does seem like a lot. The whole dispute between KeSPA and Blizzard was the idea of intellectual rights and who the replays belong to, who the gameplay belongs to, who the accounts belong to. Blizzard all along has stated that it is their game and making a profit off of broadcasting their game shouldn't be allowed.
We already know that KeSPA is tied in to the Korean government too right? So this KFTC is trying their best to help KeSPA out, which to this day is still the final group that has yet to been able to properly come to an agreement or even negotiate with anyone. KeSPA asked for too much and in the end were deemed to be unreasonable and not able to be worked with by Blizzard. A week later Blizzard and Gretech/GOM have no issues negotiating and partnering and working with each other. Now we've seen that even the OSL is in open discussions with Gretech/GOM. KeSPA is the only one that nobody can properly work with, so this all just seems like a ploy to help out KeSPA under the court of law. They are trying to make it so Blizzard is giving away many of the intellectual rights they lay claim to, and as a private company, they reserve the right to hold those intellectual rights.
Right away the first idea that they posted was already asking for too much, and I would find it really hard to imagine Blizzard giving up these rights. Unless this can cause South Korea to stop the import of Blizzard products, which would cripple tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars upon release, I'm not sure Blizzard will budge.
Sorry for the short post earlier, hope this makes up for it.
Edit: And sorry for not reading the blizzard comments on it, I just reformatted my computer and have yet to install asian languages so I couldn't read the website, its all in gibberish and squares to me. If Blizzard really did already complete the changes in the ToS then they are essentially signing over to KeSPA the rights to broadcast Starcraft and the replays etc. without paying the transfer fee. If that is the case why wouldn't KeSPA take advantage of that. Wouldn't that completely nullify the deal that GOM/Gretech and Blizzard made roughly a month ago?
|
On June 21 2010 17:46 ZlaSHeR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2010 17:05 Waxangel wrote:On June 21 2010 17:01 ZlaSHeR wrote: That's a bold move towards players rights, but that literally opens the doors to KeSPA winning all their arguments under the court of law, there is NO WAY blizzard agrees to removing all this. dude.... a guy just got banned for posting what you just posted -.- Sorry, I'll elaborate more, it was just kind of a in the moment comment I'm sorry. What I wanted to say is that what they're asking for really does seem like a lot. The whole dispute between KeSPA and Blizzard was the idea of intellectual rights and who the replays belong to, who the gameplay belongs to, who the accounts belong to. Blizzard all along has stated that it is their game and making a profit off of broadcasting their game shouldn't be allowed. We already know that KeSPA is tied in to the Korean government too right? So this KFTC is trying their best to help KeSPA out, which to this day is still the final group that has yet to been able to properly come to an agreement or even negotiate with anyone. KeSPA asked for too much and in the end were deemed to be unreasonable and not able to be worked with by Blizzard. A week later Blizzard and Gretech/GOM have no issues negotiating and partnering and working with each other. Now we've seen that even the OSL is in open discussions with Gretech/GOM. KeSPA is the only one that nobody can properly work with, so this all just seems like a ploy to help out KeSPA under the court of law. They are trying to make it so Blizzard is giving away many of the intellectual rights they lay claim to, and as a private company, they reserve the right to hold those intellectual rights. Right away the first idea that they posted was already asking for too much, and I would find it really hard to imagine Blizzard giving up these rights. Unless this can cause South Korea to stop the import of Blizzard products, which would cripple tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars upon release, I'm not sure Blizzard will budge. Sorry for the short post earlier, hope this makes up for it. It's not a private company telling them what to do, it's the government. It would be illegal not to comply. Believe me, even losing control over Korean BW would be worse than ignoring this.
|
I'm trying to figure out, in what ways would it be illegal for Blizzard to maintain property rights to replays and accounts created? The South Korean government is able to tell a private American company in Activision Blizzard that their ToS are illegal in which country? And I don't see how they are illegal, if they were, then would that mean that KeSPA was correct all along, and that Blizzard selling Gretech the broadcasting rights to SC:BW and SC2 in August is actually illegal? If that were the case how come we haven't heard about the fallout from that yet?
|
Wow at first I thought this would be a KeSPA like knee-jerk reaction, but reading the changes they are all 100% sensible and in the consumer (our) best interest. And if Blizzard changed to comply with no argument, that means they agree and were just trying to see how much they could get away with at first.
This is great news for everyone.
|
On June 21 2010 17:46 ZlaSHeR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2010 17:05 Waxangel wrote:On June 21 2010 17:01 ZlaSHeR wrote: That's a bold move towards players rights, but that literally opens the doors to KeSPA winning all their arguments under the court of law, there is NO WAY blizzard agrees to removing all this. dude.... a guy just got banned for posting what you just posted -.- Sorry, I'll elaborate more, it was just kind of a in the moment comment I'm sorry. What I wanted to say is that what they're asking for really does seem like a lot. The whole dispute between KeSPA and Blizzard was the idea of intellectual rights and who the replays belong to, who the gameplay belongs to, who the accounts belong to. Blizzard all along has stated that it is their game and making a profit off of broadcasting their game shouldn't be allowed. We already know that KeSPA is tied in to the Korean government too right? So this KFTC is trying their best to help KeSPA out, which to this day is still the final group that has yet to been able to properly come to an agreement or even negotiate with anyone. KeSPA asked for too much and in the end were deemed to be unreasonable and not able to be worked with by Blizzard. A week later Blizzard and Gretech/GOM have no issues negotiating and partnering and working with each other. Now we've seen that even the OSL is in open discussions with Gretech/GOM. KeSPA is the only one that nobody can properly work with, so this all just seems like a ploy to help out KeSPA under the court of law. They are trying to make it so Blizzard is giving away many of the intellectual rights they lay claim to, and as a private company, they reserve the right to hold those intellectual rights. Right away the first idea that they posted was already asking for too much, and I would find it really hard to imagine Blizzard giving up these rights. Unless this can cause South Korea to stop the import of Blizzard products, which would cripple tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars upon release, I'm not sure Blizzard will budge. Sorry for the short post earlier, hope this makes up for it. Edit: And sorry for not reading the blizzard comments on it, I just reformatted my computer and have yet to install asian languages so I couldn't read the website, its all in gibberish and squares to me. If Blizzard really did already complete the changes in the ToS then they are essentially signing over to KeSPA the rights to broadcast Starcraft and the replays etc. without paying the transfer fee. If that is the case why wouldn't KeSPA take advantage of that. Wouldn't that completely nullify the deal that GOM/Gretech and Blizzard made roughly a month ago?
It was not KeSPA that was unreasonable during the negotiations with Blizzard. Blizzard's demands were ridiculous. They knew KeSPA would not agree to them.
They changed their demands when negotiating with Gretech. I'm unable to tell you what specifically is different from the terms they gave to KeSPA because Gretech decided to abide to the NDA, but one thing I'm certain of - they signed a three year contract with Blizzard, while KeSPA were only allowed to sign a one year contract if anything.
Also OGN and MBC ARE part of KeSPA, so saying that KeSPA cannot properly work with anyone is a fallacy.
Not to mention the fact that the old ToS is very unfair.
|
On June 21 2010 18:11 ZlaSHeR wrote: I'm trying to figure out, in what ways would it be illegal for Blizzard to maintain property rights to replays and accounts created? The South Korean government is able to tell a private American company in Activision Blizzard that their ToS are illegal in which country? And I don't see how they are illegal, if they were, then would that mean that KeSPA was correct all along, and that Blizzard selling Gretech the broadcasting rights to SC:BW and SC2 in August is actually illegal? If that were the case how come we haven't heard about the fallout from that yet?
I think this is more of a courtesy gesture than anything else. EULAs are not absolutely enforcable, and if a consumer breaks a EULA that a court later finds to be unfair the EULA is not legally binding.
This sounds like the KTFC saying "look guys, these EULA terms are unfair and you won't be able to enforce them if you get taken to court, better change them now and save everyone a ton of trouble".
|
You can actually litigate a(n) EULA // TOS. In contract law, there is a doctrine known as unenforceable provisions. Basically, some stuff written into a contract that is so crazy a court would refuse to enforce it, and instead require that provision stricken from the contract or have the contract voided.
// although the first 2 provisions are pretty much standard in game EULA's, so i dont see them as getting stricken or deemed unenforceable, pretty much all of the latter ones (Termination etc) have a shot at getting litigated.
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.
As far as outside game stuff goes, fan art falls under artistic licence, however if somebody made a comic book and story etc, they would probably need licence from blizz to do so.
Rights to users accounts may be changed, but not to the extent that SK govt might want. If people had unilateral rights to accounts, that would mean people could never be banned for any reason at all.
Termination of service and responsibility duties stuff has pretty much been litigated over and over and theres precident that these provisions are unenforceable anyways.
|
On June 21 2010 18:13 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2010 17:46 ZlaSHeR wrote:On June 21 2010 17:05 Waxangel wrote:On June 21 2010 17:01 ZlaSHeR wrote: That's a bold move towards players rights, but that literally opens the doors to KeSPA winning all their arguments under the court of law, there is NO WAY blizzard agrees to removing all this. dude.... a guy just got banned for posting what you just posted -.- Sorry, I'll elaborate more, it was just kind of a in the moment comment I'm sorry. What I wanted to say is that what they're asking for really does seem like a lot. The whole dispute between KeSPA and Blizzard was the idea of intellectual rights and who the replays belong to, who the gameplay belongs to, who the accounts belong to. Blizzard all along has stated that it is their game and making a profit off of broadcasting their game shouldn't be allowed. We already know that KeSPA is tied in to the Korean government too right? So this KFTC is trying their best to help KeSPA out, which to this day is still the final group that has yet to been able to properly come to an agreement or even negotiate with anyone. KeSPA asked for too much and in the end were deemed to be unreasonable and not able to be worked with by Blizzard. A week later Blizzard and Gretech/GOM have no issues negotiating and partnering and working with each other. Now we've seen that even the OSL is in open discussions with Gretech/GOM. KeSPA is the only one that nobody can properly work with, so this all just seems like a ploy to help out KeSPA under the court of law. They are trying to make it so Blizzard is giving away many of the intellectual rights they lay claim to, and as a private company, they reserve the right to hold those intellectual rights. Right away the first idea that they posted was already asking for too much, and I would find it really hard to imagine Blizzard giving up these rights. Unless this can cause South Korea to stop the import of Blizzard products, which would cripple tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars upon release, I'm not sure Blizzard will budge. Sorry for the short post earlier, hope this makes up for it. Edit: And sorry for not reading the blizzard comments on it, I just reformatted my computer and have yet to install asian languages so I couldn't read the website, its all in gibberish and squares to me. If Blizzard really did already complete the changes in the ToS then they are essentially signing over to KeSPA the rights to broadcast Starcraft and the replays etc. without paying the transfer fee. If that is the case why wouldn't KeSPA take advantage of that. Wouldn't that completely nullify the deal that GOM/Gretech and Blizzard made roughly a month ago? It was not KeSPA that was unreasonable during the negotiations with Blizzard. Blizzard's demands were ridiculous. They knew KeSPA would not agree to them. They changed their demands when negotiating with Gretech. I'm unable to tell you what specifically is different from the terms they gave to KeSPA because Gretech decided to abide to the NDA, but one thing I'm certain of - they signed a three year contract with Blizzard, while KeSPA were only allowed to sign a one year contract if anything. Also OGN and MBC ARE part of KeSPA, so saying that KeSPA cannot properly work with anyone is a fallacy. Not to mention the fact that the old ToS is very unfair.
Using the point that OGN and MBC are a part of KeSPA is a fallacy in itself since Gretech is a part of CJ which is a part of KeSPA, all the korean organizations are linked in some way, that doesn't mean that they all agree with each other on every account.
While I do agree that these changes are better for the consumer and user, and that it benefits us as players, my point was that I just find the moves contradictory if true, since that would essentially nullify all changes and negotiations that they've been working so hard on for the past several months. Don't think of me as someone who disagrees with these changes and thinks that it should be put back to what it was, it is just in my opinion that Blizzard is making quite a move against themselves by doing this.
|
On June 21 2010 18:18 ZlaSHeR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2010 18:13 maybenexttime wrote:On June 21 2010 17:46 ZlaSHeR wrote:On June 21 2010 17:05 Waxangel wrote:On June 21 2010 17:01 ZlaSHeR wrote: That's a bold move towards players rights, but that literally opens the doors to KeSPA winning all their arguments under the court of law, there is NO WAY blizzard agrees to removing all this. dude.... a guy just got banned for posting what you just posted -.- Sorry, I'll elaborate more, it was just kind of a in the moment comment I'm sorry. What I wanted to say is that what they're asking for really does seem like a lot. The whole dispute between KeSPA and Blizzard was the idea of intellectual rights and who the replays belong to, who the gameplay belongs to, who the accounts belong to. Blizzard all along has stated that it is their game and making a profit off of broadcasting their game shouldn't be allowed. We already know that KeSPA is tied in to the Korean government too right? So this KFTC is trying their best to help KeSPA out, which to this day is still the final group that has yet to been able to properly come to an agreement or even negotiate with anyone. KeSPA asked for too much and in the end were deemed to be unreasonable and not able to be worked with by Blizzard. A week later Blizzard and Gretech/GOM have no issues negotiating and partnering and working with each other. Now we've seen that even the OSL is in open discussions with Gretech/GOM. KeSPA is the only one that nobody can properly work with, so this all just seems like a ploy to help out KeSPA under the court of law. They are trying to make it so Blizzard is giving away many of the intellectual rights they lay claim to, and as a private company, they reserve the right to hold those intellectual rights. Right away the first idea that they posted was already asking for too much, and I would find it really hard to imagine Blizzard giving up these rights. Unless this can cause South Korea to stop the import of Blizzard products, which would cripple tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars upon release, I'm not sure Blizzard will budge. Sorry for the short post earlier, hope this makes up for it. Edit: And sorry for not reading the blizzard comments on it, I just reformatted my computer and have yet to install asian languages so I couldn't read the website, its all in gibberish and squares to me. If Blizzard really did already complete the changes in the ToS then they are essentially signing over to KeSPA the rights to broadcast Starcraft and the replays etc. without paying the transfer fee. If that is the case why wouldn't KeSPA take advantage of that. Wouldn't that completely nullify the deal that GOM/Gretech and Blizzard made roughly a month ago? It was not KeSPA that was unreasonable during the negotiations with Blizzard. Blizzard's demands were ridiculous. They knew KeSPA would not agree to them. They changed their demands when negotiating with Gretech. I'm unable to tell you what specifically is different from the terms they gave to KeSPA because Gretech decided to abide to the NDA, but one thing I'm certain of - they signed a three year contract with Blizzard, while KeSPA were only allowed to sign a one year contract if anything. Also OGN and MBC ARE part of KeSPA, so saying that KeSPA cannot properly work with anyone is a fallacy. Not to mention the fact that the old ToS is very unfair. Using the point that OGN and MBC are a part of KeSPA is a fallacy in itself since Gretech is a part of CJ which is a part of KeSPA, all the korean organizations are linked in some way, that doesn't mean that they all agree with each other on every account. While I do agree that these changes are better for the consumer and user, and that it benefits us as players, my point was that I just find the moves contradictory if true, since that would essentially nullify all changes and negotiations that they've been working so hard on for the past several months. Don't think of me as someone who disagrees with these changes and thinks that it should be put back to what it was, it is just in my opinion that Blizzard is making quite a move against themselves by doing this.
CJ claimed that they have nothing to do with Gretech negotiating with Blizzard. They do not have 51% shares in it.
Also, as said above, it's a courtesy of the Korean government because they could've just waited for Blizzard to publish the game and then prove their ToS is illegal in a court of law, which would probably hinder Blizzard more than simply chaning it now.
|
On June 21 2010 18:18 ZlaSHeR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2010 18:13 maybenexttime wrote:On June 21 2010 17:46 ZlaSHeR wrote:On June 21 2010 17:05 Waxangel wrote:On June 21 2010 17:01 ZlaSHeR wrote: That's a bold move towards players rights, but that literally opens the doors to KeSPA winning all their arguments under the court of law, there is NO WAY blizzard agrees to removing all this. dude.... a guy just got banned for posting what you just posted -.- Sorry, I'll elaborate more, it was just kind of a in the moment comment I'm sorry. What I wanted to say is that what they're asking for really does seem like a lot. The whole dispute between KeSPA and Blizzard was the idea of intellectual rights and who the replays belong to, who the gameplay belongs to, who the accounts belong to. Blizzard all along has stated that it is their game and making a profit off of broadcasting their game shouldn't be allowed. We already know that KeSPA is tied in to the Korean government too right? So this KFTC is trying their best to help KeSPA out, which to this day is still the final group that has yet to been able to properly come to an agreement or even negotiate with anyone. KeSPA asked for too much and in the end were deemed to be unreasonable and not able to be worked with by Blizzard. A week later Blizzard and Gretech/GOM have no issues negotiating and partnering and working with each other. Now we've seen that even the OSL is in open discussions with Gretech/GOM. KeSPA is the only one that nobody can properly work with, so this all just seems like a ploy to help out KeSPA under the court of law. They are trying to make it so Blizzard is giving away many of the intellectual rights they lay claim to, and as a private company, they reserve the right to hold those intellectual rights. Right away the first idea that they posted was already asking for too much, and I would find it really hard to imagine Blizzard giving up these rights. Unless this can cause South Korea to stop the import of Blizzard products, which would cripple tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars upon release, I'm not sure Blizzard will budge. Sorry for the short post earlier, hope this makes up for it. Edit: And sorry for not reading the blizzard comments on it, I just reformatted my computer and have yet to install asian languages so I couldn't read the website, its all in gibberish and squares to me. If Blizzard really did already complete the changes in the ToS then they are essentially signing over to KeSPA the rights to broadcast Starcraft and the replays etc. without paying the transfer fee. If that is the case why wouldn't KeSPA take advantage of that. Wouldn't that completely nullify the deal that GOM/Gretech and Blizzard made roughly a month ago? It was not KeSPA that was unreasonable during the negotiations with Blizzard. Blizzard's demands were ridiculous. They knew KeSPA would not agree to them. They changed their demands when negotiating with Gretech. I'm unable to tell you what specifically is different from the terms they gave to KeSPA because Gretech decided to abide to the NDA, but one thing I'm certain of - they signed a three year contract with Blizzard, while KeSPA were only allowed to sign a one year contract if anything. Also OGN and MBC ARE part of KeSPA, so saying that KeSPA cannot properly work with anyone is a fallacy. Not to mention the fact that the old ToS is very unfair. Using the point that OGN and MBC are a part of KeSPA is a fallacy in itself since Gretech is a part of CJ which is a part of KeSPA, all the korean organizations are linked in some way, that doesn't mean that they all agree with each other on every account. While I do agree that these changes are better for the consumer and user, and that it benefits us as players, my point was that I just find the moves contradictory if true, since that would essentially nullify all changes and negotiations that they've been working so hard on for the past several months. Don't think of me as someone who disagrees with these changes and thinks that it should be put back to what it was, it is just in my opinion that Blizzard is making quite a move against themselves by doing this. Since there's still a rock solid, unchallenged clause preventing anyone from holding leagues/tournaments without Blizzard's consent (if I read the TOS correctly, my bad if I didn't), then none of this really effects the esports scene. Just more of the accomplishment of single users doing Starcraft 2 related stuff on the innerwebz.
|
T.O.P.
Hong Kong4685 Posts
On June 21 2010 18:11 ZlaSHeR wrote: The South Korean government is able to tell a private American company in Activision Blizzard that their ToS are illegal in which country? And I don't see how they are illegal, if they were, then would that mean that KeSPA was correct all along, and that Blizzard selling Gretech the broadcasting rights to SC:BW and SC2 in August is actually illegal? If that were the case how come we haven't heard about the fallout from that yet? The South Korean government has jurisdiction over it's own country. If an American company wants to operate in Korea, they need to respect Korea's laws. What is legal is defined by the government.
|
It would be funny if blizz got fed up and just said "fuck SK" and never released SC2 there. And got their rights for BW, and never let anybody use them in SK.
By funny I mean terrible.
In an amusing way.
|
▶ Exclusion of the duties of the producer ㅇ Blizzard states that they are not responsible for any loss or damage caused by the game. ⇒ Change so that they are only excluded from taking the responsibility when the damage was not purposely caused.
Does loss of income, academic failure, or deterioration of physical fitness count as purposely caused damage? I'm almost certain Blizzard makes their games cause those things on purpose
|
Having participated in numerous discussions of the Bnet2.0/SC2 ToS and how it [the ToS] doesn't seem legal, enforceable, etc., I'm glad to see Korea making this move. (Of course I was discussing from the USA ToS point-of-view, but the responses lead me to understand that the USA & Korean ToS were nearly word-for-word).
I wish something like this would happen over here in the states, but this really makes me smile.
Thanks a lot l10f for catching that news and translating it for us. Much appreciated!!! <3
(Note: Read all posts in this thread, including Kennigit's at the top of this page. :O Edited for spelling errors.)
|
wow! we live in interesting times fellas... this is history in the making.
|
On June 21 2010 18:46 dogabutila wrote: It would be funny if blizz got fed up and just said "fuck SK" and never released SC2 there. And got their rights for BW, and never let anybody use them in SK.
By funny I mean terrible.
In an amusing way.
Not an option. They sold like half of their SC1 copies in Korea. South Korea is probably expected to stand for at least like 1/3 of total SC2 sales.
|
On June 21 2010 18:46 dogabutila wrote: It would be funny if blizz got fed up and just said "fuck SK" and never released SC2 there. And got their rights for BW, and never let anybody use them in SK.
By funny I mean terrible.
In an amusing way.
Did you read the part of the OP where Blizzard has already changed their ToS to comply with the FTC's demands? I agree, it would be funny, in a terribly corporate-suicidal sort of way, but they have already made the changes asked of them.....
|
Thanks heaps for the translation l10f. Interesting read, I was wondering if this sort of thing would happen. Good news to be honest.
|
Interesting. Thanks for translating.
|
What I'm wondering now is however, do these changes Blizzard made in the TOS only apply in Korea or did Blizzard change the TOS worldwide?
|
This is pretty amazing :p. Even if you don't give a shit about Kespa, this represents actual, concrete consumer rights laws. Consumer rights on the internet were brutal.
This has implications beyond Starcraft if it gets passed. It sets precedents.
Steam, EA, those services would ban 500$ worth of games for trivial things. For instance, once I got banned from EAonline for talking about piracy and got my access to Dragon Age Origins and MassEffect 2, single player games not registered to Steam, revoked.
On June 21 2010 18:12 dmfg wrote: Wow at first I thought this would be a KeSPA like knee-jerk reaction, but reading the changes they are all 100% sensible and in the consumer (our) best interest. And if Blizzard changed to comply with no argument, that means they agree and were just trying to see how much they could get away with at first.
This is great news for everyone.
word. I thought this would be usual Kespa BS but this represents something every single consumer should get behind.
So theirs one more thing that needs to be said.
Does this stuff apply to non Korean users? plzplpzlpzlzplzplzpzlpzlzplz.
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.
As far as outside game stuff goes, fan art falls under artistic licence, however if somebody made a comic book and story etc, they would probably need licence from blizz to do so.
The way I understand it, Blizzard still retains ownership of the map, but not specific ideas used to make the map. For instance, if I think of a new unit and put it in the map with custom assets, they do not own that. Later, if I wanted to make a new game based around that unit, they couldn't sue (not that they probably would anyway).
|
The original TOS was really 'arrogant' and all KFTC did was bring in some justice. Good job on their part imo.
|
KFTC did what was necessary. I agree with all the points 100%. KFTC Fighting!
But those rights absolutely need to apply everywhere now! Not only in Korea!
|
On June 21 2010 18:54 maybenexttime wrote:
Not an option. They sold like half of their SC1 copies in Korea. South Korea is probably expected to stand for at least like 1/3 of total SC2 sales.
source?
|
This is actually really awesome. I came in here expecting to read something about the blizzard kespa fight.
Instead, I found a list of 100% sensible corrections and an organization looking out for the rights of consumers. This is really good news for the state of consumers and consumer created content everywhere.
|
On June 21 2010 18:57 InfiniteIce wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2010 18:46 dogabutila wrote: It would be funny if blizz got fed up and just said "fuck SK" and never released SC2 there. And got their rights for BW, and never let anybody use them in SK.
By funny I mean terrible.
In an amusing way. Did you read the part of the OP where Blizzard has already changed their ToS to comply with the FTC's demands? I agree, it would be funny, in a terribly corporate-suicidal sort of way, but they have already made the changes asked of them.....
did you skip over my analysis and only read the rofl post?
|
On June 21 2010 19:44 Zamiel wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2010 18:54 maybenexttime wrote:
Not an option. They sold like half of their SC1 copies in Korea. South Korea is probably expected to stand for at least like 1/3 of total SC2 sales. source?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarCraft#Reception
As for 1/3 of SC2 copies being expected to be sold in Korea, that's my assumption, but I don't think it's too farfetched, do you?
|
oh wow. regulator have so much power! at least someone is looking after the rights of the consumers
|
Interesting. Agree with post above. And thanks for the translation.
|
How does this protect Blizzard's rights to ban users when they're being abusive without giving them $60?
|
I think it depends on who breaks the ToS. If Blizzard fails then Blizz needs to pay, if the user breaks ToS, Blizz is fine.
I really do wish that Blizz amends the ToS for the rest of the world. It would be hard for its ToS to hold up in court but taking it through court would be such a hassle. :-\
|
5003 Posts
Good first step, although I'm surprised 8i) made it through unaltered, since they still claim ownership of chatlogs, character profile information, videos made using the game client, etc. I'm glad that a lot of the other nonsense were shut down though.
But yeah, not much for eSports -- since Blizzard can probably argue any use of the game videos will be for promotion (ie: All Progame league games) and likely get away with using it. They just can't sell the videos to anyone without getting the consent of players who were in those games... but Blizzard wouldn't need to do that :|
This just makes it harder for eSports wouldn't it? Because now Blizzard doesn't just own the right to those game videos, but they need to get "permission" from the players to sell the rights to OGN/MBC and what not, and no way around it because everything will take place over battlenet2.0.
Weird!
|
So the Korean Fair Trade Commission told Blizzard to change its ToS and Blizzard did. What does this mean for the e-sport scene or us as customers?
|
On June 21 2010 17:40 Diminotoor wrote: You must be trippin balls right now if you think this is unfair. Company A provides you with a contracted service. Your existing contract is $7000 for their service for the entire decade. After 2 years of service, Company A decides they don't like your face and terminates your contract. According to you, you aren't deserving of a refund even though the agreement was 7k for 10 years and you only got 2 years out of it. Also, you had no say whatsoever in them just dropping you. No matter how you look at it, the original contract is 100% breached and legally is null and void. Compensations must then be issued.
But Battle.net is technically free isn't it? I know we will pay 60$ for the game but receiving a check in the mail whenever the servers are down without notice (won't that happen a lot over the years) seems equally ridiculous.
And if this only applies to termination of service, how long does battle.net have to work to fulfill its obligations?
|
@Senx It means that there is somebody trying to protect your interests. Read the OP if you want to know which of your rights got improved.
|
On June 21 2010 19:08 Adron wrote: What I'm wondering now is however, do these changes Blizzard made in the TOS only apply in Korea or did Blizzard change the TOS worldwide? Until other countries complain, I'd imagine that their local TOS will remain the same.
|
On June 21 2010 16:18 l10f wrote:
⇒ Change the terms so that the producer can only use the contents of the game created by users (see above) for promotion and providing service to thse users. Change the terms so that the contents outside of the game belongs only to the users.
It is like I create an architectural plan with Autocad. I own that plan not the software company. So it is 100% make sense if UMS or replay that i create belongs to me.
|
It makes you wonder why it took so long for this to be brought to the attention of the public. Wtf are the other lawyers in other countries doing(America included obv).
All in all good job to KFTC for representing us(consumers).
|
On June 21 2010 16:22 Go0g3n wrote: Guess what, a 3rd party Lan Mode is now legal in Korea.
What? Where? How?
On topic: Best of luck to them, but I have the feeling that Activision will have a word or two to say about this. It's not like KFTC can claim anti-trust, since there are decidedly other games that are eSports.
|
I agree with most of these changes, it's silly for Blizzard to sell you a game and then say they own everything you do. I hope they change the North American Terms aswell, not just the Korean terms, It would be silly change the terms on 1 server but not the others.
And as for 3rd party lan mode? where did you see that?
|
Sad to see so many people rejecting real concerns about end-user protection and blindly defending Blizzard like sheep.
|
This is a pleasant surprise, now it's more likely that SC2 leagues will be broadcast by OGN and MBC.
|
I'm so happy to see an organization standing up to this garbage. The user agreements are getting absurd, "In order to use our product you must first agree to give up all consumer rights, creative rights, and by the way you must agree that we are not responsible to fulfill any part of this contract ever. We also are not responsible for any of the things the law says we are responsible for." I wish someone would do this In the U.S. to a slew of companies including Microsoft, the windows and Xlive agreements are equally absurd. These contracts are also useless because if your under 18 you can't be held to a contract, which may be an excuse to require a credit card #. The way Bnet2 and Blizzard is acting, I am almost certain this will be the case. They will find reasons and ways to charge you. Want to play online with the account you already payed for with the game you've already bought and been playing for months? Well fork over 6$ for the new maps or you can't play in matchmaking. That's how it is on Xlive and that is what is coming for Blizzard. Thing I'm crazy? See Greg Cannessa (Xlive's manager for almost 10 years got hired by guess who, He's in charge of Battlenet 2.0)
|
16927 Posts
On June 21 2010 23:05 MangoTango wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2010 16:22 Go0g3n wrote: Guess what, a 3rd party Lan Mode is now legal in Korea. What? Where? How? On topic: Best of luck to them, but I have the feeling that Activision will have a word or two to say about this. It's not like KFTC can claim anti-trust, since there are decidedly other games that are eSports.
Activision can't say anything about this. The KFTC is a governmental regulatory body, and as such, has complete say in this matter. There's nothing Activision can do to appeal this decision in Korea since the matter isn't under their purview.
|
HAHA, I knew something like this was going to happen. Blizzard needs to learn a thing or two about how business gets done in Asia.
|
On June 21 2010 23:49 Empyrean wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2010 23:05 MangoTango wrote:On June 21 2010 16:22 Go0g3n wrote: Guess what, a 3rd party Lan Mode is now legal in Korea. What? Where? How? On topic: Best of luck to them, but I have the feeling that Activision will have a word or two to say about this. It's not like KFTC can claim anti-trust, since there are decidedly other games that are eSports. Activision can't say anything about this. The KFTC is a governmental regulatory body, and as such, has complete say in this matter. There's nothing Activision can do to appeal this decision in Korea since the matter isn't under their purview.
I'm obviously not an IP lawyer, but can you clarify? The KFTC is a branch of the Korean government. Activision is a primarily US-based, but international company. How does the KFTC have the reach to change Activision's policies?
|
16927 Posts
On June 22 2010 00:04 MangoTango wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2010 23:49 Empyrean wrote:On June 21 2010 23:05 MangoTango wrote:On June 21 2010 16:22 Go0g3n wrote: Guess what, a 3rd party Lan Mode is now legal in Korea. What? Where? How? On topic: Best of luck to them, but I have the feeling that Activision will have a word or two to say about this. It's not like KFTC can claim anti-trust, since there are decidedly other games that are eSports. Activision can't say anything about this. The KFTC is a governmental regulatory body, and as such, has complete say in this matter. There's nothing Activision can do to appeal this decision in Korea since the matter isn't under their purview. I'm obviously not an IP lawyer, but can you clarify? The KFTC is a branch of the Korean government. Activision is a primarily US-based, but international company. How does the KFTC have the reach to change Activision's policies?
KFTC has the power to change Activision's EULAs in their area of jurisdiction. This is why Blizzard's EULA is changed only in South Korea.
Pretty much all regional laws supersede EULAs.
|
On June 22 2010 00:10 Empyrean wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2010 00:04 MangoTango wrote:On June 21 2010 23:49 Empyrean wrote:On June 21 2010 23:05 MangoTango wrote:On June 21 2010 16:22 Go0g3n wrote: Guess what, a 3rd party Lan Mode is now legal in Korea. What? Where? How? On topic: Best of luck to them, but I have the feeling that Activision will have a word or two to say about this. It's not like KFTC can claim anti-trust, since there are decidedly other games that are eSports. Activision can't say anything about this. The KFTC is a governmental regulatory body, and as such, has complete say in this matter. There's nothing Activision can do to appeal this decision in Korea since the matter isn't under their purview. I'm obviously not an IP lawyer, but can you clarify? The KFTC is a branch of the Korean government. Activision is a primarily US-based, but international company. How does the KFTC have the reach to change Activision's policies? KFTC has the power to change Activision's EULAs in their area of jurisdiction. This is why Blizzard's EULA is changed only in South Korea. Pretty much all regional laws supersede EULAs.
Interesting. So KFTC's word is law, and cannot be appealed? Wow. But the changes I see listed here do not affect things such as broadcasting and IP rights. I see those as the most critical issues for t hose of us on the site who care about progaming (so, all of us).
|
16927 Posts
On June 22 2010 00:15 MangoTango wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2010 00:10 Empyrean wrote:On June 22 2010 00:04 MangoTango wrote:On June 21 2010 23:49 Empyrean wrote:On June 21 2010 23:05 MangoTango wrote:On June 21 2010 16:22 Go0g3n wrote: Guess what, a 3rd party Lan Mode is now legal in Korea. What? Where? How? On topic: Best of luck to them, but I have the feeling that Activision will have a word or two to say about this. It's not like KFTC can claim anti-trust, since there are decidedly other games that are eSports. Activision can't say anything about this. The KFTC is a governmental regulatory body, and as such, has complete say in this matter. There's nothing Activision can do to appeal this decision in Korea since the matter isn't under their purview. I'm obviously not an IP lawyer, but can you clarify? The KFTC is a branch of the Korean government. Activision is a primarily US-based, but international company. How does the KFTC have the reach to change Activision's policies? KFTC has the power to change Activision's EULAs in their area of jurisdiction. This is why Blizzard's EULA is changed only in South Korea. Pretty much all regional laws supersede EULAs. Interesting. So KFTC's word is law, and cannot be appealed? Wow. But the changes I see listed here do not affect things such as broadcasting and IP rights. I see those as the most critical issues for t hose of us on the site who care about progaming (so, all of us).
I'm not sure if it's actually considered law or not, but it's legally binding and there's nothing Activision can do. They could probably appeal, but nothing would come of it.
|
i find the TOS on blizzards part very unfair, i hope the KFTC gets what they deserve. I Mean if it wasn't for koreans there wouldn't be a reason for all this mumbo jumbo. There wouldn't be all this control over sc if it wasn't for korean pro gaming. Blizzard got greedy as fuck over the past 2 years.. Correct me if im wrong of course.
|
Very good news. I'm still puzzled at why all this happened on the first place.
Or is all this going much farther than SC 2?
|
I Can understand the last one because back in broodwar, 2 friends died because they decided to play starcraft for 48 hours straight
|
On June 22 2010 00:23 Empyrean wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2010 00:15 MangoTango wrote:On June 22 2010 00:10 Empyrean wrote:On June 22 2010 00:04 MangoTango wrote:On June 21 2010 23:49 Empyrean wrote:On June 21 2010 23:05 MangoTango wrote:On June 21 2010 16:22 Go0g3n wrote: Guess what, a 3rd party Lan Mode is now legal in Korea. What? Where? How? On topic: Best of luck to them, but I have the feeling that Activision will have a word or two to say about this. It's not like KFTC can claim anti-trust, since there are decidedly other games that are eSports. Activision can't say anything about this. The KFTC is a governmental regulatory body, and as such, has complete say in this matter. There's nothing Activision can do to appeal this decision in Korea since the matter isn't under their purview. I'm obviously not an IP lawyer, but can you clarify? The KFTC is a branch of the Korean government. Activision is a primarily US-based, but international company. How does the KFTC have the reach to change Activision's policies? KFTC has the power to change Activision's EULAs in their area of jurisdiction. This is why Blizzard's EULA is changed only in South Korea. Pretty much all regional laws supersede EULAs. Interesting. So KFTC's word is law, and cannot be appealed? Wow. But the changes I see listed here do not affect things such as broadcasting and IP rights. I see those as the most critical issues for t hose of us on the site who care about progaming (so, all of us). I'm not sure if it's actually considered law or not, but it's legally binding and there's nothing Activision can do. They could probably appeal, but nothing would come of it.
well its a trade comission, not a court. but i think if blizz do not change their TOS, the game will either not be sold in Korea or if the users do violate the EULA, the Korean courts will simply ignore the EULA because it was blatantly unfair and the user rights gets upheld.
|
On June 22 2010 01:14 dybydx wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2010 00:23 Empyrean wrote:On June 22 2010 00:15 MangoTango wrote:On June 22 2010 00:10 Empyrean wrote:On June 22 2010 00:04 MangoTango wrote:On June 21 2010 23:49 Empyrean wrote:On June 21 2010 23:05 MangoTango wrote:On June 21 2010 16:22 Go0g3n wrote: Guess what, a 3rd party Lan Mode is now legal in Korea. What? Where? How? On topic: Best of luck to them, but I have the feeling that Activision will have a word or two to say about this. It's not like KFTC can claim anti-trust, since there are decidedly other games that are eSports. Activision can't say anything about this. The KFTC is a governmental regulatory body, and as such, has complete say in this matter. There's nothing Activision can do to appeal this decision in Korea since the matter isn't under their purview. I'm obviously not an IP lawyer, but can you clarify? The KFTC is a branch of the Korean government. Activision is a primarily US-based, but international company. How does the KFTC have the reach to change Activision's policies? KFTC has the power to change Activision's EULAs in their area of jurisdiction. This is why Blizzard's EULA is changed only in South Korea. Pretty much all regional laws supersede EULAs. Interesting. So KFTC's word is law, and cannot be appealed? Wow. But the changes I see listed here do not affect things such as broadcasting and IP rights. I see those as the most critical issues for t hose of us on the site who care about progaming (so, all of us). I'm not sure if it's actually considered law or not, but it's legally binding and there's nothing Activision can do. They could probably appeal, but nothing would come of it. well its a trade comission, not a court. but i think if blizz do not change their TOS, the game will either not be sold in Korea or if the users do violate the EULA, the Korean courts will simply ignore the EULA because it was blatantly unfair and the user rights gets upheld.
Well Blizz isn't going to accept not having Korean players, so they'll cave to pressure if it comes to that. But the progaming scene's biggest fears and concerns aren't being addressed here, and that's still worrying!
|
On June 21 2010 17:40 Diminotoor wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2010 17:36 chongu wrote:▶ Unfair termination of service ㅇBlizzard states that they can remove the service for whatever reason as long as they send a notification regarding the reasons for removal of service. ⇒ Change it so that the users are notified well beforehand, and a reasonable refund is given for the discontinuation of service. ◆ Reason ㅇTermination of service is same as termination of contract so the reasons must be limited, and the users must be notified beforehand. Also, the producer has the duty to give a refund for the remainder of the service. Therefore, the current terms that state that the service may be removed at any time for any reason is unfair, and the terms are invalid. What does it mean by this? Seems a little unfair to Blizzard don't you think? You must be trippin balls right now if you think this is unfair. Company A provides you with a contracted service. Your existing contract is $7000 for their service for the entire decade. After 2 years of service, Company A decides they don't like your face and terminates your contract. According to you, you aren't deserving of a refund even though the agreement was 7k for 10 years and you only got 2 years out of it. Also, you had no say whatsoever in them just dropping you. No matter how you look at it, the original contract is 100% breached and legally is null and void. Compensations must then be issued. actually, the way it SC 2 works right now is the game is completely unplayable unless you connect to bnet (even single player mode).
so if blizz is to discontinue b.net service, the game is useless unless you "liberate" your version of SC2. but "liberating" your software may be illegal in your country.
thus, it is extremely unfair to the users that blizz can terminate your access to b.net at their sole discretion without any refund.
|
Wow, that first one is huge (think DotA). Probably a good change!
|
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.
|
|
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.
|
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.
|
On June 22 2010 02:44 NuKedUFirst wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Then they wouldl lose support from fans, Browder would be fired and Blizzard would make a letter of apology.
|
On June 22 2010 02:48 neobowman wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2010 02:44 NuKedUFirst wrote: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. 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.
|
On June 22 2010 02:48 neobowman wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2010 02:44 NuKedUFirst wrote: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. 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.
|
Great. It goes to show that a strong government is the only way to protect the consumer. We have taken far too much abuse in a supposedly free-market in the US.
Wish Blizzard would just make the same changes to TOS in the US too.
|
On June 22 2010 01:56 dybydx wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Agree 100% with 3. Corporations have too much power in the US, and the consumer too little.
|
i support KFTC for this one. sure - this is about politics, but it strengthens the customers (our) position and this is very helpful.
|
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.
|
On June 22 2010 02:44 NuKedUFirst wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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/
|
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.
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.
|
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:Show nested quote +On June 22 2010 02:48 neobowman wrote:On June 22 2010 02:44 NuKedUFirst wrote: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. 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.
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.
|
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
|
On June 22 2010 05:06 Half wrote:Show nested quote +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.
And what's stopping Blizzard from selling your replay if all the rights belong to them?
|
On June 22 2010 05:10 dukethegold wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2010 05:06 Half wrote: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. 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.
|
On June 22 2010 05:11 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2010 05:10 dukethegold wrote:On June 22 2010 05:06 Half wrote: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. 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.
On June 22 2010 05:08 danl9rm wrote:Show nested quote +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 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.
|
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.
|
On June 22 2010 05:15 Half wrote:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote + 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.
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.
|
On June 22 2010 05:19 dukethegold wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2010 05:15 Half wrote: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. 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.
well ye, I just felt compelled to point how how absurd that movie idea wuz lol.
|
On June 22 2010 05:22 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2010 05:19 dukethegold wrote:On June 22 2010 05:15 Half wrote: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. 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. well ye, I just felt compelled to point how how absurd that movie idea wuz lol.
Bill Gate's idea of privatizing software copyright was absolutely absurd as well and it took a court battle to win the right to sell his own software for profit.
Not funny now, is it?
|
hope they will change that
|
well this is a direct government order, if Blizzard wants to stay in Korea they have to.
|
I have to say that I agree with most of the changes, except the liability one.
Blizzard should not be liable for the consumer's stupidity. That is just absurd.
|
Looks like a major bitch slap
|
On June 21 2010 17:01 ZlaSHeR wrote: That's a bold move towards players rights, but that literally opens the doors to KeSPA winning all their arguments under the court of law, there is NO WAY blizzard agrees to removing all this.
User was temp banned for this post.
I'm a new user ( coming from the quake community ), but this concerns me. Why was this user banned for this post? It isn't spam or malicious, he's just stating his opinion on the subject.
|
Good, their language was blatantly unfair to consumers, and more importantly, to people who actually contribute to the lifespan of the game. Hopefully more changes to follow.
|
I can definitely see why they're upset! For the sake of all of us, I hope that the KFTC has their demands met.
That's like Craftsman demanding ownership of every house constructed using their tools.
|
Does this affect all versions of the game, or just Koreas?
|
On June 22 2010 07:45 JayDee_ wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2010 17:01 ZlaSHeR wrote: That's a bold move towards players rights, but that literally opens the doors to KeSPA winning all their arguments under the court of law, there is NO WAY blizzard agrees to removing all this.
User was temp banned for this post. I'm a new user ( coming from the quake community ), but this concerns me. Why was this user banned for this post? It isn't spam or malicious, he's just stating his opinion on the subject. He didn't read the post, which already stated that Blizzard agreed to it. If he had, he wouldn't be spouting "there is NO WAY blizzard agrees to removing all this". It's important to read what you are replying to before you reply to it, otherwise we're no better than metagamers.
|
On June 21 2010 16:10 Mindcrime wrote: KFTC fighting~
My feelings.
|
On June 21 2010 16:10 Mindcrime wrote: KFTC fighting~
Great. Obviously the users have some rights of the games they create. This has to be picked out against Blizzard.
Did anyone read the title as 'KFC ... Blizzard...'? Guess who will KO who if there really is a fight between these two...
|
On June 22 2010 08:35 duuuke wrote:Great. Obviously the users have some rights of the games they create. This has to be picked out against Blizzard. Did anyone read the title as 'KFC ... Blizzard...'? Guess who will KO who if there really is a fight between these two... Hahaha, I read that as the title too.
KFC will obviously win with their popcorn chicken.
|
I'm glad Blizzard was forced to make these changes even if it was only in South Korea. It's certainly a victory for consumers everywhere when these corporations are kept in check. For those complaining about the Korean government dictating how an American company runs its business, please remember that they need to follow Korean laws if they wish to conduct business within its borders just like Samsung has to abide by American laws in the business it conducts within the USA. It's a perfectly normal practice to adjust contract terms or business models to fall in line with local laws and it's something that happens all the time. I suspect the only reason this is making waves in the community is the speculation over what implications this might have on the negotiations between Blizzard/Gretech and KeSPA.
Much of Blizzard's initially absurd demands in the negotiations stemmed from concepts that have since been invalidated by this decision. Blizzard now knows that they can't negotiate under the pretense that they alone have ownership of user-created content, player replays, and everything under the sun that is created from their game. I don't know how much this will actually change in terms of negotiations, but I can't imagine it not having some sort of impact on the overall tone of those negotiations. One could argue that Starleagues and broadcasted matches are technically user-created content for which those users own the intellectual property rights to (rather than Blizzard). If that's the case, then that can open the path for a situation similar to the one we have today with KeSPA not having to ask for Blizzard's permission to sell broadcasting rights to their tournaments since what they would be selling is not the right to broadcast Starcraft 2, but rather the right to broadcast the new intellectual property they created through it.
Who knows where all of this will go?
|
I'm happy that Blizzard has agreed with the changes. Those rules were a bit silly.
|
Point of Clarification: Did Blizzard agree to change the Terms of Service for just Korean users or all users?
|
I bet the Korean Commission was under a lot of pressure. I think lots of lives would be affected if BW shut down in Korea beyond players and coaches.
I always thought that Blizzard always had power and leverage in negogiations because they could just shut down the servers if they wanted to, but with the new terms they would have to refund everybody who bought a copy, right?
|
On June 22 2010 05:02 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2010 02:44 NuKedUFirst wrote: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. 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/
This situation happened at least once in WoW with a forum moderator going on a ban spree and afaik none of those people had their access restored.
|
On June 22 2010 05:06 Half wrote:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +On June 22 2010 02:54 NuKedUFirst wrote:On June 22 2010 02:48 neobowman wrote:On June 22 2010 02:44 NuKedUFirst wrote: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. 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. 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.
How about banks should be controlled by the government because their executives can behave recklessly and force the taxpayers to give them hundreds of billions of dollars so the economy doesn't collapse? I'm not sure what your experience is with Blizzard but this is not the same Blizzard that put out Starcraft and Warcraft 3.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On June 22 2010 07:45 JayDee_ wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2010 17:01 ZlaSHeR wrote: That's a bold move towards players rights, but that literally opens the doors to KeSPA winning all their arguments under the court of law, there is NO WAY blizzard agrees to removing all this.
User was temp banned for this post. I'm a new user ( coming from the quake community ), but this concerns me. Why was this user banned for this post? It isn't spam or malicious, he's just stating his opinion on the subject. He was quickly unbanned after talking to Kennigit about it.
|
On June 22 2010 05:00 illu wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Different licences and purposes for the software to begin with. Nice try, but your example was too simplistic.
On June 22 2010 13:45 Grond wrote: How about banks should be controlled by the government because their executives can behave recklessly and force the taxpayers to give them hundreds of billions of dollars so the economy doesn't collapse? I'm not sure what your experience is with Blizzard but this is not the same Blizzard that put out Starcraft and Warcraft 3.
Not the same blizzard, a merger and a BUNCH of personell changes later.....
For all those on ~page3 saying being banned from B.net would make it impossible to play the game, incorrect. There will be an offline mode as stated many, many times in blizzard interviews. SP // campaigns will be playable, obviously you wont get achievements and stuff from it though. Just don't do anything questionable or be a dick to people online and you wont get banned anyways.
|
On June 22 2010 15:16 dogabutila wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2010 05:00 illu wrote: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. Different licences and purposes for the software to begin with. Nice try, but your example was too simplistic. Show nested quote +On June 22 2010 13:45 Grond wrote: How about banks should be controlled by the government because their executives can behave recklessly and force the taxpayers to give them hundreds of billions of dollars so the economy doesn't collapse? I'm not sure what your experience is with Blizzard but this is not the same Blizzard that put out Starcraft and Warcraft 3. Not the same blizzard, a merger and a BUNCH of personell changes later..... For all those on ~page3 saying being banned from B.net would make it impossible to play the game, incorrect. There will be an offline mode as stated many, many times in blizzard interviews. SP // campaigns will be playable, obviously you wont get achievements and stuff from it though. Just don't do anything questionable or be a dick to people online and you wont get banned anyways. there is an offline mode, but my understanding is you need to connect to bnet server to authenticate each time before you play single player games. Command & Conquer 4 uses the same method of "offline" play.
|
It's good to see someone standing up against the EULA's these days, because with games they are not even legal.
|
konadora
Singapore66060 Posts
|
I really don't see what the problem everyone has with EULAs is. It's a contract between you and a company. Unless it violates some fundamental law (ie you can't sell yourself into slavery), what's wrong with it? Furthermore, if you don't like it, just don't agree to it. It's not like you have a right to play computer games or use computer software.
|
On June 22 2010 21:39 sikyon wrote: I really don't see what the problem everyone has with EULAs is. It's a contract between you and a company. Unless it violates some fundamental law (ie you can't sell yourself into slavery), what's wrong with it? Furthermore, if you don't like it, just don't agree to it. It's not like you have a right to play computer games or use computer software.
There's a lot more to law than just not enslaving anyone. Business law is extremely complicated and you cannot expect your average customer to be able to, after reading the EULA, understand all the potential loopholes. That's why most developed countries have some sort of agency to protect consumer rights.
|
On June 22 2010 05:11 Half wrote: Please explain to me who would buy that replay.
You couldn't see them putting together a dvd of the top 25 replays of 2010 and selling it and people buying it? Or conversely, an end user putting together that dvd, and Blizzard stopping them from selling it?
|
Woot, now that's good news.
Btw, if Blizz still had all the rights to all this, is it possible for them to make any VoD posting on Youtube illegal unless we pay them to post?
|
I agree especially with the part about Blizzard saying they own the account and you are just using it. They have this in WoW too and I think it is completely stupid. You are paying $60 for this game and then for them to be like oh you don't "own" this account is beyond dumb. Wish these changes would come into affect for the U.S.
|
we need a FTC for the whole world
|
United States47024 Posts
On June 22 2010 02:44 NuKedUFirst wrote:Show nested quote +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. You could say the same thing about Steam, but the bitching about that risk with Steam died down like 5 years ago.
Honestly, do you have any better suggestion about how things should be run?
|
Does this have implications for running a public tournament? I heard that Blizzard can claim rights over any group (e.g. TL, university, church, whatever) that tries to run and cast a sc2 tourney. Is a casted tournament considered user created content in-game?
|
Wow, they've changed it? Everything? That's amazing, i'm slowly regaining my faith in Blizz.
|
I'm just curious what they'd do with a program like WC3 Banlist. If I remember right any thrid party software was subject to account termination. Whether it got switched or not, clearly Blizzards identity has changed, but such is the world of business...
|
On June 22 2010 21:39 sikyon wrote: I really don't see what the problem everyone has with EULAs is. It's a contract between you and a company. Unless it violates some fundamental law (ie you can't sell yourself into slavery), what's wrong with it? Furthermore, if you don't like it, just don't agree to it. It's not like you have a right to play computer games or use computer software. just because its a contract "agreed upon" by both parties doesnt mean it is legit. there are many situations where a court will not honor the contract even if the terms are not fundamentally wrong.
This is a real example from Microsoft's EULA on Windows 7
"By using the software, you accept these terms. If you do not accept them, do not use the software. Instead, contact the manufacturer or installer to determine its return policy. You must comply with that policy, which might limit your rights or require you to return the entire system on which the software is installed."
So basically, the moment you open a PC and see the EULA, you've already lost your rights, no matter whether you agree (in which case Microsft fucks you over) or disagree with the EULA (in which case the manufacturer fucks you over).
|
Once again does anyone know if this just applies to korea or all countries terms of use?
I can haz consumer rights?
|
On June 23 2010 07:32 Archerofaiur wrote: Once again does anyone know if this just applies to korea or all countries terms of use?
I can haz consumer rights? the opinion came from KFTC so it applies to SK only. Blizz may or may not change their EULA for other regions. In fact, Blizz may not even change their Korean EULA. I know the article says they will change, but some one also said the "changed" version didnt really change much.
What really comes down to is whether the EULA will be honored by the courts if any litigation occurs.
|
Correct me If I'm wrong but its impossible for blizz to have rights of any maps that someone made correct? The design is something you can up with. If blizz said they it belonged to them couldn't you just sue them for stealing ideas.
|
On June 23 2010 08:32 CagedMind wrote: Correct me If I'm wrong but its impossible for blizz to have rights of any maps that someone made correct? The design is something you can up with. If blizz said they it belonged to them couldn't you just sue them for stealing ideas. normally, u r correct. the rights of a piece of creative work belongs to the author, unless the author assigns it to someone else. in this case blizz demands that you assign them that right.
this is normally the case when a piece of work is commissioned by a sponsor. ie. if a newspaper hire editors to write articles, its likely that the newspaper owns all the rights.
however, if some freelance person simply submits an article to a newspaper, he only granted rights of the newspaper to use his article. he remains the owner of the work.
imo, blizz's claim of ownership is weak, even if they state so in their EULA. as someone pointed out, if blizz can claim ownership of user created maps because it require SC2 to work, then Microsoft certainly can claim ownership of all works produced from Microsoft Word/Excel/PowerPoint, since those documents were only intended to be read/used with Microsoft products.
|
Are the copyright laws mentioned local to korea or are they the international laws? If they are international that would be interesting since it would mean blizzard no longer would have the rights to player accounts or player created content.
|
On June 23 2010 09:14 Disastorm wrote: Are the copyright laws mentioned local to korea or are they the international laws? If they are international that would be interesting since it would mean blizzard no longer would have the rights to player accounts or player created content. there is no such thing as international copyright laws. each country has their own set of copyright laws. even if the 2 laws are identical, its still different.
there was a famous case where a russian phd student broke an encryption algorithm and was arrested in USA for breaking "copyright laws", despite the action was done in russia and was LEGAL. the matter went to court in US and the court found nothing against him.
|
They change the US EULA too? I'd like a right to a refund if I get banned, and rights to the content I produce inside and outside the game. Content made 'Outside the game' must have some technical definition I can't figure out, maybe with reference to making youtube videos and not having rights to them.
|
On June 23 2010 10:07 dybydx wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2010 09:14 Disastorm wrote: Are the copyright laws mentioned local to korea or are they the international laws? If they are international that would be interesting since it would mean blizzard no longer would have the rights to player accounts or player created content. there is no such thing as international copyright laws. each country has their own set of copyright laws. even if the 2 laws are identical, its still different. there was a famous case where a russian phd student broke an encryption algorithm and was arrested in USA for breaking "copyright laws", despite the action was done in russia and was LEGAL. the matter went to court in US and the court found nothing against him.
Things get a bit more complicated when the countries involved have legally binding agreements on the subject.
|
All of the changes required are relatively easy to correct, which apparently Blizzard did in a short amount of time. The biggest problem for Blizz is the disclaimer of liability problems. But I don't imagine their liability is very high anyhow since it's a just a game.
I am very interested to learn how they changed their terms, but I think everybody is reading too much into the whole thing. It's basic contracts law and interpretation.
|
On June 21 2010 23:04 bjwithbraces wrote: It makes you wonder why it took so long for this to be brought to the attention of the public. Wtf are the other lawyers in other countries doing(America included obv).
All in all good job to KFTC for representing us(consumers). The sad thing is the other countries probably do not care about a EULA on a video game except for South Korea.
|
On June 22 2010 05:00 illu wrote:Show nested quote +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. I've gotta show some love for this post. It really shows some of the idiocy that comes along with Blizzard's TOS.....
I've been anticipating the release of SC2 long before I even knew of the Korean pro-scene, or ICCUP. It's one of the most anticipated games ever. And the game itself is living up to the hype (there are things that everyone wants to see different, but that's the same for any game).
I got a key for the beta. I enjoyed playing it. I've fooled around with the editor, and I can see some amazing potential for UMS games (although they technically aren't UMS anymore, but whatever, anyone with a brain knows what I mean). It is going to be a game that gets 5 stars or 10/10 all around.
Unfortunately, I'm disappointed with Blizzard. Not because the game is bad..... No, far from it. The game is great. I had pretty high expectations, and it exceeded them.
I'm disappointed because they are making this much, much too complicated, and they're removing some features that I believe are essential to a multiplayer game. They're releasing what could possibly be the game of the decade, yet it won't be without some changes. And those changes have nothing to do with the actual game-play.....
I mean, I want to be able to go over to a friends house for a LAN, without problems with internet connections. I want to be able to play single-player campaign games when I'm stuck waiting at an airport for a few hours without being charged an arm and a leg for access to the internet (from what I understand, you have to access the internet every time you want to play it). I want to be able to chat with people, and if they're assholes, squelch them. And, with my experience running a CSL team, I can't imagine how difficult it would be to run a tournament without those same chat channels.If I travel to Europe (I have family there), I think it would be nice to be able to connect to the Euro server while I'm there for lower latency, without having to buy a 2nd copy of the game.
I initially pre-ordered a copy of SC2. When I found out how big of a pile of bullshit Blizzard came up with, I cancelled my pre-order. I might get it, but I'll wait and see what Blizzard does with these concerns that I have.
I'd be willing to pay 100+ bucks for the game. It would be well worth it. But, at the moment, it's not worth 60.....
On the bright side, it'll have facebook integration.
|
On June 22 2010 16:41 dybydx wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2010 15:16 dogabutila wrote:On June 22 2010 05:00 illu wrote: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. Different licences and purposes for the software to begin with. Nice try, but your example was too simplistic. On June 22 2010 13:45 Grond wrote: How about banks should be controlled by the government because their executives can behave recklessly and force the taxpayers to give them hundreds of billions of dollars so the economy doesn't collapse? I'm not sure what your experience is with Blizzard but this is not the same Blizzard that put out Starcraft and Warcraft 3. Not the same blizzard, a merger and a BUNCH of personell changes later..... For all those on ~page3 saying being banned from B.net would make it impossible to play the game, incorrect. There will be an offline mode as stated many, many times in blizzard interviews. SP // campaigns will be playable, obviously you wont get achievements and stuff from it though. Just don't do anything questionable or be a dick to people online and you wont get banned anyways. there is an offline mode, but my understanding is you need to connect to bnet server to authenticate each time before you play single player games. Command & Conquer 4 uses the same method of "offline" play.
Its not the same as CnC4. The game will be playable without an internet connection present. Normally when one plays SP, SC2 will connect to authenticate, and then ingame achievements will update your profile online etc. Playing in offline mode will not update your bnet profile.
|
After reading this thread I read both the US ToU and EU ToU. And it's interesting that the EU version has been updated yesterday and some sections have more modifications and explanations. And most of the changes that are suggested by the Korean Fair Trade Commission seem to apply to the EU version.
However, those 2 paragraphs are interesting:
12.4 User Content.“User Content” means any communications, images, sounds, and all the material and information that you upload or transmit through a Game client or the Service, or that other users upload or transmit, including without limitation any chat text. You hereby grant Blizzard a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, paid-up, non-exclusive, license, including the right to sublicense to third parties, and right to reproduce, fix, adapt, modify, translate, reformat, create derivative works from, manufacture, introduce into circulation, publish, distribute, sell, license, sublicense, transfer, rent, lease, transmit, publicly display, publicly perform, or provide access to electronically, broadcast, communicate to the public by telecommunication, display, perform, enter into computer memory, and use and practice such User Content as well as all modified and derivative works thereof. To the extent permitted by applicable laws, you hereby waive any moral rights you may have in any User Content. I guess this means anything from outside the game that you include in any Blizzard game becomes their property, I don't know if this is fair or not.
16.2 Blizzard Television Service. Upon your association of a World of Warcraft or StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty Game license with your Account, or by ordering any online services related to World of Warcraft or StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty, you shall receive as part of the fees paid for the online services, access to the online game(s) and access to a television service (ESL Turtle TV), which is an IP TV service featuring, among other content, Blizzard games, Blizzard products and other Blizzard related content. Anyone knew that? I really never seen this or seen Blizzard giving hints that we may be entitled to such service.
|
deyster,
on the second thought.... the keywords in paragraph 12.4 is "non-exclusive", which means while you allow blizz to sell your user created contents, it does not say only blizzard may sell it.
so technically you, the creator, is still owner of the content, but you simply waived all your rights over it.
part of this make sense, because if you share your map on bnet. obviously blizz will have to let other players to download the map before the game can start.
although blizz's ability of selling the map without mentioning paying the creator is somewhat disturbing.
|
On June 23 2010 18:27 dybydx wrote: deyster,
on the second thought.... the keywords in paragraph 12.4 is "non-exclusive", which means while you allow blizz to sell your user created contents, it does not say only blizzard may sell it.
so technically you, the creator, is still owner of the content, but you simply waived all your rights over it.
part of this make sense, because if you share your map on bnet. obviously blizz will have to let other players to download the map before the game can start.
although blizz's ability of selling the map without mentioning paying the creator is somewhat disturbing. Wow, you have a very exotic definition of the word "owner." I would be excited to hear you elaborate.
|
I bet they're just trying to save their asses from Hot Coffee situations, where the company of the game itself gets blasted because somebody makes a sex-based mod for it. If they have this control, they can bring down the mod without issue.
I really can't see any other reason that Blizzard would demand that kind of control. If its for profit-gain, by stealing people's maps/mods and selling them in a bargain bin, then that's a fantastic way for them to destroy their own company by pissing off their customers beyond the point of redemption.
|
By in large it seems like those are pretty reasonable changes. Didn't go through the whole thread, but I hope this means some of it will be translated to the US ToS.
I think Bibdy hit it on the head.
|
On June 24 2010 05:07 Bibdy wrote: I bet they're just trying to save their asses from Hot Coffee situations, where the company of the game itself gets blasted because somebody makes a sex-based mod for it. If they have this control, they can bring down the mod without issue. That is already covered by another segment of the ToU.
+ Show Spoiler +Content Screening and Disclosure. We do not, and cannot, pre-screen or monitor all User Content. However, our representatives may monitor and/or record your communications (including without limitation chat text) when you are using the Service or playing a Game, and you hereby provide your irrevocable consent to such monitoring and recording. You acknowledge and agree that you have no expectation of privacy concerning the transmission of any User Content, including without limitation chat text or voice communications. We do not assume any responsibility or liability for User Content that is generated by users. We have the right, but not the obligation, in our sole discretion to edit, refuse to post, or remove any User Content. WE ALSO RESERVE THE RIGHT, AT ALL TIMES AND IN OUR SOLE DISCRETION, TO DISCLOSE ANY USER CONTENT AND OTHER INFORMATION (INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION CHAT TEXT, VOICE COMMUNICATIONS, IP ADDRESSES, AND YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION) FOR ANY REASON, including without limitation (a) to satisfy any applicable law, regulation, legal process or governmental request; (b) to enforce the terms of this or any other agreement or Blizzard policy; (c) to protect our legal rights and remedies; (d) where we feel someone's health or safety may be threatened; or (e) to report a crime or other offensive behavior.
|
On June 22 2010 05:06 Half wrote:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +On June 22 2010 02:54 NuKedUFirst wrote:On June 22 2010 02:48 neobowman wrote:On June 22 2010 02:44 NuKedUFirst wrote: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. 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. 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.
Lawlwut indeed. Did you forget we are talking about a country where people play this game professionally and in a super competitive environment while receiving sponsorships from national airlines and huge communication firms? Besides, Its already been done. Boxer's greatest hits.
|
On June 22 2010 22:20 Back wrote: There's a lot more to law than just not enslaving anyone. Business law is extremely complicated and you cannot expect your average customer to be able to, after reading the EULA, understand all the potential loopholes. That's why most developed countries have some sort of agency to protect consumer rights.
The vast majority of peeps don't know the ins and outs of criminal law, such as differences between degrees of murder, castle doctorine, etc. Ignorance is no defense in a court of law.
On June 23 2010 06:46 dybydx wrote:
just because its a contract "agreed upon" by both parties doesnt mean it is legit. there are many situations where a court will not honor the contract even if the terms are not fundamentally wrong.
This is a real example from Microsoft's EULA on Windows 7
"By using the software, you accept these terms. If you do not accept them, do not use the software. Instead, contact the manufacturer or installer to determine its return policy. You must comply with that policy, which might limit your rights or require you to return the entire system on which the software is installed."
So basically, the moment you open a PC and see the EULA, you've already lost your rights, no matter whether you agree (in which case Microsft fucks you over) or disagree with the EULA (in which case the manufacturer fucks you over).
You can purchase a PC without Windows, or construct one from parts. The second portion about return only applies to OEM units with windows pre-installed, otherwise you can indeed return your retail version of windows.
Remember: You don't have a right to a computer, to software, to play games. If you don't like it, don't buy it. I'm personally fine with it because I doubt they will enforce all of the rules, and if they do then I simply won't buy their product anymore. I don't believe there is any stipulation in law that suggestions contracts have to be "fair", since they are bilateral agreements entered into voluntarily, unlike criminal law which is pretty much involuntary.
|
sikyon,
u missed the pt.
when u buy a PC off the fresh off shelf and turn it on, you see that windows 7 EULA pop out. if you click "agree", then u comply to whatever shit Microsoft throw at you. If you click "disagree", the EULA says you then MUST COMPLY to whatever term the manufacturer has against you.
its like answer the following question by clicking the YES or NO button. "Have you stopped having sex with your mother"
btw, there IS such thing as unfair contracts in law. employment contract is a great example. Microsoft once forced an exec to sign a contract agreeing to never work for another employer in the software industry. the court found the contract term to be unfair and ignored the entire contract.
|
I suggest to Blizzard to take The primitives really serius couse if i analize my message what really was a major screw with some organizations will heppen and noone realy wants that.
Bonus TIP: The nagotiations end it up in anoher theat.
+ Show Spoiler + its is not for you don't bug me about it.
|
I totally admire the KFTC for their decision, it is great to see someone looking out for Blizzards users. Our fair trade commission in Australia wouldn't even know what a EULA is
|
On June 24 2010 16:00 dybydx wrote: when u buy a PC off the fresh off shelf and turn it on, you see that windows 7 EULA pop out. if you click "agree", then u comply to whatever shit Microsoft throw at you. If you click "disagree", the EULA says you then MUST COMPLY to whatever term the manufacturer has against you.
its like answer the following question by clicking the YES or NO button. "Have you stopped having sex with your mother"
Heh that's a good analogy. But the thing is that you should also have read the manufacturer's terms when you purchased the unit in the first place... so really you've already agreed to them.
It's YOUR responsibility to protect yourself, because YOU are the one that gets hurt. I hate it when people don't take responsibility for their actions and then complain like they did.
On June 24 2010 16:00 dybydx wrote: btw, there IS such thing as unfair contracts in law. employment contract is a great example. Microsoft once forced an exec to sign a contract agreeing to never work for another employer in the software industry. the court found the contract term to be unfair and ignored the entire contract.
Some areas will only strike down the single clause, some will strike down the whole document and some will reduce it to a reasonable length of time. However, the reason that non-compete agreements are not that legal is because they basically prevent you from making a living. It is not in society's best interests to prevent skilled, qualified people from obtaining employment. And really it's your fault for signing such a non-compete... I always read my hiring documents carefully and I have questioned (to the suprise of the employer) non-compete clauses in my contracts before. They were only restricted to 6 months but clarity is still important.
What I'm saying is that you need to take responsibility for your actions and use common sense. Stop freaking out over nothing. Look at speed limits for example. In many major cities people are fully expected to drive over the speed limit. I remember one experiment where a number of university students drove, parallel to each other accross every lane, exactly the speed limit down the 401 major highway that powers Toronto. Traffic was backed up for miles. If anything, I find this to be more egrarious since you are bound to follow criminal law but it is expected that you will speed on highways... yet you can be fined for it.
|
On June 25 2010 22:17 sikyon wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2010 16:00 dybydx wrote: when u buy a PC off the fresh off shelf and turn it on, you see that windows 7 EULA pop out. if you click "agree", then u comply to whatever shit Microsoft throw at you. If you click "disagree", the EULA says you then MUST COMPLY to whatever term the manufacturer has against you.
its like answer the following question by clicking the YES or NO button. "Have you stopped having sex with your mother"
Heh that's a good analogy. But the thing is that you should also have read the manufacturer's terms when you purchased the unit in the first place... so really you've already agreed to them. It's YOUR responsibility to protect yourself, because YOU are the one that gets hurt. I hate it when people don't take responsibility for their actions and then complain like they did. i disagree with your argument about our own responsibility to protect ourselves.
in the case of SC2, its a video game. clearly, we can not expect under aged minors to be equipped with the necessary legal knowledge to protect themselves. even as adults, its not hard for lawyers to draft confusing contracts with the intention of deceiving customers.
|
There's a reason why in most countries minors aren't allowed to agree to contracts on their own.
People that refuse to take responsibility for their own actions irritate me without end.
|
Is it just me or did two people on the front page get temporarily banned for expressing an opinion that happened to be wrong? Isn't that kind of funny since this whole thread is about users' protections against unfairness? I supposed I may get temporarily banned for pointing this out. =]
|
On June 28 2010 02:14 carwashguy wrote: Is it just me or did two people on the front page get temporarily banned for expressing an opinion that happened to be wrong? Isn't that kind of funny since this whole thread is about users' protections against unfairness? I supposed I may get temporarily banned for pointing this out. =]
I believe they got temp banned because they didn't read, not because they expressed a wrong opinion. The thread already pointed out that they had made the changes (as far as I know)
|
On June 21 2010 16:18 l10f wrote:
Blizzard has since changed their terms and agreements for Battle.net on the 17th according the commission's opinions.
Good for Korea.
|
Grats SK, I hope the other countries TOS will change similarly, but i doubt that it will be a big enough issue for other countries to warrant any kind of real legal squabble.
My general feelings on the mater: It is sad to me that Blizzard has gone so far as to attempt to claim that they own all of this content, how it's used, who can use it, and to what end they are allowed to use the product the customer bought. Imo, game producers and perhaps even producers in general, should only have the exclusive right to sell the finished packaged product. Basically, I don't think that a finished product and related services should be allowed to be force linked to one another, so that you cannot use the finished product without applying only their services as well. Makes me feel like its some sort of pseudo-monopoly, barring any related competition and potential businesses that could arise out of this game that could benefit the economy, that would not be directly profitable to Blizzard, by forcing them to adhere to Blizzard's demands for unreasonable compensation if they were to use a SC2 product as a catalyst for any sort of profitable or non-profit business model. Blizzard is demanding an unjust gain, they seek many more avenues of profit and ways to ensure large sums from their product, than they should deserve or have rights to.
|
@shamanglove
I agree with you in regards to user created maps and posting replays, etc.
However your following statements seem to suggest that a company does not have the right to attempt to prevent unlawful sale or piracy of its products. I may have misintrepeted you in that regard.
|
@Deastin
Well, I'm actually trying to say that's one of the few rights I think Blizzard truly deserves for their products. Not all this extra hocus pocus. I also think that the weak precedent within related law, might have something to do with these sorts of things happening with computer games. Thus, Blizzard seems to be doing whatever it pleases without regard, just seeing what they can get away with.
Continued analogy:
I feel a phone company, that manufactures their own phones and provides a service for them, should not be able to own the conversation you have on their phone through their services and thus be able to record and sell/use your idea's without credit or compensation, just the same as they should not be allowed to force a link between their own product, a phone, and their own personal phone services. Blizzard takes this analogy even farther, claiming that everything that is created out of or a part of SC2 is theirs, meaning that if SC2 is used a a tool to create something it wasn't in it at the start, like a pen to create art or a CG using photoshop, it is owned by the original corporation that sold you the tool even though it had no hands in the knew finished product and, the customer has bought the tool to create it, not borrowed or loaned. The concept is utterly bogus and, results in the product and related services costing the public way more then they should, because competition and the growth of related services/features for the product is more or less completely stunted. (Keep in mind I'm by no means saying phone companies tend to do this or are doing it all the time, I really have no idea, since most seem to be just using incentives and not a TOS when you buy the phone, to get someone to use their services. Just seemed like a good analogy.)
|
This is very very interesting, and I'd want to see if any US court would come to the same conclusions as the KFTC. Especially that last clause in the ToS about being able to terminate service at any time...IANAL and all that, but it seems to me like that would be deemed unconscionable under US contract law (any reasonable legal system, actually). Pretty much that clause states, "OK, when you make a battle.net account, we're going to agree to these things, BUT I get to revoke my end of the promise (delivering the gaming experience) whenever and for whatever reason I wish." That makes the ToS not really a valid contract. It's pretty oppressive and one-sided.
|
On June 21 2010 17:05 Waxangel wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2010 17:01 ZlaSHeR wrote: That's a bold move towards players rights, but that literally opens the doors to KeSPA winning all their arguments under the court of law, there is NO WAY blizzard agrees to removing all this. dude.... a guy just got banned for posting what you just posted -.-
Some people never learn, It is really nice they changed it though.
|
So at the moment the rest of the world does not enjoy these new TOS rights? Is there anything we can do to push for these changes for the rest of the world?
|
The FTC in US will not care what the TOS is because the US does not have an economic interest in the sale of the game in this country. Its "just another game" being sold on shelves among hundreds of games. The federal government is not in place to make any sort of "moral" judgments on how players should be treated by companies. It only enforces laws that are created as the minimum moral standard.
In SK though, starcraft is a major player in the entertainment industry. Leaving the terms as they were would hurt major companies that play a key role in koreas economy. The korean government asking for these changes because the korean government has an interest in protecting its industries. Also the fact that korea has a reputation for using protectionist economic policies, this only lives up to that reputation.
Blizzard has an economic interest in korea as well because it is a significant share of their revenue. To simply ignore the requests would probably result in being excluded from the korean market, which would be a huge mistake on their part.
You people need to realize there is no "player" interest in these changes nor is anything being "made right" for anyone. It is all simply about money, because that is the bottom line in business.
|
On June 30 2010 04:33 shamanglove wrote:+ Show Spoiler +@Deastin
Well, I'm actually trying to say that's one of the few rights I think Blizzard truly deserves for their products. Not all this extra hocus pocus. I also think that the weak precedent within related law, might have something to do with these sorts of things happening with computer games. Thus, Blizzard seems to be doing whatever it pleases without regard, just seeing what they can get away with.
Continued analogy:
I feel a phone company, that manufactures their own phones and provides a service for them, should not be able to own the conversation you have on their phone through their services and thus be able to record and sell/use your idea's without credit or compensation, just the same as they should not be allowed to force a link between their own product, a phone, and their own personal phone services. Blizzard takes this analogy even farther, claiming that everything that is created out of or a part of SC2 is theirs, meaning that if SC2 is used a a tool to create something it wasn't in it at the start, like a pen to create art or a CG using photoshop, it is owned by the original corporation that sold you the tool even though it had no hands in the knew finished product and, the customer has bought the tool to create it, not borrowed or loaned. The concept is utterly bogus and, results in the product and related services costing the public way more then they should, because competition and the growth of related services/features for the product is more or less completely stunted. (Keep in mind I'm by no means saying phone companies tend to do this or are doing it all the time, I really have no idea, since most seem to be just using incentives and not a TOS when you buy the phone, to get someone to use their services. Just seemed like a good analogy.) Actually a better analogy is where documents created by Microsoft Word never will be owned by microsoft even if microsoft decides put that in their EULA. Clear violation of rights.
HOWEVER. I'm sorry folks I studied copyright law so here comes the however. In terms of replay, it is a recording of a game. The important issue is how much of materials Blizzard has provided in order to "create" that replay. To give you an example, what you say in a phone conversation is not limited, you can say anything. In a video game the actions you take are limited by the GUI, units and etc by the video game company. That is to say Blizzard's program directly interacts with a replay and majority portion of what happens in a replay is what "Blizzard" has done. The complication is court will find impossible to determine which parts of the replays are created by the user. Furthermore Blizzard's intention of the replay program is for users to watch what they have done or to show them to other people, not "create" replays.
In terms of UMS, Blizzard is in violating fundamental copyright principles. Anyone could see that the limitations given by the Editor is very little and majority of the portion belongs to the map maker in most cases (usually in custom maps). In this case a person could argue that the the Editor acts like a word processor. Blizzard's intention for the program is giving people the ability to "create" new maps or even games. Blizzard won't have a lot to argue about here if they were to go to court. It's funny because the lawyers who wrote the EULA knows these materials belong to the user. Have a look at this line in EULA regarding the materials created by users.
To the extent permitted by applicable laws, you hereby waive any moral rights you may have in any Content. Sad really, they can write "you hereby waive power of attorney to Blizzard" in their EULA but it doesn't make it applicable.
EDIT:
Okay that makes sense. They made the ToS so that it gives Blizzard "the right" to stop, reject and control all user created contents. Also it gives them right to pursue anyone who wrongfully use the user created content.
Important part and change in ToS 게임내에서 보여지지 않고 게임과 일체화되지 않은 귀하의 이용자 콘텐츠 (예컨대, 일반게시판등에의 게시물)에 대하여는 블리자드가 귀하의 명시적인 동의가 없이 상업적으로 이용하지 않으며, 귀하는 언제든지 이러한 이용자 콘텐츠를 삭제할 수 있습니다. 다만, 이러한 이용이 법률에 의하여 제한을 받을 경우, 블리자드는 해당 법률 규정에 따릅니다.
Blizzard no longer have ownership over them. They just added a condition that people have to abide the general law. Nothing has really changed, just that UMS/replay belong to the map creator now. However people still can't sell them or do anything that violates EULA. Sense of ownership is nice though~~ Also now Blizzard can't "steal" your map idea. Though they probably wouldn't anyway. So nothing has changed. I hope ToS changes for other countries too, I mean we all have the same copyright law, word for word T-T
|
On June 22 2010 00:10 Empyrean wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2010 00:04 MangoTango wrote:On June 21 2010 23:49 Empyrean wrote:On June 21 2010 23:05 MangoTango wrote:On June 21 2010 16:22 Go0g3n wrote: Guess what, a 3rd party Lan Mode is now legal in Korea. What? Where? How? On topic: Best of luck to them, but I have the feeling that Activision will have a word or two to say about this. It's not like KFTC can claim anti-trust, since there are decidedly other games that are eSports. Activision can't say anything about this. The KFTC is a governmental regulatory body, and as such, has complete say in this matter. There's nothing Activision can do to appeal this decision in Korea since the matter isn't under their purview. I'm obviously not an IP lawyer, but can you clarify? The KFTC is a branch of the Korean government. Activision is a primarily US-based, but international company. How does the KFTC have the reach to change Activision's policies? KFTC has the power to change Activision's EULAs in their area of jurisdiction. This is why Blizzard's EULA is changed only in South Korea. Pretty much all regional laws supersede EULAs. Thanks for clearing stuff up for me Empyrean. Thanks for translating l10f.
|
This is very very interesting, and I'd want to see if any US court would come to the same conclusions as the KFTC. Especially that last clause in the ToS about being able to terminate service at any time...IANAL and all that, but it seems to me like that would be deemed unconscionable under US contract law (any reasonable legal system, actually). Pretty much that clause states, "OK, when you make a battle.net account, we're going to agree to these things, BUT I get to revoke my end of the promise (delivering the gaming experience) whenever and for whatever reason I wish." That makes the ToS not really a valid contract. It's pretty oppressive and one-sided.
The service termination clause makes sense for subscription games like WoW where both parties can terminate the contract at any time and stop supplying the other party with money/gametime.
When it comes to games like SC2 where the service is permanent, I'd suspect that you could go to small claims court and get your money back if they terminate your service since if they remove what you paid for, then you're usually entitled to your money.
|
|
|
|