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?)
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.
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.
Except it is true. No amount of adhesion contracts (take-it-or-leave-it EULAs) can suborn someone's copyright (at least in the US, copyright law does vary in other countries).
And you're accusing other people of sticking their fingers in their ears? See, unlike every single "pro-modder" poster in this thread, I am capable of doing the most minimal amount of research to determine legal precedent to back up my arguments.
In MDY vs Blizzard, the court ruled that people who buy computer games are not legally owners of the product, but licensees, and therefore were required by law to obey the company's EULA. MDY, makers of third-party software for Blizzard products, were found "liable under theories of copyright and tort law for selling software that contributed to the breach of Blizzard's End User License Agreement and Terms of Use."
This is not a one time thing. Blizzard has repeatedly sued and won against people who sell unlicensed products for their games. They are just one of the most visible (and stringent) enforcers of their right to prevent people from making money off of user-created content. Do your own research if you don't believe me. Again, why do you think it is that not one modder directly charges for their mods? Making money with your mods from adfly is still iffy legally, but it obviously isn't the same as directly charging for your mods because there is no actual transaction taking place
If your goal was to frustrate me, consider yourself successful. I'm not used to people just repeating their claims over and over again in the face of a mountain of contradictory evidence.
I do not want to add more fuel to the fire, and I have NOTHING against modders, but I bet that most of these modders trying to enforce their copyright have, are, or will download a movie, album, software, or game off the internet illegally, which is more damaging (monetarily speaking) than putting a mod in a modpack or updating a mod without permission.
To put this in perspective i went into TPB and looked for the most seeded software torrent. It turns out to be Adobe Photoshop CS6 13. Said software has a list price of $699. There are currently 4661 seeders (or people that already downloaded it and are sharing) and 462 leechers (or people currently downloading it) That makes 5123 the times this software has been illegally downloaded only in this venue. Going by these numbers Adobe has lost $3,580,977. In this situation i can see why copyright must be enforced as businesses make software to EARN money.
It's more than that. Even if modders could sue for copyright infringement (and there is absolutely no empirical evidence indicating they can) it is literally impossible for them to sue for damages, because they are legally prohibited from directly profiting from their mods.
They could also directly sell them if they wished to.
This is most emphatically not true. It is, in fact, pretty much the only thing both sides have agreed on and the one thing that the EULA is very, very specific about. I'm not sure how you missed this. If there's anything in the realm of mods that would initiate legal action from Mojang, it is this. Why do you think every single modder seeking compensation uses Adfly and donation buttons instead of just selling the mod?
What you happen to be reading is not correct. Mods are copyrighted as a result of their creation. Mojang does not own any percentage of them. Mod Creators can do whatever they want with their mods.
...except sell them or take action against people who steal them. So if by "whatever they want," you mean "say whatever they want and/or threaten people with legal action that will never happen" then yes; I don't believe that was ever in dispute.
And yes. DrZhark will not successfully sue you if you put MoCreatures in your modpack. If he tries, I'll pay your legal fees.
This just illustrates your misunderstanding of the situation. Mods are either derived or original works. All such works are protected by copyright. Literally EVERY copyright claim ever is such an example case.
I'm absolutely positive that if China gave more than two craps about copyright, 300 heroes (Clone of LOL) and H.A.V.E and Final Combat (Korean and Chinese clones of TF2) would have been sued into oblivion.
So let's prove it. If the forum will guarantee that I won't be banned for doing so, I will post a modpack containing a "copyrighted" mod, and send the author of this mod my name and address - all of this, of course, provided that they agree to sue me first. This is the third time I have so magnanimously offered to do this and somehow no one is willing to put my money where their mouth is. If you really believe you're right, there should be some money in it for you.
And you still didn't answer my question. Where has the maker of a modification to a computer game ever successfully sued someone on the basis of copyright? Once more unto the breach, rules mean nothing if they are not enforced.
Modified binaries of popular mods were being distributed illegally.
As ethically justified as your complaints are, I'm still compelled to challenge you to find me a single instance in which a court determined that this kind of behavior - stealing or misappropriating modifications to computer games - was illegal and someone was successfully prosecuted for it, in civil or criminal court. (Meaning, where the plaintiff won.) A case where such a dispute was settled out of court would also suffice.
If by "your opinion" you mean copyright law, then yes - I guess it is just my opinion.
Show me a single instance of this law being enforced in the way you describe it - with regards to a mod to a computer game - and I'll concede the point. Remember, a rule means nothing if it's not being enforced.
CJ of railcraft fame has issued at least one DMCA claim. I also believe SirSengir, creator of Forestry, and FlowerChild, Better than Wolves, have both threatened legal action in the past against that sort of thing.
You don't seem to get it. I am asking them to not only issue me a DMCA claim, but also take me to court when I refuse to comply with it. Their threats of legal action are exactly what I am challenging. They have no legal basis - a claim I intend to prove if someone takes me up on my offer.
If such a suit were taken, it would only be a binding precedent in the jurisdiction of that court - judicial decisions in America cannot bind courts in NZ, for example. As such, there is really no point, as not all modders etc live in a single country.
That only makes these debates even more meaningless.
Is there any modder who would agree to sue me if I put out a modpack containing their "copyrighted" content? I could also claim the work as my own and require the use of Adfly if you believe it would help your case.
Seriously. I'm totally up for establishing some legal precedent here, but I'm not the type of person who would do that stuff for no reason at all, so I need to know if anyone is going to take me up on it. I just think these debates are ridiculous when the only real solution is to actually test the legality of these copyright clauses in a courtroom or other legal setting. (I'd still settle if it turned out I was really screwed.)
When I asked Azanor about it his reply was, its not about adfly its about principle, I've been burned in the past so I just dont allow it. The issue with this attitude is people like myself who are perfectly happy to not only ask for permission but promote your mod to thousands of people are screwed out of the opportunity.
Here's what people don't seem to understand, or (more likely) are willfully ignoring. It doesn't matter, legally, what he thinks, says, or does. "Azanor" - I'm now using him as a hypothetical here - cannot tell you how you use his mod. Or, rather, he can, but it holds no legal sway.
It seems that the only way to sufficiently prove this to these people is to demonstrate it in court. Hence, I would like to try an experiment: Let me make a modpack consisting only of the most notoriously protected mods. Then let me post this modpack here, along with my full name, location and personal e-mail address where you can request my home address for legal communications.
Because this isn't a matter of manufacturing a "cause celebre," but only determining legal rights, I'll even sweeten the deal for you: I'll personally take credit for creating every single mod in the pack, in order to lose the sympathy factor from the other people defending the EULA, and I'll also require that the pack be downloaded through Adfly for the same reason, as well as to reduce my legal standing.
Then, to quote Trey Parker and Marshall Mathers: "Sue me." Send me a cease-and-desist letter in the mail, and I'll post a Youtube video wherein I physically defile said letter in various ways.
Seriously. If you doubt that mod-makers cannot legally dictate how their mod is used, let's do it. Let's set some legal precedent so there's no more inane squabbling about which individual really speaks for Mojang's intentions, or whether Mr. Marc actually has the authority to say exactly the same thing I am saying here. Let me put my money where your mouth is.
I'm not interested in being a sympathetic defendant here. (I use the word "sympathetic" to mean someone who receives sympathy, not someone who demonstrates it.) I'm only interested in demonstrating that a modder's only recourse for misuse or misappropriation of their creation is shaming the people who do so, not in legal recourse. In order for said shame and ostracism to function properly. the modders must be sympathetic and they will not be sympathetic as long as they believe they can dictate how their mods are used and who they are used by.
I doubt Curse will let me do this. But if people can think of another avenue for me to do this publicly, suggest it. I'm serious about this.
Honestly, it'll be a miracle if a single one of these "pro-modders" (lol) actually reads through this post, tries to see where I'm coming from, and also doesn't just assume that, for some reason, I hate modders. I love modders. I open Chrome just to use the adfly link for mods because no matter how many plugins I disable, I cannot use adfly with Firefox. This isn't about my opinion or my attitude towards modders, this is about the fact of the law and the fact of the law is that modders cannot set legal terms for how their work is used or who it is used by. They can only determine how their work is used through the support of the community, but they will not have the unconditional support of the community as long as they believe it is unnecessary and in some cases detrimental to their bottom line.
Let's be very clear about something. I will place it in slightly-larger-than-normal font size in order to emphasize it.
Modders are not allowed to dictate who can and cannot use their mod, for any purpose. If you doubt this, then please try taking the makers of a particularly intransigent modpack to court for copyright infringement.
All the debating and pseudo-legalistic jargon and hypothetical situations in the world will not change the fact that if you attempt to enforce your "right" to have your mod excluded from a modpack or any other unauthorized use, you'll be lucky if you don't have to pay the other party's legal fees.
0
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?)
0
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.
0
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.
1
And you're accusing other people of sticking their fingers in their ears? See, unlike every single "pro-modder" poster in this thread, I am capable of doing the most minimal amount of research to determine legal precedent to back up my arguments.
In MDY vs Blizzard, the court ruled that people who buy computer games are not legally owners of the product, but licensees, and therefore were required by law to obey the company's EULA. MDY, makers of third-party software for Blizzard products, were found "liable under theories of copyright and tort law for selling software that contributed to the breach of Blizzard's End User License Agreement and Terms of Use."
This is not a one time thing. Blizzard has repeatedly sued and won against people who sell unlicensed products for their games. They are just one of the most visible (and stringent) enforcers of their right to prevent people from making money off of user-created content. Do your own research if you don't believe me. Again, why do you think it is that not one modder directly charges for their mods? Making money with your mods from adfly is still iffy legally, but it obviously isn't the same as directly charging for your mods because there is no actual transaction taking place
If your goal was to frustrate me, consider yourself successful. I'm not used to people just repeating their claims over and over again in the face of a mountain of contradictory evidence.
It's more than that. Even if modders could sue for copyright infringement (and there is absolutely no empirical evidence indicating they can) it is literally impossible for them to sue for damages, because they are legally prohibited from directly profiting from their mods.
1
This is most emphatically not true. It is, in fact, pretty much the only thing both sides have agreed on and the one thing that the EULA is very, very specific about. I'm not sure how you missed this. If there's anything in the realm of mods that would initiate legal action from Mojang, it is this. Why do you think every single modder seeking compensation uses Adfly and donation buttons instead of just selling the mod?
0
...except sell them or take action against people who steal them. So if by "whatever they want," you mean "say whatever they want and/or threaten people with legal action that will never happen" then yes; I don't believe that was ever in dispute.
And yes. DrZhark will not successfully sue you if you put MoCreatures in your modpack. If he tries, I'll pay your legal fees.
0
So let's prove it. If the forum will guarantee that I won't be banned for doing so, I will post a modpack containing a "copyrighted" mod, and send the author of this mod my name and address - all of this, of course, provided that they agree to sue me first. This is the third time I have so magnanimously offered to do this and somehow no one is willing to put my money where their mouth is. If you really believe you're right, there should be some money in it for you.
And you still didn't answer my question. Where has the maker of a modification to a computer game ever successfully sued someone on the basis of copyright? Once more unto the breach, rules mean nothing if they are not enforced.
2
As ethically justified as your complaints are, I'm still compelled to challenge you to find me a single instance in which a court determined that this kind of behavior - stealing or misappropriating modifications to computer games - was illegal and someone was successfully prosecuted for it, in civil or criminal court. (Meaning, where the plaintiff won.) A case where such a dispute was settled out of court would also suffice.
4
Show me a single instance of this law being enforced in the way you describe it - with regards to a mod to a computer game - and I'll concede the point. Remember, a rule means nothing if it's not being enforced.
1
Sorry, 1 and 6 are still your opinion, and wrong at that. Nice mod, by the way.
0
You don't seem to get it. I am asking them to not only issue me a DMCA claim, but also take me to court when I refuse to comply with it. Their threats of legal action are exactly what I am challenging. They have no legal basis - a claim I intend to prove if someone takes me up on my offer.
1
That only makes these debates even more meaningless.
0
Seriously. I'm totally up for establishing some legal precedent here, but I'm not the type of person who would do that stuff for no reason at all, so I need to know if anyone is going to take me up on it. I just think these debates are ridiculous when the only real solution is to actually test the legality of these copyright clauses in a courtroom or other legal setting. (I'd still settle if it turned out I was really screwed.)
0
Here's what people don't seem to understand, or (more likely) are willfully ignoring. It doesn't matter, legally, what he thinks, says, or does. "Azanor" - I'm now using him as a hypothetical here - cannot tell you how you use his mod. Or, rather, he can, but it holds no legal sway.
It seems that the only way to sufficiently prove this to these people is to demonstrate it in court. Hence, I would like to try an experiment: Let me make a modpack consisting only of the most notoriously protected mods. Then let me post this modpack here, along with my full name, location and personal e-mail address where you can request my home address for legal communications.
Because this isn't a matter of manufacturing a "cause celebre," but only determining legal rights, I'll even sweeten the deal for you: I'll personally take credit for creating every single mod in the pack, in order to lose the sympathy factor from the other people defending the EULA, and I'll also require that the pack be downloaded through Adfly for the same reason, as well as to reduce my legal standing.
Then, to quote Trey Parker and Marshall Mathers: "Sue me." Send me a cease-and-desist letter in the mail, and I'll post a Youtube video wherein I physically defile said letter in various ways.
Seriously. If you doubt that mod-makers cannot legally dictate how their mod is used, let's do it. Let's set some legal precedent so there's no more inane squabbling about which individual really speaks for Mojang's intentions, or whether Mr. Marc actually has the authority to say exactly the same thing I am saying here. Let me put my money where your mouth is.
I'm not interested in being a sympathetic defendant here. (I use the word "sympathetic" to mean someone who receives sympathy, not someone who demonstrates it.) I'm only interested in demonstrating that a modder's only recourse for misuse or misappropriation of their creation is shaming the people who do so, not in legal recourse. In order for said shame and ostracism to function properly. the modders must be sympathetic and they will not be sympathetic as long as they believe they can dictate how their mods are used and who they are used by.
I doubt Curse will let me do this. But if people can think of another avenue for me to do this publicly, suggest it. I'm serious about this.
Honestly, it'll be a miracle if a single one of these "pro-modders" (lol) actually reads through this post, tries to see where I'm coming from, and also doesn't just assume that, for some reason, I hate modders. I love modders. I open Chrome just to use the adfly link for mods because no matter how many plugins I disable, I cannot use adfly with Firefox. This isn't about my opinion or my attitude towards modders, this is about the fact of the law and the fact of the law is that modders cannot set legal terms for how their work is used or who it is used by. They can only determine how their work is used through the support of the community, but they will not have the unconditional support of the community as long as they believe it is unnecessary and in some cases detrimental to their bottom line.
Thank you and good day.
1
Modders are not allowed to dictate who can and cannot use their mod, for any purpose. If you doubt this, then please try taking the makers of a particularly intransigent modpack to court for copyright infringement.
All the debating and pseudo-legalistic jargon and hypothetical situations in the world will not change the fact that if you attempt to enforce your "right" to have your mod excluded from a modpack or any other unauthorized use, you'll be lucky if you don't have to pay the other party's legal fees.
I would love to be proven wrong.
Thank you and good night.