Skydaz has removed the stolen mods, and is therefore removed from the list.
Really? I just checked, and Mo' Creatures is still on there. Why did I check for Mo' Creatures? Because Dr. Zhark is well known for not allowing redistrib and being pretty harsh about it. Quoted from his thread:
"This mod can not be distributed in any other way than through this thread. You don't have the permission to distribute this mod through 'mod packages', installers or plugins."
So I think maybe Skydaz is jerking your chain. With some digging I could probably find a lot of other examples too. What proof did they give you that they removed any illegal mods?
Really? I just checked, and Mo' Creatures is still on there. Why did I check for Mo' Creatures? Because Dr. Zhark is well known for not allowing redistrib and being pretty harsh about it. Quoted from his thread:
"This mod can not be distributed in any other way than through this thread. You don't have the permission to distribute this mod through 'mod packages', installers or plugins."
So I think maybe Skydaz is jerking your chain. With some digging I could probably find a lot of other examples too. What proof did they give you that they removed any illegal mods?
I think it would benefit everyone if you were able to post a link to a thread or even post an email from each author that gives you explicit permission; otherwise, we have no way of verifying your claims, especially in a case such as Dr. Zhark where he explicitly says that no one has permission.
Btw, I don't mean post a link here, I mean post it on your repost of the mod, somewhere where people can clearly see that you have permission. In the case of mods with permissive licenses, reprinting the license would suffice; in other cases, some other proof of permission would be expected.
I think it would benefit everyone if you were able to post a link to a thread or even post an email from each author that gives you explicit permission; otherwise, we have no way of verifying your claims, especially in a case such as Dr. Zhark where he explicitly says that no one has permission.
Btw, I don't mean post a link here, I mean post it on your repost of the mod, somewhere where people can clearly see that you have permission. In the case of mods with permissive licenses, reprinting the license would suffice; in other cases, some other proof of permission would be expected.
The way the laws are written, it becomes the burden of the copyright holder to enforce the copyright of a work, and not anyone else unless granted that authority by the copyright holder. If someone is using a work in a way that violates the license, it is the copyright holder's job (or anyone the copyright holder explicitly authorizes) to ask that user to stop. The user is not obligated to display that he/she has permission to use the work to anyone. No one other than the copyright holder has the right to ask the user to stop using the work even if the use of that work is clearly in violation of the license.
EDIT: of course, I am not a lawyer. Consult your legal professional before making any legal decisions.
The way the laws are written, it becomes the burden of the copyright holder to enforce the copyright of a work, and not anyone else unless granted that authority by the copyright holder. If someone is using a work in a way that violates the license, it is the copyright holder's job (or anyone the copyright holder explicitly authorizes) to ask that user to stop. The user is not obligated to display that he/she has permission to use the work to anyone. No one other than the copyright holder has the right to ask the user to stop using the work even if the use of that work is clearly in violation of the license.
EDIT: of course, I am not a lawyer. Consult your legal professional before making any legal decisions.
I'm not arguing anything from a legal standpoint here, simply that of 'if you want to be off the list, this is what you should do', as well as the famous 'don't be a jerk' mindset.
I'm not arguing anything from a legal standpoint here, simply that of 'if you want to be off the list, this is what you should do', as well as the famous 'don't be a jerk' mindset.
Maybe you should penalize sites on the list only when you have unaddressed complaints from mod authors?
The way the laws are written, it becomes the burden of the copyright holder to enforce the copyright of a work, and not anyone else unless granted that authority by the copyright holder. If someone is using a work in a way that violates the license, it is the copyright holder's job (or anyone the copyright holder explicitly authorizes) to ask that user to stop. The user is not obligated to display that he/she has permission to use the work to anyone. No one other than the copyright holder has the right to ask the user to stop using the work even if the use of that work is clearly in violation of the license.
EDIT: of course, I am not a lawyer. Consult your legal professional before making any legal decisions.
You are likely right, it's almost amusing though how much RIAA, MPAA and especially ASCAP violate that themselves. Independent Artists that have no contractual connection to these organizations have had to go head to head with them in order to perform their OWN music at venues etc because the orgs involved claimed that they represented the "rights holder" and that artist had to pay them first... It goes to show that it is all about the money in the end..
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
- The Cubic Chunks Mod is back! Be a part of it's rebirth and Development.
-- Robinton's Mods: [ Mirror ] for some of his Mods incl Cubic Chunks Mod, due to DropBox broken links.
I think it would benefit everyone if you were able to post a link to a thread or even post an email from each author that gives you explicit permission; otherwise, we have no way of verifying your claims, especially in a case such as Dr. Zhark where he explicitly says that no one has permission.
Btw, I don't mean post a link here, I mean post it on your repost of the mod, somewhere where people can clearly see that you have permission. In the case of mods with permissive licenses, reprinting the license would suffice; in other cases, some other proof of permission would be expected.
Yes, that would definitely go a long way. As stated, Mo' Creatures wasn't the only one I spotted on your site that doesn't allow redistribution, or at the very least requires information or redirection to the author's links for download. If you have been given an exception to the rule, that information should be readily visible on your website.
Quote from Cuchazjump
The way the laws are written, it becomes the burden of the copyright holder to enforce the copyright of a work, and not anyone else unless granted that authority by the copyright holder. If someone is using a work in a way that violates the license, it is the copyright holder's job (or anyone the copyright holder explicitly authorizes) to ask that user to stop. The user is not obligated to display that he/she has permission to use the work to anyone. No one other than the copyright holder has the right to ask the user to stop using the work even if the use of that work is clearly in violation of the license.
EDIT: of course, I am not a lawyer. Consult your legal professional before making any legal decisions.
No one is really arguing about the legalities of it at this point, and hopefully it doesn't come to that. It's more likely that a mod author would just stop development than to spend the time and money to sue over something he's not making any real money on. We just lost Bukkit recently for "legal" reasons, and some have quit the community in protest of sale to Microsoft. There's no reason to give people MORE reason to leave by distributing their work when they don't want you to.
They didn't steal it. They just made another download link. And I noticed some mods are from those websites. They are not in the Forums
Are you saying taking someone's property, giving it to people, and monetising the theft is not stealing? You apparently don't know anything about ownership and copyright.
He's right in a technical sense They don't take the software away from the modders so that the modders don't have it anymore, they copy it. But well that's where copyright comes into play.
But I'm not sure if merely putting a diect link counts as a copyright infringement. They're not making a copy in this case after all.
No, but downloading it does make a copy and just that they're making an income from distributing someone else's work alone constitutes copyright theft.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm not active on these forums, so forgive me if I don't respond!
If you want to contact me, try going through Discord or you can find me on GitHub where I am still updating the below mods (and more):
No, but downloading it does make a copy and just that they're making an income from distributing someone else's work alone constitutes copyright theft.
That actually depends on the licence you're releasing your content with. If you distrubute your work without a licence (which seems to happen quite a lot), then I don't think copyrights protect your work. That doesn't mean the redistributors aren't total jerks for doing this though.
That actually depends on the licence you're releasing your content with. If you distrubute your work without a licence (which seems to happen quite a lot), then I don't think copyrights protect your work. That doesn't mean the redistributors aren't total jerks for doing this though.
You have automatic copyright on software you make. Licenses aren't for claiming copyright, but for giving permissions.
A license is a document that grants the bearer permission to engage in an activity or occupation that is otherwise considered illegal.
No one is really arguing about the legalities of it at this point, and hopefully it doesn't come to that. It's more likely that a mod author would just stop development than to spend the time and money to sue over something he's not making any real money on. We just lost Bukkit recently for "legal" reasons, and some have quit the community in protest of sale to Microsoft. There's no reason to give people MORE reason to leave by distributing their work when they don't want you to.
Litigating lawsuits is not the only way to assert your rights under the law. If you want someone to stop doing something with your property, and you didn't grant them rights to do those things, you can simply ask them to stop. You don't need to sue them. Just tell them they are in violation of your license agreement. You only need to sue them if they don't stop after you ask them to, and you Really want them to stop. Understanding how the copyright laws work is important to know when you have the right to ask someone to stop doing something with your property. Being scared of "legal reasons" isn't the way to solve this problem. The way to solve this problem is to understand the legal reasons and use them correctly to protect your rights.
Don't think I agree with this statement.
I see the main point of this project being to help and protect players from phony download sites, at least to begin with. Helping mod authors protect their work is a secondary bonus, IMO.
Looking at the list of sites in the OP a place like Skydaz is a rare exception, who will even show up here and show an ambition to be a legitimate service. Modders should generally be able to deal with those directly, and preventing the listing of any of the other 99,9% as a rule because no mod-maker has complained about it would cripple the usefulness of this.
This is a very good initiative and as long as it's done seriously I fully support it.
As mentioned by others regarding your first post Cuchaz, this isn't a court of law, and your point about the rights of copyrights holders as opposed to others is mostly beside the point.
Players on their own compiling a list of questionable sites to inform others shouldn't be an issue. If someone cares enough about being on it, like Skydaz did, they can bring it up.
If this has an indirect effect of reducing the amount of these sites, or even bringing one down, because people learn to stay away, I only see benefits for the community as a whole.
(also not a lawyer)
A single minecraft player may very well decide that particular website offers no value to him/her. The player may event want the website to stop because he/she doesn't find it valuable. But that player is only one person. Other players might actually find the website valuable and want it to continue. As long as someone finds the website valuable, and the operation of the website doesn't hurt anyone, then I don't think there's a legitimate reason to shut it down. It certainly shouldn't be shut down just because one player wants it to be shut down. Especially when that player doesn't actually any property related to the operation of the website and has no rights that are protected by the law in relation to the website.
Skydaz is an example of a case where some players actually find value in a repost site. Some players actually want those installers. Some modders actually want their mods to be available on Skydaz. The website shouldn't be punished just because players think it's stealing. First of all, players don't get to decide what stealing is. Players don't have the right to say what can and can't be done with the mod author's property. Only the mod author gets to decide that because only mod author owns the thing that is allegedly being stolen.
However, these websites can also offer a disservice to players as well. Perhaps I should amend my comment to also consider complaints from players. Players have a legitimate right to expect that downloads offered by repost sites to be free of malware. Therefore, the "bad" website list should list websites that players have complained about, but only due to complaints of spreading malware. Players shouldn't get to decide which websites stealing", because players generally do not know the licensing terms between the mod authors and the repost websites. There was a great example of that (again involving Skydaz) earlier in this thread.
If it were up to me, I'd make sure the list includes All websites that post mods for download. Then I'd rank all the sites based on complaints from mod authors (on the grounds of stealing/theft) and complaints from players (only on the grounds of threat of malware).
TL;DR:
Only mod authors should be allowed to penalize a website for "stealing" since only mod authors own the thing that is allegedly being stolen.
Players should be allowed to penalize a website for spreading malware, because spreading malware directly hurts the player.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumYay! Finally the bad sites are starting to become good again.
Check out my PvP map Here!
Check out my website Here!Website is down until further notice.Really? I just checked, and Mo' Creatures is still on there. Why did I check for Mo' Creatures? Because Dr. Zhark is well known for not allowing redistrib and being pretty harsh about it. Quoted from his thread:
"This mod can not be distributed in any other way than through this thread. You don't have the permission to distribute this mod through 'mod packages', installers or plugins."
So I think maybe Skydaz is jerking your chain. With some digging I could probably find a lot of other examples too. What proof did they give you that they removed any illegal mods?
I have Dr. Zhark permission.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumI think it would benefit everyone if you were able to post a link to a thread or even post an email from each author that gives you explicit permission; otherwise, we have no way of verifying your claims, especially in a case such as Dr. Zhark where he explicitly says that no one has permission.
Btw, I don't mean post a link here, I mean post it on your repost of the mod, somewhere where people can clearly see that you have permission. In the case of mods with permissive licenses, reprinting the license would suffice; in other cases, some other proof of permission would be expected.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumThe way the laws are written, it becomes the burden of the copyright holder to enforce the copyright of a work, and not anyone else unless granted that authority by the copyright holder. If someone is using a work in a way that violates the license, it is the copyright holder's job (or anyone the copyright holder explicitly authorizes) to ask that user to stop. The user is not obligated to display that he/she has permission to use the work to anyone. No one other than the copyright holder has the right to ask the user to stop using the work even if the use of that work is clearly in violation of the license.
EDIT: of course, I am not a lawyer. Consult your legal professional before making any legal decisions.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumI'm not arguing anything from a legal standpoint here, simply that of 'if you want to be off the list, this is what you should do', as well as the famous 'don't be a jerk' mindset.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumMaybe you should penalize sites on the list only when you have unaddressed complaints from mod authors?
You are likely right, it's almost amusing though how much RIAA, MPAA and especially ASCAP violate that themselves. Independent Artists that have no contractual connection to these organizations have had to go head to head with them in order to perform their OWN music at venues etc because the orgs involved claimed that they represented the "rights holder" and that artist had to pay them first... It goes to show that it is all about the money in the end..
- The Cubic Chunks Mod is back! Be a part of it's rebirth and Development.
-- Robinton's Mods: [ Mirror ] for some of his Mods incl Cubic Chunks Mod, due to DropBox broken links.
- Dungeon Generator for the Open Cubic Chunks Mod
- QuickSAVE-QuickLOAD for the Open Cubic Chunks Mod
www.mcpatcher.net
That counts!
Here's my old signature. Maybe I'll make a new one at some point...
redistribution: 1. No redistribution at all, just malware
Lying: 5. You get anything except mcpatcher.
Notes: Malware alert!
was that more or less right?
Oh, good. As a side note, that website is also the first thing that pops up if you search for "MCPatcher" on Google.
Yes, that would definitely go a long way. As stated, Mo' Creatures wasn't the only one I spotted on your site that doesn't allow redistribution, or at the very least requires information or redirection to the author's links for download. If you have been given an exception to the rule, that information should be readily visible on your website.
No one is really arguing about the legalities of it at this point, and hopefully it doesn't come to that. It's more likely that a mod author would just stop development than to spend the time and money to sue over something he's not making any real money on. We just lost Bukkit recently for "legal" reasons, and some have quit the community in protest of sale to Microsoft. There's no reason to give people MORE reason to leave by distributing their work when they don't want you to.
STOP MOD REPOSTS!!!
Here's a fanmade logo I made for Minecraft: Win10Ed:
You can find the banner here: http://textcraft.net/host-image.php?result=ok&ref=data1/d/0/d0b1fbcf89aa5e851b3c7e9d86c77f48816b909f2c71ee849ba7532c39a6e18170919630a5bb649b27f404617cf9f5d127aebb98338094370012ad5319ac499dec12cd72bd5dd08a7e4df54c.png
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumAre you saying taking someone's property, giving it to people, and monetising the theft is not stealing? You apparently don't know anything about ownership and copyright.
No, but downloading it does make a copy and just that they're making an income from distributing someone else's work alone constitutes copyright theft.
If you want to contact me, try going through Discord or you can find me on GitHub where I am still updating the below mods (and more):
PRESENCE FOOTSTEPS - (github)
VOID FOG - (github)
That actually depends on the licence you're releasing your content with. If you distrubute your work without a licence (which seems to happen quite a lot), then I don't think copyrights protect your work. That doesn't mean the redistributors aren't total jerks for doing this though.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumYou have automatic copyright on software you make. Licenses aren't for claiming copyright, but for giving permissions.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumLitigating lawsuits is not the only way to assert your rights under the law. If you want someone to stop doing something with your property, and you didn't grant them rights to do those things, you can simply ask them to stop. You don't need to sue them. Just tell them they are in violation of your license agreement. You only need to sue them if they don't stop after you ask them to, and you Really want them to stop. Understanding how the copyright laws work is important to know when you have the right to ask someone to stop doing something with your property. Being scared of "legal reasons" isn't the way to solve this problem. The way to solve this problem is to understand the legal reasons and use them correctly to protect your rights.
A single minecraft player may very well decide that particular website offers no value to him/her. The player may event want the website to stop because he/she doesn't find it valuable. But that player is only one person. Other players might actually find the website valuable and want it to continue. As long as someone finds the website valuable, and the operation of the website doesn't hurt anyone, then I don't think there's a legitimate reason to shut it down. It certainly shouldn't be shut down just because one player wants it to be shut down. Especially when that player doesn't actually any property related to the operation of the website and has no rights that are protected by the law in relation to the website.
Skydaz is an example of a case where some players actually find value in a repost site. Some players actually want those installers. Some modders actually want their mods to be available on Skydaz. The website shouldn't be punished just because players think it's stealing. First of all, players don't get to decide what stealing is. Players don't have the right to say what can and can't be done with the mod author's property. Only the mod author gets to decide that because only mod author owns the thing that is allegedly being stolen.
However, these websites can also offer a disservice to players as well. Perhaps I should amend my comment to also consider complaints from players. Players have a legitimate right to expect that downloads offered by repost sites to be free of malware. Therefore, the "bad" website list should list websites that players have complained about, but only due to complaints of spreading malware. Players shouldn't get to decide which websites stealing", because players generally do not know the licensing terms between the mod authors and the repost websites. There was a great example of that (again involving Skydaz) earlier in this thread.
If it were up to me, I'd make sure the list includes All websites that post mods for download. Then I'd rank all the sites based on complaints from mod authors (on the grounds of stealing/theft) and complaints from players (only on the grounds of threat of malware).
TL;DR:
Only mod authors should be allowed to penalize a website for "stealing" since only mod authors own the thing that is allegedly being stolen.
Players should be allowed to penalize a website for spreading malware, because spreading malware directly hurts the player.