Quote from Owen »
Hello!
Let’s get one thing clear: we love it when Minecrafters host servers. Tiny or massive, running vanilla Minecraft or a heavily modded version, we think they’re all great. Playing with friends in persistent worlds is awesome. Everyone knows that.
Over the past week there’s been lots of discussion about Minecraft servers and your right to monetise them. Legally, you are not allowed to make money from our products. There has been one exception to this rule so far – Minecraft videos. We’re about to make a second exception – Minecraft servers.
Hosting servers can be expensive. We want to give community members a way to cover their costs. That said, we don’t want our players to be exploited, or to have a frustrating time unless they pay. The following rules, which may be tweaked at a later date, have been created with those points in mind.
You are allowed to charge players to access your server
So long as the fee is the same for all players, you are allowed to charge for access to your server. You are not allowed to split your playerbase into paying, and non-paying users, nor can you restrict gameplay elements to different tiers of player.
Basically, if you’re charging for access to your server, you are selling a “ticket” and there can only be one type of ticket, no matter how much people are willing to spend.
You are allowed to accept donations
You are allowed to accept donation from your players. You can thank them publicly, or in-game, but can’t give them preferential treatment for donating. You are not allowed to restrict gameplay features in an attempt to make money.
You are allowed to provide in-game advertising or sponsorship opportunities
Running servers can be expensive, with that in mind, you are allowed to put adverts in your Minecraft worlds to help with costs. Used within reason, adverts and sponsorship can be good ways to fund a server.
You are allowed to sell in-game items so long as they don’t affect gameplay
We don’t mind you selling items in game, but they must be purely cosmetic. Pets, hats, and particle effects are OK, but swords, invincibility potions, and man-eating pigs are not. We want all players to be presented with the same gameplay features, whether they decide to pay or not.
There is one exception to this rule – capes! We have a lot of fun making cool capes for extra-special members of our community and Minecon attendees. We’d like to keep them as exclusive as possible. So, yeah, no capes please, for free or otherwise.
You cannot charge real-world cash for in-game currency
We don’t mind you making up currencies which players earn through playing but you are not allowed to sell it for real-world cash. Remember – if the stuff you sell affects gameplay, we’re not cool with it.
Don’t pretend to be us, and provide your customers with loads of info!
If you do decide to monetise your server, you must clearly state that the purchase is not associated with Mojang, declare who the money is going to, and provide a purchase history and contact details. You should also check up on the legality of selling digital items in your specific region.
Thanks for reading!
As I hope you’ve noticed, these rules are making attempts to prevent Minecraft servers becoming “pay-to-win.” We hate the idea of server hosts restricting Minecraft’s features to players who have already bought our game! It seems really mean.
We’re hoping that these rules will give hosts opportunity to continue creating awesome Minecraft worlds, and for our players to enjoy them without worrying about cash.
Have a good day!
http://hypixel.net/threads/minecraft-eula-is-changing-not-allowed-to-sell-in-game-items-perks.121375/
Proprietary protocol, but is it explicitly covered by copyrights? The protocols I know that are covered by copyrights have patents tied to them with years of research, not saying that Minecraft's protocol is less valid as it doesn't have a solid backing, but it's pretty openly documented and the Bukkit project would have been shut-down if Mojang were interested in protecting their network protocol.
And on the subject of connecting Minecraft clients, that is out of the scope of the server, this website, for example, cannot dictate what operating systems and browsers connect to it (They can try to control it but they can't make reliable assumptions and attempt to apply EULAs to those assumptions).
If I made an application that (happens) to connect to a Minecraft server, posted a message and then disconnected I wouldn't be bound by the Minecraft EULA as I never ran Minecraft or accepted it (I am literally not an end-user), the other direction is pretty much the same deal.
I mean, obviously if both ends used Minecraft resources, code, binaries, technologies, etc then they are certainly going to be bound by the EULA, but me making a console application that will reply with "Hello" for when a Minecraft client attempts to connect to it is hardly going to pull me into that client's EULA or the server binary's EULA.
Yknow, you say that, but I don't think you know what it means. Find me even one statement from anyone at Mojang that states they are going after every single MC server in existence, with the intent of shutting them down for any deviation from the EULA. I'll wait.
Considering it was posted on Saturday and the poster didn't provide evidence..... I call speculation and not enough proof.
I said it was one reason, not the only reason. Customer support getting clogged is a symptom, but in the end, what's happening on a larger scale is, the game is gaining the reputation of a "pay to win" phone game. Most parents don't keep up with this stuff, and if that is their first impression of the game, the game suffers for it.
No exceptions, everyone is bound to follow the rules.
Great, now show me in that sentence where Searge said "and we will pursue through any and all means violators of this policy."
lol, really? "if anything, do it for the kids!" lmao.
in that case, Mojang should just do what most modern day companies do, and simply ignore the typical case of 'ineptness at work in its natural habitat' and considering that this EULA would undoubtedly push more people onto realms, there is more evidence to say that it is indeed about realms, then to say otherwise. By that logic we should also get rid of all republics and democracies, because the people are just to stupid to take care of themselves. Quite frankly, if servers are abusive, they will either die out, or its supporters are clearly not to bright, either way, its their problem, there is no need to ruin it for the rest of us who have enjoyed minecraft as it was for the past 4 years just because of a few idiots.
The hosts would get taken down as a result of the allegation. I can't think that a service provider would refuse a legitimate take-down request and investigation, opting instead to perform their own arbitration, especially as they are not authorised by both parties to arbitrate the circumstances. Service providers would happily either take down the service and/or forward any and all pertinent information to the litigants and authorities.
After that, a lawsuit would follow and the server "owners" would have to respond. Proving the matter of who's code would be a matter of acquiring server records, which would be easy at that point. A subpoena may be required depending on certain circumstances, however, there would be cause shown based on "owners'" own websites. Every published server I have seen claims that they are a MineCraft server, not MineCraft compatible. On that fact alone, they have already violated Mojang's trademark. Secondly, they are implying they are running MineCraft.
If at any point, it can be demonstrated that the "owners" have installed or used the MineCraft software in any capacity, then they are bound to said software's license agreement.
Could somebody work their way out of this whole thing on account of specific technicalities? Yes, provisionally. It would require some VERY good lawyering. This would not come cheap or free. The sort of parties that would be able to afford that type of civil and criminal defense lawyers likely would not be involved in a business that relies own operating illegally to turn a pittance of a profit. And those that do and have that sort of money would be more prone to invest in more lucarative corruption.
Here you go. Read the last comment. It's by Hypixel.
That sentence simply says "everyone is on the same page regarding the rules, everyone must follow them."
That is, literally, all it says. Nowhere in that collection of words is it even vaguely implied that they are pursuing action. Panic-mongering like this is not making it easier on anyone.
Chills me that you are suggesting Mojang will call up a T1 line provider to ask them to shut down the operations of a private server on the legal grounds of "He once ran Minecraft".
An EULA will only cover the end user within the scope of the agreement, I don't think Mojang's EULAs cover instances of other software.
This is starting to go into discussion over net neutrality here, the suggestion that the EULA covers services by protocols means that the data itself will be inspected and assumptions made about both ends of the end-to-end connection, I don't think that is as legally sound as you believe it to be and lawyers don't tend to jump in to defend cases with so much ambiguity surrounding them.
What if the server was someone's bicycle cleverly hooked up to a land-line phone so when it hears some beeps it turns which send electrical currents around a complex network and then replies down the phone with a bloop? And it happens to talk the Minecraft protocol...
It's an absurd technicality (Yes, it is a technicality), but it's a sweeping assumption to say that the EULA covers a communication stack.
Anyway you look at this it will become bad.
This will cause the servers to be fair to all however, which will be bad if you've paid unless Mojang allows them to keep their stuff.
This seems like a bad case of "Punish the whole to punish the few."
However I do see Mojang's point of view and agree with it. Some servers have donation ranks from $100-$2000 that people pay for just to have an extra boost or it's the exact opposite and people become so OP it's not fun.
That violates the EULA
You, as a consumer, are able to choose! Don't want to waste money on a server that might reject you? Don't pay anyone ever for playing the game. Sit on SSP, playing LAN games and never step out into the whole big scary world.
Glad this was posted. Blatant disrespect and violation of the 'rules' should never be ok just because someone disagrees with a policy.