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.
The original MDY vs. Blizzard ruling was absurd frankly. The appeal was better.
The original Court ruled in favor of Blizzard on terms of tortious interference (violating the EULA), contributory copyright infringement (allowing the users to infringe by violating the EULA), and vicarious copyright infringement (profiting from enabling infringement via DRM circumvention).
The appeal backed off a fair bit and ruled that Glider violated the Digital Millenium Copyright Act by circumventing Blizzards Digital Rights Management code, but didn't actually infringe or facilitate infringement. The tortious interference (violation of the EULA) was remanded (sent back for a new judgement), but it doesn't appear that a new judgement was ever made. Since this is the clause you are basing your argument on, you appear to be standing on a pillar of sand. I'd suggest finding a more relevant case of tortious interference to base your arguments on.
Yeah, you might be right about that it is indeed an apples to oranges comparison.
But I just wanted to point out that also a independently written software can breach the EULA of another software and the owner of said software can be sued because of that especially if that breach was caused intentional.
Except no judgement was ever made in that case as to whether Glider actually violated the EULA.
Yeah, you might be right about that it is indeed an apples to oranges comparison.
But I just wanted to point out that also a independently written software can breach the EULA of another software and the owner of said software can be sued because of that especially if that breach was caused intentional.
Well no. See a EULA is an End User License Agreement. It, by itself, has no power to say anything to a 3rd party that is not a party to the agreement (not an End User, therefore no agreement, therefore no possibility of breach). If modders somehow caused tort (harm) to Mojang by their actions, Mojang could sue them for that, but it would have nothing to do with the EULA.
I think Mojang needs to revisit the language of their EULA, perhaps do it more professionally, and really think about what they want to do with modding. If they truly want to be able to say modders can't sell their mods, they need to release their own API, make it a condition of using that API (thus an applicable EULA), and block everything else. Then version updates will take care of obsoleting everything not on their API over time. No idea if that's what they really want or not.
For those saying that mods are self actualized, most mods require vanilla items such as wood and ores which are not by themselves provided through the mod. They are entirely dependent upon the base game and could not function properly on there own even if they could be run outside of minecraft. Minecraft base provides all the basic resources that most mods are based upon and these resources are absolutely required to use these mods.
For those saying that mods are self actualized, most mods require vanilla items such as wood and ores which are not by themselves provided through the mod. They are entirely dependent upon the base game and could not function properly on there own even if they could be run outside of minecraft. Minecraft base provides all the basic resources that most mods are based upon and these resources are absolutely required to use these mods.
Except that they don't. A recipe doesn't include the Minecraft assets, it refers to them. There's a big difference. That's basically the point of Forge as an API. To do modding without violating copyright.
That's basically the point of Forge as an API. To do modding without violating copyright.
If you really think that this is the whole point of forge, you quite clearly haven't been part of the modding community for just about any time at all.
Forge has nothing to do with copyright. The point of forge was to make mods compatible. Mods used to either add jack squat and only require modloader, or add game changing mechanics and use a ton of baseclass edits to work. Spacetoad, the former buildcraft maintainer, didn't like that, and so he made an API and had buildcraft use it instead of editing base classes. He invited other people to use it, although it wasn't very popular for a while. It didn't really pick up steam until some big name mods started using it, like Industrialcraft and Equivalent Exchange. It had nothing to do with copyright. It was never intended to do what it does now.
Mods are legally allowed to be distributed, because Mojang allows it. Mods are derivative of Minecraft, no matter what. Try to run forge without using Minecraft.
Mods are legally allowed to be distributed, because Mojang allows it. Mods are derivative of Minecraft, no matter what. Try to run forge without using Minecraft.
I wonder how many times this argument's been said. I'll repeat the counter-argument here for you: Try to run Minecraft without using Java.
I wonder how many times this argument's been said. I'll repeat the counter-argument here for you: Try to run Minecraft without using Java.
That isn't a very good argument because there is not only one JVM, and Java's license says you own what you make. There is only one Minecraft, and Minecraft's license is pretty goddamn vague and says very little on the matter, although that mods are derivative is implied. You can't be bound to Oracle's license if you wrote your software entirely on some other implementation that you only used. There is no other option here, you are bound to Minecraft's license, and as I said it's pretty vague, but it has some stuff that implies that since it's free you can't do about what people do with it.
Not to mention that licensing mods is anyways, because these are downloaded internationally. Your fancy pants copyright law in your country might not be the same as in other countries, and the lack of any monetary damages makes copyright totally pointless anyways. Why the does it matter if you have copyright on a mod if that copyright doesn't apply in many countries? Why does it matter if the only way to protect copyright is to sue, and suing requires proof of monetary damage?
No, it's because Mojang could sue them until their great-grandkids are bankrupt. If it were legal, a mod like, say, Twilight Forest could easily charge $5 per download given how much content it adds to the game. I'd love to see a modder try this.
People, just remember that modders have a vested interest in ignoring and shouting over any evidence that suggests that they cannot win a lawsuit against you, or that they would lose a lawsuit if they tried to sell their own mod, which would indicate ownership.
This is only relevant because to many people unfamiliar with legal proceedings, the threat of legal action is functionally equivalent to legal action itself.
Just remember this: No modder will ever, ever take you to court for taking credit for their Minecraft mod and using Adfly with it, let alone for putting their mod in a modpack. All the "legal threats" and DMCA notices in the world mean nothing if they do not sue you, which they won't. (Major corporations have been ordered to pay the defendant's legal fees and even damages in cases where DMCA suits are deemed to be vexatious.)
Why should this matter to modders? Well, it's because once you finally come to terms with the fact that you can't sue people for copyright infringement - and I really have no idea what evidence it would take to convince you people of this - it means that you can finally dispense with the illusion that having support and respect from the community doesn't matter, that the community can think you're an awful human being and still do what you say with regards to your mod. That support and respect is literally the only thing that will actually keep people from using your mods in ways of which you don't approve.
There might be a misunderstanding here.
Just because a company like Blizzard is allowed to define the rules about modding for the product they own - for example to prohibit that you can make money with a mod you create for their product - that does not mean that they own that mod by default.
So, if Blzzard did not demand in their EULA that they claim ownership over any mod that might be created for their product that mod created by MDY belongs to (is owned by) MDY. But Blizzard might have prohibited to make money with a mod / addon for their product in their EULA and by trying to do so MDY did breach Blizzards EULA and got sued for that.
MDY is still allowed to use the code from their mod somewhere else, maybe within a game they develop.
Yes, the misunderstanding is that that particular case wasn't intended to suggest that Blizzard actually owns the Glider code, but that the EULA does have legal standing in determining how Blizzard can enforce their copyright with regards to unauthorized third-party software.
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.
I'm not sure why you're still trying to argue the subject if you concede that you don't know what you're talking about.
The larger copyright issue is kind of moot here, since you seem to be satisfied with the vaunted "brick wall" line of argument, but as a sidenote to anyone else paying attention, I did my own research into the Second Life litigation, and there are two key differences. The first is that it was the userbase suing the company for not protecting their digital property, not the company suing users for selling their work or users suing other users for property violations,
The second differentiating factor, which is both resultant of the first and the most important, is that Second Life was marketed in part as a real-world investment tool. You bought real estate or whatever, then when your neighborhood got gentrified (or whatever) and you could resell the real estate for a real-world profit. Therefore, Second Life's users had a direct financial investment in their digital property and the company had to follow up on the selling points it promised to potential users; the fact that it didn't allowed for the possibility of a class action lawsuit. Minecraft is the exact opposite, because you have literally signed a contract agreeing not to profit from content you create for the game. (Who wants to guess how long it will be before I have to restate this in an even simpler way for one of these self-proclaimed legal experts?)
Obviously your code/assets are your intellectual property so someone just bluntly 'offering it' on another location other than the one you've decided it should be available from should fall under regular 'law' (and thus likely not being legal).
The Minecraft EULA says:
Any tools you write for the Game from scratch belong to you. . 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.
No modder will ever, ever take you to court for taking credit for their Minecraft mod and using Adfly with it, let alone for putting their mod in a modpack. All the "legal threats" and DMCA notices in the world mean nothing if they do not sue you, which they won't.
A DMCA takedown notice does mean something. At least for companies in the united states, the DMCA only protects them if they promptly remove the possibly infringing material. Meaning that it'll be unavailable at least for the amount of time it takes to file a counter notification and for 10 to 14 buisness days afterwards. A court is only involved if the copyright owner wants to keep the possibly-infringing content blocked after the uploader has filed a counter notification.
Also, if you knowingly misrepresent that it is not infringing (as part of filing a counter notice), you get to pay their fees.
So, make sure you know what country the files are being hosted in, or at least take the time to read the relevant parts of the DMCA before saying it doesn't matter.
CraftGuide, recipe viewer with a scrollbar! (Resizable window, too, if you prefer playing with a smaller GUI scale and are tired of GUIs only occupying a tiny square in the centre)
No, it's because Mojang could sue them until their great-grandkids are bankrupt. If it were legal, a mod like, say, Twilight Forest could easily charge $5 per download given how much content it adds to the game. I'd love to see a modder try this.People, just remember that modders have a vested interest in ignoring and shouting over any evidence that suggests that they cannot win a lawsuit against you, or that they would lose a lawsuit if they tried to sell their own mod, which would indicate ownership.This is only relevant because to many people unfamiliar with legal proceedings, the threat of legal action is functionally equivalent to legal action itself.
Although little to do with copyright, I'd just like to take the opportunity to point out that there's people out there making - in some cases - over a million USD from modding - a different type of modding, but still breaking the EULA in more than one place. Some of the pay-to-win mini-game servers even hire their own team of mod developers.
make commercial use of anything we‘ve made;
try to make money from anything we‘ve made; or
let other people get access to anything we‘ve made in a way that is unfair or unreasonable.
It often seems to be that forge modders are the only group who are not making money from minecraft, (while keeping millions of people interested in the game and no doubt attracting many too!).
Anyway, this is less to do with copyright, so please, continue.... ;-)
(Edit: and on a personal note, clearly I have no interest in making money from modding the game as my mods have always been open source. However, I do feel there's a massive double standard there, and find it quite frustrating to regularly see such focus on those evil modders making their $20/month from ad.fly and whatever else when there's people out there charging money to name a pet.)
If you really think that this is the whole point of forge, you quite clearly haven't been part of the modding community for just about any time at all.
I am relatively new to modding for Minecraft, however I have actually used Forge to develop a mod and it serves the purpose of not violating Mojang's copyright. I wouldn't use it if it did violate anyone's copyright. Perhaps you should download it yourself and set up a development environment and show me the assets that Forge includes illegally.
I'm not sure why you're still trying to argue the subject if you concede that you don't know what you're talking about.
The comparison was apples to oranges. It's not a relevant reference.
The larger copyright issue is kind of moot here, since you seem to be satisfied with the vaunted "brick wall" line of argument, but as a sidenote to anyone else paying attention, I did my own research into the Second Life litigation, and there are two key differences. The first is that it was the userbase suing the company for not protecting their digital property, not the company suing users for selling their work or users suing other users for property violations,
Then you missed several dozen other cases. User content in Second Life can consist of custom designed objects, textures, scripting and audio/video and gets placed into the world similar to how Mod added blocks can be used in Minecraft. The content creators retain rights to their work in both cases, which is why they're much more of an Apples to Apples comparison when someone sets about trying to violate a creator's copyright. What's downright offensive is people like yourself trying to tell creators that they have no rights to their work and that it is okay for other people to steal them. It's not okay. At all. At least some in Mojang know that this interpretation is incorrect. Further, even if that's what they intended, no amount of idiocy in a EULA overrides law.
One thing a few folks are overlooking is in order to earn or be granted the right to modify MineCraft you have to get a valid license to use MineCraft first (for example by buying it).
Therefore the MineCraft EULA applies to the mod author himself and by playing MineCraft and / or modding it he accept it.
It is not necessary to own or play Minecraft to create mods for it. And as I've explained, in detail earlier, one's own content created outside of Minecraft cannot be subject to a EULA because Mojang does not currently offer any tools to mod with that they could require agreement to use.
And your example was silly. It would be like getting sued for the Sign. Anyone can place it down and write whatever they want on it. If one user wants to defame another user, that's up to them to work out between each other just like everywhere else. Whether that's done with vanilla blocks or mod added blocks is irrelevant.
Mods are legally allowed to be distributed, because Mojang allows it. Mods are derivative of Minecraft, no matter what. Try to run forge without using Minecraft.
Let me quote myself from earlier, as some people don't seem to have seen it yet:
Except it's a work that requires interacting with the actual code of Minecraft, requires running an instance of Minecraft, and the actual gameplay consists of all of the core gameplay of Minecraft and whatever you add.
You could literally install a thousand mods and just play vanilla Minecraft with the mods installed. It's derivative of Minecraft.
So what you're saying is that mods loaded from an API, not containing any official Minecraft code besides references to the game's class files (Forge mods are good examples here) are derivative works of Minecraft. The Forge mods are simply jar or zip files that you put in a folder, and Forge loads them. The mods are dependent on Minecraft to work properly.
Now, please go tell Mojang that Minecraft is a derivative work of those of Google, Apache etc. because Minecraft utilizes their APIs (log4j, guava etc) in the same way Forge mods utilize Minecraft.
I AM NOT YOUR PERSONAL MINECRAFT MOD SUPPORT AGENT, SO PLEASE DO NOT PM ME ABOUT PROBLEMATIC MODS THAT ARE NOT MINE. If you're having trouble/crashes with a mod, you'll have better luck resolving it in this forum section than PMing me. If you already made a topic, be patient about responses. If you have troubles with anything non-Minecraft related on your PC, I might be able to help, though, but no promises. Even though I could wish to be, I'm not a wizard.
The only thing I see different there is that if you publish your mod to be used within MineCraft you are not allowed to sell it to other users of MineCraft to be used within MineCraft. And you have to own a valid license of MineCraft to be allowed to publish your mod to be used within MineCraft. But this little restrictions do not mean that you loose any other rights to your mod. It is still your intellectual property and you can do anywhere else what you want with it including selling it.
If it's my intellectual property and I can sell it one place, I can sell it anyplace for anything for any reason. If you want restrictions on where and to who it can be sold, it has to be your intellectual property in the first place or the restriction has to be an actual restriction in law (ex: export of certain encryptions, sale of specifically regulated substances, etc). If it's not my property, I can't sell it in any place anyway.
As I see it Mojang is indeed allowed to define general restrictions that affect everyone regarding what you can do with and / or within MineCraft because they own MineCraft. But of course also they are limited by law there.
The point is that by default you do not even own a little piece of right to do anything with MineCraft until you own a valid license of it.
You never really have a right to do anything with Minecraft with respect to its IP, not even if you have a valid license. Just like Minecraft has no say over stuff that isn't their IP.
Hey, in the real world outside no one (who wants to live in accordance with the law) would do things that affect stuff they do not own. Or would you paint the house or the car of your neighbour in a different colour (if you don't own that stuff of course) just because you don't like it the way it is (or pay a painter to do this)? You might get into big troubles if you do that.
An apt analogy would be that telling me I can't sell a mod is basically telling me I can't sell my own house because you don't want the people who want to buy it to live there. Modding done right doesn't touch Mojang's IP. It's nothing at all like painting someone else's car/house.
Although little to do with copyright, I'd just like to take the opportunity to point out that there's people out there making - in some cases - over a million USD from modding - a different type of modding, but still breaking the EULA in more than one place. Some of the pay-to-win mini-game servers even hire their own team of mod developers.
make commercial use of anything we‘ve made;
try to make money from anything we‘ve made; or
let other people get access to anything we‘ve made in a way that is unfair or unreasonable.
It often seems to be that forge modders are the only group who are not making money from minecraft, (while keeping millions of people interested in the game and no doubt attracting many too!).
Anyway, this is less to do with copyright, so please, continue.... ;-)
(Edit: and on a personal note, clearly I have no interest in making money from modding the game as my mods have always been open source. However, I do feel there's a massive double standard there, and find it quite frustrating to regularly see such focus on those evil modders making their $20/month from ad.fly and whatever else when there's people out there charging money to name a pet.)
Leave britney modders alone! ;-)
Hey Mikee where is this behavior happening? it needs to be reported as the EULA covers everyone of us.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumThe original MDY vs. Blizzard ruling was absurd frankly. The appeal was better.
The original Court ruled in favor of Blizzard on terms of tortious interference (violating the EULA), contributory copyright infringement (allowing the users to infringe by violating the EULA), and vicarious copyright infringement (profiting from enabling infringement via DRM circumvention).
The appeal backed off a fair bit and ruled that Glider violated the Digital Millenium Copyright Act by circumventing Blizzards Digital Rights Management code, but didn't actually infringe or facilitate infringement. The tortious interference (violation of the EULA) was remanded (sent back for a new judgement), but it doesn't appear that a new judgement was ever made. Since this is the clause you are basing your argument on, you appear to be standing on a pillar of sand. I'd suggest finding a more relevant case of tortious interference to base your arguments on.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumExcept no judgement was ever made in that case as to whether Glider actually violated the EULA.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumWell no. See a EULA is an End User License Agreement. It, by itself, has no power to say anything to a 3rd party that is not a party to the agreement (not an End User, therefore no agreement, therefore no possibility of breach). If modders somehow caused tort (harm) to Mojang by their actions, Mojang could sue them for that, but it would have nothing to do with the EULA.
I think Mojang needs to revisit the language of their EULA, perhaps do it more professionally, and really think about what they want to do with modding. If they truly want to be able to say modders can't sell their mods, they need to release their own API, make it a condition of using that API (thus an applicable EULA), and block everything else. Then version updates will take care of obsoleting everything not on their API over time. No idea if that's what they really want or not.
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 PremiumExcept that they don't. A recipe doesn't include the Minecraft assets, it refers to them. There's a big difference. That's basically the point of Forge as an API. To do modding without violating copyright.
Are you playing Sleepless Horrors? Let me know what you think!
http://forum.feed-the-beast.com/threads/1-6-4-sleepless-horrors.39181/
If you really think that this is the whole point of forge, you quite clearly haven't been part of the modding community for just about any time at all.
Forge has nothing to do with copyright. The point of forge was to make mods compatible. Mods used to either add jack squat and only require modloader, or add game changing mechanics and use a ton of baseclass edits to work. Spacetoad, the former buildcraft maintainer, didn't like that, and so he made an API and had buildcraft use it instead of editing base classes. He invited other people to use it, although it wasn't very popular for a while. It didn't really pick up steam until some big name mods started using it, like Industrialcraft and Equivalent Exchange. It had nothing to do with copyright. It was never intended to do what it does now.
Mods are legally allowed to be distributed, because Mojang allows it. Mods are derivative of Minecraft, no matter what. Try to run forge without using Minecraft.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumI wonder how many times this argument's been said. I'll repeat the counter-argument here for you: Try to run Minecraft without using Java.
That isn't a very good argument because there is not only one JVM, and Java's license says you own what you make. There is only one Minecraft, and Minecraft's license is pretty goddamn vague and says very little on the matter, although that mods are derivative is implied. You can't be bound to Oracle's license if you wrote your software entirely on some other implementation that you only used. There is no other option here, you are bound to Minecraft's license, and as I said it's pretty vague, but it has some stuff that implies that since it's free you can't do about what people do with it.
Not to mention that licensing mods is anyways, because these are downloaded internationally. Your fancy pants copyright law in your country might not be the same as in other countries, and the lack of any monetary damages makes copyright totally pointless anyways. Why the does it matter if you have copyright on a mod if that copyright doesn't apply in many countries? Why does it matter if the only way to protect copyright is to sue, and suing requires proof of monetary damage?
No, it's because Mojang could sue them until their great-grandkids are bankrupt. If it were legal, a mod like, say, Twilight Forest could easily charge $5 per download given how much content it adds to the game. I'd love to see a modder try this.
People, just remember that modders have a vested interest in ignoring and shouting over any evidence that suggests that they cannot win a lawsuit against you, or that they would lose a lawsuit if they tried to sell their own mod, which would indicate ownership.
This is only relevant because to many people unfamiliar with legal proceedings, the threat of legal action is functionally equivalent to legal action itself.
Just remember this: No modder will ever, ever take you to court for taking credit for their Minecraft mod and using Adfly with it, let alone for putting their mod in a modpack. All the "legal threats" and DMCA notices in the world mean nothing if they do not sue you, which they won't. (Major corporations have been ordered to pay the defendant's legal fees and even damages in cases where DMCA suits are deemed to be vexatious.)
Why should this matter to modders? Well, it's because once you finally come to terms with the fact that you can't sue people for copyright infringement - and I really have no idea what evidence it would take to convince you people of this - it means that you can finally dispense with the illusion that having support and respect from the community doesn't matter, that the community can think you're an awful human being and still do what you say with regards to your mod. That support and respect is literally the only thing that will actually keep people from using your mods in ways of which you don't approve.
Yes, the misunderstanding is that that particular case wasn't intended to suggest that Blizzard actually owns the Glider code, but that the EULA does have legal standing in determining how Blizzard can enforce their copyright with regards to unauthorized third-party software.
I'm not sure why you're still trying to argue the subject if you concede that you don't know what you're talking about.
The larger copyright issue is kind of moot here, since you seem to be satisfied with the vaunted "brick wall" line of argument, but as a sidenote to anyone else paying attention, I did my own research into the Second Life litigation, and there are two key differences. The first is that it was the userbase suing the company for not protecting their digital property, not the company suing users for selling their work or users suing other users for property violations,
The second differentiating factor, which is both resultant of the first and the most important, is that Second Life was marketed in part as a real-world investment tool. You bought real estate or whatever, then when your neighborhood got gentrified (or whatever) and you could resell the real estate for a real-world profit. Therefore, Second Life's users had a direct financial investment in their digital property and the company had to follow up on the selling points it promised to potential users; the fact that it didn't allowed for the possibility of a class action lawsuit. Minecraft is the exact opposite, because you have literally signed a contract agreeing not to profit from content you create for the game. (Who wants to guess how long it will be before I have to restate this in an even simpler way for one of these self-proclaimed legal experts?)
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumThe Minecraft EULA says:
Also, relating to the parts of the EULA which have been interpreted as limiting mods the most in this thread:
A DMCA takedown notice does mean something. At least for companies in the united states, the DMCA only protects them if they promptly remove the possibly infringing material. Meaning that it'll be unavailable at least for the amount of time it takes to file a counter notification and for 10 to 14 buisness days afterwards. A court is only involved if the copyright owner wants to keep the possibly-infringing content blocked after the uploader has filed a counter notification.
Also, if you knowingly misrepresent that it is not infringing (as part of filing a counter notice), you get to pay their fees.
So, make sure you know what country the files are being hosted in, or at least take the time to read the relevant parts of the DMCA before saying it doesn't matter.
CraftGuide, recipe viewer with a scrollbar! (Resizable window, too, if you prefer playing with a smaller GUI scale and are tired of GUIs only occupying a tiny square in the centre)
- make commercial use of anything we‘ve made;
- try to make money from anything we‘ve made; or
- let other people get access to anything we‘ve made in a way that is unfair or unreasonable.
It often seems to be that forge modders are the only group who are not making money from minecraft, (while keeping millions of people interested in the game and no doubt attracting many too!).Anyway, this is less to do with copyright, so please, continue.... ;-)
(Edit: and on a personal note, clearly I have no interest in making money from modding the game as my mods have always been open source. However, I do feel there's a massive double standard there, and find it quite frustrating to regularly see such focus on those evil modders making their $20/month from ad.fly and whatever else when there's people out there charging money to name a pet.)
Leave
britneymodders alone! ;-)-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumWhat about the end user?
Maybe you could be more specific?
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumI am relatively new to modding for Minecraft, however I have actually used Forge to develop a mod and it serves the purpose of not violating Mojang's copyright. I wouldn't use it if it did violate anyone's copyright. Perhaps you should download it yourself and set up a development environment and show me the assets that Forge includes illegally.
The comparison was apples to oranges. It's not a relevant reference.
Then you missed several dozen other cases. User content in Second Life can consist of custom designed objects, textures, scripting and audio/video and gets placed into the world similar to how Mod added blocks can be used in Minecraft. The content creators retain rights to their work in both cases, which is why they're much more of an Apples to Apples comparison when someone sets about trying to violate a creator's copyright. What's downright offensive is people like yourself trying to tell creators that they have no rights to their work and that it is okay for other people to steal them. It's not okay. At all. At least some in Mojang know that this interpretation is incorrect. Further, even if that's what they intended, no amount of idiocy in a EULA overrides law.
It is not necessary to own or play Minecraft to create mods for it. And as I've explained, in detail earlier, one's own content created outside of Minecraft cannot be subject to a EULA because Mojang does not currently offer any tools to mod with that they could require agreement to use.
And your example was silly. It would be like getting sued for the Sign. Anyone can place it down and write whatever they want on it. If one user wants to defame another user, that's up to them to work out between each other just like everywhere else. Whether that's done with vanilla blocks or mod added blocks is irrelevant.
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 PremiumLet me quote myself from earlier, as some people don't seem to have seen it yet:
I AM NOT YOUR PERSONAL MINECRAFT MOD SUPPORT AGENT, SO PLEASE DO NOT PM ME ABOUT PROBLEMATIC MODS THAT ARE NOT MINE. If you're having trouble/crashes with a mod, you'll have better luck resolving it in this forum section than PMing me. If you already made a topic, be patient about responses. If you have troubles with anything non-Minecraft related on your PC, I might be able to help, though, but no promises. Even though I could wish to be, I'm not a wizard.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumIf it's my intellectual property and I can sell it one place, I can sell it anyplace for anything for any reason. If you want restrictions on where and to who it can be sold, it has to be your intellectual property in the first place or the restriction has to be an actual restriction in law (ex: export of certain encryptions, sale of specifically regulated substances, etc). If it's not my property, I can't sell it in any place anyway.
You never really have a right to do anything with Minecraft with respect to its IP, not even if you have a valid license. Just like Minecraft has no say over stuff that isn't their IP.
An apt analogy would be that telling me I can't sell a mod is basically telling me I can't sell my own house because you don't want the people who want to buy it to live there. Modding done right doesn't touch Mojang's IP. It's nothing at all like painting someone else's car/house.
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 PremiumHey Mikee where is this behavior happening? it needs to be reported as the EULA covers everyone of us.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse Premium