• 2

    posted a message on Filter to Newest Posts
    Or if you just want to sort an individual sub forum you can click on the diamond next to the word "Topic" twice to get the newest topics.

    Posted in: Forum Discussion & Info
  • 1

    posted a message on Thoughts on Trello so far?
    I was extremely skeptical at first But now that I've had a chance to use it, I like it. It feels... I don't know, more professional.
    Posted in: Administrators & Moderators
  • 1

    posted a message on EULA Revisited: an Updated Q&A From Mojang
    Realms, Realms, Realms, blah, blah, blah.

    Realms does not compete with the types of servers we've been talking about because a Realms server is a) meant for a very small group of players, and B) VANILLA!!! No plugins, no mods, nothing.
    Posted in: Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on EULA Revisited: an Updated Q&A From Mojang
    Quote from wwgMarcus
    The only reason people play minecraft is for the mods, minigames, and community. Why change your EULA in a way that will harm all three?

    You're absolutely right, Mojang should just keep the current EULA, you know, the one that forbids all commercial use of their software. This is something so many of the posters in this thread just don't seem to get, the current EULA forbids servers making any money at all. Mojang is being nice by relaxing the EULA to allow servers to make money rather than going after all these servers currently breaking the EULA.
    Posted in: Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on EULA Revisited: an Updated Q&A From Mojang
    Quote from nxsupert

    That's not the point here though. The point here is that Mojang (or part of Mojang) has the idea that Youtubers and Servers didn't help to make minecraft what it is today.

    That's not actually what he said, though. Jake used the word "relies" as in present tense, Eric responded to that. If Jake had said that Minecraft had "relied" on Youtubers and servers and Eric flat out denied it then there'd be an issue. In other words, I think you guys are reading too much into that one statement. :)

    My response about ethics was just to point out the obvious hypocrisy.
    Posted in: Discussion
  • 2

    posted a message on EULA Revisited: an Updated Q&A From Mojang
    Quote from Lindsey161

    In the end it all comes down to ethics, and Mojang is not doing very well.

    Kinda like all those people who built a business around the game even though it was expressly forbidden by the EULA?
    Posted in: Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on EULA Revisited: an Updated Q&A From Mojang
    Quote from l3lackCalamity

    Everything you just said can legally be done.

    Do you think Sony can prevent me from changing access to a PS3 gaming party that runs Sony copyrighted materials? Do you think authors can prevent me from charging access to a book club? No, once the product is sold the seller has no right to tell you how to use the product, and certainly has no right to try and change the sales terms on a non-retroactive agreement. Minecraft is not an ongoing service, it was a once time right to access product purchase. I'm legally bound to my sales agreement from 2010 that guaranteed free updates so long as Minecraft exists, and gave me the right to sell any personal code however I might ever see fit. We may not own the code, but we own the right to use it however we see fit. How would you feel if 4 years after selling you an ipad, apple said you could no longer use it for business.

    Except for one minor detail. You never bought the server software and that is what this entire discussion is about, servers. As to people saying the original EULA should apply, the server software had to re-downloaded each time it updated which means the EULA in effect would be the version that was active at the time of each download.

    Oh, and btw, your example of a charging for a PS3 party? That would be considered a public performance and commercial use, copyright law (in the US anyway) would require you to get a license from Sony to do it.
    Posted in: Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on EULA Revisited: an Updated Q&A From Mojang
    Quote from UXRO

    Abuse system? How is selling ranks abuse of system?

    Because the current EULA forbids commercial use of Mojang's software. In other words, no one should have been doing it in the first place.
    Quote from Sprindex

    I like your idea of the maximum price for ranks. But I'd like to add on to that comment :) I think if they were to do this it couldn't be a set price, i.e $150. I think it would be best if it was a percentage of the server cost, i.e 70% of the server cost, 50% of the server cost or whatever.

    The problem with this is that owners could claim any amount they wanted for "administrative costs," ie. how much they pay themselves.
    Posted in: Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on EULA Revisited: an Updated Q&A From Mojang
    Quote from nxsupert

    Why? In what way is realms the cause of this?

    The hosting companies and pay to win servers view it as competition (even though it isn't because you can only do vanilla servers on Realms) so they're blaming it for Mojang's stance on monetizing servers. When it comes down to it though, they're really just worried about their own profits. Their business model, which depended on violating the existing EULA so was a huge risk to begin with, has caught Mojang's attention and Mojang doesn't like the software they own being used that way.
    Posted in: Discussion
  • 3

    posted a message on EULA Revisited: an Updated Q&A From Mojang
    Quote from Miner187
    I think this change might be a little unfair because the EULA was always ignored and now it is suddenly enforced even though Mojang is well aware of the fact that a lot of the server owners make their money of those p2w "donations", but this also means that the players who don't have huge amounts of money to spend can also have a fair an more enjoyable experience on servers and that they are not to be dominated by the rich coiners.

    Here's the thing, when you operate a business (and let's face it, if you're selling things you're a business) that is dependent upon another business (Minecraft) you're taking a big risk. You are pretty much at the mercy of that other business. The fact that the EULA very clearly did not allow commercial use of Mojang's software in the first place, regardless of whether or not it was being enforced, means that any competent business planner would have told these server owners not to start operating without securing some sort of overriding license or agreement with Mojang, in writing.
    Posted in: Discussion
  • To post a comment, please .