Which by the way omits the "wrong MC version" reason.
As for skydaz, whatever the case on revenue, I speak from experience in that their downloads still suffer from several of the problems outlined, including old versions, nonfunctionality, mismatched Minecraft versions, and more.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I am the developer of many mods, most famously RotaryCraft and ChromatiCraft.
Feel free to support me and my mods via PayPal or Patreon
Well, I was thinking of trying to organize around the interests of modders in general, rather than organize around one specific issue. That means, when the next issue pops up, we'll already have a group of like-minded people to address it.
Well, it does have problems. Why don't you contact the maker and tell them to update the installers?
I do know the Aliens vs Predators mod installer is faulty, but the AVP website was down at the time.
And I don't know about the versions thing. I haven't seen that so far.
I don't find skydaz evil. It gives full credit, and original links. (Though they do make money off the exe installer adflys.)
I hear what you're saying here...but they're still re-packaging mods, they're still making money, and there's still the problems listed on the OP...outdated versions, possible malware, etc etc. And, for those of us who *don't* use adf.ly, because we get all the negatives of a re-posting site, with none of the positives.
Not saying that they don't work for some people...just that they do still fall into the "more bad than good" category for me, and a lot of other mod authors.
One more site to the list that I didn't see listed yet: minecraftmore dot com. They have a repackaged version of my mod at least based on the dl url, didn't try downloading that crap to find out what is inside the zip. (original mod being a jar)
It sounds like there is some interest (at least in the IRC room) in forming a more lasting band of like-minded modders. We're throwing around the name "Modders Guild"
I use the minecraft launcher. Plus I'm saying that the skydaz installers download the mod you want straight into the mods folder. I know about the forge thing, but that's unrelated.
It sounds like there is some interest (at least in the IRC room) in forming a more lasting band of like-minded modders. We're throwing around the name "Modders Guild"
Your license is interesting. I like some parts of it, and don't like other parts. Is that the solution to monetized content theft? Craft a custom license that grants explicitly the rights you want to grant? What are the chances these custom licenses would actually hold up if challenged in court?
Software licenses only give user's rights with regards to the software. When a license says "you can't do X" it's merely stating that the license is not giving the right to do X, which an end user would not be able to do if no license was attached to the software.
Wow, I have always used Skydaz because of their awesome auto-installer. Never knew that it was stealing the mods...
Also, you say that malware is often found on these sites, but Ad Fly tries to trick you into clicking a 'download manager' advertisement every time you download a mod.
I'm thinking membership in the guild should be limited to actual mod authors, but there's no reason the Modders Guild shouldn't listen to input from the mod players. =)
To be fair, some of those websites actually use my own adfly account link (they can put their download through my adfly), so I get revenue from their downloads. I'm in no way defending them, just saying that not all sites are 100% evil.
Sure, some do. And then they get revenue from ads on the page when people visit their site instead of yours. Or, even better, their mod download link gives the visitor 2 options: 1) go through an adfly link, or 2) give them a "Like" on Facebook. Many people will say "they probably stole it so I'm not picking adfly", even if the adfly link is really the modder's, and so the visitor chooses to "Like" instead.
The site is happy in both cases: either they get adfly revenue, or else they get Likes, which are even better for them. Ever notice how many of these site have the facebook widget that says "212325 people Like us on Facebook"? That's why. And so new visitors think "oh hey, this must be legit!" And the site can even get higher rankings on search engines due to their "reputation", and so they get more visitors...
In short: no, those sites are probably still 100% evil.
This seems like a fantastic idea. I have a question though. Many mods are distributed using very permissive licenses (eg GPL, Apache). Copying and distributing (eg) GPL'd mods is not actually against the terms of the license at all. These licenses are actually intended to promote sharing and derivative works. I agree that there are less scrupulous websites out there that are essentially stealing web traffic from mod authors, but for permissively licensed mods, what recourse do mod authors have for redirecting that traffic back to their sites without changing the licensing terms?
My mods are currently released under an odd license that allows redistribution with direct attribution (I got it from a thread about mod licenses), but I am planning on switching my mods to use the MIT license to match the rest of my software. Unfortunately that license allows no way to really restrict redistribution, and I don't want to use a more restrictive license because I want to allow the mods to be modified, included in modpacks, and used as example code for other mods.
Currently the only solution I have thought of to this problem is some type of DRM-type solution, which I am against. But if this were to be implemented, it could be made effective by giving each release of the mod a unique identifier, and upon mod load the mod checks it's ID with a server. If a mod is illegally redistributed, that build could be blacklisted and a new build released. If a build is blacklisted, the mod could either disable itself (full-DRM, this would be BAD precedent for modding) or do something nicer like display a warning that the build was blacklisted, and display a warning about whatever site was hosting the mod (the text could be downloaded from the server as well).
I second that this should be stickied and that the average user must become aware of this. Too many people - some of my estimates put it at more than 20% - go to sites like these to download mods and suffer as a result, and often then transfer that suffering onto the developers, myself included.
I 100% agree. Just the other day I cleaned off a computer that had been riddled with a massive virus infection, and after removing 6000 malware items I decided to find what had initially infected the machine. What I discovered is that the user had tried to download a "Mod Installer" from one of these sites, and the installer had installed a dropper (a dropper is a virus that downloads and installs other malware). Since he had no AV installed, the infection quickly expanded to infect the whole machine. If there were less sites redistributing mods, there would be much less of a chance of getting fake installers like this in the first place.
My mods are currently released under an odd license that allows redistribution with direct attribution (I got it from a thread about mod licenses), but I am planning on switching my mods to use the MIT license to match the rest of my software. Unfortunately that license allows no way to really restrict redistribution, and I don't want to use a more restrictive license because I want to allow the mods to be modified, included in modpacks, and used as example code for other mods.
Currently the only solution I have thought of to this problem is some type of DRM-type solution, which I am against. But if this were to be implemented, it could be made effective by giving each release of the mod a unique identifier, and upon mod load the mod checks it's ID with a server. If a mod is illegally redistributed, that build could be blacklisted and a new build released. If a build is blacklisted, the mod could either disable itself (full-DRM, this would be BAD precedent for modding) or do something nicer like display a warning that the build was blacklisted, and display a warning about whatever site was hosting the mod (the text could be downloaded from the server as well).
I think DRM is totally the wrong way to go. I bet a carefully-crafted license could grant enough rights to let players use our mods the way we intend, but without threatening the monetization methods that some modders depend on.
We could possibly grant licensees the ability to distribute derivative works, but not copies of the original work. And we'd have to enforce that derivative works must use different logos, names, etc. We could refer to the Firefox/Iceweasel issue for guidance here.
I'm thinking membership in the guild should be limited to actual mod authors, but there's no reason the Modders Guild shouldn't listen to input from the mod players. =)
Which by the way omits the "wrong MC version" reason.
As for skydaz, whatever the case on revenue, I speak from experience in that their downloads still suffer from several of the problems outlined, including old versions, nonfunctionality, mismatched Minecraft versions, and more.
Well, I was thinking of trying to organize around the interests of modders in general, rather than organize around one specific issue. That means, when the next issue pops up, we'll already have a group of like-minded people to address it.
I do know the Aliens vs Predators mod installer is faulty, but the AVP website was down at the time.
And I don't know about the versions thing. I haven't seen that so far.
I hear what you're saying here...but they're still re-packaging mods, they're still making money, and there's still the problems listed on the OP...outdated versions, possible malware, etc etc. And, for those of us who *don't* use adf.ly, because we get all the negatives of a re-posting site, with none of the positives.
Not saying that they don't work for some people...just that they do still fall into the "more bad than good" category for me, and a lot of other mod authors.
All work licensed under the Don't Be a Jerk license.
My mods on CurseForge. My Github page with mods, tools and other stuff.
A skydaz installer.
And so it begins. =)
I'd join... if I knew how to mod. =)
Software licenses only give user's rights with regards to the software. When a license says "you can't do X" it's merely stating that the license is not giving the right to do X, which an end user would not be able to do if no license was attached to the software.
Also, you say that malware is often found on these sites, but Ad Fly tries to trick you into clicking a 'download manager' advertisement every time you download a mod.
I'm thinking membership in the guild should be limited to actual mod authors, but there's no reason the Modders Guild shouldn't listen to input from the mod players. =)
Sure, some do. And then they get revenue from ads on the page when people visit their site instead of yours. Or, even better, their mod download link gives the visitor 2 options: 1) go through an adfly link, or 2) give them a "Like" on Facebook. Many people will say "they probably stole it so I'm not picking adfly", even if the adfly link is really the modder's, and so the visitor chooses to "Like" instead.
The site is happy in both cases: either they get adfly revenue, or else they get Likes, which are even better for them. Ever notice how many of these site have the facebook widget that says "212325 people Like us on Facebook"? That's why. And so new visitors think "oh hey, this must be legit!" And the site can even get higher rankings on search engines due to their "reputation", and so they get more visitors...
In short: no, those sites are probably still 100% evil.
My mods are currently released under an odd license that allows redistribution with direct attribution (I got it from a thread about mod licenses), but I am planning on switching my mods to use the MIT license to match the rest of my software. Unfortunately that license allows no way to really restrict redistribution, and I don't want to use a more restrictive license because I want to allow the mods to be modified, included in modpacks, and used as example code for other mods.
Currently the only solution I have thought of to this problem is some type of DRM-type solution, which I am against. But if this were to be implemented, it could be made effective by giving each release of the mod a unique identifier, and upon mod load the mod checks it's ID with a server. If a mod is illegally redistributed, that build could be blacklisted and a new build released. If a build is blacklisted, the mod could either disable itself (full-DRM, this would be BAD precedent for modding) or do something nicer like display a warning that the build was blacklisted, and display a warning about whatever site was hosting the mod (the text could be downloaded from the server as well).
I 100% agree. Just the other day I cleaned off a computer that had been riddled with a massive virus infection, and after removing 6000 malware items I decided to find what had initially infected the machine. What I discovered is that the user had tried to download a "Mod Installer" from one of these sites, and the installer had installed a dropper (a dropper is a virus that downloads and installs other malware). Since he had no AV installed, the infection quickly expanded to infect the whole machine. If there were less sites redistributing mods, there would be much less of a chance of getting fake installers like this in the first place.
I think DRM is totally the wrong way to go. I bet a carefully-crafted license could grant enough rights to let players use our mods the way we intend, but without threatening the monetization methods that some modders depend on.
We could possibly grant licensees the ability to distribute derivative works, but not copies of the original work. And we'd have to enforce that derivative works must use different logos, names, etc. We could refer to the Firefox/Iceweasel issue for guidance here.
Yay! =)