The whole "you cannot make money off of anything we made" thing was not in the original EULA, that's the point.
There was no "original EULA". the closest thing was the "Terms and Conditions" link, found on web.archive.org here. This has the text you describe.
The text in question- and the text that is brought up over and over again in this debate, is text from over ~2 years ago stating that "Plugins for the game also belong to you and you can do whatever you want with them, including selling them for money."
I concede that this exists.
In fact, using the wayback machine we can even get a good estimate of when it was changed:
March 19th, 2012. This has the text, "Plugins for the game also belong to you and you can do whatever you want with them, including selling them for money."
April 19th, 2012. The text is now "Plugins for the game also belong to you and you can do whatever you want with them, as long as you don't sell them for money."
This corresponds around the release of Minecraft 1.2.5. This change took place over two years ago.
So the real question is why it is suddenly an issue now. And even then how, necessarily, the old text would actually allow the things that are being defended/protected.
After all, The general context here- in regards to the EULA- is for Running servers. eg. Server owners can only charge their users in certain ways, and cannot give players items, equipment, or other perks that are not available to non-paying players. So yes- that original EULA allows you to sell plugins. So, if you are creating plugins or mods for Minecraft Alpha versions from a date that would cause it to fall under those Terms of Use, than yes- by all means you can sell your plugins for money. That doesn't really factor into running a server. I'll get ot the changes and how they do or do not apply over time to current versions and mods/plugins built atop those current versions in a moment.
-Donator perks are not selling plugins. What you are selling is having a few options changed in plugins. Not nearly the same thing. It's the difference between charging for a copy of a Software product and charging to change settings in that application.
So while a server owner and/or plugin developer, when acting under the terms of that older ToS (I'll revisit that momentarily) Can sell those plugins for money- installing the plugins on their server and then selling perks is not selling those plugins, so that little snippet isn't even really relevant.
We were told we could do whatever we want with our own server plugins, specifically including making money from them.
By selling them. Not by installing them on a server and charging people for the privilege of having options in that plugin changed for their benefit.
One would assume that "whatever you want" also includes giving advantages or perks to certain people. It said that they belonged to us, and we were free to do whatever.
This has some merit, I think. However at the same time I think this is almost certainly nothing more than a glaring loophole that is a result of that original Terms of Service not being written by a lawyer- and this is almost certainly what prompted a proper rewrite when Notch & Company realized that, hey, if they aren't perfectly clear in the document, That is just going to be trouble. Lawyers and legalese exist for the very purpose of making things like this clear and making all possible interpretations of the text match with the spirit of it. To me, the spirit therein is pretty obvious- and installing a plugin and then charging people who connect to your server to change a few variables in that plugin for their benefit is almost certainly in defiance of that spirit.
Moreso, however, Those Terms of Service only apply if you are applying plugins and mods to versions of the software that actually fell under those Terms of Service. A common argument about this is that, Plugin developers and/or Server administrators didn't have to agree to the new Terms of Use in the meantime, to use the software, therefore, they are still bound only to that previous agreement.
That also has some merit. But it can be picked apart. Let us start with Plugins and Mods.
Mods and plugins are derivative works. There is no escaping this. derivative works, under copyright law, need to be authorized by the original copyright owner if they are to be distributed. That is, If Mojang wants to stop, say, Thaumcraft, from every being distributed, they will win in court because the law is quite clear as to who controls what. Thankfully, they do not do this, but it does lead into my next point, which is that it is the Terms of Service that actually give developers the right to extend, modify, and distribute mods for the game. In a fictituous example, let us imagine a developer who has been making mods since before the EULA change in April 2012 and has not agreed to the changed agreement creates mods. Now, imagine they want to sell those plugins for money? Can they? this is one question (one somewhat and completely different from the one that Server Owners are raising) and is not really central to the debate.
Now, of course- I am not a lawyer, which puts me in the majority of those involved in this discussion. However, in the eyes of the law different versions of software are considered separate works. So in the case of this plugin developer, it does not stand that the pre April 2012 ToS is the only one they need to abide by, because it is in fact the responsibility of the developer to ensure the software they are building is properly licensed and following the appropriate Terms required to create that software. What this means is that a plugin developer that tries to claim ignorance on the issue of a changed EULA is irresponsible and more to the point, wrong- because, particularly in the context of derivative works, new versions constitute a new software product and when creating a derived work you need to get express permission from the original copyright owner in order to distribute and/or sell it. So while a developer could continue to create derived works/mods based on the older version(s) for which the older Terms of Service applied, they could not do the same for current versions which have a different distribution license- claiming "I didn't agree to a new set of terms" doesn't work particularly in that context because the responsibility for the legal insurances of a derived work fall squarely on the creator of that derived work.
Now, that applies to developers. A developer cannot build a derived software product for Version 1.0, then update that derived software for version 1.2 and release it without ensuring that release is expressly permitted by the original author; a ToS or other document that gives those permissions does not apply for all future versions of that product- each version has it's own ToS/EULA, and they give you the ability to create and distribute mods in the first place. The logic some have expressed about the EULA being invalid is entirely sound, as I mentioned, but the problem is that if you were to throw that out, you haven't got a leg to stand on because that was the only thing giving you the express permission to create/distribute/use those derived works in the first place.
"I don't care because I don't play on multiplayer anyway" doesn't seem like the best basis on which to be making an argument for a controversial matter.
The laws and facts are pretty clear to me on this issue. Additionally, being that I have no vested interest either way I would argue my perspective would be more unbiased. In contrast, many of those who are against the changes are Server owners. I've seen and read their arguments around the internet where I've encountered them, and I've yet to find one that doesn't clearly show that they are trying to support a conclusion that they had already decided on. That's fair enough- naturally they are going to try to support their own point of view and naturally their own point of view is going to want to maintain the current status quo where they are able to charge people for the privilege of having a few variables flipped to give their character special abilities. However the ones that I have seen have had very weak actual arguments but very strong on appeals to emotion- for example, "The EULA doesn't apply because we never agreed to the new one since it was changed- Now what are going to do for jobs, how will I buy my children christmas presents, Do I have to tell them there is no Santa" etc. (ok, hyperbole, but that is the sort of affectation common in such posts- basically, they are asserting that their livelihood and the maintenance thereof is somehow Mojangs responsibility, because they were ignorant that it was theirs. I've found such arguments, frankly, a bit pathetic.
I don't like pay to win servers, and there were a lot of them. But there were even more legitimate servers just trying to pay the costs of running a server.
This is also common. Basically, a "are you going to let a few bad apples spoil the batch".
And when it comes to law, the answer is yes. In fact that is effectively how it works- it applies to same to everybody with no exceptions. One could argue that there should be some way to allow those current "legitimate" servers to keep running. That has some additional problems:
-Who is going to ensure they are "legitimate"
-By what measures are they determined to be legitimate or illegitimate?
-What action is taken if they are found to be illegitimate?
-How often are they checked? Should servers get a license? etc.
That sort of thing. And no matter what requirements are put in place those shady individuals will find a way to make their servers apply but still be shady at their core, and the end result is even worse for those actual, well-intentioned servers, who now have to go through a certification process. And consider how such a system could be exploited- rival servers could easily make complaints about the server, or join a server and pretend to be a staff member when the "official Mojang server checker" logs in, or whatever system they have in place.
The best way to avoid a privilege from being exploited is to deny it to begin with. Sad but true.
All major servers will take a hit from the change, yet the ropey underground servers that charge $1000 for a rank will most likely continue, because there's no way that Mojang can go around investigating every server, especially whitelisted ones.
This is conjecture, and the aim is to remove the idea of gameplay perks from the general population of servers- it's not going to get them all but it's going to get rid of the large number of servers that have a few plugins and "charge" you to do things such as build, claim areas of land, open chests, etc. And what you are effectively paying for is to have your permissions flags changed for your player. That doesn't seem like a fair exchange of goods and services, At least not IMO. The servers that are less accessible to any official checking are going to be less accessible to players as well.
Again, the EULA used to allow this. They didn't base their jobs off of "ignorance of copyright law", they tried to set up a sustainable server for the community in a way that was allowed at the time, and could now end up in debt because Mojang changed their EULA overnight.
A significant minority of servers active today have remained unchanged since April 2012. I would surmise perhaps a handful. The majority of servers active today that have things such as donation benefits, perks, etc. Are typically very young. This also kinda raises the issue- I covered how the ToS/EULA affects developers- and how developers are responsible for ensuring their software as a derived work is properly licensed lest they fact litigation, but how does this apply to Server owners.
Well, from where I'm standing, it could be argued that the EULA is not even for Server owners. It is, after all, in the name- "End User". A Server administrator is not necessarily an End-User, that would, instead, be the Clients connecting. What this means is that Server administrators are not End Users, but instead, they are Brokers, and the software they are Brokering is a Minecraft server or a piece of software derived from a Minecraft Server. A Broker, legally, is responsible for providing a service or merchandise from one party (in this case, the Developers of the plugins) to another (in this case, the end users). It is also their responsibility to ensure everything is above-board. This includes ensuring that any and all users are aware of the EULA, that the software developers are aware of the EULA of the software that they built (well, that is more on them than any brokerage after the fact), and most importantly, a broker cannot add stipulations.
What this means is that, say, a plugin developer creates a plugin that allows a player to teleport. They code the plugin in a configurable manner to use Permissions. Alright.
A Server owner then uses that software and installs it on their server.
Their "Clients" are people connecting to the server. The "Brokerage" is allowing people to use that Plugin and Minecraft itself, while, to the best of their ability, demonstrating that they can ensure the End Users understand the stipulations of the software they are using.
Where this falls apart is that a broker is usually a middleman.
Where we have a standard broker setup:
Manufacturer->Broker->End User
The End User might pay the Broker some amount of money, the Broker takes 10% off of that as a commission and the rest goes to the Manufacturer.
When it comes to servers, There are a lot of servers that use Open Source plugins and reap a mometary profit off of it- they are not really brokers, instead they would, in true Linux fashion, market themselves as "support professionals" they aren't responsible for the software, just making sure it works for you. That is usually how Open Source profitability works so I guess that would make sense.
Other servers will work more similarly to the broker-deal, with the server admin basically delegating tasks such as plugin development or whatever else they want to others.
"old old" was not 2011, the "original" EULA was from 2009. It said you could do whatever you want including selling them for money. Not "all you can do with plugins is sell them for money". As I said further up, "whatever you want" really allows pretty much anything, especially when it has been clarified that commercial things are fine too.
Yes that is why they changed it. As I mentioned the change occured between March 16th and April 16th in 2012. They were not EULAs, but Terms of Service. (Which can also apply as the former for the purpose of disclosing rights for the creation of derivative works).
Good point; if you aren't under any EULA, you don't really have a right to the software.
However people had agreed to a EULA, the old one. It allows full access to all "features of all future versions", so people did have the right to do what they are doing.
I cannot find that. "Features of all future versions" is not in any of the EULA's/ToS's I was able to read via web.archive.org. Of additional note is this passage, in the ToS/EULA from Nov 28th 2011 (probably going back earlier also):
We reserve the right to change this agreement at any time with or without notice, with immediate and/or retroactive effect.
What this means is that in agreeing to this agreement you also agree that it is now your responsibility to ensure you are aware of the latest changes and that you essentially agree to be bound to the terms of any future EULA as long as you use the software.
Contracts often have this sort of verbiage- ironically, it is to prevent people from exploiting loopholes in earlier, more lax versions of an agreement in order to get away with something with a more recent version- practically what we are looking at here.
To add on to this, since that is in fact in the older agreement (going back at least to 2011, at least, possibly older) that means that even according to the standard logic, the entire house of cards comes down.
That is, if you agreed to that version of the EULA, you also agreed to the retroactive effect and that you were responsible for being made aware and abiding by any changes. So ignorance of changes in later versions on the presumption that "I never agreed to those changes" is already cut off- you need to be aware of changes made that affect you and either agree to the new terms or terminate your use of the software.
If the community wants the server not to scale down because they genuinely like it, they will support it regardless of perks.
No. They won't. Nobody will freely give away money in exchange for nothing. Even when donating to something like the Red Cross or the boys and girls club or some other charity, you're doing it for the feeling of helping out a good cause. Minecraft servers are not charity. No one will donate to them out of some insatiable "love". The few people that do will not be enough to cover the expenses. Additionally, most minecraft players are too young to have jobs and are not old enough to manage their own money. How should a 10 year old be expected to come up to their parents and ask them to litterally throw away $20 for no reason?
You are right about one thing, the community knows what it wants. Countless servers have tried countless methods of monetization. They've tried 100% pure donations, cosmetics, in-game ads, pay to play, pay to win, but in the end, the community has chosen "pay for more". They've spent the most money on servers offering fair and balanced purchasable ranks/features and for that reason, those servers have survived and become the most prevelant leaving the others to die off.
Yeah, I'm "misguided". Have you tried to run a server yourself? Just a question. It's expensive. Another question. Do you play multiplayer? All servers are trying to be as large as possible, why? Because it's fun to play with more people. You have a better experience. Where Minecraft was in 2010 is completely irrelevant. That was when Minecraft was still fresh, people still playing singleplayer and figuring out the game. The uprising of Minecraft was 2010, now it relies on multiplayer to keep it fresh, which is going to be hit hard by this.
Yes and I prefer small and private server because some people enjoy playing with a small group of friends. If you find Minecraft boring with smaller servers, then you are free to stop playing it. You have already given your $27 to mojang and it doesn't matter at this point if you quit playing or not. There are still tons of new potential customers coming in who finds the game fresh and willing to drop that $27 to mojang's pocket. So no. Minecraft multiplayer will not die as long as there are people who are contented playing in a small and private server and new players willing to play it vanilla. Minecraft dying is just an empty threat of greedy server owners hell bent on getting back their source of income.
No. They won't. Nobody will freely give away money in exchange for nothing. Even when donating to something like the Red Cross or the boys and girls club or some other charity, you're doing it for the feeling of helping out a good cause. Minecraft servers are not charity. No one will donate to them out of some insatiable "love". The few people that do will not be enough to cover the expenses. Additionally, most minecraft players are too young to have jobs and are not old enough to manage their own money. How should a 10 year old be expected to come up to their parents and ask them to litterally throw away $20 for no reason?
You are right about one thing, the community knows what it wants. Countless servers have tried countless methods of monetization. They've tried 100% pure donations, cosmetics, in-game ads, pay to play, pay to win, but in the end, the community has chosen "pay for more". They've spent the most money on servers offering fair and balanced purchasable ranks/features and for that reason, those servers have survived and become the most prevelant leaving the others to die off.
Then it only means the community doesn't want these servers to exist. All they care about is showing superiority. Why cater to a community that doesn't care about your server? Also, parents are smart enough to know servers are not free and need money to keep going.
Yes and I prefer small and private server because some people enjoy playing with a small group of friends. If you find Minecraft boring with smaller servers, then you are free to stop playing it. You have already given your $27 to mojang and it doesn't matter at this point if you quit playing or not. There are still tons of new potential customers coming in who finds the game fresh and willing to drop that $27 to mojang's pocket. So no. Minecraft multiplayer will not die as long as there are people who are contented playing in a small and private server and new players willing to play it vanilla. Minecraft dying is just an empty threat of greedy server owners hell bent on getting back their source of income.
Then it only means the community doesn't want these servers to exist. All they care about is showing superiority. Why cater to a community that doesn't care about your server? Also, parents are smart enough to know servers are not free and need money to keep going.
Well. . .this isn't good for admin/owners like us who balanced Donator ranks out. . .and didn't make them OP or anything. . .
Once again, the bad apple in the mix ruins it for everyone.
But it won't be too much of a problem in the long run, our team can addapt to the new rules, and we have some players who already donated to us without using the shop.
What we need is an official protest/petition that people can officially vote what they think! (But we all know what the results of the vote would be) Mojang needs to ask the community, the 15,000,000 people who have purchased Minecraft. They cant just change it, they should be asking the community about their opinions. What about Networks like MinePlex and Hypixle? Most of the items purchased on their servers with real money will be banned in the new EULA such as in game money, in game boosts etc. Lots of Minecraft networks will be banned and players will quit Minecraft in total, most of the people who play multiplayer only play multiplayer.
How exactly would it work if a server sells cosmetics, but they have a skin contest or something similar on the server? Would that count as affecting gameplay, but you are obeying the rules by selling cosmetics?
At first I was worried this would kill modded minecraft, but what it will do is reduce the kids who play on quality servers. So i will have to pay a monthly fee to play on a hi quality server and it will be kiddie free. Thanks mojang
The way i see it, im not willing to fund other peoples gaming so ill just play on the free servers for free, or pay for quality access to a good server. The fact that some people think the server owner should pay all the cost is silly.
My experience is from modded minecraft, but to run a server that supports 50 users connected and playing is over $100 a month to rent. So are people realy expecting some stranger on the inet to pay this money out if their own pocket? Currently the 10% of donators support the 90% freeloaders. Looks like your free ride is ending
You know (and pardon me if I've missed a post, its hard to keep up when I work quite a bit), I still have yet to see anyone explain how this is beneficial to the community. Specifically, how restricting what servers are allowed to sell (at all) is a benefit. I can and have pointed out quite a few arguments as to why it is negative, but have seen none that describe it being positive.
Sure, its Mojang's game and their right and I do respect that. My choice in the matter was to move my content creation to an open source engine instead of supporting Mojang in that way any longer. However, that doesn't mean I think its a good or right move by Mojang to do this. It really does hurt the community without actually benefiting anyone.
Can someone that is for the change please explain why its a good thing without just repeating the same kind of "Its Mojang's right" or "I had pay to win" excuses that have been made. I get that it's Mojang's game, but it doesn't mean Mojang couldn't be making a mistake. I also understand that people might not enjoy a pay to win environment, but they have thousands (or more) alternative servers they could join, this point is essentially moot (just because you don't enjoy it, doesn't mean noone should be able to).
The few owners I spoke with will offer a lite version server that is free, and a full version server for pay.
It appears, at least for modded minecraft ( FTB Technic ATA ect ...) that it will be hard to impossable to play on a hi pop server without paying
I can see unscrupulous server owners making the experience of the lite version as bad as possible so people will pay to join the full server
This will encourage server owners to offer hi quality playing experiences on their paid servers so they can attract as many paying customers while doing their best to get people to move to the pay server.
The few owners I spoke with will offer a lite version server that is free, and a full version server for pay.
It appears, at least for modded minecraft ( FTB Technic ATA ect ...) that it will be hard to impossable to play on a hi pop server without paying
I can see unscrupulous server owners making the experience of the lite version as bad as possible so people will pay to join the full server
This will encourage server owners to offer hi quality playing experiences on their paid servers so they can attract as many paying customers while doing their best to get people to move to the pay server.
I don't really get why people like high pop servers anyways (but then I don't get into minigame stuff, prefer Survival). I've never joined a server with more than 100 people that wasn't a horribly laggy experience. But I'm probably in the minority, sometimes I like just firing up SSP or just playing with an extremely small group of people.
yes, but how can you sell premium access?
they say you cannot mix paying and non paying customers on a server.
so you cannot put paying customers (who are paying for premium access) onto a server with non paying free users.
so a sever cannot *kick* a free user or have special slots for premium members, right? because thats violating the part of the rules that say you cannnot have paying and non paying customers on the same server.
premium users have to get their own seperate server from free users.
right?
Actually you can, provided the paying members and free members are treated the same in terms of gameplay. The only equality mojang wants is gameplay but they are fine if there is no equality in terms of how you access the server. Kicking a free player to make room for paying members is acceptable. That is actually more generous than outright restricting access to only paying members.
You know (and pardon me if I've missed a post, its hard to keep up when I work quite a bit), I still have yet to see anyone explain how this is beneficial to the community. Specifically, how restricting what servers are allowed to sell (at all) is a benefit. I can and have pointed out quite a few arguments as to why it is negative, but have seen none that describe it being positive.
Sure, its Mojang's game and their right and I do respect that. My choice in the matter was to move my content creation to an open source engine instead of supporting Mojang in that way any longer. However, that doesn't mean I think its a good or right move by Mojang to do this. It really does hurt the community without actually benefiting anyone.
Can someone that is for the change please explain why its a good thing without just repeating the same kind of "Its Mojang's right" or "I had pay to win" excuses that have been made. I get that it's Mojang's game, but it doesn't mean Mojang couldn't be making a mistake. I also understand that people might not enjoy a pay to win environment, but they have thousands (or more) alternative servers they could join, this point is essentially moot (just because you don't enjoy it, doesn't mean noone should be able to).
Because they know their game better and know what's good for it. You have to trust mojang on this one. They don't want minecraft to fail as much as we do but us and them have different ideas about it. If it works for them, then good. If not, they may change a few rules to bring back old monetization schemes. We will just have to wait and see and it would be better if the community doesn't actively destroy minecraft for not getting what they want like a spoiled child destroying everything after the parents denied him of what he wants.
Now that I think about it this won't be so bad. If you can make atleast around $10 a month after this is in place there will be no problem. For $10 a month you can buy a VPS (Virtual Private Server) with 4gb of Ram and as many slots as you want. Also on top of that you don't need to pay for a webstie per month because you can host your website on the same VPS. These big servers that claim to make thousands per month can go and buy thier own server box, the physical server they can host their servers from there. That simple.
Because they know their game better and know what's good for it. You have to trust mojang on this one. They don't want minecraft to fail as much as we do but us and them have different ideas about it. If it works for them, then good. If not, they may change a few rules to bring back old monetization schemes. We will just have to wait and see and it would be better if the community doesn't actively destroy minecraft for not getting what they want like a spoiled child destroying everything after the parents denied him of what he wants.
You didn't actually read what I posted or you continued to choose to ignore it.
I specifically asked HOW it is good for the community. All you've explained is that Mojang has the right, which I don't believe ANY of us disagree with. They own the game, of course they have the right to choose how its used. I cannot trust Mojang when they do something as hap-hazzard as change something a large portion of the community relies on, without actually creating any kind of discussion with the community first.
If you're going to continue to quote me and respond to my posts, would you please at least answer the question I asked, rather then continue to repeat the same thing over and over?
Isn't everything going good? This will completely terminate the whole world of servers, because new servers will not get enough money to stay up and running. If there are servers like this, there are some simple solutions, such as, mojang could set up a forum page for all complaints, and have a team of people to go onto those servers to tell the owner and have a look at it, OR you don't have to play on those servers!
Then it only means the community doesn't want these servers to exist. All they care about is showing superiority. Why cater to a community that doesn't care about your server? Also, parents are smart enough to know servers are not free and need money to keep going.
It doesn't always meen that they don't care about these servers, they have already payed for the game, why should we now have to pay to support servers? thats like only being able to campaign on games like call of duty! Also, parents of 10 year old kids aren't all made of money, they don't just give their children money to play games, lots try to keep their children away from games! Also parents are old, in their days, they didn't have things like this, they don't understand thing like you would need money to play games.
You didn't actually read what I posted or you continued to choose to ignore it.
I specifically asked HOW it is good for the community. All you've explained is that Mojang has the right, which I don't believe ANY of us disagree with. They own the game, of course they have the right to choose how its used. I cannot trust Mojang when they do something as hap-hazzard as change something a large portion of the community relies on, without actually creating any kind of discussion with the community first.
If you're going to continue to quote me and respond to my posts, would you please at least answer the question I asked, rather then continue to repeat the same thing over and over?
How is it good is very subjective which is why I try to reason in an objective manner with mojang knowing what they are doing. If you ask me for my personal opinion, I always hated inequality in games that favors paying players. Having a community that encourages equality and discourages elitism is better in my opinion. Server quality should go up because there is no more easy way of luring players to spend money and you have to make an actual good server to do it. There is no right or wrong opinion because personal opinion is subjective so we should not use it as a basis on why the EULA should or should not be supported.
It doesn't always meen that they don't care about these servers, they have already payed for the game, why should we now have to pay to support servers? thats like only being able to campaign on games like call of duty! Also, parents of 10 year old kids aren't all made of money, they don't just give their children money to play games, lots try to keep their children away from games! Also parents are old, in their days, they didn't have things like this, they don't understand thing like you would need money to play games.
Tell me, what's the difference between the $20 you spent for perks and $20 you spent for server maintenance? You spend the same amount of money in both cases but it is the attitude that matters here. Now that I think of it, why not make a server that is pay to enter but has all the perks in it? Would you pay for it or not just because there are no free players to abuse your power on?
I think even your grandpa knows that you pay money to use a service like paying a taxi to get you somewhere. Just tell them servers are like services that needs money to operate and they will understand unless you are a liar and your words can't be trusted.
There was no "original EULA". the closest thing was the "Terms and Conditions" link, found on web.archive.org here. This has the text you describe.
The text in question- and the text that is brought up over and over again in this debate, is text from over ~2 years ago stating that "Plugins for the game also belong to you and you can do whatever you want with them, including selling them for money."
I concede that this exists.
In fact, using the wayback machine we can even get a good estimate of when it was changed:
http://web.archive.org/web/20120319180325/http://www.minecraft.net/terms
March 19th, 2012. This has the text, "Plugins for the game also belong to you and you can do whatever you want with them, including selling them for money."
April 19th, 2012. The text is now "Plugins for the game also belong to you and you can do whatever you want with them, as long as you don't sell them for money."
This corresponds around the release of Minecraft 1.2.5. This change took place over two years ago.
So the real question is why it is suddenly an issue now. And even then how, necessarily, the old text would actually allow the things that are being defended/protected.
After all, The general context here- in regards to the EULA- is for Running servers. eg. Server owners can only charge their users in certain ways, and cannot give players items, equipment, or other perks that are not available to non-paying players. So yes- that original EULA allows you to sell plugins. So, if you are creating plugins or mods for Minecraft Alpha versions from a date that would cause it to fall under those Terms of Use, than yes- by all means you can sell your plugins for money. That doesn't really factor into running a server. I'll get ot the changes and how they do or do not apply over time to current versions and mods/plugins built atop those current versions in a moment.
-Donator perks are not selling plugins. What you are selling is having a few options changed in plugins. Not nearly the same thing. It's the difference between charging for a copy of a Software product and charging to change settings in that application.
So while a server owner and/or plugin developer, when acting under the terms of that older ToS (I'll revisit that momentarily) Can sell those plugins for money- installing the plugins on their server and then selling perks is not selling those plugins, so that little snippet isn't even really relevant.
By selling them. Not by installing them on a server and charging people for the privilege of having options in that plugin changed for their benefit.
This has some merit, I think. However at the same time I think this is almost certainly nothing more than a glaring loophole that is a result of that original Terms of Service not being written by a lawyer- and this is almost certainly what prompted a proper rewrite when Notch & Company realized that, hey, if they aren't perfectly clear in the document, That is just going to be trouble. Lawyers and legalese exist for the very purpose of making things like this clear and making all possible interpretations of the text match with the spirit of it. To me, the spirit therein is pretty obvious- and installing a plugin and then charging people who connect to your server to change a few variables in that plugin for their benefit is almost certainly in defiance of that spirit.
Moreso, however, Those Terms of Service only apply if you are applying plugins and mods to versions of the software that actually fell under those Terms of Service. A common argument about this is that, Plugin developers and/or Server administrators didn't have to agree to the new Terms of Use in the meantime, to use the software, therefore, they are still bound only to that previous agreement.
That also has some merit. But it can be picked apart. Let us start with Plugins and Mods.
Mods and plugins are derivative works. There is no escaping this. derivative works, under copyright law, need to be authorized by the original copyright owner if they are to be distributed. That is, If Mojang wants to stop, say, Thaumcraft, from every being distributed, they will win in court because the law is quite clear as to who controls what. Thankfully, they do not do this, but it does lead into my next point, which is that it is the Terms of Service that actually give developers the right to extend, modify, and distribute mods for the game. In a fictituous example, let us imagine a developer who has been making mods since before the EULA change in April 2012 and has not agreed to the changed agreement creates mods. Now, imagine they want to sell those plugins for money? Can they? this is one question (one somewhat and completely different from the one that Server Owners are raising) and is not really central to the debate.
Now, of course- I am not a lawyer, which puts me in the majority of those involved in this discussion. However, in the eyes of the law different versions of software are considered separate works. So in the case of this plugin developer, it does not stand that the pre April 2012 ToS is the only one they need to abide by, because it is in fact the responsibility of the developer to ensure the software they are building is properly licensed and following the appropriate Terms required to create that software. What this means is that a plugin developer that tries to claim ignorance on the issue of a changed EULA is irresponsible and more to the point, wrong- because, particularly in the context of derivative works, new versions constitute a new software product and when creating a derived work you need to get express permission from the original copyright owner in order to distribute and/or sell it. So while a developer could continue to create derived works/mods based on the older version(s) for which the older Terms of Service applied, they could not do the same for current versions which have a different distribution license- claiming "I didn't agree to a new set of terms" doesn't work particularly in that context because the responsibility for the legal insurances of a derived work fall squarely on the creator of that derived work.
Now, that applies to developers. A developer cannot build a derived software product for Version 1.0, then update that derived software for version 1.2 and release it without ensuring that release is expressly permitted by the original author; a ToS or other document that gives those permissions does not apply for all future versions of that product- each version has it's own ToS/EULA, and they give you the ability to create and distribute mods in the first place. The logic some have expressed about the EULA being invalid is entirely sound, as I mentioned, but the problem is that if you were to throw that out, you haven't got a leg to stand on because that was the only thing giving you the express permission to create/distribute/use those derived works in the first place.
The laws and facts are pretty clear to me on this issue. Additionally, being that I have no vested interest either way I would argue my perspective would be more unbiased. In contrast, many of those who are against the changes are Server owners. I've seen and read their arguments around the internet where I've encountered them, and I've yet to find one that doesn't clearly show that they are trying to support a conclusion that they had already decided on. That's fair enough- naturally they are going to try to support their own point of view and naturally their own point of view is going to want to maintain the current status quo where they are able to charge people for the privilege of having a few variables flipped to give their character special abilities. However the ones that I have seen have had very weak actual arguments but very strong on appeals to emotion- for example, "The EULA doesn't apply because we never agreed to the new one since it was changed- Now what are going to do for jobs, how will I buy my children christmas presents, Do I have to tell them there is no Santa" etc. (ok, hyperbole, but that is the sort of affectation common in such posts- basically, they are asserting that their livelihood and the maintenance thereof is somehow Mojangs responsibility, because they were ignorant that it was theirs. I've found such arguments, frankly, a bit pathetic.
This is also common. Basically, a "are you going to let a few bad apples spoil the batch".
And when it comes to law, the answer is yes. In fact that is effectively how it works- it applies to same to everybody with no exceptions. One could argue that there should be some way to allow those current "legitimate" servers to keep running. That has some additional problems:
-Who is going to ensure they are "legitimate"
-By what measures are they determined to be legitimate or illegitimate?
-What action is taken if they are found to be illegitimate?
-How often are they checked? Should servers get a license? etc.
That sort of thing. And no matter what requirements are put in place those shady individuals will find a way to make their servers apply but still be shady at their core, and the end result is even worse for those actual, well-intentioned servers, who now have to go through a certification process. And consider how such a system could be exploited- rival servers could easily make complaints about the server, or join a server and pretend to be a staff member when the "official Mojang server checker" logs in, or whatever system they have in place.
The best way to avoid a privilege from being exploited is to deny it to begin with. Sad but true.
This is conjecture, and the aim is to remove the idea of gameplay perks from the general population of servers- it's not going to get them all but it's going to get rid of the large number of servers that have a few plugins and "charge" you to do things such as build, claim areas of land, open chests, etc. And what you are effectively paying for is to have your permissions flags changed for your player. That doesn't seem like a fair exchange of goods and services, At least not IMO. The servers that are less accessible to any official checking are going to be less accessible to players as well.
A significant minority of servers active today have remained unchanged since April 2012. I would surmise perhaps a handful. The majority of servers active today that have things such as donation benefits, perks, etc. Are typically very young. This also kinda raises the issue- I covered how the ToS/EULA affects developers- and how developers are responsible for ensuring their software as a derived work is properly licensed lest they fact litigation, but how does this apply to Server owners.
Well, from where I'm standing, it could be argued that the EULA is not even for Server owners. It is, after all, in the name- "End User". A Server administrator is not necessarily an End-User, that would, instead, be the Clients connecting. What this means is that Server administrators are not End Users, but instead, they are Brokers, and the software they are Brokering is a Minecraft server or a piece of software derived from a Minecraft Server. A Broker, legally, is responsible for providing a service or merchandise from one party (in this case, the Developers of the plugins) to another (in this case, the end users). It is also their responsibility to ensure everything is above-board. This includes ensuring that any and all users are aware of the EULA, that the software developers are aware of the EULA of the software that they built (well, that is more on them than any brokerage after the fact), and most importantly, a broker cannot add stipulations.
What this means is that, say, a plugin developer creates a plugin that allows a player to teleport. They code the plugin in a configurable manner to use Permissions. Alright.
A Server owner then uses that software and installs it on their server.
Their "Clients" are people connecting to the server. The "Brokerage" is allowing people to use that Plugin and Minecraft itself, while, to the best of their ability, demonstrating that they can ensure the End Users understand the stipulations of the software they are using.
Where this falls apart is that a broker is usually a middleman.
Where we have a standard broker setup:
Manufacturer->Broker->End User
The End User might pay the Broker some amount of money, the Broker takes 10% off of that as a commission and the rest goes to the Manufacturer.
When it comes to servers, There are a lot of servers that use Open Source plugins and reap a mometary profit off of it- they are not really brokers, instead they would, in true Linux fashion, market themselves as "support professionals" they aren't responsible for the software, just making sure it works for you. That is usually how Open Source profitability works so I guess that would make sense.
Other servers will work more similarly to the broker-deal, with the server admin basically delegating tasks such as plugin development or whatever else they want to others.
Yes that is why they changed it. As I mentioned the change occured between March 16th and April 16th in 2012. They were not EULAs, but Terms of Service. (Which can also apply as the former for the purpose of disclosing rights for the creation of derivative works).
I cannot find that. "Features of all future versions" is not in any of the EULA's/ToS's I was able to read via web.archive.org. Of additional note is this passage, in the ToS/EULA from Nov 28th 2011 (probably going back earlier also):
What this means is that in agreeing to this agreement you also agree that it is now your responsibility to ensure you are aware of the latest changes and that you essentially agree to be bound to the terms of any future EULA as long as you use the software.
Contracts often have this sort of verbiage- ironically, it is to prevent people from exploiting loopholes in earlier, more lax versions of an agreement in order to get away with something with a more recent version- practically what we are looking at here.
To add on to this, since that is in fact in the older agreement (going back at least to 2011, at least, possibly older) that means that even according to the standard logic, the entire house of cards comes down.
That is, if you agreed to that version of the EULA, you also agreed to the retroactive effect and that you were responsible for being made aware and abiding by any changes. So ignorance of changes in later versions on the presumption that "I never agreed to those changes" is already cut off- you need to be aware of changes made that affect you and either agree to the new terms or terminate your use of the software.
No. They won't. Nobody will freely give away money in exchange for nothing. Even when donating to something like the Red Cross or the boys and girls club or some other charity, you're doing it for the feeling of helping out a good cause. Minecraft servers are not charity. No one will donate to them out of some insatiable "love". The few people that do will not be enough to cover the expenses. Additionally, most minecraft players are too young to have jobs and are not old enough to manage their own money. How should a 10 year old be expected to come up to their parents and ask them to litterally throw away $20 for no reason?
You are right about one thing, the community knows what it wants. Countless servers have tried countless methods of monetization. They've tried 100% pure donations, cosmetics, in-game ads, pay to play, pay to win, but in the end, the community has chosen "pay for more". They've spent the most money on servers offering fair and balanced purchasable ranks/features and for that reason, those servers have survived and become the most prevelant leaving the others to die off.
Yes and I prefer small and private server because some people enjoy playing with a small group of friends. If you find Minecraft boring with smaller servers, then you are free to stop playing it. You have already given your $27 to mojang and it doesn't matter at this point if you quit playing or not. There are still tons of new potential customers coming in who finds the game fresh and willing to drop that $27 to mojang's pocket. So no. Minecraft multiplayer will not die as long as there are people who are contented playing in a small and private server and new players willing to play it vanilla. Minecraft dying is just an empty threat of greedy server owners hell bent on getting back their source of income.
Then it only means the community doesn't want these servers to exist. All they care about is showing superiority. Why cater to a community that doesn't care about your server? Also, parents are smart enough to know servers are not free and need money to keep going.
Once again, the bad apple in the mix ruins it for everyone.
But it won't be too much of a problem in the long run, our team can addapt to the new rules.
Well. . .this isn't good for admin/owners like us who balanced Donator ranks out. . .and didn't make them OP or anything. . .
Once again, the bad apple in the mix ruins it for everyone.
But it won't be too much of a problem in the long run, our team can addapt to the new rules, and we have some players who already donated to us without using the shop.
Think about it Mojang.
The way i see it, im not willing to fund other peoples gaming so ill just play on the free servers for free, or pay for quality access to a good server. The fact that some people think the server owner should pay all the cost is silly.
My experience is from modded minecraft, but to run a server that supports 50 users connected and playing is over $100 a month to rent. So are people realy expecting some stranger on the inet to pay this money out if their own pocket? Currently the 10% of donators support the 90% freeloaders. Looks like your free ride is ending
Sure, its Mojang's game and their right and I do respect that. My choice in the matter was to move my content creation to an open source engine instead of supporting Mojang in that way any longer. However, that doesn't mean I think its a good or right move by Mojang to do this. It really does hurt the community without actually benefiting anyone.
Can someone that is for the change please explain why its a good thing without just repeating the same kind of "Its Mojang's right" or "I had pay to win" excuses that have been made. I get that it's Mojang's game, but it doesn't mean Mojang couldn't be making a mistake. I also understand that people might not enjoy a pay to win environment, but they have thousands (or more) alternative servers they could join, this point is essentially moot (just because you don't enjoy it, doesn't mean noone should be able to).
It appears, at least for modded minecraft ( FTB Technic ATA ect ...) that it will be hard to impossable to play on a hi pop server without paying
I can see unscrupulous server owners making the experience of the lite version as bad as possible so people will pay to join the full server
This will encourage server owners to offer hi quality playing experiences on their paid servers so they can attract as many paying customers while doing their best to get people to move to the pay server.
I don't really get why people like high pop servers anyways (but then I don't get into minigame stuff, prefer Survival). I've never joined a server with more than 100 people that wasn't a horribly laggy experience. But I'm probably in the minority, sometimes I like just firing up SSP or just playing with an extremely small group of people.
Actually you can, provided the paying members and free members are treated the same in terms of gameplay. The only equality mojang wants is gameplay but they are fine if there is no equality in terms of how you access the server. Kicking a free player to make room for paying members is acceptable. That is actually more generous than outright restricting access to only paying members.
Because they know their game better and know what's good for it. You have to trust mojang on this one. They don't want minecraft to fail as much as we do but us and them have different ideas about it. If it works for them, then good. If not, they may change a few rules to bring back old monetization schemes. We will just have to wait and see and it would be better if the community doesn't actively destroy minecraft for not getting what they want like a spoiled child destroying everything after the parents denied him of what he wants.
http://www.ovh.com/ca/en/vps/vps-classic.xml
You didn't actually read what I posted or you continued to choose to ignore it.
I specifically asked HOW it is good for the community. All you've explained is that Mojang has the right, which I don't believe ANY of us disagree with. They own the game, of course they have the right to choose how its used. I cannot trust Mojang when they do something as hap-hazzard as change something a large portion of the community relies on, without actually creating any kind of discussion with the community first.
If you're going to continue to quote me and respond to my posts, would you please at least answer the question I asked, rather then continue to repeat the same thing over and over?
It doesn't always meen that they don't care about these servers, they have already payed for the game, why should we now have to pay to support servers? thats like only being able to campaign on games like call of duty! Also, parents of 10 year old kids aren't all made of money, they don't just give their children money to play games, lots try to keep their children away from games! Also parents are old, in their days, they didn't have things like this, they don't understand thing like you would need money to play games.
How is it good is very subjective which is why I try to reason in an objective manner with mojang knowing what they are doing. If you ask me for my personal opinion, I always hated inequality in games that favors paying players. Having a community that encourages equality and discourages elitism is better in my opinion. Server quality should go up because there is no more easy way of luring players to spend money and you have to make an actual good server to do it. There is no right or wrong opinion because personal opinion is subjective so we should not use it as a basis on why the EULA should or should not be supported.
Tell me, what's the difference between the $20 you spent for perks and $20 you spent for server maintenance? You spend the same amount of money in both cases but it is the attitude that matters here. Now that I think of it, why not make a server that is pay to enter but has all the perks in it? Would you pay for it or not just because there are no free players to abuse your power on?
I think even your grandpa knows that you pay money to use a service like paying a taxi to get you somewhere. Just tell them servers are like services that needs money to operate and they will understand unless you are a liar and your words can't be trusted.