Never call modders as making money off mods as that just complicates things. If that were the case, any user that downloaded the mod off of adfly that could not get the mod to work properly due to intentional code would be allowed to sue modders for financial reimbursment for time lost due to their mod, which would almost certainly exceed the revenue generated from adfly, and that is not a situation we need. Modders do not sell their mods, have not sold there mods, and will never sell their mods because that would open them up to all sorts of litigation that would be outside of Mojangs ability to control. You never say that modders sell there mods, not even in jest or truth, as that is a can of worms we do not need to go into. Whether it is true or not, it does not happen, and anyone that says they are selling there mod is mistaken. Do not travel down this road.
To me, that basically sounds like sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming as loud as you can because you've heard something you don't like. It may not be pretty, but it is a thing. Disclaimers regarding material damage tend to be a thing in a proper use license too. It's why most stuff has such. Even Mojang has such a disclaimer. I would hope other modders have a basic understanding of stuff like this because it's pretty key if one wants to pursue a career in programming.
They could also directly sell them if they wished to.
This is most emphatically not true. It is, in fact, pretty much the only thing both sides have agreed on and the one thing that the EULA is very, very specific about. I'm not sure how you missed this. If there's anything in the realm of mods that would initiate legal action from Mojang, it is this. Why do you think every single modder seeking compensation uses Adfly and donation buttons instead of just selling the mod?
You'd like an example? Sure, just don't anyone download it, it WILL install Malware on your computer: http://buildcraft.net
By the time you download it, and install it, and have the signature check fail (assuming the download actually does install a mod), it's too late. Your computer is already pwnz0rd, and the signature check is pointless.
This is most emphatically not true. It is, in fact, pretty much the only thing both sides have agreed on and the one thing that the EULA is very, very specific about. I'm not sure how you missed this. If there's anything in the realm of mods that would initiate legal action from Mojang, it is this. Why do you think every single modder seeking compensation uses Adfly and donation buttons instead of just selling the mod?
This is most emphatically not true. It is, in fact, pretty much the only thing both sides have agreed on and the one thing that the EULA is very, very specific about. I'm not sure how you missed this. If there's anything in the realm of mods that would initiate legal action from Mojang, it is this. Why do you think every single modder seeking compensation uses Adfly and donation buttons instead of just selling the mod?
Except it is true. No amount of adhesion contracts (take-it-or-leave-it EULAs) can suborn someone's copyright (at least in the US, copyright law does vary in other countries). The only real legal recourse Mojang could take with regard to a modder actively selling their own mod is to ban their account and/or otherwise code their game such that that specific mod can no longer function.
Using something like Adfly is the same as selling the mod directly. If Mojang really doesn't want this to happen they need to have a long talk with Curse about what gets posted on the forums. Donations are a more complex issue because it needs to be clear that donations are not provided to help create/fund or obtain the mod. If users want a feature and a modder says they'll add it after x amount of donations, it's not really donations. It's paying for a service. The kings of wrangling donations, public museums/media, get around this by having people join as members to a society rather than paying for admission to visit a museum or watch a particular program.
That being said, Mojang's advice in their EULA is good advice for someone that's never at least dabbled in getting compensation for their work with respect to programming/art. It can expose you to all sorts of litigation if you do it wrong. If whomever is reading this has been following what I've been saying, chances are good they can take a crack at some professional dabbling and hit up google for further reading on the subject. If not, then don't stick your neck out.
That EULA is wholly irrelevant when the current one maintains that
Modifications to the Game ("Mods") (including pre-run Mods and in-memory Mods) and plugins for the Game also belong to you and you can do whatever you want with them, as long as you don‘t sell them for money / try to make money from them.
And by playing the game you agree to the current ToS and EULA.
I do not want to add more fuel to the fire, and I have NOTHING against modders, but I bet that most of these modders trying to enforce their copyright have, are, or will download a movie, album, software, or game off the internet illegally, which is more damaging (monetarily speaking) than putting a mod in a modpack or updating a mod without permission.
To put this in perspective i went into TPB and looked for the most seeded software torrent. It turns out to be Adobe Photoshop CS6 13. Said software has a list price of $699. There are currently 4661 seeders (or people that already downloaded it and are sharing) and 462 leechers (or people currently downloading it) That makes 5123 the times this software has been illegally downloaded only in this venue. Going by these numbers Adobe has lost $3,580,977. In this situation i can see why copyright must be enforced as businesses make software to EARN money.
Except it is true. No amount of adhesion contracts (take-it-or-leave-it EULAs) can suborn someone's copyright (at least in the US, copyright law does vary in other countries).
And you're accusing other people of sticking their fingers in their ears? See, unlike every single "pro-modder" poster in this thread, I am capable of doing the most minimal amount of research to determine legal precedent to back up my arguments.
In MDY vs Blizzard, the court ruled that people who buy computer games are not legally owners of the product, but licensees, and therefore were required by law to obey the company's EULA. MDY, makers of third-party software for Blizzard products, were found "liable under theories of copyright and tort law for selling software that contributed to the breach of Blizzard's End User License Agreement and Terms of Use."
This is not a one time thing. Blizzard has repeatedly sued and won against people who sell unlicensed products for their games. They are just one of the most visible (and stringent) enforcers of their right to prevent people from making money off of user-created content. Do your own research if you don't believe me. Again, why do you think it is that not one modder directly charges for their mods? Making money with your mods from adfly is still iffy legally, but it obviously isn't the same as directly charging for your mods because there is no actual transaction taking place
If your goal was to frustrate me, consider yourself successful. I'm not used to people just repeating their claims over and over again in the face of a mountain of contradictory evidence.
I do not want to add more fuel to the fire, and I have NOTHING against modders, but I bet that most of these modders trying to enforce their copyright have, are, or will download a movie, album, software, or game off the internet illegally, which is more damaging (monetarily speaking) than putting a mod in a modpack or updating a mod without permission.
To put this in perspective i went into TPB and looked for the most seeded software torrent. It turns out to be Adobe Photoshop CS6 13. Said software has a list price of $699. There are currently 4661 seeders (or people that already downloaded it and are sharing) and 462 leechers (or people currently downloading it) That makes 5123 the times this software has been illegally downloaded only in this venue. Going by these numbers Adobe has lost $3,580,977. In this situation i can see why copyright must be enforced as businesses make software to EARN money.
It's more than that. Even if modders could sue for copyright infringement (and there is absolutely no empirical evidence indicating they can) it is literally impossible for them to sue for damages, because they are legally prohibited from directly profiting from their mods.
Why do you think it is that not one modder directly charges for their mods?
It's mainly not a viable business model. Mojang, as much as they want to believe it, has no say about what I can do with my code. If I violate their ToS/EULA, they can, by all means, block my account or something. But they cannot legally infringe my copyright by for example taking my code and incorporating it into their game without my permission. That's law.
On the other hand I believe that it's for the better if all mods were open source and always with a direct download option. It'd be nice if people weren't dorks. But it's un-enforceable.
And you're accusing other people of sticking their fingers in their ears? See, unlike every single "pro-modder" poster in this thread, I am capable of doing the most minimal amount of research to determine legal precedent to back up my arguments.
I know nothing about the blizzard modding scene, nor do I care. I suspect it's based more around modifying and redistributing blizzard's code rather than creating separate content. Or maybe it's a term of use for their own API. But Minecraft has no API of their own and therefore cannot dictate terms on what people write in their programs, so I went to comparable resources, such as those involved in litigation between content creators for the game Second Life and Linden Labs where authorship is far more clearly defined. Basically nothing can suborn a content creator's rights to do what they will with their content, including selling it. I don't know why you keep insisting that adfly is not the same as selling it, it is. It would most certainly be a source of monetary damage if people started flinging lawsuits around. You probably don't see such lawsuits flinging around because filing small claims actions against unknown parties and then collecting on them is an enormous pain in the ass.
Mojang could put all this in black and white by releasing their own API, dictating terms of use for it, and then banning third party APIs such as Forge and taking measures to prevent any third party program that isn't using their API from interfacing with Minecraft. Until that happens they really have no say in what a modder chooses to do with their own code. Their EULA is only relevant to their own code/service, no matter what it says.
Well, I'm not sure if that is completely true. Mojang owns MineCraft and has granted everyone the right to create Mods for it but only within certain restrictions. They could even have prohibited that and in that case no one would have been allowed to create a mod for MineCraft. So, if a complete No for modding would have worked why a Yes within certain restrictions ("as long as you don‘t sell them for money / try to make money from them") should not work anymore?
That leads to the following result:
The mod itself belongs to the owner / creator. But he has also to follow the license for MineCraft that he was granted. Therefore as long as the owner / creator distributes the mod within the MineCraft world he underlies the permissions and restrictions of the license he was granted, which means that he is for example not allowed to sell his mod for money.
But he can use all parts of his mod (code, assets, ect.) somewhere else without those restrictions. So, if he creates his own game he can use all parts of his mod within that game and sell that game finally without any restrictions.
A complete No wouldn't necessarily have worked. Once again, programs developed without using Minecraft content would still have no obligation to adhere to any terms of use, just the people that using them with the service. And even then, that would only impact users, not modders. This is currently the case in things like Borderlands 2 where save editors exist, legally, under such conditions for the console variations of the game where modding is strictly prohibited.
In order for Minecraft to be able to hold modders to any sort of rules, they must first have modders using their own tools for modding. In other words, there has to be some sort of Minecraft assets for a modder to be using in the first place for there to be terms of use.
To put it in more simplistic terms, Minecraft's EULA applying to a mod made without Minecraft's assets/tools would be like Adobe's EULA applying to Facebook.
Regarding the forced adfly links, how do you download the mod when adfly goes down? I remember at the end of 2011, there was another similar service to adfly called adcraft, which shut down. Now, any mods that used adcraft for the download links, railcraft 1.x.x for example, can't be downloaded any more.
And this is where the real fun starts. As the EULA is a part of the contract I made with Mojang when I bought the game, and Mojang never actively made me accept the newer versions (Or give me the choice to rfuse it/terminate my account as a reaction etc.) I am bound to the EULA when I bought the game, not the one that is active right now. So there isn't even a way Mojang could legally ban my account under my local law, even if I decided to sell a mod. This is the same reason, why blizzard has you accept the eula with each update here in germany...
All I wanna say with that is: things might get even more compliacated then they already are, depending on where the individual person lives, when they bought minecraft etc.
The original EULA states: "We reserve the right to change this agreement at any time with or without notice, with immediate and/or retroactive effect."
Most EULA have a similar clause in order to protect the legality of a EULA should it need to be changed in order to cover new areas or adhere to changes in the law. You will not get far trying to argue this in court. You accept this EULA whenever you actively decide to use Mojang's product, your right to refuse the EULA is tied to your ability to make the decision to not use their product.
I was just reading through the judgement about MDY vs. Blizzard.
As it looks like MDY's developed software Glider was an independently depeloped software that interacted with Blizzards WoW in a way that caused a copyright infringement of at least the EULA of WoW and MDY got sued because of that.
Therefore your statement seems not to be correct to me.
As it looks like also a independently developed software (like that kind of mod you mentioned) can breach another software's EULA and at least cause a contract breach if not a copyright breach if it interacts with the other software in a way that breaches its EULA.
A brief glance at this reveals it to be an apples to oranges comparison. Glider copied the client (copyright violation) in order to avoid anti-cheat software, which Forge mods do not do at all. The only vaguely relevant portion of that case might be the bit concerning tortious interference between Mojang and the User by the modder with respect to inciting the user to damage their relationship via the user breaching the EULA somehow. However, that requires showing some sort of actionable (monetary) harm to Mojang as a result of users using mods.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumTo me, that basically sounds like sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming as loud as you can because you've heard something you don't like. It may not be pretty, but it is a thing. Disclaimers regarding material damage tend to be a thing in a proper use license too. It's why most stuff has such. Even Mojang has such a disclaimer. I would hope other modders have a basic understanding of stuff like this because it's pretty key if one wants to pursue a career in programming.
Are you playing Sleepless Horrors? Let me know what you think!
http://forum.feed-the-beast.com/threads/1-6-4-sleepless-horrors.39181/
This is most emphatically not true. It is, in fact, pretty much the only thing both sides have agreed on and the one thing that the EULA is very, very specific about. I'm not sure how you missed this. If there's anything in the realm of mods that would initiate legal action from Mojang, it is this. Why do you think every single modder seeking compensation uses Adfly and donation buttons instead of just selling the mod?
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumBy the time you download it, and install it, and have the signature check fail (assuming the download actually does install a mod), it's too late. Your computer is already pwnz0rd, and the signature check is pointless.
Specific, yet clearly not enforced.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse Premium-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse Premiumhttp://web.archive.org/web/20110923135753/http://www.minecraft.net/terms
Quite impressed you even managed to read it in those 10 seconds before you replied
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumExcept it is true. No amount of adhesion contracts (take-it-or-leave-it EULAs) can suborn someone's copyright (at least in the US, copyright law does vary in other countries). The only real legal recourse Mojang could take with regard to a modder actively selling their own mod is to ban their account and/or otherwise code their game such that that specific mod can no longer function.
Using something like Adfly is the same as selling the mod directly. If Mojang really doesn't want this to happen they need to have a long talk with Curse about what gets posted on the forums. Donations are a more complex issue because it needs to be clear that donations are not provided to help create/fund or obtain the mod. If users want a feature and a modder says they'll add it after x amount of donations, it's not really donations. It's paying for a service. The kings of wrangling donations, public museums/media, get around this by having people join as members to a society rather than paying for admission to visit a museum or watch a particular program.
That being said, Mojang's advice in their EULA is good advice for someone that's never at least dabbled in getting compensation for their work with respect to programming/art. It can expose you to all sorts of litigation if you do it wrong. If whomever is reading this has been following what I've been saying, chances are good they can take a crack at some professional dabbling and hit up google for further reading on the subject. If not, then don't stick your neck out.
Are you playing Sleepless Horrors? Let me know what you think!
http://forum.feed-the-beast.com/threads/1-6-4-sleepless-horrors.39181/
That EULA is wholly irrelevant when the current one maintains that
And by playing the game you agree to the current ToS and EULA.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumTo put this in perspective i went into TPB and looked for the most seeded software torrent. It turns out to be Adobe Photoshop CS6 13. Said software has a list price of $699. There are currently 4661 seeders (or people that already downloaded it and are sharing) and 462 leechers (or people currently downloading it) That makes 5123 the times this software has been illegally downloaded only in this venue. Going by these numbers Adobe has lost $3,580,977. In this situation i can see why copyright must be enforced as businesses make software to EARN money.
And you're accusing other people of sticking their fingers in their ears? See, unlike every single "pro-modder" poster in this thread, I am capable of doing the most minimal amount of research to determine legal precedent to back up my arguments.
In MDY vs Blizzard, the court ruled that people who buy computer games are not legally owners of the product, but licensees, and therefore were required by law to obey the company's EULA. MDY, makers of third-party software for Blizzard products, were found "liable under theories of copyright and tort law for selling software that contributed to the breach of Blizzard's End User License Agreement and Terms of Use."
This is not a one time thing. Blizzard has repeatedly sued and won against people who sell unlicensed products for their games. They are just one of the most visible (and stringent) enforcers of their right to prevent people from making money off of user-created content. Do your own research if you don't believe me. Again, why do you think it is that not one modder directly charges for their mods? Making money with your mods from adfly is still iffy legally, but it obviously isn't the same as directly charging for your mods because there is no actual transaction taking place
If your goal was to frustrate me, consider yourself successful. I'm not used to people just repeating their claims over and over again in the face of a mountain of contradictory evidence.
It's more than that. Even if modders could sue for copyright infringement (and there is absolutely no empirical evidence indicating they can) it is literally impossible for them to sue for damages, because they are legally prohibited from directly profiting from their mods.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumIt's mainly not a viable business model. Mojang, as much as they want to believe it, has no say about what I can do with my code. If I violate their ToS/EULA, they can, by all means, block my account or something. But they cannot legally infringe my copyright by for example taking my code and incorporating it into their game without my permission. That's law.
On the other hand I believe that it's for the better if all mods were open source and always with a direct download option. It'd be nice if people weren't dorks. But it's un-enforceable.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumI know nothing about the blizzard modding scene, nor do I care. I suspect it's based more around modifying and redistributing blizzard's code rather than creating separate content. Or maybe it's a term of use for their own API. But Minecraft has no API of their own and therefore cannot dictate terms on what people write in their programs, so I went to comparable resources, such as those involved in litigation between content creators for the game Second Life and Linden Labs where authorship is far more clearly defined. Basically nothing can suborn a content creator's rights to do what they will with their content, including selling it. I don't know why you keep insisting that adfly is not the same as selling it, it is. It would most certainly be a source of monetary damage if people started flinging lawsuits around. You probably don't see such lawsuits flinging around because filing small claims actions against unknown parties and then collecting on them is an enormous pain in the ass.
Mojang could put all this in black and white by releasing their own API, dictating terms of use for it, and then banning third party APIs such as Forge and taking measures to prevent any third party program that isn't using their API from interfacing with Minecraft. Until that happens they really have no say in what a modder chooses to do with their own code. Their EULA is only relevant to their own code/service, no matter what it says.
Are you playing Sleepless Horrors? Let me know what you think!
http://forum.feed-the-beast.com/threads/1-6-4-sleepless-horrors.39181/
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumSlowpoke discussed this on reddit, and grum supported the answer.
http://www.reddit.com/r/feedthebeast/comments/1w2v2i/marc_irl_says_the_mojang_eula_forbids_modders_to/ceym27l
The content part doesn't apply to mods.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumA complete No wouldn't necessarily have worked. Once again, programs developed without using Minecraft content would still have no obligation to adhere to any terms of use, just the people that using them with the service. And even then, that would only impact users, not modders. This is currently the case in things like Borderlands 2 where save editors exist, legally, under such conditions for the console variations of the game where modding is strictly prohibited.
In order for Minecraft to be able to hold modders to any sort of rules, they must first have modders using their own tools for modding. In other words, there has to be some sort of Minecraft assets for a modder to be using in the first place for there to be terms of use.
To put it in more simplistic terms, Minecraft's EULA applying to a mod made without Minecraft's assets/tools would be like Adobe's EULA applying to Facebook.
Are you playing Sleepless Horrors? Let me know what you think!
http://forum.feed-the-beast.com/threads/1-6-4-sleepless-horrors.39181/
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumThe original EULA states: "We reserve the right to change this agreement at any time with or without notice, with immediate and/or retroactive effect."
Most EULA have a similar clause in order to protect the legality of a EULA should it need to be changed in order to cover new areas or adhere to changes in the law. You will not get far trying to argue this in court. You accept this EULA whenever you actively decide to use Mojang's product, your right to refuse the EULA is tied to your ability to make the decision to not use their product.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumA brief glance at this reveals it to be an apples to oranges comparison. Glider copied the client (copyright violation) in order to avoid anti-cheat software, which Forge mods do not do at all. The only vaguely relevant portion of that case might be the bit concerning tortious interference between Mojang and the User by the modder with respect to inciting the user to damage their relationship via the user breaching the EULA somehow. However, that requires showing some sort of actionable (monetary) harm to Mojang as a result of users using mods.
Are you playing Sleepless Horrors? Let me know what you think!
http://forum.feed-the-beast.com/threads/1-6-4-sleepless-horrors.39181/