They will hear majority support for this because it's a short-term pro-customer move and there are a heck of a lot more customers than server operators out there. This is just dumb.
That's probably what the railroad, shipping, oil, and tobacco companies said to themselves when the government cracked down on them.
Those who are discussing the "fairness" problem;
That should not even be Mojang's concern, they are private servers, not Mojang servers, key-word is private.
They should be allowed to do what they want, it's their own resources that keeps their server running, if you think it's unfair then don't play on the server.
This is one of the first rules of the internet kids used to learn back in the Quake 1 and IRC days; The internet is not a democracy, when you are on a server you are sitting on the operator's personal, private property, respect their rules and take up your problems with them directly, if you don't want to pay to be able to place blocks then don't join the server, their service is obviously wrong for you.
By Mojang deciding (for some MASSIVELY insane reason) that making the internet a fair place is now their problem they are destroying a model of the internet that existed before online real-time games were even thought possible, not to mention that they are now pulling some of the responsibility of keeping players using private servers onto their own shoulders (Which they will do zero to act on, afterall they have Realms to worry about).
This is a rushed, poorly thought-out decision made from the beliefs of the individuals at Mojang and it's getting majority support because the majority of Minecrafters are not server operators and have no interest in the broader ecosystem of the internet at all so want whatever benefits them most (Which is fairness).
The internet is NOT a fair place, while I'm not going to defend the idea of "Charging players to be able to talk/place blocks/used a sword" I will certainly defend the right for server operators to decide how players interact with THEIR PROPERTY AND RESOURCES and I will NEVER support Mojang's decision to try and leverage a EULA agreement to control private server operations.
This is my thoughts as a game engine programmer, gamer and someone who studied internet technology and history as to why these models exist in the first place.
You missed one critical key point of the issue: it isn't the server owners' property. The product belongs exclusively to Mojang. Server owners chose to breach the license agreement.
Those who are discussing the "fairness" problem;
That should not even be Mojang's concern, they are private servers, not Mojang servers, key-word is private.
They should be allowed to do what they want, it's their own resources that keeps their server running, if you think it's unfair then don't play on the server.
This is one of the first rules of the internet kids used to learn back in the Quake 1 and IRC days; The internet is not a democracy, when you are only you are sitting on the operator's personal, private property, respect their rules and take up your problems with them directly, if you don't want to pay to be able to place blocks then don't join the server, their service is obviously wrong for you.
By Mojang deciding (for some MASSIVELY insane reason) that making the internet a fair place is now their problem they are destroying a model of the internet that existed before online real-time games were even thought possible, not to mention that they are now pulling some of the responsibility of keeping players using private servers onto their own shoulders (Which they will do zero to act on, afterall they have Realms to worry about).
This is a rushed, poorly thought-out decision made from the beliefs of the individuals at Mojang and it's getting majority support because the majority of Minecrafters are not server operators and have no interest in the broader ecosystem of the internet at all so want whatever benefits them most (Which is fairness).
The internet is NOT a fair place, while I'm not going to defend the idea of "Charging players to be able to talk/place blocks/used a sword" I will certainly defend the right for server operators to decide how players interact with THEIR PROPERTY AND RESOURCES and I will NEVER support Mojang's decision to try and leverage a EULA agreement to control private server operations.
This is my thoughts as a game engine programmer, gamer and someone who studied internet technology and history as to why these models exist in the first place.
Mojang owns the code running on the server. It doesn't matter who pays for the hardware, bandwidth, etc. This would be like saying that Microsoft should allow you to sell their programs piecemeal on your private web server for your own profit because you own the hardware. That's not how software licensing works. Now if Mojang allowed hosts to resell their services through the EULA, that'd be completely different, but their clarification obviously prohibits that.
If the EULA wasn't against any of this then the fairness problem alone would do nothing, however, like it or not, Mojang has decided it is unfair to them and other players. They are going to enforce their legal policy if they want to.
No amount of ranting will void their legal privelage.
Let me ask you this, are you in support of EVERY type of perk activity servers are doing? Even those that charge up towards the hundreds to thousands of dollars for Minecraft things?
I will NOT follow these rules before my server shuts down, I will however put in TOS stating that Mojang was NOT involved. I understand why Mojang's doing this, but they need to know that Minecraft was made without rules.
Come on dude, why did you have to say that? Now I have to report you for endorsing illegal activity.
Mojang owns the code running on the server. It doesn't matter who pays for the hardware, bandwidth, etc. This would be like saying that Microsoft should allow you to sell their programs piecemeal on your private web server for your own profit because you own the hardware. That's not how software licensing works. Now if Mojang allowed hosts to resell their services through the EULA, that'd be completely different, but their clarification obviously prohibits that.
You missed one critical key point of the issue: it isn't the server owners' property. The product belongs exclusively to Mojang. Server owners chose to breach the license agreement.
There is no debate to legality.
So tell me, how do Mojang know the servers are running their code?
I have personally experimented on clean-room, C++ Minecraft servers, Mojang have no way to guarantee that servers are actually running their code.
Again, that is another model that is core to the development of internet technologies (And it's an older model from the 50s)
If they can guarantee the server is running their code, then Mojang can do what they want, but they can't possibly make the guarantee. EULAs do not apply to those who never accepted them to begin with, so someone who doesn't even own Minecraft and has never downloaded the server binary can potentially write their own server that is compatible with the MC network protocol and then put whatever rules they want to on that server.
I actually thought about it and maybe this is good we have too many clone server guidelines like these will make people think harder and be more unique as to how the server may survive no more clone servers will be this result
[...] EULAs do not apply to those who never accepted them to begin with, so someone who doesn't even own Minecraft and has never downloaded the server binary can potentially write their own server that is compatible with the MC network protocol and then put whatever rules they want to on that server.
This is a good point and quite valid. However, it is unlikely that the persons running the server have not, at the very least, installed MineCraft, especially considering it would be needed to test the server software. If anything, it would be the License of the game software that would be legally binding, as opposed to server software (if it is uniquely coded and not adapted code from Mojang).
If the EULA wasn't against any of this then the fairness problem alone would do nothing, however, like it or not, Mojang has decided it is unfair to them and other players. They are going to enforce their legal policy if they want to.
No amount of ranting will void their legal privelage.
Let me ask you this, are you in support of EVERY type of perk activity servers are doing? Even those that charge up towards the hundreds to thousands of dollars for Minecraft things?
Read towards the end of my post here and that gives my opinion on these ridiculous "1000 dollar for an enchanted wooden sword" servers.
What if they never ran a binary originating from Mojang and thus never agreed to the EULA? Clean room server that happens to listen to the Minecraft network protocol?
I don't think it's Mojang's responsibility at all, they can ask politely but at the end of the day it's Mojang asking people to reconfigure their personal property in the name of Mojang's personal beliefs around pay for perks.
This is a good point and quite valid. However, it is unlikely that the persons running the server have not, at the very least, installed MineCraft, especially considering it would be needed to test the server software. If anything, it would be the License of the game software that would be legally binding, as opposed to server software (if it is uniquely coded and not adapted code from Mojang).
So you think Mojang are right to make this assumption about what software is running on someone's private computer?
And the EULA in this case extends only to Mojang produced binaries, a clean-room implementation of a server will be totally free of the EULA.
EDIT:
I suppose my argument is "This should not be happening as it is unhealthy and anti-internet development" rather than "This is a bad idea because servers need to make cash"
Guys, this is just to try and force players to use realms by destroying the server community. We need to stop this by organizing a boycott against Mojang so that they have to relent before they lose money (and we still get 10 years of development first!)
Then all servers will die out. There's a reason why street performers have to put on an act inorder to get people to give them money. There's a reason why major online charity events have to give out gifts in order for people to donate. People dont give out hard earned money when they dont feel a reason to. Sure a few might. But not enough to keep a server runner. Im paying 28 dollars a month. Kindness wont keep it running. Im merely trying to give people, just enough of a reason, for them to donate.
1. It is the responsible of the server owner to maintain their server. Many have been capable of this. Thus, all server will not die out.
2. Your analogies are irrelevant as they do not match a server owner.
3. Mojang has already given something for you to convince people to donate. And not even that, if people truly enjoy your server as much then they will donate if they want to keep it alive.
Those who are discussing the "fairness" problem;
That should not even be the government's concern, they are private sector companies, not government companies, key-word is private.
They should be allowed to do what they want, it's their own resources that keeps their company running, if you think it's unfair then don't work for the company.
This is one of the first rules of life kids used to learn; The private sector is not a democracy, when you are working for someone you are sitting on the operator's personal, private property, respect their rules and take up your problems with them directly, if you don't want a $2.50 wage then don't join the company, their service is obviously wrong for you.
By the government deciding (for some MASSIVELY insane reason) that making the private sector a fair place is now their problem they are destroying a model of the economy that existed before, not to mention that they are now pulling some of the responsibility of keeping workers using private sector jobs onto their own shoulders (Which they will do zero to act on, afterall they have federal workers to worry about).
This is a rushed, poorly thought-out decision made from the beliefs of the individuals in the government and it's getting majority support because the majority of people are not company owners and have no interest in the broader ecosystem of the economy at all so want whatever benefits them most (Which is fairness).
The private sector is NOT a fair place, I will certainly defend the right for company owners to decide how employees interact with THEIR PROPERTY AND RESOURCES and I will NEVER support the government's decision to try and leverage regulations meant to control private sector operations.
Guys, this is just to try and force players to use realms by destroying the server community. We need to stop this by organizing a boycott against Mojang so that they have to relent before they lose money (and we still get 10 years of development first!)
Last time i checked vanilla minecraft did not have an economy. So then why can they restrict something they did not make? Now if essentials or iconomy said that they do no want people spending money for the currency those plugins bring to the game, that would be fine. I don't understand how they can control things they have not made.
Now I am just guessing here but I think all the major servers will just white list all the donors and if you don't donate too bad.
Now Mojang brought up kids stealing credit cards for server payments. Couldn't the kids do the smae thing to buy minecraft, or anything. Its not a Mojang problem, its a everything problem.
Well I probaly will not be able to play mineplex anymore since it will be white listed maybe.
Maybe I can buy a hat somewhere.
This is just a lame attempt to get more people into playing realms using silly excuses. Frankly it could take years to actually implement this. And even if they do, there are so many ways to bypass this without getting noticed, giving donations only to players who are trust-worthy and making it privately. I don't really think Mojang can change this without losing a lot of players. They just changed their mind on something they should've been stopped right from day zero.
"You are allowed to charge players to access your server."
Horrible.
Also, does this effect servers who do not sell vanilla items, but their own coded kits/classes on their own coded minigames, etc.?
If it does, even more horrible.
Read towards the end of my post here and that gives my opinion on these ridiculous "1000 dollar for an enchanted wooden sword" servers.
What if they never ran a binary originating from Mojang and thus never agreed to the EULA? Clean room server that happens to listen to the Minecraft network protocol?
I don't think it's Mojang's responsibility at all, they can ask politely but at the end of the day it's Mojang asking people to reconfigure their personal property in the name of Mojang's personal beliefs around pay for perks.
So you think Mojang are right to make this assumption about what software is running on someone's private computer?
And the EULA in this case extends only to Mojang produced binaries, a clean-room implementation of a server will be totally free of the EULA.
EDIT:
I suppose my argument is "This should not be happening as it is unhealthy and anti-internet development" rather than "This is a bad idea because servers need to make cash"
I'm no lawyer but I'm sure that has legal issues taped all over it *shrugs*
That's probably what the railroad, shipping, oil, and tobacco companies said to themselves when the government cracked down on them.
Putting the CENDENT back in transcendent!
You missed one critical key point of the issue: it isn't the server owners' property. The product belongs exclusively to Mojang. Server owners chose to breach the license agreement.
There is no debate to legality.
Mojang owns the code running on the server. It doesn't matter who pays for the hardware, bandwidth, etc. This would be like saying that Microsoft should allow you to sell their programs piecemeal on your private web server for your own profit because you own the hardware. That's not how software licensing works. Now if Mojang allowed hosts to resell their services through the EULA, that'd be completely different, but their clarification obviously prohibits that.
If the EULA wasn't against any of this then the fairness problem alone would do nothing, however, like it or not, Mojang has decided it is unfair to them and other players. They are going to enforce their legal policy if they want to.
No amount of ranting will void their legal privelage.
Let me ask you this, are you in support of EVERY type of perk activity servers are doing? Even those that charge up towards the hundreds to thousands of dollars for Minecraft things?
Come on dude, why did you have to say that? Now I have to report you for endorsing illegal activity.
So tell me, how do Mojang know the servers are running their code?
I have personally experimented on clean-room, C++ Minecraft servers, Mojang have no way to guarantee that servers are actually running their code.
Again, that is another model that is core to the development of internet technologies (And it's an older model from the 50s)
If they can guarantee the server is running their code, then Mojang can do what they want, but they can't possibly make the guarantee. EULAs do not apply to those who never accepted them to begin with, so someone who doesn't even own Minecraft and has never downloaded the server binary can potentially write their own server that is compatible with the MC network protocol and then put whatever rules they want to on that server.
This is a good point and quite valid. However, it is unlikely that the persons running the server have not, at the very least, installed MineCraft, especially considering it would be needed to test the server software. If anything, it would be the License of the game software that would be legally binding, as opposed to server software (if it is uniquely coded and not adapted code from Mojang).
Read towards the end of my post here and that gives my opinion on these ridiculous "1000 dollar for an enchanted wooden sword" servers.
What if they never ran a binary originating from Mojang and thus never agreed to the EULA? Clean room server that happens to listen to the Minecraft network protocol?
I don't think it's Mojang's responsibility at all, they can ask politely but at the end of the day it's Mojang asking people to reconfigure their personal property in the name of Mojang's personal beliefs around pay for perks.
So you think Mojang are right to make this assumption about what software is running on someone's private computer?
And the EULA in this case extends only to Mojang produced binaries, a clean-room implementation of a server will be totally free of the EULA.
EDIT:
I suppose my argument is "This should not be happening as it is unhealthy and anti-internet development" rather than "This is a bad idea because servers need to make cash"
1. It is the responsible of the server owner to maintain their server. Many have been capable of this. Thus, all server will not die out.
2. Your analogies are irrelevant as they do not match a server owner.
3. Mojang has already given something for you to convince people to donate. And not even that, if people truly enjoy your server as much then they will donate if they want to keep it alive.
Do you know how silly you sound?
Putting the CENDENT back in transcendent!
You cannot be serious.
Now I am just guessing here but I think all the major servers will just white list all the donors and if you don't donate too bad.
Now Mojang brought up kids stealing credit cards for server payments. Couldn't the kids do the smae thing to buy minecraft, or anything. Its not a Mojang problem, its a everything problem.
Well I probaly will not be able to play mineplex anymore since it will be white listed maybe.
Maybe I can buy a hat somewhere.
Evidence and citation?
Excellent way to misquote someone within the quote tags.
EDIT: My apologies, failed to notice the sarcastic tone! Good one!
Horrible.
Also, does this effect servers who do not sell vanilla items, but their own coded kits/classes on their own coded minigames, etc.?
If it does, even more horrible.
I'm no lawyer but I'm sure that has legal issues taped all over it *shrugs*