Easy to get around. Just add some NBT data to the item meaning that the person in question can never touch it.
ok, sure , there may be NBT data on it, but what if say theres an x% chance it will drop a diamond with that data. what if user2 gets nine of those after user 1 throws a ton of bombs. User 2 then crafts it into a diamond block, then back into 9 diamonds, which are new diamonds free of NBT data? same for iron, gold, redstone, coal, and lapis. and what if it drops diamond swords, user 2 wears one out a tiny bit, then repairs it in the crafting table giving a new sword?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Animes I've Watched/am watching - Sword art online , Fairy Tale , FMA Brotherhood, InuYasha
At the moment I am am not happy or disappointed on the EULA changes. I just have a few question. I am making a MineZ themed server and I was wondering if I could have a VIP group (that you would have to pay for) and the begining of the the game you would have the ability to select a shotgun or something that default players can't start with, but both default players and VIPs can buy it ingame with soft currency? Would something like this be allowed? On my server nobody can win you just go as far as you can until you die or log off, then you start all over again, so there is no pay-to-win aspect(similar to temple run or COD zombies- you never win you just get as far as you can to set your own personal record).
Greegy? Really? Wanting to be able to make a living providing other people entertainment (most of which is free) makes a server host greedy? In addition, you seriously likened pay for perks to slavery? How is anyone supposed to take you seriously?
Here is the problem.....
You say "making a living" which implies profit. Some people were so quick to turn their Minecraft server into a profitable business.
This is both morally wrong as it uses Mojang's intellectual property to make money without their permission to the point of hundreds of thousands of dollars even. Legally it is also wrong and if people didn't read the EULA then that is their own ignorant fault.
When people donate, they should deserve their rewards, not everybody. This will make it more difficult and pointless for servers. Lot's of servers will become corrupt and lack of funds, less server use would take place, and I think that it's only fair to give the giver his gift.
If you're going to talk about fairness then ignore the p2w issue then you've failed.
At the moment I am am not happy or disappointed on the EULA changes. I just have a few question. I am making a MineZ themed server and I was wondering if I could have a VIP group (that you would have to pay for) and the begining of the the game you would have the ability to select a shotgun or something that default players can't start with, but both default players and VIPs can buy it ingame with soft currency? Would something like this be allowed? On my server nobody can win you just go as far as you can until you die or log off, then you start all over again, so there is no pay-to-win aspect(similar to temple run or COD zombies- you never win you just get as far as you can to set your own personal record).
At the moment I am am not happy or disappointed on the EULA changes. I just have a few question. I am making a MineZ themed server and I was wondering if I could have a VIP group (that you would have to pay for) and the begining of the the game you would have the ability to select a shotgun or something that default players can't start with, but both default players and VIPs can buy it ingame with soft currency? Would something like this be allowed? On my server nobody can win you just go as far as you can until you die or log off, then you start all over again, so there is no pay-to-win aspect(similar to temple run or COD zombies- you never win you just get as far as you can to set your own personal record).
Its not allowed because it effects game play mainly at the start of the match as the other one can get it later on but its still effecting the game so its not allowed. only thing you can sell is cosmetics/particles no guns.
I've read through it, and compared it to some of the laws of the countries involved. My opinion? It's unenforceable, possibly illegal, and certainly divisive.
I love how someone makes a statement like this without actually backing it up with facts and citations. Which laws of what countries is the EULA breaking? I can guarantee that there are no laws in the US being broken with the EULA and it is in fact a lot less restrictive than the EULA of many major AAA games that have been published.
"Have you compared the two EULAs? Because the former, by omission, prohibited all of the things. That didn't prevent people from starting servers that gave people Sharpness X diamond swords if they "donated" 20 dollars, or giving exclusive perks or access to certain worlds or permissions if they did- but they were still, by the terms of the license agreement, not allowed, due to the whole "you cannot make money off of anything we made" thing. The changes are to make that monetization possible. The whining is because the way Mojang would like it to be is not the most lucrative.
As somebody who left multiplayer because Servers started to suck ass, I tend to like the changes. I've only played on two servers, both whitelisted servers originally (the latter became the very kind of pay to win "donation shop" heavy server that isn't allowed now nor then).
-Server owners qqing about "how will I make my living". I don't really care. I don't even know how "you took our jobs!" is really a valid argument when the entire basis for that "job" is a purposeful ignorance of copyright law, intellectual property rights and what you can sell.
-I've seen the "old old" EULA pointed out- the one from 2011 that said stuff about selling plugins for money. That's wonderful but it is no longer the same and that was changed because it was being exploited. Not to mention when you give equipment or access to certain worlds on your server for a "donation" you aren't selling plugins anyway, so that entire point is kind of moot, too.
-Another interesting point I saw brought up (on reddit) was something along the lines of, "you can download and use the server without reading or agreeing to a EULA, therefore the terms therein are not legally binding".
That seems to have merit- and is quite factual.
What it fails to realize is that an EULA gives you rights over and above what you are already allowed to do through fair use and copyright law. So the EULA not applying doesn't matter. By way of example, since I can download a Windows Disc image without agreeing to any form of EULA, I should be able to thus sell or give away as many copies of that software as I want. That isn't the case.
-In creating a plugin, you are creating a derivative work. There is no going around this- some argue that because you are only writing against a specific API, that you aren't really making a derivative work- that defense has already been tried and failed, it failed because that approach is a clear circumvention of the rules. Additionally, the creation of a deriviative work is controlled via copyright law which means the ability to create such deriviative works is licensed by the original copyright owner- and that is what teh EULA of Minecraft, in this case, allows you to do. Not agreeing to the EULA doesn't actually fix anything because that means you do not get the license to create any form of derivative work in the first place. Additionally, anybody using a derivative work needs to agree to the terms of the original product in addition to any terms of the second product; so while we do not have to say agree to a EULA in order to use CraftBukkit, that is because CraftBukkit has no terms- as a derivative work Terms of use from the original copyright owner still apply because it is the license to use the software through copyright law that allows you to even use the software to begin with. Watching tweens struggle with the concepts of law is entertaining but also kind of sad. the idea of "enforcing" EULAs only applies when the EULA removes rights already granted through fair use or copyright law. In the case of Minecraft, this is simply not the case, and lacking the rights granted by the EULA you have no license to use the software to begin with."
"Have you compared the two EULAs? Because the former, by omission, prohibited all of the things. That didn't prevent people from starting servers that gave people Sharpness X diamond swords if they "donated" 20 dollars, or giving exclusive perks or access to certain worlds or permissions if they did- but they were still, by the terms of the license agreement, not allowed, due to the whole "you cannot make money off of anything we made" thing. The changes are to make that monetization possible. The whining is because the way Mojang would like it to be is not the most lucrative.
As somebody who left multiplayer because Servers started to suck ass, I tend to like the changes. I've only played on two servers, both whitelisted servers originally (the latter became the very kind of pay to win "donation shop" heavy server that isn't allowed now nor then).
-Server owners qqing about "how will I make my living". I don't really care. I don't even know how "you took our jobs!" is really a valid argument when the entire basis for that "job" is a purposeful ignorance of copyright law, intellectual property rights and what you can sell.
-I've seen the "old old" EULA pointed out- the one from 2011 that said stuff about selling plugins for money. That's wonderful but it is no longer the same and that was changed because it was being exploited. Not to mention when you give equipment or access to certain worlds on your server for a "donation" you aren't selling plugins anyway, so that entire point is kind of moot, too.
-Another interesting point I saw brought up (on reddit) was something along the lines of, "you can download and use the server without reading or agreeing to a EULA, therefore the terms therein are not legally binding".
That seems to have merit- and is quite factual.
What it fails to realize is that an EULA gives you rights over and above what you are already allowed to do through fair use and copyright law. So the EULA not applying doesn't matter. By way of example, since I can download a Windows Disc image without agreeing to any form of EULA, I should be able to thus sell or give away as many copies of that software as I want. That isn't the case.
-In creating a plugin, you are creating a derivative work. There is no going around this- some argue that because you are only writing against a specific API, that you aren't really making a derivative work- that defense has already been tried and failed, it failed because that approach is a clear circumvention of the rules. Additionally, the creation of a deriviative work is controlled via copyright law which means the ability to create such deriviative works is licensed by the original copyright owner- and that is what teh EULA of Minecraft, in this case, allows you to do. Not agreeing to the EULA doesn't actually fix anything because that means you do not get the license to create any form of derivative work in the first place. Additionally, anybody using a derivative work needs to agree to the terms of the original product in addition to any terms of the second product; so while we do not have to say agree to a EULA in order to use CraftBukkit, that is because CraftBukkit has no terms- as a derivative work Terms of use from the original copyright owner still apply because it is the license to use the software through copyright law that allows you to even use the software to begin with. Watching tweens struggle with the concepts of law is entertaining but also kind of sad. the idea of "enforcing" EULAs only applies when the EULA removes rights already granted through fair use or copyright law. In the case of Minecraft, this is simply not the case, and lacking the rights granted by the EULA you have no license to use the software to begin with."
Don't worry, people will attempt to fire at your logic with their ill temperament and their internet law degrees /sarcasm.
But seriously, everything about this post pretty much shoots down the whole "EULA can't be enforced" illogical argument. Now, there is a legit argument about how easy it'll be to enforce, but there is no argument when it comes to whether Mojang is following law or is entitled to enforce the EULA. Absolutely no argument. Good post.
The problems with the new enforcement is very simple. Mojang is taking a more lenient EULA and enforcing it in a way that is deleterious to all servers, and everybody loses. Server owners will be directly affected by a loss of money caused by the inability to open up shop. They will be forced to attempt to make enough money with aesthetic items alone (a tricky endeavor,) take donations out of the kindness of our hearts, (also not likely,) or to make the players pay just to join the servers. Now we, the players, are the ones who are going to have to pay this fee for playing on our favorite servers, so we'll lose there. And not everybody wants to pay to play Minecraft multiplayer, so the community will likely shrink. Minecraft will lose a lot of popularity, and thus Mojang loses as well.
In short, Mojang does have the right to do this, in the same way that you have the right to walk around with a large metallic pole during a thunderstorm in a crowded area: you can, but you'll hurt yourself and others. It's not that Mojang is doing something morally wrong; it's just not a good decision.
I agree with you. That note that was written to Notch from Sterling outline for me that it'll be much harder for software devs to ... do anything, really. My opinion on selling items though, hasn't changed. Everyone loosing is a bit much, but I get what you mean.
I do agree though, that it'll be that much harder to keep a server(s) from being shutdown. That's why I think they should have nipped this in the bud before it spun out of control. Of course, since it happened it's easy to judge this situation, particularly when I've never stepped foot into their office, much less attend a staff meeting. Yeah, it's a huge mess.
Well, to be honest - if I made the MASSIVE amount of money that Notch has made, I would sit back and let others profit off of running servers that HELP MAKE MY GAME SELL MORE and let them have an incentive for making better servers.
I've heard all the arguments about this making it a better gaming experience, but that isn't really the case. It is about making it a better gaming experience from ONE PERSON's point of view. Granted that person is Notch, but it is this kind of control freaking that leads to having a copycat game come along and steal your users away from you.
No one has been able to tell me why (assuming these servers were so terrible and ruining the game experience) that they wouldn't have just died off on their own as people became dissatisfied with their formulas. But in fact, apparently a LOT of people liked their rules and perks that could be paid for and it wasn't upsetting too many people at all.
Before you had choice. Frankly, I have NO DESIRE to hang out on a server where I can buy myself to the top of the game. I see people refer to "winning the game" through perk purchases. How does one WIN the game of minecraft anyway? I suppose you can be king of a server - but if it is too out of hand, who is going to want to play there anyway?
In my not so humble opinion, it feels like control and it makes me feel like Mojang has gone the way of the big game companies. Maybe they will change their name to Mojang Arts?
I agree with you. That note that was written to Notch from Sterling outline for me that it'll be much harder for software devs to ... do anything, really.
Has Mojang said much after the weak-sauce FAQ they posted a week later? It seems like there are a lot of good, unanswered questions that they could be addressing. This has really made me step back as a fan. My son is a fanatic and I will support him because I think this game is a great game for kids. I'm not going to throw them out for bad business decisions but it is disappointing.
I've watched (and paid for) the movie on how Mojang and Minecraft got started and it was so neat to think of them as these guys who really are awesome, but now I have to wonder if the lawyers haven't gotten a hold of them.
If we lined up all lawyers and shot them, the world would be a better place. And please, take no offence at that comment. I mean it only as a purely logical and factual statement, not as some kind of emotional or inflammatory and mean-spirited rant. :-)
I'm just going to paste this comment I saw in the thread about the current snapshot.
It kind of further confuses my stance on things, by bringing server software back into question.
Other than that, though, I can say I agree with a few of the points in here, and I think it's a good argument anyways.
You guys can feel free to pick it apart, agree with it, disagree with it, or ignore it as you see fit. I don't really have a response to it right now.
Whew, I'm glad someone has offered something other then, pay to win is bad...I think after page 25 we all agreed that pay to win (however you decide to interpret that) is not good.
I was actually thinking about this in the back of my mind. Why did they let this go for so long? I think I remember reading from one of the reddit posts that, "They were busy". Does that hold up in court? Hopefully the way I phrased it doesn't alter your judgement on it. Also, I remember reading somewhere (might have been that letter from Sterling to Notch) about how a Mojang employee said that they (Sterlings' network?) were operating within the rules of the EULA. How does that work? Can that be proven? And what about all the Minecraft conventions? Does it mean the sponsors were advocating support of breaking the EULA?
If we lined up all lawyers and shot them, the world would be a better place. And please, take no offence at that comment. I mean it only as a purely logical and factual statement, not as some kind of emotional or inflammatory and mean-spirited rant. :-)
I love how someone makes a statement like this without actually backing it up with facts and citations. Which laws of what countries is the EULA breaking? I can guarantee that there are no laws in the US being broken with the EULA and it is in fact a lot less restrictive than the EULA of many major AAA games that have been published.
You can guarantee that no laws are being broken? Would you mind backing up that statement?
I didn't think that any laws were being broken until I read the reddit post that mentioned tax evasion. Holy crap.
You are right, though, I read that quote and wondered about that as well. And they didn't even post in this thread too ahaha
I don't understand how they will shut down servers accepting donations for perks. They don't own the server host? They won't log onto every server and see what they are selling? If they log on to the server and ask who the owner is do you really think they would tell them the truth? They could ban their account but these big servers have so much money the owners could just keep buying new accounts or new servers. Also think of the mojang company as a server. The realms is almost like a perk you get your very own world to play on but your friends can connect without lan. That is an unfair advantage to player who don't want to pay per month. Also why does mojang care that people are spending money on servers they were the ones supporting making money off of servers at minecon. Plus servers call it "Donating" not selling.
ok, sure , there may be NBT data on it, but what if say theres an x% chance it will drop a diamond with that data. what if user2 gets nine of those after user 1 throws a ton of bombs. User 2 then crafts it into a diamond block, then back into 9 diamonds, which are new diamonds free of NBT data? same for iron, gold, redstone, coal, and lapis. and what if it drops diamond swords, user 2 wears one out a tiny bit, then repairs it in the crafting table giving a new sword?
Animes I've Watched/am watching - Sword art online , Fairy Tale , FMA Brotherhood, InuYasha
Here is the problem.....
You say "making a living" which implies profit. Some people were so quick to turn their Minecraft server into a profitable business.
This is both morally wrong as it uses Mojang's intellectual property to make money without their permission to the point of hundreds of thousands of dollars even. Legally it is also wrong and if people didn't read the EULA then that is their own ignorant fault.
You dealt the cards you get what you played.
If you're going to talk about fairness then ignore the p2w issue then you've failed.
No.
Its not allowed because it effects game play mainly at the start of the match as the other one can get it later on but its still effecting the game so its not allowed. only thing you can sell is cosmetics/particles no guns.
I love how someone makes a statement like this without actually backing it up with facts and citations. Which laws of what countries is the EULA breaking? I can guarantee that there are no laws in the US being broken with the EULA and it is in fact a lot less restrictive than the EULA of many major AAA games that have been published.
"Have you compared the two EULAs? Because the former, by omission, prohibited all of the things. That didn't prevent people from starting servers that gave people Sharpness X diamond swords if they "donated" 20 dollars, or giving exclusive perks or access to certain worlds or permissions if they did- but they were still, by the terms of the license agreement, not allowed, due to the whole "you cannot make money off of anything we made" thing. The changes are to make that monetization possible. The whining is because the way Mojang would like it to be is not the most lucrative.
As somebody who left multiplayer because Servers started to suck ass, I tend to like the changes. I've only played on two servers, both whitelisted servers originally (the latter became the very kind of pay to win "donation shop" heavy server that isn't allowed now nor then).
-Server owners qqing about "how will I make my living". I don't really care. I don't even know how "you took our jobs!" is really a valid argument when the entire basis for that "job" is a purposeful ignorance of copyright law, intellectual property rights and what you can sell.
-I've seen the "old old" EULA pointed out- the one from 2011 that said stuff about selling plugins for money. That's wonderful but it is no longer the same and that was changed because it was being exploited. Not to mention when you give equipment or access to certain worlds on your server for a "donation" you aren't selling plugins anyway, so that entire point is kind of moot, too.
-Another interesting point I saw brought up (on reddit) was something along the lines of, "you can download and use the server without reading or agreeing to a EULA, therefore the terms therein are not legally binding".
That seems to have merit- and is quite factual.
What it fails to realize is that an EULA gives you rights over and above what you are already allowed to do through fair use and copyright law. So the EULA not applying doesn't matter. By way of example, since I can download a Windows Disc image without agreeing to any form of EULA, I should be able to thus sell or give away as many copies of that software as I want. That isn't the case.
-In creating a plugin, you are creating a derivative work. There is no going around this- some argue that because you are only writing against a specific API, that you aren't really making a derivative work- that defense has already been tried and failed, it failed because that approach is a clear circumvention of the rules. Additionally, the creation of a deriviative work is controlled via copyright law which means the ability to create such deriviative works is licensed by the original copyright owner- and that is what teh EULA of Minecraft, in this case, allows you to do. Not agreeing to the EULA doesn't actually fix anything because that means you do not get the license to create any form of derivative work in the first place. Additionally, anybody using a derivative work needs to agree to the terms of the original product in addition to any terms of the second product; so while we do not have to say agree to a EULA in order to use CraftBukkit, that is because CraftBukkit has no terms- as a derivative work Terms of use from the original copyright owner still apply because it is the license to use the software through copyright law that allows you to even use the software to begin with. Watching tweens struggle with the concepts of law is entertaining but also kind of sad. the idea of "enforcing" EULAs only applies when the EULA removes rights already granted through fair use or copyright law. In the case of Minecraft, this is simply not the case, and lacking the rights granted by the EULA you have no license to use the software to begin with."
Don't worry, people will attempt to fire at your logic with their ill temperament and their internet law degrees /sarcasm.
But seriously, everything about this post pretty much shoots down the whole "EULA can't be enforced" illogical argument. Now, there is a legit argument about how easy it'll be to enforce, but there is no argument when it comes to whether Mojang is following law or is entitled to enforce the EULA. Absolutely no argument. Good post.
Look at it this way:
Owner: "You donated? Cool! Now I favor you! Have free items! Have OP gear! Here you go! #Favoritism"
It'd make you a crappy owner if you did this, but I'm just proving a point.
I agree with you. That note that was written to Notch from Sterling outline for me that it'll be much harder for software devs to ... do anything, really. My opinion on selling items though, hasn't changed. Everyone loosing is a bit much, but I get what you mean.
I do agree though, that it'll be that much harder to keep a server(s) from being shutdown. That's why I think they should have nipped this in the bud before it spun out of control. Of course, since it happened it's easy to judge this situation, particularly when I've never stepped foot into their office, much less attend a staff meeting. Yeah, it's a huge mess.
I've heard all the arguments about this making it a better gaming experience, but that isn't really the case. It is about making it a better gaming experience from ONE PERSON's point of view. Granted that person is Notch, but it is this kind of control freaking that leads to having a copycat game come along and steal your users away from you.
No one has been able to tell me why (assuming these servers were so terrible and ruining the game experience) that they wouldn't have just died off on their own as people became dissatisfied with their formulas. But in fact, apparently a LOT of people liked their rules and perks that could be paid for and it wasn't upsetting too many people at all.
Before you had choice. Frankly, I have NO DESIRE to hang out on a server where I can buy myself to the top of the game. I see people refer to "winning the game" through perk purchases. How does one WIN the game of minecraft anyway? I suppose you can be king of a server - but if it is too out of hand, who is going to want to play there anyway?
In my not so humble opinion, it feels like control and it makes me feel like Mojang has gone the way of the big game companies. Maybe they will change their name to Mojang Arts?
Has Mojang said much after the weak-sauce FAQ they posted a week later? It seems like there are a lot of good, unanswered questions that they could be addressing. This has really made me step back as a fan. My son is a fanatic and I will support him because I think this game is a great game for kids. I'm not going to throw them out for bad business decisions but it is disappointing.
I've watched (and paid for) the movie on how Mojang and Minecraft got started and it was so neat to think of them as these guys who really are awesome, but now I have to wonder if the lawyers haven't gotten a hold of them.
If we lined up all lawyers and shot them, the world would be a better place. And please, take no offence at that comment. I mean it only as a purely logical and factual statement, not as some kind of emotional or inflammatory and mean-spirited rant. :-)
Whew, I'm glad someone has offered something other then, pay to win is bad...I think after page 25 we all agreed that pay to win (however you decide to interpret that) is not good.
I was actually thinking about this in the back of my mind. Why did they let this go for so long? I think I remember reading from one of the reddit posts that, "They were busy". Does that hold up in court? Hopefully the way I phrased it doesn't alter your judgement on it. Also, I remember reading somewhere (might have been that letter from Sterling to Notch) about how a Mojang employee said that they (Sterlings' network?) were operating within the rules of the EULA. How does that work? Can that be proven? And what about all the Minecraft conventions? Does it mean the sponsors were advocating support of breaking the EULA?
http://dev.bukkit.or...onator-express/
Make sure you quote my post if you want me to see it.
How about the families of the lawyers?
Why would they be removed if donating is still allowed?
You can guarantee that no laws are being broken? Would you mind backing up that statement?
I didn't think that any laws were being broken until I read the reddit post that mentioned tax evasion. Holy crap.
You are right, though, I read that quote and wondered about that as well. And they didn't even post in this thread too ahaha