Who comes up with these idiotic names?
I don't know who, but I do know when. IE 8 introduced the X-ua-compatible header. "Use the following value to display the webpage in edge mode, which is the highest standards mode supported by Internet Explorer."
You even see plenty of Flash content around
That's in part because it took so long to make visual editors for animated SVG and HTML5 Canvas that were comparable to Flash MX, let alone Flash CS. And Edge Animate, the HTML5 animation tool from the maker of Flash, is available only on a rental model, not a purchase model. So things like animutations and Weebl's Stuff still tend to depend on Flash.
.net is inferior to javascript
In what way?
One advantage of the
The
If not on the Internet, then on what means of delivery does video produced for profit belong?
Who would want an x-box anyway?
To play games that are exclusive to an Xbox platform or games that are released on Xbox and PlayStation platforms but not PC. Or because a video game console can be cheaper and easier to operate than a comparable gaming PC.
Pirating software means having to make a bit-for-bit copy with enough changes that it runs without DRM.
The video game Mino was not a bit-for-bit copy of Tetris but was still ruled pirated.
cite an instance of Blizzard either demanding money for a tourney or denying someone a right to have a tourney.
From the article "Crafting an Industry: An Analysis of Korean Starcraft and Intellectual Properties Law" by Jacob Rogers:
From 2007 to 2011, Starcraft was actually involved in a controversy regarding its broadcasting rights. This began with requests for fees from Blizzard and culminated in a settled lawsuit in 2011.
The lawsuit began with a disagreement between Blizzard Entertainment and the Korean broadcasters over licensing rights to Starcraft television broadcasts. Shacknews, a games review and journalism website, reported that according to Blizzard CEO, Mike Morhaime, the company had begun to negotiate with KeSPA in 2007 in order to “get them to recognize [Blizzard’s] IP rights.” Blizzard further clarified the meaning of “IP rights” in an open letter written to the Korean e-sports community on May 27th, 2010. In this letter, Mike Morhaime explained that Blizzard was dismayed that KeSPA had sold broadcasting rights without Blizzard’s permission. Blizzard therefore chose to bypass KeSPA and license its rights to Starcraft and Starcraft II to Gretech Corporation, which broadcasted games under the name Gom TV.
Blizzard provided the other television stations a grace period lasting until August 2010, after which it would require them to cease broadcasting altogether. KeSPA prevented Gretech from running any leagues by forbidding all the teams from sending any players to the Gretech leagues. Blizzard responded to these moves by breaking off negotiations entirely, then filing suit in October 2010, first against MBC and then against OGN and KeSPA. The parties settled in mediation in the summer of 2011 and now the companies have a 2-year agreement in place for broadcasting rights.
So yes, Blizzard filed a lawsuit against a broadcaster of a tournament.
No one needs Blizzard's permission to have a SC tourney
Blizzard disagrees. It filed suit.
No one needs Blizzard's permission to have a SC tourney
Technically they do, at least if they're streaming the tourney to the public. The graphics of StarCraft and StarCraft II are copyrighted.
so... again... what is the restriction?
It's considered performing the video game publicly. Video games are considered audiovisual works in U.S. copyright law, and the owner of copyright in an audiovisual work has the exclusive right to perform that work publicly. Doing so without express permission is copyright infringement, as if you were offering to stream . Please see the article "Why Nintendo can legally shut down any Smash Bros. tournament it wants" by Kyle Orland and this appellate brief from a moot court.
This lack or presence of ownership allows or disallows you from doing what exactly?
The lack of ownership of a sport allows a competing league to begin operation without having to first seek permission from the owner of the sport. This allows for competition among leagues.
The kids need to buy baseballs and bats.
From any of several competing equipment manufacturers. Only Blizzard can sell copies of StarCraft.
And if you play professionally you're going to sign on with an official team or you won't be professional.
In any of several competing leagues, not just the one endorsed by the owner of a sport.
Then seal arrest records six months after a person leaves custody.
A knowingly false DMCA claim is perjury. A copyright owner that cries wolf with the big megaphone of the DMCA could be looking at doing hard time.
I think the idea is that too many Carols and Bob ought to lose the right to cry wolf against Alice.
But again, the scene speaks for itself in that it has:
...copyright strikes from a game's publisher against a league for broadcasting the league's matches.
That's the one big difference between physical sports and electronic sports: electronic sports are almost always non-free. See "Why Nintendo can legally shut down any Smash Bros. tournament it wants" by Kyle Orland.
Activision Blizzard owns the exclusive rights to its games [...] Publishers [can] deny a license entirely and shut down a tournament's stream. [...] By contrast [...] Baseball leagues independent of MLB have existed and continue to exist.
that is different from professional sports in what way?
I just explained that. In professional sports, no entity has a government-granted exclusive right that lets it act as a gatekeeper for that sport. MLB has no power to prohibit another league unaffiliated with MLB from forming, playing baseball, and selling tickets to watch the match or stream matches on Twitch. Nor did the USFL and XFL need the NFL's permission to commence operations. Broadcast a video game, on the other hand, and expect a copyright strike.
THEGODDESSOFTHENETHASTWISTINGFINGERSANDHERVOICEISLIKEAJAVELININTHENIGHTDUDE
