I don't have much of an opinion one way or another I'll play a game with or without mods but I just wanted to point out in the US Courts now there are several cases taking place that could change the way media rights work. if the Defendant wins them in most cases then it would provide precedences that a company can no longer sell just a "license" to a customer and instead sells the "rights" to their copy of the media.
Some of these cases have started from something as simple as someone reselling unopened copies of software on Ebay for a profit and the developers suing him because he only purchased the "license" to operate the software when installed not to sell the product. By selling only a "license" companies are violating first-sale doctrine or so says lawyers defending the case anyways.
okay that's my tidbit I'm gonna go hide before someone yells at me >.>
xD Not going to yell, but I will chime in.
US law =/= international law.
However, I have no idea what international law says on the subject, or what changes are happening to it. It's an interesting topic, and I applaud you for actually referencing a real-world court case.
Also, please everyone don't flame. Be polite. No need for sarcasm here. We can be a civilized community.
/idealism
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Choose your words wisely.
Defend your words flexibly.
Change your words fittingly.
Let prejudice, popular opinion, and preconception be free from your judgments.
People can suggest ideas WITHOUT modding the game btw.. If the bridge block mod creator simply presented an idea to him he'd probably say the exact same thing.
Notch might think it's a cool idea, but would he implement it or would he continue on his chosen tangent and develop what he feels like*?
As a player, I'd much rather have independent modders developing cool stuff which make the game more enjoyable. Notch could at any time send an e-mail over to a mod creator and say "Hey that's a cool feature, may I use your code?". Hell he could even say "I'd like to purchase your plugin for $100".
We would all end up with a better game in the end and that is what matters, players are happier and Notch gets more sales.
Those who for some reason want to remain "pure" and use only Notch's sanctioned code can just ignore the modding community.
* Such as for Halloween, in spite of working SMP being "next action" oh his own to do list, creating "The Nether" for fast travel and releasing it in a bugged state for single player and completely non-functional for multiplayer.
There is some precedent for using copyright laws to uphold a EULA (Blizzard vs MDY). Dunno about where Notch lives, but at least in the USA, EULAs can be enforced based on copyright law. I would be very careful saying that something can't be enforced. I would also be very careful about the distinction between the medium and the work. In copyright law, this distinction is very important. Just because you own the computer does not mean you own the software.
I am not a lawyer, and this is not to be taken as legal advice.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
When all is said and done, Will you have said more than you have done?
Okay, a response to some issues that have been brought up.
It would be preferable to only use the built in API for plugins, since there is none, we have to do it ourselves. This should be a real issue, modding support is important, and an API would all but eliminate sharing of files without permission. Yes it would be better to only inject code rather than redistribute files and some people are doing this. But best should be an official API.
Then there is the suggestion issue, yes suggestions are great, but no suggestion beats a suggestion that is implementable and fun. And nothing says implementable and fun like a mod. So obviously notch has to publicly announce being against mods, especially when they violate his copyright, since if copyright is not defended it is rendered useless(in many municipalities). But his acknowledgment and appreciation for some of the mods that have been created suggests that he uses them as the good suggestions for inclusion that they are.
Of course the piratical side of me has a suspicion that as long as mods are disproved of “borrowing” them into the game is more acceptable since the “shouldn't” have been created in the first place.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Mod Installing Hack for Mac
Just add a folder name “MCPatches” to your ~/Documents/ folder.
Open inside AppleScript Editor for gritty details.
Honestly, when i first played this game I thought it was cool someone did this independently and bought it because I was excited to see what happens next. Its been a month since i bought it. He released a halloween update that barely works online. pvp doesnt work yet. pvm doesnt work yet. He seems lazy as a developer. oh and he has instantly become rich. So now that he is rich and things like living expenses and working to pay them are no longer an issue we should see all kinds of exciting **** happening.... or at least the basic **** happening.
Also a EULA in nearly 100% of US court cases has been deemed as beyond the developer legal rights. It is like forcing an employee to sign a non competing agreement with an area the size of the whole nation. not gonna happen.
Personally i thought Notch made it rather obvious by his post that was more or less 'he's glad we mod but doesn't like how we are having to do it.'
He didn't mention taking legal action, or any other kind of action against modders, why? Because we don't have an API yet, you can't sit someone in an animal reserve saying you can't hunt, when you're starving and going to die from being trapped there, you're going to do it whether its 'frowned upon' or not, and Notch realizes that i think.
I don't have much of an opinion one way or another I'll play a game with or without mods but I just wanted to point out in the US Courts now there are several cases taking place that could change the way media rights work. if the Defendant wins them in most cases then it would provide precedences that a company can no longer sell just a "license" to a customer and instead sells the "rights" to their copy of the media.
Some of these cases have started from something as simple as someone reselling unopened copies of software on Ebay for a profit and the developers suing him because he only purchased the "license" to operate the software when installed not to sell the product. By selling only a "license" companies are violating first-sale doctrine or so says lawyers defending the case anyways.
okay that's my tidbit I'm gonna go hide before someone yells at me >.>
I hope a software company gets slapped with a serious class action lawsuit soon, top contenders would be Blizzard and Valve, who can completely disable your entire library of games even for offline play. See: anyone who has filed a chargeback against Steam, single player cheats resulting in completely banned Starcraft 2 accounts.
Quite frankly? I would of been bored of Minecraft already without mods, or at the very least, a lot more frustrated with the singleplayer game.
The reason I mod and use mods for this game is quite simply because I'm changing it into a form where it's more fun for me. And whether or not Notch agrees or likes that his game code is being modified, just like with any other modified game out there, these mods are just adding to the replay value.
Are they a pain to install? Sometimes, yes. Will they potentially break the game? Yes, of course, especially so since this game is in Alpha and still being developed. Do I already know this? Yes. But I'm certainly not going to expect support from the official devs for mods. It's my own damn fault if I end up breaking the game with mods I'm installing.
Everything that's been released, from Obsidian tools adding a stepping stone between Iron and Diamond, stuff like the Terrain Tweaker making landscape more interesting, repairable tools or just Autocart making mine carts less of a pain in the ass until official boosters are introduced into the game simply make the game more enjoyable for me in the long run.
And me enjoying the game more = I recommend it to more people, and he gets more sales. So I really don't see what all the fuss would be about. Hell my girlfriend loves modding as well and I'm planning on getting it for her tomorrow so we can both mess with it together. :/
Obviously small segments of modified code are going to get distributed, but so long as nobody starts redistributing the entire Jar file, I really don't see what the issue is. Mods are just adding more replay value to the game and albeit they alter how the game is played (in the eye of the developer), what people find "fun" is going to differ from person to person.
The mods are just giving these people options.
I think that it is a combination of both. Think about playing Resident Evil 1 or Dead Space with unlimited ammo, or eliminating fog from Silent Hill. You're obviously not hurting anyone, but can you really say that you are playing Resident Evil if you're not freaking out because you don't have enough ammo?
If diamonds are a dime a dozen and obsidian doesn't come with an obscene mining time, are you really playing Minecraft? If you don't have to figure out how to clear space and build a massive building from scratch, are you truly getting the "Minecraft experience"?
I don't mean to demonize the modding community either, because they've already bought the game, and it is open source, so they're not doing anything wrong per se. But they may be ruining the game for themselves.
The central question/conflict in all of art(graphic art, music, movies, video games, literature, etc) and especially things with a user-generated content aspect like Minecraft, is this: where does the value lie, in how the artists/creator intends it to be consumed/used or how the admirer/user/viewer/player interprets it and consumes it?
For me, the experience of playing Mincraft is unquestionably better with mods. It's not even close. And i don't even use things like Hovercart, INVedit, MCEdit, and the like. I use stuff like Zan's minimap mod and slightly higher res textures. If stuff as simple as that stopped being available, I wouldn't necessarily stop playing Minecraft right away, but I could see myself tapering off to a drastically reduced amount of time playing.
If my personal experience is downgraded or regresses in some way, then so will my time commitment to that experience. There's a ton of other games out there to play, after all.
There is some precedent for using copyright laws to uphold a EULA (Blizzard vs MDY). Dunno about where Notch lives, but at least in the USA, EULAs can be enforced based on copyright law. I would be very careful saying that something can't be enforced. I would also be very careful about the distinction between the medium and the work. In copyright law, this distinction is very important. Just because you own the computer does not mean you own the software.
I am not a lawyer, and this is not to be taken as legal advice.
Only legal parts of a contract may be enforced in the US. It being a contract does not grant rights which cannot be given. Like in the city where I live, I cannot agree to pay a late fee on rent, because no late fees can be charged for rent. I can sign the contract, but that part is meaningless, and will not be held up. This does not prevent landlords from putting it in the contract, it's just irrelevant.
The same is true from EULA, which are a form of contract. They have limited capacity to govern action. They can say whatever they want, but they cannot supercede law under any circumstances.
I own my computer, and I do not own the copyright for many of the works on my computer. So I do not have the right to share copies of those works modified or not. However I do have the right to modify them on my machine, since I have sole dominion over the data on my machine. They can say that I am not allowed to modify it, but that is irrelevent, they cannot deny that right. They can however enforce they're right not to have that modified copy redistributed. They cannot, in the U.S., prevent a technique for modification from being discussed, nor claim control over software which was not of their creation.
To simplify, I can mod my software, and I can distribute code which modifies software, provided I have not violated copyright or, in some cases, violated encryption. These rights cannot be taken away by a license. They can be taken away by using a computer which I do not own. Whether it be company property or leased.
Now I can not guarantee that it works that way everywhere. But private property is just that, private. Free speech means just that, the freedom to disseminate information. These rights afforded by the constitution cannot be denied simply by acknowledging an EULA. Results may vary depending on nationality, but I suspect everywhere there are things which cannot be held up even if contracted to.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Mod Installing Hack for Mac
Just add a folder name “MCPatches” to your ~/Documents/ folder.
Open inside AppleScript Editor for gritty details.
You can't "cheat" in a singleplayer game. You can only add to your experience, or destroy your own experience, depending on how you decide to modify it. Cheating is a word for competitive gameplay only, and trying to suggest there is a moral issue with modding is, quite frankly, hilarious and absurd.
What I do in the privacy of my own bedroom does not hurt anybody else. And if I want creepers not to explode so I stop breaking into tears from getting so upset over sneaking up and scaring me, then I don't think there is anything wrong with that if it means I enjoy my game more.*
At the end of the day, when you are talking about a singleplayer game, you have nobody to answer to but yourself and you're own fun you are having.
*I get scared easily. Creepers started turning me into a nervous wreck. I don't want to play without monsters. I just don't want someone walking up behind me randomly and screaming at the top of their lungs, just to see me jump.
I can understand why Notch would be pissed about it. When the players are going for such a long time without an update, however, and there is no official support for mods, then something like this is to be expected.
Quote from Tei »
4th: I am against selling mods. I am undecided about people asking for donations... is probably a bad idea to ask donations. Modding is something you do for free, since modding is a cooperative effort, everyone help everyone, we all play the same game with the same rules.. I don't think a paypal button make sense there. Other than maybe a giganteous total conversion, but that don't exist.. yet.
Modding isn't a cooperative effort: it is done by individuals or small groups. Hence the term "modders." The vast majority of the people here, including myself, don't even know the basics of coding. Many modders work very hard to create and perfect their creations, and it is reasonable to compensate them for that work monetarily.
At most Notch should only make a "over 18 Modding section", and appoint a moderator of "copyright content". End of story all legalities absolved.
That doesn't absolve anything.
The main factor is "legality" . The only things that may break the law is copyright, and the legal rating system of a game. That solution i just stated absolves both.
The only other factor is weather or not Notch will be a fool and "accept" modding.
Personally i believe a game company designer and programmer can gain a lot from looking and allowing mods.
Quote from fireb0rn »
I can understand why Notch would be pissed about it. When the players are going for such a long time without an update, however, and there is no official support for mods, then something like this is to be expected.
Quote from Tei »
4th: I am against selling mods. I am undecided about people asking for donations... is probably a bad idea to ask donations. Modding is something you do for free, since modding is a cooperative effort, everyone help everyone, we all play the same game with the same rules.. I don't think a paypal button make sense there. Other than maybe a giganteous total conversion, but that don't exist.. yet.
Modding isn't a cooperative effort: it is done by individuals or small groups. Hence the term "modders." The vast majority of the people here, including myself, don't even know the basics of coding. Many modders work very hard to create and perfect their creations, and it is reasonable to compensate them for that work monetarily.
Only if you make the Next garry's mod. Modders should keep in mind, when they do so they do so for themselves mostly. A modder should not ever be "officially" payed, unless that idea is implemented Directly. if a modder makes a mod and then says "do not copy my mod or use officially unless you pay me", then there is no problem Notch will ever experience if he just makes a similar thing without using a single ounce of the Copyrighted material. To absolve that issue all together Notch can do a special mod announcement to his User end agreement, stating that any content modified or added unto minecraft then voids all ownership of that modification. When you agree to such, then such becomes legally binding.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You can go ahead and move at the speed of light, But i will move at the speed of darkness.
The Meaning of Life, the Universe, and Everything.
Join Date:
11/7/2010
Posts:
43
Member Details
Quote from FinalSummit »
I think modding should only be allowed in forms of texture packsand programs such as INVedit or MCedit, not the mods that add new things to the game. It kind of ruins it.
Moddings a good thing because minecraft will never be the game that individuals want it to be. Some people want an rpg mode for minecraft. Some people don't and want a distance blur + ambient occlusion mod for graphics quality and beauty. Some people want to mod their own items and ore that they will never see in this game be added. Modding is only wrong if you "sell" your mod or make a mod of something notch was "going to add".
xD Not going to yell, but I will chime in.
US law =/= international law.
However, I have no idea what international law says on the subject, or what changes are happening to it. It's an interesting topic, and I applaud you for actually referencing a real-world court case.
Also, please everyone don't flame. Be polite. No need for sarcasm here. We can be a civilized community.
/idealism
Defend your words flexibly.
Change your words fittingly.
Let prejudice, popular opinion, and preconception be free from your judgments.
When asked:
@notch Hey, can you clarify why you are fine with server mods that alter/inject code, as opposed to client mods which do the same?
He responded:
@Ycros they don't affect the part we charge for, nor do they require end users to edit their game files in unsupported ways.
Thats dumb.
Notch might think it's a cool idea, but would he implement it or would he continue on his chosen tangent and develop what he feels like*?
As a player, I'd much rather have independent modders developing cool stuff which make the game more enjoyable. Notch could at any time send an e-mail over to a mod creator and say "Hey that's a cool feature, may I use your code?". Hell he could even say "I'd like to purchase your plugin for $100".
We would all end up with a better game in the end and that is what matters, players are happier and Notch gets more sales.
Those who for some reason want to remain "pure" and use only Notch's sanctioned code can just ignore the modding community.
* Such as for Halloween, in spite of working SMP being "next action" oh his own to do list, creating "The Nether" for fast travel and releasing it in a bugged state for single player and completely non-functional for multiplayer.
I am not a lawyer, and this is not to be taken as legal advice.
It would be preferable to only use the built in API for plugins, since there is none, we have to do it ourselves. This should be a real issue, modding support is important, and an API would all but eliminate sharing of files without permission. Yes it would be better to only inject code rather than redistribute files and some people are doing this. But best should be an official API.
Then there is the suggestion issue, yes suggestions are great, but no suggestion beats a suggestion that is implementable and fun. And nothing says implementable and fun like a mod. So obviously notch has to publicly announce being against mods, especially when they violate his copyright, since if copyright is not defended it is rendered useless(in many municipalities). But his acknowledgment and appreciation for some of the mods that have been created suggests that he uses them as the good suggestions for inclusion that they are.
Of course the piratical side of me has a suspicion that as long as mods are disproved of “borrowing” them into the game is more acceptable since the “shouldn't” have been created in the first place.
Just add a folder name “MCPatches” to your ~/Documents/ folder.
Open inside AppleScript Editor for gritty details.
Also a EULA in nearly 100% of US court cases has been deemed as beyond the developer legal rights. It is like forcing an employee to sign a non competing agreement with an area the size of the whole nation. not gonna happen.
He didn't mention taking legal action, or any other kind of action against modders, why? Because we don't have an API yet, you can't sit someone in an animal reserve saying you can't hunt, when you're starving and going to die from being trapped there, you're going to do it whether its 'frowned upon' or not, and Notch realizes that i think.
I hope a software company gets slapped with a serious class action lawsuit soon, top contenders would be Blizzard and Valve, who can completely disable your entire library of games even for offline play. See: anyone who has filed a chargeback against Steam, single player cheats resulting in completely banned Starcraft 2 accounts.
The reason I mod and use mods for this game is quite simply because I'm changing it into a form where it's more fun for me. And whether or not Notch agrees or likes that his game code is being modified, just like with any other modified game out there, these mods are just adding to the replay value.
Are they a pain to install? Sometimes, yes. Will they potentially break the game? Yes, of course, especially so since this game is in Alpha and still being developed. Do I already know this? Yes. But I'm certainly not going to expect support from the official devs for mods. It's my own damn fault if I end up breaking the game with mods I'm installing.
Everything that's been released, from Obsidian tools adding a stepping stone between Iron and Diamond, stuff like the Terrain Tweaker making landscape more interesting, repairable tools or just Autocart making mine carts less of a pain in the ass until official boosters are introduced into the game simply make the game more enjoyable for me in the long run.
And me enjoying the game more = I recommend it to more people, and he gets more sales. So I really don't see what all the fuss would be about. Hell my girlfriend loves modding as well and I'm planning on getting it for her tomorrow so we can both mess with it together. :/
Obviously small segments of modified code are going to get distributed, but so long as nobody starts redistributing the entire Jar file, I really don't see what the issue is. Mods are just adding more replay value to the game and albeit they alter how the game is played (in the eye of the developer), what people find "fun" is going to differ from person to person.
The mods are just giving these people options.
The central question/conflict in all of art(graphic art, music, movies, video games, literature, etc) and especially things with a user-generated content aspect like Minecraft, is this: where does the value lie, in how the artists/creator intends it to be consumed/used or how the admirer/user/viewer/player interprets it and consumes it?
For me, the experience of playing Mincraft is unquestionably better with mods. It's not even close. And i don't even use things like Hovercart, INVedit, MCEdit, and the like. I use stuff like Zan's minimap mod and slightly higher res textures. If stuff as simple as that stopped being available, I wouldn't necessarily stop playing Minecraft right away, but I could see myself tapering off to a drastically reduced amount of time playing.
If my personal experience is downgraded or regresses in some way, then so will my time commitment to that experience. There's a ton of other games out there to play, after all.
Only legal parts of a contract may be enforced in the US. It being a contract does not grant rights which cannot be given. Like in the city where I live, I cannot agree to pay a late fee on rent, because no late fees can be charged for rent. I can sign the contract, but that part is meaningless, and will not be held up. This does not prevent landlords from putting it in the contract, it's just irrelevant.
The same is true from EULA, which are a form of contract. They have limited capacity to govern action. They can say whatever they want, but they cannot supercede law under any circumstances.
I own my computer, and I do not own the copyright for many of the works on my computer. So I do not have the right to share copies of those works modified or not. However I do have the right to modify them on my machine, since I have sole dominion over the data on my machine. They can say that I am not allowed to modify it, but that is irrelevent, they cannot deny that right. They can however enforce they're right not to have that modified copy redistributed. They cannot, in the U.S., prevent a technique for modification from being discussed, nor claim control over software which was not of their creation.
To simplify, I can mod my software, and I can distribute code which modifies software, provided I have not violated copyright or, in some cases, violated encryption. These rights cannot be taken away by a license. They can be taken away by using a computer which I do not own. Whether it be company property or leased.
Now I can not guarantee that it works that way everywhere. But private property is just that, private. Free speech means just that, the freedom to disseminate information. These rights afforded by the constitution cannot be denied simply by acknowledging an EULA. Results may vary depending on nationality, but I suspect everywhere there are things which cannot be held up even if contracted to.
Just add a folder name “MCPatches” to your ~/Documents/ folder.
Open inside AppleScript Editor for gritty details.
You can't "cheat" in a singleplayer game. You can only add to your experience, or destroy your own experience, depending on how you decide to modify it. Cheating is a word for competitive gameplay only, and trying to suggest there is a moral issue with modding is, quite frankly, hilarious and absurd.
What I do in the privacy of my own bedroom does not hurt anybody else. And if I want creepers not to explode so I stop breaking into tears from getting so upset over sneaking up and scaring me, then I don't think there is anything wrong with that if it means I enjoy my game more.*
At the end of the day, when you are talking about a singleplayer game, you have nobody to answer to but yourself and you're own fun you are having.
*I get scared easily. Creepers started turning me into a nervous wreck. I don't want to play without monsters. I just don't want someone walking up behind me randomly and screaming at the top of their lungs, just to see me jump.
Modding isn't a cooperative effort: it is done by individuals or small groups. Hence the term "modders." The vast majority of the people here, including myself, don't even know the basics of coding. Many modders work very hard to create and perfect their creations, and it is reasonable to compensate them for that work monetarily.
The main factor is "legality" . The only things that may break the law is copyright, and the legal rating system of a game. That solution i just stated absolves both.
The only other factor is weather or not Notch will be a fool and "accept" modding.
Personally i believe a game company designer and programmer can gain a lot from looking and allowing mods.
Only if you make the Next garry's mod. Modders should keep in mind, when they do so they do so for themselves mostly. A modder should not ever be "officially" payed, unless that idea is implemented Directly. if a modder makes a mod and then says "do not copy my mod or use officially unless you pay me", then there is no problem Notch will ever experience if he just makes a similar thing without using a single ounce of the Copyrighted material. To absolve that issue all together Notch can do a special mod announcement to his User end agreement, stating that any content modified or added unto minecraft then voids all ownership of that modification. When you agree to such, then such becomes legally binding.
Moddings a good thing because minecraft will never be the game that individuals want it to be. Some people want an rpg mode for minecraft. Some people don't and want a distance blur + ambient occlusion mod for graphics quality and beauty. Some people want to mod their own items and ore that they will never see in this game be added. Modding is only wrong if you "sell" your mod or make a mod of something notch was "going to add".
It would stop me. I love building beautiful things, but I am downright fanatical about respecting people's wishes with regard to their own creations.
Agreed, and on-top of that it Does become a legal issue if you crack open close source software.