Such a term of EULA is not enforceable in 27 of the 50 states in the US. So, anyone living in those states and running a server need not worry. That's the great thing about a federal system.
actually, EULA,TOS, etc are most certainly enforceable in the court system of all 50 states as well as most of the non state U.S. territories. Sorry Mastermind, but U.S. law has a lot to say about this. it's mostly in line with international laws that mirror it's intent, and a lot stricter than a lot of other countries which don't even uphold copyright protection or IP laws, no less things like EULA's that go above and beyond copyright protections.
After 1.7.2, they'll blacklist your server - It's already programmed into the launcher to block connection to any server on the blacklist, it'll show a network error. Unless you're before 1.7.2, or using a specialized launcher to bypass the Netty, they can and will block you regardless.
Feel free to debate it, that's how it is. They added it in 1.9, and backboned it all the way to 1.7.2. Simple.
What most servers around doing? EULA allows charging for server entry, so most servers are following the new idea of pay upfront for entry, access to all perms, but somethings like kits cost in-game money, instead of $. It's a good concept, and long overdue. Just RIP the ones who can't afford it, but blame Microsoft, or just go play Hypixel who already made their fortune, and can ride the non-gameplay changing wagon because of it.
Lets say someone charges $3 a month for entry into the Server, 30 players and you should be able to cover any server bill, even 20 for the smaller ones. No more worry over donators, and it's constant. I like the idea, besides the fact that some players might not be able to afford it sadly. It's $3 for the one person who is going to throw a fit over it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Survival SMP - 1.16+ (Give it a try!) : Fedoria.net
US law has nothing to say about this.
The EULA is a Terms of Service. By buying and using their product, you agree with Mojangs EULA. You have to check a mark to even buy it. So Mojang has every right to shut down a server who breaks their EULA. Because they broke the agreement on which that serer could stay online.
Please stop posting here, you're making it painfully obvious that you have no idea what you're even talking about.
I went to law school, graduated from William and Mary law school, JD, summa cum laude.
I'm prettty sure I know what I'm talking about since my degree is in contract law.
Of course you are another one of those without a logical argument so you, too, resort to insults.
Anyone with any common sense knows that some parts of a contract can be unenforceable even if other parts are valid.
Companies cannot simply throw what they want into an EULA and expect you to abide by it. You have the right to ignore the portions which are unenforceable. Telling server owners what they can or cannot do with their servers is one such portion of that.
actually, EULA,TOS, etc are most certainly enforceable in the court system of all 50 states as well as most of the non state U.S. territories. Sorry Mastermind, but U.S. law has a lot to say about this. it's mostly in line with international laws that mirror it's intent, and a lot stricter than a lot of other countries which don't even uphold copyright protection or IP laws, no less things like EULA's that go above and beyond copyright protections.
No, they are not. The states decide which format of the Uniform Commercial Code they follow based on statute and unlike other nations there is no so-called universal contract law in the USA. This is one reason why licenses are only valid in the state in which they are issued (such as medical licenses, etc). Copyright protection is a power of the federal government. Contracts are not. They are regulated by the states, and, an EULA is a contract. Just because something is in the EULA does not make it automatically valid or legal.
ChesireWesterfield,
if you knew a single thing about minecraft servers you wouldn't have posted this. Most if not everyone knows that the EULA tells you what you can and cannot do. For example: What if you created a game called Blank. I was a sandbox game, similar to minecraft. It had a multiplayer option, also like minecraft. So when players create servers and disregard the game's rules, you'd say "I have no control so idc"? Well mojang actually told server owners that they need to accept the EULA and what it offers. So next time, please do some research first.
I have operated servers in the past so I do know what I'm talking about. Nobody is going after you if you monetize your server or build a Burger King in your server. Things like that will never stand up in court.
Lets say someone charges $3 a month for entry into the Server, 30 players and you should be able to cover any server bill, even 20 for the smaller ones. No more worry over donators, and it's constant. I like the idea, besides the fact that some players might not be able to afford it sadly. It's $3 for the one person who is going to throw a fit over it.
$3 per player based on 30 players might pay your bill but hardly covers the hours spent running the server.
I stopped doing it when the net dropped below $3,000 a month. It isn't worth the headache if you aren't making decent income from it.
When it is said "Minecraft is dying" it's due to operators being scared off by terms of an EULA which have no real power over them in the real world. The scare tactics worked and thousands of really great servers vanished.
I'm sorry some of us aren't in it for the money. If you're looking to be compensated for running the server, you're in it for the wrong reasons. I consider it a hobby, and with the proper staff, it quite is. I've been doing this for nearly five years between Modded, and Vanilla. Done networks way before the EULA started being enforced, and I can tell you that it's not about the money, but it may end up being a reward that comes in while you're administrating, but that should in no way be your goal.
I don't think you understand. No one actually cares about the EULA, but you're forgetting that Microsoft / Mojang are forcefully blacklisting servers as of 1.7.2 that causes them to be rendered not join-able so we have to care.
Mod makers are OBVIOUSLY not in danger of this, nor are you for sharing your account.
Creating content, and administrating a server are NOT the same thing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Survival SMP - 1.16+ (Give it a try!) : Fedoria.net
No, they are not. The states decide which format of the Uniform Commercial Code they follow based on statute and unlike other nations there is no so-called universal contract law in the USA. This is one reason why licenses are only valid in the state in which they are issued (such as medical licenses, etc). Copyright protection is a power of the federal government. Contracts are not. They are regulated by the states, and, an EULA is a contract. Just because something is in the EULA does not make it automatically valid or legal.
if that were the case people in the U.S. could just ignore DMCA notices for sharing games/piracy. see theres this thing that was decided in court here in the us that I want to say is called the First Sale Doctrine, which upholds EULAs as binding and legal. sorry, it's been a few years since I was involved with this stuff so I'm a little fuzzy on the exact details, but as far as I remember, it would take an act of congress to overturn it, so yeah...it holds up in federal court.
I don't think you understand. No one actually cares about the EULA, but you're forgetting that Microsoft / Mojang are forcefully blacklisting servers as of 1.7.2 that causes them to be rendered not join-able so we have to care.
Mod makers are OBVIOUSLY not in danger of this, nor are you for sharing your account.
Creating content, and administrating a server are NOT the same thing.
What???? Part of what keeps players coming to the server is great content along with being a great admin. Nobody wants to play on a server with bad admins/mods or lack of content. You can't separate one from the other and if you are taking the time to run a server you have the right to earn income from it.
I think this thread is going in a dangerous direction... Shall we all try to remain civil?
A server violates the Minecraft EULA; players don't like it; Mojang blocks the server. That's the way it works, and I have no problem with that because I believe the EULA guards against the things I don't want any server doing. In my opinion the EULA should be much more strictly enforced, even to the point of legal action from Mojang / Microsoft. It needs to be made clear that pay-to-win, or whatever a server owner may justify it as, is not well regarded in this community.
Nothing says I have to play on a server that charges money for various things, and I don't play on any, but that's not my point. I don't believe servers like that are good for the community.
Example: A hotel sells rooms to customers for money. A customer (unaffiliated with the hotel) proceeds to cordon off a set of rooms and charge an additional fee to access those rooms. Mojang offers Minecraft to customers for money. A customer (unaffiliated with Mojang) proceeds to cordon off a set of features and charge an additional fee for access to those features. Same thing, same problem, same solution: kick out the customer trying to charge for something he or she doesn't own. You want to charge players a fee for xy and z on your server? Make your own game to do it with. Open your own hotel.
I went to law school, graduated from William and Mary law school, JD, summa cum laude.
I'm prettty sure I know what I'm talking about since my degree is in contract law.
Of course you are another one of those without a logical argument so you, too, resort to insults.
No matter what law degree or experience you presume to have—the fact is you're arguing a side that the vast majority is against, and that's fine. Nevertheless, don't expect to gain much support for your troubles.
It isn't worth the headache if you aren't making decent income from it.
When it is said "Minecraft is dying" it's due to operators being scared off by terms of an EULA which have no real power over them in the real world. The scare tactics worked and thousands of really great servers vanished.
Anyone who thinks they can operate a for-profit Minecraft server shouldn't be hosting one anyway. It's not profitable now, nor was it ever meant to be as I view it. If you can't afford to host your server at bare minimum out of pocket before donations, you shouldn't expect to have your server up long.
If the EULA really means "Minecraft is dying" as you say, then I'm all for it. I'd rather have no-win than pay-to-win.
I host my server for free, and I'll never ask for any involuntary money from any player. I don't even have a donation system set up right now; because I don't want or need it. If that means I have to cap my server at x slots because I can't afford better equipment / bandwidth then so be it. If players ever become so dedicated and want the server to grow, they can donate. They won't buy any perk or privilege from me.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You may want to read my post while you still can, some of them have been randomly disappearing lately *cough*
Quote or reply my post if you expect a response, thanks!
if that were the case people in the U.S. could just ignore DMCA notices for sharing games/piracy. see theres this thing that was decided in court here in the us that I want to say is called the First Sale Doctrine, which upholds EULAs as binding and legal. sorry, it's been a few years since I was involved with this stuff so I'm a little fuzzy on the exact details, but as far as I remember, it would take an act of congress to overturn it, so yeah...it holds up in federal court.
The DCMA is nationwide policy. Contract law is not and that is why it can be settled in state courts (or Federal courts if it involves three or more parties in two or more states since it's under the domain of interstate commerce at that point).
Other than not being allowed to make copies or make derivative products (like Craftmine) do you really think a software company has the right to tell you what you may or may not use the product for? Can Adobe tell you that you cannot use Photoshop for certain types of photos or images?
Example: A hotel sells rooms to customers for money. A customer (unaffiliated with the hotel) proceeds to cordon off a set of rooms and charge an additional fee to access those rooms. Mojang offers Minecraft to customers for money. A customer (unaffiliated with Mojang) proceeds to cordon off a set of features and charge an additional fee for access to those features. Same thing, same problem, same solution: kick out the customer trying to charge for something he or she doesn't own. You want to charge players a fee for xy and z on your server? Make your own game to do it with.
That's not even the same thing. Hotels are tangible while servers/software are not.
The DCMA is nationwide policy. Contract law is not and that is why it can be settled in state courts (or Federal courts if it involves three or more parties in two or more states since it's under the domain of interstate commerce at that point).
Other than not being allowed to make copies or make derivative products (like Craftmine) do you really think a software company has the right to tell you what you may or may not use the product for? Can Adobe tell you that you cannot use Photoshop for certain types of photos or images?
you are licencing the software, you do not own it. the company you licenced it from does and if they choose to say no, you can't do that, it holds up. that is the decision.
"[5] We hold today that a software user is a licensee rather
than an owner of a copy where the copyright owner (1) specifies
that the user is granted a license; (2) significantly restricts
the user’s ability to transfer the software; and (3) imposes notable use restrictions."
edit: also, let me correct myself in saying that it basically overturned the first sale doctrine, not enforced it. like I said, fuzzy on the details.
The EULA cannot tell you how to use it. And, no, that is NOT the decision from that PDF. Why are you bringing up first right of sale when it has nothing to do with this at all?
The EULA certainly can and does tell you how to use it. If a EULA / TOS wasn't enforceable within reason then why would nearly every software business spend money hiring lawyers and legal experts to write them?
By the way, I'd love to hear a more accurate example. I hardly think this is a situation of apples and oranges.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You may want to read my post while you still can, some of them have been randomly disappearing lately *cough*
Quote or reply my post if you expect a response, thanks!
The EULA cannot tell you how to use it. And, no, that is NOT the decision from that PDF. Why are you bringing up first right of sale when it has nothing to do with this at all?
first, I quoted it directly. and in bold. second, I already stated I was confused about the first sale, which is still relevant because that is what the case was originally challenging because of a resale scam. if you care to look there have been more similar cases that had the same outcome. licence agreements hold up.
actually, EULA,TOS, etc are most certainly enforceable in the court system of all 50 states as well as most of the non state U.S. territories. Sorry Mastermind, but U.S. law has a lot to say about this. it's mostly in line with international laws that mirror it's intent, and a lot stricter than a lot of other countries which don't even uphold copyright protection or IP laws, no less things like EULA's that go above and beyond copyright protections.
Let me just point out how this works,
After 1.7.2, they'll blacklist your server - It's already programmed into the launcher to block connection to any server on the blacklist, it'll show a network error. Unless you're before 1.7.2, or using a specialized launcher to bypass the Netty, they can and will block you regardless.
Feel free to debate it, that's how it is. They added it in 1.9, and backboned it all the way to 1.7.2. Simple.
What most servers around doing? EULA allows charging for server entry, so most servers are following the new idea of pay upfront for entry, access to all perms, but somethings like kits cost in-game money, instead of $. It's a good concept, and long overdue. Just RIP the ones who can't afford it, but blame Microsoft, or just go play Hypixel who already made their fortune, and can ride the non-gameplay changing wagon because of it.
Lets say someone charges $3 a month for entry into the Server, 30 players and you should be able to cover any server bill, even 20 for the smaller ones. No more worry over donators, and it's constant. I like the idea, besides the fact that some players might not be able to afford it sadly. It's $3 for the one person who is going to throw a fit over it.
Survival SMP - 1.16+ (Give it a try!) : Fedoria.net
#Seattle - Veteran Server Manager - #CollegeLife
I went to law school, graduated from William and Mary law school, JD, summa cum laude.
I'm prettty sure I know what I'm talking about since my degree is in contract law.
Of course you are another one of those without a logical argument so you, too, resort to insults.
Anyone with any common sense knows that some parts of a contract can be unenforceable even if other parts are valid.
Companies cannot simply throw what they want into an EULA and expect you to abide by it. You have the right to ignore the portions which are unenforceable. Telling server owners what they can or cannot do with their servers is one such portion of that.
No, they are not. The states decide which format of the Uniform Commercial Code they follow based on statute and unlike other nations there is no so-called universal contract law in the USA. This is one reason why licenses are only valid in the state in which they are issued (such as medical licenses, etc). Copyright protection is a power of the federal government. Contracts are not. They are regulated by the states, and, an EULA is a contract. Just because something is in the EULA does not make it automatically valid or legal.
I have operated servers in the past so I do know what I'm talking about. Nobody is going after you if you monetize your server or build a Burger King in your server. Things like that will never stand up in court.
$3 per player based on 30 players might pay your bill but hardly covers the hours spent running the server.
I stopped doing it when the net dropped below $3,000 a month. It isn't worth the headache if you aren't making decent income from it.
When it is said "Minecraft is dying" it's due to operators being scared off by terms of an EULA which have no real power over them in the real world. The scare tactics worked and thousands of really great servers vanished.
I'm sorry some of us aren't in it for the money. If you're looking to be compensated for running the server, you're in it for the wrong reasons. I consider it a hobby, and with the proper staff, it quite is. I've been doing this for nearly five years between Modded, and Vanilla. Done networks way before the EULA started being enforced, and I can tell you that it's not about the money, but it may end up being a reward that comes in while you're administrating, but that should in no way be your goal.
Survival SMP - 1.16+ (Give it a try!) : Fedoria.net
#Seattle - Veteran Server Manager - #CollegeLife
How many of you allow your friend, sister, brother, child, or parent to play Minecraft with your account?
Do you think it is acceptable for the EULA to prohibit this? Because it does.
If the point is not to make money from your work why do so many mods now use Patreon for "donations?" That's also a violation of the EULA.
Anyone who spends upwards of a hundred hours a month maintaining and creating content for a server that doesn't expect a reward for it is a fool.
I don't think you understand. No one actually cares about the EULA, but you're forgetting that Microsoft / Mojang are forcefully blacklisting servers as of 1.7.2 that causes them to be rendered not join-able so we have to care.
Mod makers are OBVIOUSLY not in danger of this, nor are you for sharing your account.
Creating content, and administrating a server are NOT the same thing.
Survival SMP - 1.16+ (Give it a try!) : Fedoria.net
#Seattle - Veteran Server Manager - #CollegeLife
if that were the case people in the U.S. could just ignore DMCA notices for sharing games/piracy. see theres this thing that was decided in court here in the us that I want to say is called the First Sale Doctrine, which upholds EULAs as binding and legal. sorry, it's been a few years since I was involved with this stuff so I'm a little fuzzy on the exact details, but as far as I remember, it would take an act of congress to overturn it, so yeah...it holds up in federal court.
edit: found the case that set the precedent if you would like proof.
What???? Part of what keeps players coming to the server is great content along with being a great admin. Nobody wants to play on a server with bad admins/mods or lack of content. You can't separate one from the other and if you are taking the time to run a server you have the right to earn income from it.
I think this thread is going in a dangerous direction... Shall we all try to remain civil?
A server violates the Minecraft EULA; players don't like it; Mojang blocks the server. That's the way it works, and I have no problem with that because I believe the EULA guards against the things I don't want any server doing. In my opinion the EULA should be much more strictly enforced, even to the point of legal action from Mojang / Microsoft. It needs to be made clear that pay-to-win, or whatever a server owner may justify it as, is not well regarded in this community.
Nothing says I have to play on a server that charges money for various things, and I don't play on any, but that's not my point. I don't believe servers like that are good for the community.
Example: A hotel sells rooms to customers for money. A customer (unaffiliated with the hotel) proceeds to cordon off a set of rooms and charge an additional fee to access those rooms. Mojang offers Minecraft to customers for money. A customer (unaffiliated with Mojang) proceeds to cordon off a set of features and charge an additional fee for access to those features. Same thing, same problem, same solution: kick out the customer trying to charge for something he or she doesn't own. You want to charge players a fee for xy and z on your server? Make your own game to do it with. Open your own hotel.
So have I and—I would posit—most of the people strongly arguing either side here.
No matter what law degree or experience you presume to have—the fact is you're arguing a side that the vast majority is against, and that's fine. Nevertheless, don't expect to gain much support for your troubles.
Anyone who thinks they can operate a for-profit Minecraft server shouldn't be hosting one anyway. It's not profitable now, nor was it ever meant to be as I view it. If you can't afford to host your server at bare minimum out of pocket before donations, you shouldn't expect to have your server up long.
If the EULA really means "Minecraft is dying" as you say, then I'm all for it. I'd rather have no-win than pay-to-win.
I host my server for free, and I'll never ask for any involuntary money from any player. I don't even have a donation system set up right now; because I don't want or need it. If that means I have to cap my server at x slots because I can't afford better equipment / bandwidth then so be it. If players ever become so dedicated and want the server to grow, they can donate. They won't buy any perk or privilege from me.
You may want to read my post while you still can, some of them have been randomly disappearing lately *cough*
The DCMA is nationwide policy. Contract law is not and that is why it can be settled in state courts (or Federal courts if it involves three or more parties in two or more states since it's under the domain of interstate commerce at that point).
Other than not being allowed to make copies or make derivative products (like Craftmine) do you really think a software company has the right to tell you what you may or may not use the product for? Can Adobe tell you that you cannot use Photoshop for certain types of photos or images?
That's not even the same thing. Hotels are tangible while servers/software are not.
you are licencing the software, you do not own it. the company you licenced it from does and if they choose to say no, you can't do that, it holds up. that is the decision.
"[5] We hold today that a software user is a licensee rather
than an owner of a copy where the copyright owner (1) specifies
that the user is granted a license; (2) significantly restricts
the user’s ability to transfer the software; and (3) imposes
notable use restrictions."
edit: also, let me correct myself in saying that it basically overturned the first sale doctrine, not enforced it. like I said, fuzzy on the details.
The EULA cannot tell you how to use it. And, no, that is NOT the decision from that PDF. Why are you bringing up first right of sale when it has nothing to do with this at all?
The EULA certainly can and does tell you how to use it. If a EULA / TOS wasn't enforceable within reason then why would nearly every software business spend money hiring lawyers and legal experts to write them?
By the way, I'd love to hear a more accurate example. I hardly think this is a situation of apples and oranges.
You may want to read my post while you still can, some of them have been randomly disappearing lately *cough*
first, I quoted it directly. and in bold. second, I already stated I was confused about the first sale, which is still relevant because that is what the case was originally challenging because of a resale scam. if you care to look there have been more similar cases that had the same outcome. licence agreements hold up.