[PSA] An insight into the Minecraft EULA issue (self.Minecraft)

Minecraft

398 ups - 122 downs = 276 votes

Prime edit: Its 12:58 PM here now. I don't care how many downvotes you throw upon my account. I will continue to answer anyone and everyone I can who wants to know whats going on, and how it affects them. Do your worst trolls.

For those who don't understand whats going on.

More for those who think they do

Some of you may ask, whats this all about? In reddit fashion, a Tl;Dr is in show:

The EULA issue is caused by the majority of people not reading the EULA for Minecraft.

Yes, it is that simple. The EULA issue would not have ever occurred if everyone took their time to read. If server owners had read the EULA before trying to sell diamond swords and other in game items, None of this would have happened.

But no. In typical human fashion, no one read the EULA and now we have server owners trying to argue with the EULA they accepted upon buying the game. If this were any other company than Mojang, we would be seeing several million dollars worth of lawsuits being thrown all over.

Best of all, they have a valid reason to sue.

Instead. What we see now is a nice gentleman from Mojang getting heat, flame, and insults from various parties for simply doing his job. He doesn't write the EULA. He doesn't enforce the EULA. He is just here to provide notice that there IS an EULA, and to tell you that violating the EULA is not acceptable.

He is not wrong. He does not deserve the treatment he gets. He isn't the big bad wolf from yet another large company trying to hound you about a non existent issue. He is just doing his job.

-- The issue with the EULA is non existent. There is no issue. There is nothing wrong with Mojang. There is nothing wrong with Erik. The only thing that is wrong is the community.

You are not allowed to buy Halo 4 and sell an assault rifle for cash. You are not allowed to buy Starcraft and sell a unit for cash. You are not allowed to buy Borderlands and sell a gun for cash.

You can own a server for any of these games. But its not allowed. You can't do it. No one does it.

Diablo lets you do it, but its a gameplay feature that was advertised and developer supported.

Minecraft doesn't. Mojang is well within their rights to do this. They are legally allowed to do this. The fact they have let this go on for this long is a blessing.

Any argument about how servers boost Minecrafts player base is invalid. Any argument poised to Erik that is derogatory, insulting, and not phrased as a suggestion is invalid. He doesn't have to listen. He doesn't have to care. He doesn't have to take this rubbish.

He does it because he is a gentleman. He does it because he is nice. He is the epitome of customer service and a shining beacon of hope for people who wish to see the world grow less idiotic.

Do damn well to remember that.

--

This has been a simple PSA that explains why you ought to grab your head out your ass and start looking at things properly.

Edit: I think a big misconception is upon the idea of what is not going to be allowed. You won't be allowed to sell diamond swords and items in game, but you will probably be able to sell stuff like nicknames and pets.

Edit 2: I feel like alot of misconceptions are being had and as such I feel a need to personally address some of them. As such, I am currently working on an informational PSA that will vocally answer several issues and misconceptions people seem to have. The content of discussion below and things I have repeated several times are obviously going to be part of what I address.

Edit 3: As genuinely happy as I am to answer everyone when I get a new notification, it also happens to be 11:41pm here and occasionally I need to read some other things or go to the toilet or perhaps feed my cats or heck even just do things. If I don't have a fast reply, its probably one of the above.

452 comments submitted at 06:49:01 on Jun 6, 2014 by Delightfully_Insane

  • [-]
  • jeb_
  • 249 Points
  • 12:05:17, 6 June

We'll post an official statement on the Mojang blog soon. We didn't change the EULA in 1.7.10 (as far as I know), we only made sure that people who run servers read it.

I'm not a lawyer, and I don't have any say in legal matters for Mojang, so don't take this as an official statement, but here are some notes:

  • We're not trying to prevent server providers. Hosting servers costs money, so charging for access is necessary.
  • People who have bought Minecraft should not need to pay more money to access its game features.
  • Handing out "rewards" for "donations" may count as tax evasion, and may be illegal depending on where you live.
  • Minecraft hosting has become increasingly rogue, and they mainly target kids, which end up looking bad for both Minecraft and Mojang. A lot of these conflicts end up at the Mojang support office, and we've been ignoring the issue for too long.

I mean... things like this are everywhere now: http://macrocosm.enjin.com/donators

Again, there will be an official statement soon. We need to pinpoint everything from aesthetic upgrades, to in-game advertising, and other issues. Until then, Mojang employees are only speaking their opinions.

  • [-]
  • JeremyR22
  • 12 Points
  • 15:14:40, 6 June

> Handing out "rewards" for "donations" may count as tax evasion, and may be illegal depending on where you live.

Is that really Mojang's problem, though? It's up to server owners to ensure they're operating within the law of their own jurisdiction(s) surely?

  • [-]
  • Noobguy27
  • 3 Points
  • 16:13:54, 6 June

I think he's just pointing out that some server hosts claim that they don't charge for certain features but they will give "rewards for donations." Even if it avoids the EULA, this shouldn't avoid the tax code. It may or may not be Mojang's issue, but it is still an issue either way.

  • [-]
  • Delightfully_Insane
  • 56 Points
  • 12:14:03, 6 June

Thanks for making an un-official statement. Please tell Erik that he's awesome.

  • [-]
  • _Grum
  • 54 Points
  • 14:54:10, 6 June

<3

  • [-]
  • Delightfully_Insane
  • 13 Points
  • 14:57:22, 6 June

Thank you for being amazingly professional throughout all of this. I hope it gets resolved soon.

  • [-]
  • doktortaru
  • 1 Points
  • 16:55:02, 6 June

I'm going to hijack this real quick. What about servers like playmindcrack where they charge for additional features not included in the base game. They custom coded a ton of scripts to run on vanilla serverside. They allow anyone to play for free but you get slight perks "in the specific custom games" and it is in no way still minecraft.

  • [-]
  • Mystikilla
  • -1 Points
  • 13:49:52, 6 June

Could Mojang offer a Server Standards portion fo their EULA for servers that wish to monetize on some level?

I dont wish to disagree too much, but there is labour involved in running a Minecraft server. Some of this labour are jobs that you would normally be paid to do, such as simply sitting at a desk making sure a server does not go down. I understand there there are problems with how some servers conduct their business because the leech onto young children without the experience to know how to do proper product research, btu there are also legitimate servers out there who provide great services (and yes, charge for features from plugins).

However, they do provide a service. They guarentee uptime, or close to uptime, provide server maintenance and adminitrative functions that Mojang does not offer with their server program. These are things you need a human to do and in most respects, people get paid to do jobs like these.

I understand many people hate play to win, but there seems to also be a market and players who wish to live under that.

If Mojang could regulate server monetization, through a approved standards agreement or maybe a server license, where servers are issued a license and have to accept certain quality controls, then the good servers that have some of these features can continue to run their business.

We seem to be generalizing all types of monetization as bad and in the long run, in my opinion, it will only ensure that the good, semi-professionally managed servers eventually dissapear.

There is labour we should be acknowledging that goes into managing a server and I dont believe we should ignore that labour.

Under the same logic, restaurants should not make a dime off the food they sell, because they dont grow the food. The only thing Mojang lacks here is some sort of licensing agreement, maybe even have MONETIZED servers pay a regular fee to Mojang in order to run.

Anything is better then a blanket ban which would destroy many large and good server communities.

  • [-]
  • w_p
  • 11 Points
  • 14:58:46, 6 June

I think you lack reading comprehension. They already said that you can charge for hosting the server (which is the labour), but not for ingame features (which is their property and you have no right to sell it).

Your metapher lacks logic too, because restaurants pay for the things they sell, which server owner obviously do not for the ingame things like diamond swords, armor and so on.

  • [-]
  • Dykam
  • 1 Points
  • 17:22:06, 6 June

Restaurants add a margin to what they sell to pay for the things they don't sell. Like rent, electricity, employees. Nobody ever argued that they see it as reselling items, but use it as a means to pay off the other costs.

That said, I'm firmly against pay to win. I'm just afraid the many other servers which do not act out of pure greed suffer.

  • [-]
  • Imagine_Baggins
  • 1 Points
  • 17:13:35, 6 June

Why do people keep assuming all servers with purhasable perks are selling diamond swords? There are some great servers like the Server That Will Not Be Named that are minigame servers; all their perks offer are things like more gold to buy vanity items (which can still be earned by non-contributors), spots in minigames that have been filled already, beta-testing new minigames. Nothing game-breaking, nothing non-patrons are upset about, and no one is forced to pay to accomplish something. The servers that are selling diamond gear to 12-year olds must go away for sure, but I feel like some servers could be "reviewed" by a non-GRUMpy member of Mojang and be okay'ed. These good servers aren't selling Mojang's content, i.e., Minecraft items, blocks, etc; rather, they're selling content THEY have created, i.e., plug-ins, gamemodes, minigames, features only owned by Mojang in the sense that the server owner(s) are using Minecraft as a platform for their services. The destinction has to be made between the money-hungry, child-targeting servers selling diamonds who pocket the money made vs the extensive, community-oriented, content-creating, good-intentioned servers who offer legitimate services and only the ability to purchase small vanity perks or ones that can be gained through progression by non-patrons, and who actually need funds to keep their server running because they actually employ coders, artists, people monitoring tickets, admins, etc. I don't like how generalized this enforcement of the EULA is, or how unspecific the vocal Mojang members are being with their comments. We would like to know specific things servers are allowed to do, and perhaps work out a sort if agreement for the larger servers that are base solely on good intentions and need funds to stay alive, because believe it or not @_grum, servers are one of the largest money-makers for Mojang, along wih Youtubers, and mods, because in all honesty, few people can play vanilla survival Minecraft for more than a few weeks or months without getting bored or running out of inspiration. For me personally, servers and mods are the only reason I still play Minecraft, but then again, "Minecraft doesn't rely on servers and Youtubers and still sells 10k+ copies regardless and those numbers are not responsible for by servers and Youtubers at all" (I paraphrased). I really hope Mojang can use logic here and not just ban any server that offers perks. Rant over.

  • [-]
  • Adderkleet
  • 7 Points
  • 14:48:08, 6 June

You can charge a subscription to your server. You can request donations for "uptime".

Your restaurant analogy does not work since the restaurant buys all rights to the ingredients and is allowed to profit on the food. Even if they couldn't "profit" from the food, they still provide the service (server, plates, cooking, etc) and can charge for that - a fee for eating at the restaurant.

"Many large and good server communities" should be complying with this by not charging for stuff the server host does not own (like diamonds, etc). And anyone making Minecraft servers their business needs to follow the EULA.

  • [-]
  • Dykam
  • 1 Points
  • 17:25:25, 6 June

Restaurants do not charge a fee for eating. They offer you food, add a margin and that is how they pay the rest. Not that I advocate selling items, the contrary. I prefer selling metagame things. Fancy colors, maybe a little quicker queuing for some minigame.

But in the end, both sell something and use the margin to pay something else.

  • [-]
  • PuffyCottonCandy
  • 1 Points
  • 17:34:55, 6 June

I'm a little lacking in comprehension right now, excuse me. I have a question. Does donating so you can get into full servers (for playing hunger games) count as a violation of this rule? Again, my apologies for the stupid question ._.

  • [-]
  • skeddles
  • 5 Points
  • 15:13:26, 6 June

There's a lot of mods/plugins that change how minecraft works. Saying that the built in "features" are a right to players on every server feels like mojang is overstepping. Can I not change diamond ore densities because users have a right to diamonds? Shouldn't users be able to mod the game into whatever they want? Can we not give users a different experience than vanilla minecraft?

What if my world has no use for the diamond tools and armors, but instead uses diamonds to unlock special content? Do users still have a right to diamonds?

I can see how using your art assets to promote and sell things on your server could be infringing, but I don't see why mojang should have control over certain bytes on my hard drive and what I can do with them.

  • [-]
  • decentAlbatross
  • 4 Points
  • 16:08:55, 6 June

>Shouldn't users be able to mod the game into whatever they want? Can we not give users a different experience than vanilla minecraft?

Not if you're going to charge for it, if I understand this correctly.

It makes sense actually. Buying a copy of Minecraft (or any game for that matter) will get you a copy of the game, not its IP. You can't charge for mods that use Minecraft as a base unless you have permission from the IP owner - Mojang in this case.

This is pretty much the case with every game. This is why all Skyrim mods are free. I think Valve give special permission for TF2 but they also get a small cut from those mod sales.

I'm guessing and hoping that Mojang is currently working on these "special permissions" and make everything as clear to everyone as possible.

  • [-]
  • skeddles
  • 1 Points
  • 17:09:03, 6 June

I'm just saying how it should be, not how it is.

  • [-]
  • Illiux
  • 1 Points
  • 16:26:27, 6 June

The law is rather muddy around modding. Its likely that they count as independent copyrightable works, in which case Mojang can do nothing to regulate them and you could sell them for profit. If the mod doesn't include any part of Minecraft IP in it's released form, then the fact that its useless without Minecraft is irrelevant.

  • [-]
  • BASeCamper
  • 1 Points
  • 17:14:34, 6 June

It seems fairly clear, according to the copyright act. Mods at best count as derivative works. Only the original copyright owner of a original work or those with express permission of that original copyright holder can profit from or create derivative works, excepting where that original content was used in a way that counts as fair use.

  • [-]
  • mallander
  • 6 Points
  • 12:40:05, 6 June

I'm not asking for an official statement on this, but your opinion:

Fair enough, P2W and donations like the example you posted are a big no, and always have been. But what's your opinion on things like coloured names, just something to recognise they've helped out the server by donating?

  • [-]
  • Delightfully_Insane
  • 5 Points
  • 12:45:32, 6 June

I think Grumm stated coloured names are fine.

  • [-]
  • _Grum
  • 11 Points
  • 14:55:05, 6 June

No, I said I personally would be fine with it. I'll bring it up in the next meeting, the community made a 'list of things' here:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ATf4DM7QBIsXcs7A1oslrYI74B1njbBS-z6NzF_YS08

  • [-]
  • LordSaad
  • 1 Points
  • 17:05:33, 6 June

I talked about the Change ‘donation’ to ‘purchase’. :D I'm glad I made a difference somewhere. ... Or you just had the same idea ._. in which case I'm sad again. ..... Then again you could make me feel better by stating you got the idea from me. .......... But I would know your lying.. So i'm neutral here. :|

  • [-]
  • mallander
  • 7 Points
  • 12:48:49, 6 June

From reading the chat that was released I wasn't so sure at the end, minds seemed to be changed left and right. :P

  • [-]
  • Southern_paw
  • 1 Points
  • 14:49:02, 6 June

"I think"

Too many rumours and speculation and not enough Mojang responses.

You're better off not replying. I'll wait for their official post.

  • [-]
  • ginhginja
  • 6 Points
  • 13:06:04, 6 June

>People who have bought Minecraft should not need to pay more money to access its game features.

As a user I fully support this. I am not a LPer or dev or anyone who makes money from the name minecaft which only mojang owns.

  • [-]
  • drhelmutp
  • 1 Points
  • 16:39:19, 6 June

I'll try to answer to your statements, don't see this as an offense, I just would like you to see the situation from my position. Just to try to push your reflexion behond.

-People who have bought Minecraft should not need to pay more money to access its game features.

I don't thing we're stealing us the game they bought, they bought the solo game. They can still play solo if they want to play the full game. And even from your point of view: at our begining, we 'ld like to let the player play the real minecraft without any payment. It's turn to a mess because of TNT/lava. We had no choice to give the tnt/lava right to upper rank (like 5€ later and during the whole life). Not because of the greed, but because it's the only way to test the confidence to the environnement of mass players. If they pay, they won't screw up and stay quiet, it's an investment.

And if it is that use of your copyright that bother you, why haven't you done a commercial licence that allows servers to do business? I'll be glad to pay that because you deserve it. And it'll be a great income and a way to give a sense of responsability to owner/admin.

If some here are right it's all the realm fault (large doubts about that), realm really look like Google +, something cool, but useless. And you shouldn't try to force people to it (that's my point of view)


-"Handing out "rewards" for "donations" may count as tax evasion, and may be illegal depending on where you live."

I'm totally agree with you that's why, since the first month of our creation, we are a real litte registred company that pay taxes etc, it's all about owner responsabilities, I really don't get why you think it's Mojang's. We are not calling this "donations" but purchases. First because our payment gateway don't allow us to call it that way and because it is actually purchase.


-"Minecraft hosting has become increasingly rogue, and they mainly target kids, which end up looking bad for both Minecraft and Mojang. A lot of these conflicts end up at the Mojang support office, and we've been ignoring the issue for too long."

Agree with you, that's why admin/owner of servers must be responsible. We got many case of that matter, but we always managed them properly. I still receive email from parents that thanks us because they know our kids are in peace in our servers.

I know you think servers are nothing in the success of minecraft, but please keep in mind it is the community who did it. And what the community did, she can undo.

I agree totally that something have to be done, and there were many abuses but you're going to throw the baby out with the bathwater. You should have done something but that way is not constructive.

Regards,

  • [-]
  • MrCheeze
  • 1 Points
  • 15:15:00, 6 June

Okay. I just hope that Mojang isn't under the impression that charging for access is in any way a sustainable way to keep servers running.

edit: Same goes for goodness-of-your-heart donations.

  • [-]
  • valadian
  • 1 Points
  • 17:29:35, 6 June

It is very easy to run a server on "goodness-of-your-heart" donations.

Just make a server worth playing.

There are a number of 150+ peak time servers, with 2000+ active players that have been running for years on donations alone with zero perks.

  • [-]
  • RobPlaysThatGame
  • 1 Points
  • 17:30:36, 6 June

Then the server community is made up of people who are self-entitled and don't deserve the server.

What you're suggesting is that the community for a server has the financial means to keep the server afloat, but won't do so unless they get additional perks on top of the content of the server itself. As if everything on the server isn't worth it.

Sorry, those people don't deserve the server, and I can't imagine myself ever feeling bad for them losing it.

It sucks for the people running such servers, since they'll be illuminated to the shallowness and cheapness of their own community, but they'd be better off for it.

  • [-]
  • sithcub
  • 1 Points
  • 15:14:37, 6 June

So are we still allowed to accept optional donations (that provide no benefits)?

  • [-]
  • CesarDaPig
  • 1 Points
  • 15:30:50, 6 June

Yep.

  • [-]
  • LordSaad
  • 1 Points
  • 17:07:59, 6 June

Yes.

  • [-]
  • TheCookieDude
  • 1 Points
  • 15:15:28, 6 June

Quick question, if anybody could answer, that would be great.

You say that people shouldn't need to pay more money to access game features.

But say, for example, a survival server is offering diamonds as a 'reward' for 'donating'. Even if you don't 'donate', you can still go a mine diamonds, therefore you can still access the same game features. You're not paying money to access game features, you are paying money to take a shortcut in obtaining those features.

It may be something as simple as jeb_'s wording, I'm just curious.

  • [-]
  • Delightfully_Insane
  • 1 Points
  • 15:29:45, 6 June

I believe thats still wrong.

Source: Buy an assult rifle in halo analogy.

  • [-]
  • TheCookieDude
  • 1 Points
  • 15:36:47, 6 June

I guessed that.

And I never played halo, but I think I know what you mean.

  • [-]
  • RolandTheJabberwocky
  • 2 Points
  • 16:05:11, 6 June

Thank god, the server pool was becoming increasingly toxic from servers like that hunting for money.

  • [-]
  • Drewskeeh
  • 1 Points
  • 16:56:03, 6 June

> Handing out "rewards" for "donations" may count as tax evasion, and may be illegal depending on where you live.

If I were to go to McDonald's and they asked me if I wanted to donate $5 to St. Jude's as well as getting to write my name on a donator list, would that be tax evasion as well? I receive this paper in return for my donation. I don't think anybody would count that as tax evasion.

If someone donates $10 to a server and gets 10 diamond blocks, the server owner just types out a single command and now the donor has diamonds. In your eyes, this could be tax evasion.

How are these two different?

  • [-]
  • eposnix
  • 1 Points
  • 17:05:51, 6 June

McDonalds certainly reports any and all donations to the IRS. I think jeb's statement is assuming the server operator isn't reporting donations as income.

  • [-]
  • BASeCamper
  • 1 Points
  • 17:32:52, 6 June

As eposmix mentions, I doubt server owners are reporting the income to the IRS or the equivalent of their country. And additionally, if they are reporting it, they cannot report it as a donation, because in most cases said "donation" is actually a purchase. A donation would be something like when you see war veterans with a desk and a can providing poppies. You can optionally provide a donation and optionally take a poppy if you desire.

What we find on Minecraft servers however is the equivalent of providing a donation and being provided a fully-equipped MiG. Eg, players "donate" and receive "perks" which can be items, or they can be ranks, or they can be certain abilities, or access to certain worlds.

That is not a donation. it cannot be declared as a donation, and doing so is quite literally tax evasion.

  • [-]
  • nightpool
  • 1 Points
  • 17:02:16, 6 June

>People who have bought Minecraft should not need to pay more money to access its game features.

How does this make any sense? Minecraft servers aren't a monopoly, and in fact, anyone can set up a server themselves. Its not paying more money to access game features, because those game features are accessible to anybody. There are plenty of servers that are free and available to everybody.

Some servers are straight vanilla, some are heavily modded. Some servers are free, some cost money to access "features". But they're not restricting any players from playing Minecraft—they have their own version, and they can set up servers with themselves and their friends. Instead, what you're doing is restricting the innovation that can happen in the minecraft modding and plugin community. People get paid off of server income, and they make plugins and contribute back to the community.

All this is going to do is decrease both the quality and quantity of minecraft servers. This changes confirms my worst fears about the skin encryption change—Mojang, far from wanting and encouraging modding and innovation, is beginning to see Minecraft as Their Property and plugins and servers that change how the game plays as Bad for Their Game.

EDIT: For those who think I'm being presumptive and possessive of a game I didn't make and don't have any right to, my statements on modding are more along the lines of these quotes from Notch: > I also know how wonderful mods are for games. We decided to just let it happen, and I’m very happy we did. Mods are a huge reason of what Minecraft is.


>SethBling

>There are now dozens, maybe hundreds, of people making a living from Minecraft’s secondary market via YouTube, etc. What do you think of this secondary market? Do you have any insights on how the secondary market and Minecraft’s market have interacted with and fed each other?A side note: Thank you for enabling me to have one of the best jobs in the world! >Notch

>It all kind of emerged organically. There’s probably a lot more we could do to support it more, so we’ll probably look more into that in the future[...]

  • [-]
  • Zincamania
  • 1 Points
  • 17:03:56, 6 June

I am sure the problem Mojang has with servers is not due to the server buisness (because the top quality servers require work, and it that SHOULD be paid/supported for quality content for years to come), but due to the rogueish aspect of donation kits which costs hundreds of dollars. I do hope that you can support the servers that create their own games using minecraft as a platform, and only target the ones that sell vanilla minecraft assets, either directly or indirectly (via economy plugin).

Secondly, Here is my worry about this sentence: "Hosting servers costs money, so charging for access is necessary."

Are you saying servers that have a team of developers and require money to sustain, will no longer be public for free (as in a fee to access the server)? Or am I reading this wrong? If I'm reading this wrongly then please ignore the following.

That's very worrying. Many servers require lots, and lots of players to be fun. Minigames and other games will only function with public players. What's the difference between a buisness that charges for access, and a buisness that charges for content? It's just a different buisness plan, and the quality of the server will lower due to the vastly decreased players. Support the quality of servers - and many servers require lots of players for minigames to start constantly.

  • [-]
  • DiddyMoe
  • 1 Points
  • 17:06:19, 6 June

Is it possible as a regular player to give my opinions on this? I have some questions as well as a few comments I would love to make regarding the EULA. I understand nothing changed and quite honestly, I never read the EULA and never knew about this so I really appreciate the fact you and the rest of the team is making efforts to raise awareness of this fact. However I disagree with parts of the EULA, which is why I would like to know where I can raise my concerns, comments, and questions.

Thank you :)

  • [-]
  • soraendo
  • 1 Points
  • 17:09:47, 6 June

> We didn't change the EULA in 1.7.10

With all due respect, PLEASE change it for 1.8 to be more lenient towards server hosting/donation. So many servers use paid hosting, and then RELY on donations to simply exist. Banning donations to servers would kill a huge swath of really great Minecraft servers, servers which form essentially the core of the Minecraft player base.

Paid hosting and donating to servers CANNOT be banned. It will damage Minecraft's user base heavily.

Though you are only speaking your opinions and nothing right now is binding, please realise how critical this is. The EULA needs to be reconsidered, as is, it's threatening to the existence of core user base servers.

As for 'rewarding' donations: yeah, that's a bit of a sleazy move, but again, servers have to do things to get the donations to run. If it's illegal per region, then let individuals deal with it on their own, don't outright ban donation rewards in the EULA. Doing so won't help anything, it'll just damage user dedication to Minecraft overall.

Also, for what reasons rewarding donations through in game items qualify as tax evasion? I'm no lawyer myself, but I can't seem to put 2 and 2 together. In game items, from a real world stance, are essentially non existent. After donating $5 to a server, I really can't comprehend how giving the player 64 diamonds versus not giving the player 64 diamonds really has ANY difference legally.

For dealing with rogue hosts, I dunno. Put PSAs on the Minecraft.net homepage, or get courts to take down rogue sites, but doing anything, EULA, legally, or in any fashion, which could influence genuine server hosting, is NOT a good move.

edit: I realise how many other replies you have to read through on the matter, and this is probably just one more on the pile for you, so I'm sorry for this, but this is an important issue which deserves its fair share of attention.

  • [-]
  • BebopVox
  • 1 Points
  • 17:35:40, 6 June

Replying like this is much more mature, and well spoken PR wise. Last night was a huge mess as things were posted without thinking by mojang members. Causing people to needlessly freak out. Talked to some of those members and did a break down video to help those trying to understand. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnSx_Zk8A7o Really shocked you guys didn't post a statement first. This isn't our first rodeo with seeing Mojang changes! Was possibly the worst way to go about things.

  • [-]
  • SuperWizard68
  • 1 Points
  • 15:55:15, 6 June

I fully support Mojang on this. I honestly expected Mojang to do this a few months ago. Just want Mojang to know even though the haters speak out the most, I am sure that more people support this, rather than hate it. People who hate are just the most outspoken.

Mojang, just keep doing what you're doing, and the rest of the community can just deal with it.

  • [-]
  • Ibgod
  • 0 Points
  • 16:21:04, 6 June

I don't think the thousands upon thousands of people that play on servers like hypixel, shotbow, OCN, AEM, gontroller, mineage and other networks appreciate their favorite servers going down. Multiplayer will be so much emptier after this.

  • [-]
  • BASeCamper
  • 1 Points
  • 17:16:00, 6 June

Do you have any evidence any of those servers will go down? Particularly hypixel given that the admin of said server said they were not going to be going down?

  • [-]
  • Ibgod
  • 1 Points
  • 17:19:28, 6 June

Give it a few months when they have to pay out of there own pocket to keep it running and then they'll have to at least start closing down the less played gamemodes.

  • [-]
  • valadian
  • 1 Points
  • 17:32:40, 6 June

just make a server worth playing without selling off Mojang's IP.

People will give to keep the server(s) running if you run it right.

  • [-]
  • 1ph0ne
  • 1 Points
  • 16:11:41, 6 June

Thanks for clarification. However, I still have some concerns. You say >People who have bought Minecraft should not need to pay more money to access its game features.

But what if someone has coded a plugin that might give you extra perks? The plugin creator(s) have put time and effort into creating a plugin for a server, and they can't make any money off of it? I would predict that content creation would drop down. I know that Grumm has showed a list of possibly allowed things, but they shouldn't start to infringe over on other people's work. After all, it wasn't part of the original vanilla game. Someone "modded" it to add new things to the game.

Now I understand that p2w is bad, and many people agree that p2w is just dumb. But seriously, it seems like the kids who get their parents to buy (or steal their cards) stuff are causing part of the problem. Can't we just get the parents to be more responsible? Before, the problem wasn't too big, but now you want to level the whole field for EVERYONE. If someone paid to get an extra thing, they should get that in return. If A bought something, and B bought NOTHING, why should A=B?

On another note, honestly, this probably wouldn't even be an issue if not for everyone constantly pressuring Mojang on Twitter to take a serious look on this.

for all y'all who don't like to read: tl;dr Mojang is trying to help place the line on what can and can't be sold/purchased from servers. But they also want to level out the playing field and make it so content creators will earn next to no money at all.

ps. if I got something wrong, please tell me.

edit:formatting

  • [-]
  • Tainted-Archer
  • 7 Points
  • 11:47:57, 6 June

I haven't been reading about this but I assume donations can still be taken just items cannot be sold?

  • [-]
  • Ichthus95
  • 10 Points
  • 12:02:28, 6 June

As far as I understand, yes. Grumm has said multiple times that actual donations, which don't give anything in return, are perfectly fine.

  • [-]
  • Tainted-Archer
  • 8 Points
  • 12:06:24, 6 June

But obviously that wont make a lot of income compared to selling the game back to users. I completely support mojang and hopefully this cracks down on all the crappy servers trying to make their server in to p2w. I must admit when I was a server host I also tried the package thing but I realized it wasnt worth it and just paid out of pocket because I enjoyed running a server.

  • [-]
  • Casurin
  • 1 Points
  • 14:05:25, 6 June

>But obviously that wont make a lot of income compared to selling the game back to users.

That's the whole point.
getting donations so you can run your sever? fine. You don't need much money for that. I mean, seriously, i helped moderating a few severs, mostly german servers for 10-18 year old kids. Only one of the offered ranks and Vip and other crap, that one, was the one running the worst.
For the others, we had a normal donation-account that normally was closed one week after the new month started, as we stopped taking money after we got 10% more than we needed to run the server. The 10% extra was normally used for stuff like the TS-Server and so on.

But we never had a problem getting that little bit of money that is needed to run a server.
People often act, as you would need 10€/Player/month to run a server, while in fact, you usually need like 1€ for small , or even less with bigger servers.

  • [-]
  • Galaxy_2Alex
  • 3 Points
  • 12:33:10, 6 June

At this point, most people just pay for those "donations" because they are buying things to be stronger. If that is gonna be removed, many people will not spend their money on it anymore.

  • [-]
  • twistedsadie005
  • 53 Points
  • 07:00:54, 6 June

This. I'm sick and tired of all the whiny teens (and sadly even adults, from what I've seen on Twitter) who bitch and moan that their means of profit is going down the drain. No one who isn't from Mojang or a friend of Mojang should profit from Minecraft, especially not people who do nothing but resell the game to naive children who throw their parents' credit cards at the servers for so-called "perks."

The whole situation is just sickening, and I can't believe Mojang is being so lax with these greedy rude fuckers. I absolutely guarantee you that if they tried this shit with any other major game company, they'd be on the streets wearing a fucking barrel as clothing. Like you said, they pretty much just disregarded the fact that, by buying the game, those greedy rude fuckers agreed not to do what they just did.(reselling the game without permission) And they're complaining about that agreement? Man, if I were Mojang, I'd completely cut off their access to Minecraft for a few days, just to see the priceless responses.

  • [-]
  • Beta_Ace_X
  • 9 Points
  • 12:13:13, 6 June

I've been watching it since last night. These people are seriously low. They obviously don't care about minecraft, only about making a "stand" over a nonissue.

  • [-]
  • Delightfully_Insane
  • 15 Points
  • 07:50:39, 6 June

Agreed. I can't stand reading this: http://pastebin.com/smvCMH5M

The way they treat him is bullshit.

  • [-]
  • domomon
  • 3 Points
  • 14:28:29, 6 June

I am completely appalled by some of the things I read there. Apparently nobody enjoys playing survival and building maps together anymore. Apparently people only play and pay for servers where they receive some type of perk. Apparently people like those idiots in that transcript believe themselves to be superior and more knowledgeable than the one who actually works at Mojang. There was just so mug bullshit in that transcript. "I'm 16 and I'm better at coding then most 30 year old adults." Bullshit. The worst thing is that they believe Minecraft will die just because they plan to take out the purchasing aspect of the game. They are just ignorant fools who insulted a man who treated them with nothing but kindness and got foolish responses and cheap jabs in return.

  • [-]
  • fuzzycamel
  • 1 Points
  • 15:48:51, 6 June

I can kinda see how those servers think donations aren't an option to keep their server running. The servers that are p2w are funded by kids who want perks mostly. Servers that don't offer those perks and run through donations mostly get those donations from understanding adults.

Now if the former are only allowed to ask for donations suddenly, they have a problem because their current bussines model relies on kids who want perks and naturally, kids will not donate like adults will. That is why they keep saying people will not donate while it's more something along the lines of 'their target public will not donate'.

  • [-]
  • rshorning
  • 1 Points
  • 16:54:45, 6 June

With so many servers that are available to play on including simply opening up a single player account to LAN play (so easy my 5 year old daughter can set up a "server" that way... and has BTW), why are these kids joining servers and paying anything more than a couple of bucks for these servers? It isn't like not paying money to these server operators is going to keep you from playing Minecraft now that you have purchased the game from Mojang.

  • [-]
  • twistedsadie005
  • 7 Points
  • 08:00:36, 6 June

I'm not even going to read all of that, it just makes me seethe. It belongs on /r/rage. These kids talk utter shit because someone might (rightfully) take their toys away. Do they really think Minecraft will collapse without their money-grabbing ways? It would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad, especially for Mojang employees who have to put up with this complete nonsense.

  • [-]
  • Casurin
  • 5 Points
  • 13:55:30, 6 June

The saddest fact:
They bring up things like YogCast and others, but they never "sold" stuff, they really have been running on donations and their own money.
That's the thing mojang approves.

Servers that charge you 10€ to get some diamonds are the thing, that have the potential to ruin MC.

  • [-]
  • ashtordek
  • 4 Points
  • 09:57:08, 6 June

im almost on my knees crying, what a bunch of douchebags, why do they speak around Erik all the time. Its not that they doesnt agree thats the worst, its the way they speak in that chat prtending Erik isnt there... i scarcely believe that theyre adults they act like spoiled children. Its so sad to see how money makes those people so greedy :'( Mojang should really just go hard on people like these, just to teach them that they shouldnt be breaking the EULA (and therefor also the law)...

if i get downvoted then i know that some bunch of those idiots from that chat apparently thought they where worthy of using the internet.... and i wont even be sad, i´ll just know that theres a bunch of idiots stalking r/minecraft! ;D

  • [-]
  • BLoXZOMBiE
  • 15 Points
  • 11:49:57, 6 June

I don't understand how people don't see the difference between donations and purchases. Giving perks when someone pays you is a purchase. A donation is when someone likes your server and gives you money to improve it for everyone, not just them.

  • [-]
  • MrTastix
  • 2 Points
  • 16:09:51, 6 June

To be frank, they should speak around Erik. He's a game developer for Mojang, not the CEO, COO, legal team or anyone who would the end say in how a EULA would be treated at an average company.

Of course I'm sure all the devs get to see the papers and ideas floating around the round table but the legal team and Mojang's CEO will ultimately come to a decision themselves, not the developers.

Notch isn't even aware of potential EULA changes, and that's a bit strange coming from Mojang's owner and founder. Given that Jeb doesn't know but some other random dev does, that doesn't lead much to my imagination, frankly.

It should also be noted that Erik has some very strange and arrogant views on how Minecraft's community should work, based on many of his chatlogs that've been given out. He doesn't believe in the relevance of YouTube in Minecraft's success for one.

Or of course all of this shit is fake as hell because none of this is screenshots of the chat, just raw paste data which anyone could edit. Who knows?

  • [-]
  • ashtordek
  • 1 Points
  • 17:18:52, 6 June

That is not what i meant, what i think is ridicoulous is the way they were chatting, if you try reading (if you havent done that :D) the paste-bin you'll find some real nasty stuff :( Which is what i think is disgusting as he is, as many others have pointed out, doing his job :)

  • [-]
  • MrTastix
  • 1 Points
  • 17:26:48, 6 June

His job is to develop games, not to talk about legal jargon or argue with customers.

Rather than complicating the issue though, I just think everyone involved in that argument is an asshole but the spotlight's on Erik since he's the one bringing up the EULA thing.

  • [-]
  • MrTastix
  • 1 Points
  • 16:14:27, 6 June

The whiny teens are an issue but they're also the vocal minority. The main controversy comes from server owners with legitimate concerns over how they're going to pay for their servers if even their own custom plugins can't be monetized off.

This has been an on-going struggle for years now and Mojang still continue to be tight-lipped about it. This is incredibly unfair to the server owners who actually try their best to make the server great.

  • [-]
  • Liiiink
  • 1 Points
  • 15:40:29, 6 June

Disclaimer: I once ran a server a couple of years ago, it is long since dead. I experimented with Buycraft and got I think one or two sales ever. I can't remember what the buyer got, if anything. But I know it wasn't rank. Crafting items was never restricted.

> The whole situation is just sickening, and I can't believe Mojang is being so lax with these greedy rude fuckers.

Many are greedy, many aren't. And I don't like your attitude; you seem to have completely demonised and dehumanized every minecraft server owner

> I absolutely guarantee you that if they tried this shit with any other major game company, they'd be on the streets wearing a fucking barrel as clothing.

IANAL, but bankruptcy?

> by buying the game, those greedy rude fuckers agreed not to do what they just did.

At least in the EU, EULA's have been deemed invalid before. Mojangs EULA is fairly short compared to most but most are too long for the average consumer to do anything except click accept. Aside from Mojangs, when was the last time you read an EULA, in its entirety.

> reselling the game without permission

More of a stretch than calling illegal downloading theft. In my books, selling a cracked version of minecraft for money is reselling the game without permission. I can't think of a concise way of describing this issue.

> And they're complaining about that agreement?

Again, what percentage of server owners have actually read it? Aside from the new update, the only time you are prompted to read it is in 11px text on the buy minecraft page.

> I'd completely cut off their access to Minecraft for a few days, just to see the priceless responses.

Really? That would likely get Mojang in some legal trouble, for lulz. If any of these people recently bough a minecraft account Mojang would be inviting chargebacks as well.

  • [-]
  • swolbgnajom
  • -8 Points
  • 08:13:29, 6 June

Agreed, People who spend hours developing gamemodes for minecraft shouldn't be able to make any money in return. In fact they should pay Mojang for the privilege of being able to spend their time designing things to make the minecraft community larger.

How dare they expect to be given credit for what they've done for the minecraft community as a whole. Those horrible people.

  • [-]
  • twistedsadie005
  • 23 Points
  • 08:23:46, 6 June

Oh, I definitely support people who work to build the Minecraft community and help Minecraft itself become a better game. Give them the donations. But what I don't support is people who actively prey on the gullibility of young children and the likes in order to increase profit for their server in a blatantly illegal manner by reselling parts of the game at incredibly high markup. Take their money away.

  • [-]
  • Drumm-
  • 3 Points
  • 10:51:52, 6 June

The problem is the rules that Erik is telling everybody about, prevent BOTH.

  • [-]
  • mrjimi16
  • 5 Points
  • 12:22:54, 6 June

He is talking about a direct transaction. He says that if I give you money and you, because I gave you money give me that thing you made, that is a purchase and so not kosher. If you have this thing that anybody can get, and I say that I really like it, so much that I will give you money, that is totally okay.

  • [-]
  • twistedsadie005
  • 1 Points
  • 10:53:56, 6 June

How so?

  • [-]
  • Drumm-
  • 4 Points
  • 11:02:20, 6 June

The rules Erik is proposing that receiving ANYTHING in return for a donation, is against the EULA.

source: http://pastebin.com/h1Q4ZUX6

L85: [3/06/2014 3:24:56 PM] Erik Broes: donations are no problem, but only in that purest sense, you get NOTHING back for a donation

  • [-]
  • RobPlaysThatGame
  • 9 Points
  • 11:42:55, 6 June

>The rules Erik is proposing that receiving ANYTHING in return for a donation, is against the EULA.

A donation for the sake of a donation doesn't give you anything in return, and as you have pointed out, is kosher with Erik.

When I donate to a server with mini-games, I'm not getting anything in return. The mini-games already exist and are completely accessible to me whether I donate or not.

  • [-]
  • rob_j
  • 5 Points
  • 12:03:42, 6 June

He also said you can charge for access to the server:

> [3/06/2014 10:20:28 PM] Erik Broes: You would be able to charge for access to your server

So the model would be either have a server with mini games, donate if you want OR have a server with mini games, pay for access

  • [-]
  • RobPlaysThatGame
  • 5 Points
  • 12:09:13, 6 June

Which both could work.

Honestly I can see why server owners would be worried over all this. They're about to see a lot of funding dry up.

However I wouldn't be getting mad at Mojang as a result. I'd be getting mad at the fickle and cheap community that requires useless baubles in return for donating. Mojang enforcing their EULA is about to reveal the true colors of much of the Minecraft community and since people don't like to see their own true colors, a lot of the outrage gets directed to Mojang.

  • [-]
  • rob_j
  • 3 Points
  • 12:18:01, 6 June

Agree... any time someone else forces a change to your "business model" (legitimate or not) people will be up in arms. It's much easier to charge people $10 for something already in the game than it is to build something that people will value enough to donate for.

This thread is actually the first I've seen about this issue... I either play single player or on a private server with a couple of mates but I appreciate I'm in the minority there :)

  • [-]
  • Stingerbrg
  • 3 Points
  • 13:28:38, 6 June

Sometimes you get stuff in return for making a donation and it's still a donation. Like I go donate $15 to NPR and get a mug, and the dude across town donates $500 and gets an identical mug.

  • [-]
  • RobPlaysThatGame
  • 2 Points
  • 13:36:13, 6 June

That mug doesn't contain the intellectual property of another company, and when it does, it's because they have permission from the IP owner.

  • [-]
  • Delightfully_Insane
  • 7 Points
  • 08:18:38, 6 June

Except that you forgot those aren't the people making money when the server uses the gamemodes. Oh, lets not forget most servers don't even use those gamemodes but instead sell "perks".

Lets feel sorry about all those people who made entirely new content for the game such as mods and texturepacks instead of the S.O.Bs that run the servers.

  • [-]
  • WolfieMario
  • 3 Points
  • 13:45:01, 6 June

For the larger networks, like [REDACTED], [REDACTED], and [REDACTED], the custom gamemodes are created by people who are paid, and they are created exclusively for the server. (PM me for the names; we're on /r/Minecraft and I can't say them here)

I agree that people shouldn't be able to slap your name on the permissions of a third-party kits plugin and call it "donation compensation". But the larger networks, with costs in the tens of thousands of dollars, aren't doing that: they wouldn't be successful if they weren't set apart from their competitors by custom plugins and home-brewed minigames.

There are many people defending these servers while acknowledging that they violated the EULA. "Mojang has the final say" isn't the point; we want Mojang to take into consideration the servers they don't want to shut down when they begin enforcing the EULA. At least one of them has tried relying on pure non-compensatory donations alone, and couldn't cut it - they now have perk-based donations, and still barely manage to stay up, despite the large playerbase and constant mentions by popular YouTubers. Grum said even pets and other cosmetic bonuses won't be acceptable under Mojang's policy (despite being okay in his opinion) - some of us just want Mojang to not use such a broad brush here. It's entirely Mojang's choice; we just want them to make the right choice.

  • [-]
  • Meat_Sheild
  • 5 Points
  • 08:51:54, 6 June

This should only effect servers that sell (force people to pay, or grant to people that pay for) things that are in the vanilla game, that everyone should have equal ground in, rather than things that community members themselves have made.

Basically, it's like your selling a part of mojang's game rather than your own creation, and THAT's against the EULA.

  • [-]
  • Drumm-
  • 8 Points
  • 10:53:57, 6 June

The thing is, this is mostly going to affect the huge mini-game servers. Erik is saying that you cannot sell your own creation. Period. I know servers that, "do it right". They don't sell anything that gives a significant advantage, they just give more play styles for donations.

  • [-]
  • JEclips
  • 3 Points
  • 13:22:48, 6 June

I hope that is change, because those plugin aren't part of the vanilla experience. They aren't reselling a diamond sword. ( sorry if I come off as a jackass here)

  • [-]
  • Drumm-
  • 2 Points
  • 13:54:57, 6 June

I don't thin you do, this is very much my shared opinion.

  • [-]
  • BagmanHD
  • 18 Points
  • 08:00:59, 6 June

I wholeheartedly agree with you on this matter, The fact that people actually claim that Mojang have no right to change their own EULA is complete toss.

The fact that people have actually started petitions for people to change the EULA [b]back[/b] to how ti was before the change is just an insult to Mojang, The money from these sales hardly ever goes into the server itself, on larger servers the money winds up in the server owners pocket.

I for one fully support Mojang and their change to the EULA, It clearly states (If you read it which I'm quite proud to say i have) that you cannot re-sell / re-distribute any part of the game OR the entire thing.

It just comes down to whiny kids being told off for not doing what i would call [b]required[/b] reading, and then trying to complain to get their own way like spoiled toddlers...

tl;dr .. i support Mojang and for that the server owners within the MC community are going to begin calling me a dick...

  • [-]
  • demultiplexer
  • 13 Points
  • 09:07:40, 6 June

The funny thing is, that if that change.org petition actually went through and Mojang would agree, they would have to revert to a version of the EULA that didn't allow ANY money to be made at all. No pay to play, no paying for cosmetic items, nothing. All signs point towards the new EULA - which isn't public yet and is probably still being worked on - will actually allow for much more than was possible until now.

The petition is doing the exact opposite of what they intend.

Most servers are in violation. It's the fact that Mojang doesn't care that much and that they don't have enough litigation power that they haven't cracked down yet (and probably aren't going to).

  • [-]
  • BagmanHD
  • 4 Points
  • 09:18:35, 6 June

If it did revert to a EULA that said no money at all can be made i would be completely okay with that.

Whats grinding my gears is the fact that all these server owners are coming in swarms to verbally abuse Mojang for doing what is expected for a game dev, Not to mention that the people who are complaining are crying because they can't charge the kids anymore.

  • [-]
  • Southern_paw
  • 1 Points
  • 15:16:08, 6 June

That's not what we're all complaining about so I'd appreciate it if you didn't lump us all together!

Many of us have different reasons to be upset and I suggest you do more reading before making such a generalisation.

  • [-]
  • MmmVomit
  • 2 Points
  • 09:48:49, 6 June

> Most servers are in violation.

Most public or well known servers are likely in violation. I run a small private server for my family, which I pay for out of pocket. Who knows how many more servers like mine there are out there.

  • [-]
  • demultiplexer
  • 2 Points
  • 11:28:35, 6 June

I'm sorry - I didn't mean to say ALL servers are in violation. What I probably meant was that a good deal of 'donation'-servers are likely in violation.

There are no doubt countless more small/private servers than there are 'pay to win' servers.

  • [-]
  • space_fountain
  • 1 Points
  • 14:43:22, 6 June

Yes as I mentioned last night I know of a sever running entirely on real donations that gets a couple 100 people every day (100 during peak times and around 50 at low times)

  • [-]
  • thecoolracer
  • 7 Points
  • 11:21:29, 6 June

No [b][/b]codes in reddit. Reddit uses markdown. You make text bold like this:

**bold text**

results in
bold text

  • [-]
  • BagmanHD
  • 4 Points
  • 11:23:18, 6 June

Thanks im used to using BBcode on forums and stuff

  • [-]
  • thecoolracer
  • 4 Points
  • 11:25:36, 6 June

I completely understand you.

  • [-]
  • seanbeag
  • 3 Points
  • 09:00:18, 6 June

> I wholeheartedly agree with you on this matter, The fact that people actually claim that Mojang have no right to change their own EULA is complete toss.

I'm just wondering how they intend to change the EULA for existing customers who decide not to update to the latest version. What obligation is there to accept it?

  • [-]
  • BagmanHD
  • 3 Points
  • 09:04:23, 6 June

Not 100% sure on that but if you don't update to the latest then obviously you won't get the latest blocks / items / mobs or whatever they add and eventually mod support will drop for your version of Minecraft so you do wind up losing out in the long run.

Plus if your players are all Minecraft fans they are going to want their favorite servers on the latest version of Minecraft to get all the new things and if it isn't they'll go play on another server.

  • [-]
  • Three_Pounds
  • 4 Points
  • 10:23:08, 6 June

MINECRAFT END USER LICENCE AGREEMENT

>We may also change this EULA from time to time but those changes will only be effective to the extent that they can legally apply. For example if you only use the Game in single player mode and don‘t use the updates we make available then the old EULA applies but if you do use the updates or use parts of the game that rely on our providing ongoing online services then the new EULA will apply. In that case we may not be able to / don‘t need to tell you about the changes for them to have effect so you should check back here from time to time so you are aware of any changes to the EULA. We‘re not going to be unfair about this though - but sometimes the law changes or someone does something that affects other users of the Game and we therefore need to put a lid on it.

  • [-]
  • _Jaiden
  • 2 Points
  • 10:46:42, 6 June

This means they can change it whenever and it'll affect everything

  • [-]
  • Casurin
  • 3 Points
  • 13:33:35, 6 June

No.
it does mean, they can change it whenever they like, but it only applies to you, if you use a version younger than the EULA was made.
If you stick with an old version, only the EULA of that time applies.

  • [-]
  • ScrobDobbins
  • 1 Points
  • 14:01:24, 6 June

The obligation comes from continuing 'online access' of Mojang resources, like skins and authentication servers.

With the protocol changes in 1.8, it's going to get even further locked in with every packet a server sends essentially requiring a signature from Mojang.

  • [-]
  • seanbeag
  • 1 Points
  • 12:40:52, 6 June

> The fact that people actually claim that Mojang have no right to change their own EULA is complete toss.

I'd be interested in your explanation of this. Legally, how would a new EULA apply to existing customers? The game was purchased based on the existing EULA so why would a new one apply to game owners? They would have to agree to it.

  • [-]
  • Casurin
  • 3 Points
  • 14:08:28, 6 June

The EULA only applies to the version of the game, that the was official at that time.
Aka, if you still play with 0.0.13, the EULA of that time would still apply, and not the current one. But as soon as you update to any newer version, the current EULA takes affect.

So, if you stay with your 1.7.5 for example for the next 5 years, that old EULA would be the deal for you. If however, you then decided to upgrade to version 2.2, the new EULA would instantly take affect.

  • [-]
  • sjkeegs
  • 2 Points
  • 13:40:14, 6 June

If you read Eric's discussion, the new EULA being bantered about would be more lenient than the old one.

  • [-]
  • seanbeag
  • 1 Points
  • 13:45:59, 6 June

That's unlikely. The old one is written colloquially and people have interpreted it to mean something. Mojangs silence for so many years could easily be deemed as an approval of this interpretation. A new EULa would likely be more formal and include specific definitions. So while on the face of it it appears more lenient, legally it could be much more restrictive.

  • [-]
  • sjkeegs
  • 1 Points
  • 15:36:09, 6 June

Mojang was probably fine with it for awhile, but according to Jeb, more people are abusing it and Mojang is reacting to that.

  • [-]
  • BagmanHD
  • 1 Points
  • 12:45:28, 6 June

Im no lawyer so i couldnt quote the law or anything but to my understanding, If they were to update the EULA they could add a line that would encompass the entire thing with the download of the latest snapshot / pre-release / release of the game much like you see on many other websites where clicking the "Accept" button would agree to the ToS and such if they added a button and line that stated;

"By downloading this update you agree to follow the updated EULA"

  • [-]
  • seanbeag
  • 1 Points
  • 13:42:04, 6 June

Yes but that means that people who don't update the game work under the old EULA.

  • [-]
  • spookyhappyfun
  • 2 Points
  • 12:48:38, 6 June

> For those who don't understand whats going on.

Not only do I not understand what's going on, I don't even know what anyone's talking about. Can someone fill me in? What even is an EULA?

  • [-]
  • Galaxy_2Alex
  • 4 Points
  • 12:52:39, 6 June

It the "End User License Agreement". I think the first few lines of the EULA explains it pretty much: https://account.mojang.com/documents/minecraft_eula

  • [-]
  • spookyhappyfun
  • 1 Points
  • 13:42:07, 6 June

Thanks for the link! It all seems pretty straightforward and reasonable. Why are people upset and what are they upset about?

  • [-]
  • Galevav
  • 2 Points
  • 15:32:07, 6 June

Because some server owners will be out a lot of money (that they made in violation of the EULA). Basically anything that involves giving the players something that is already a part of the game is in violation--like, pay ten bucks and you get a set of diamond armor! Except you didn't make the diamond armor. It's a part of the game. You can't sell part of the game, the players already bought the game.

  • [-]
  • spookyhappyfun
  • 1 Points
  • 16:04:02, 6 June

Thank you. I think this was the explanation I've been waiting for. I didn't know that servers were doing this, but then I don't really play on most servers and don't know much about them.

  • [-]
  • Delightfully_Insane
  • 1 Points
  • 12:53:05, 6 June

End User License Agreement. That thing that legally binds you and that you are forced to read before you actually get your product. Unless you just blindly clicked I Agree of course.

  • [-]
  • spookyhappyfun
  • 1 Points
  • 13:40:40, 6 June

Thanks. I read it when I bought the game back in 2010, but it's been a while since then. Someone linked it for me, so I'm looking over it now.

I'm a pretty vanilla guy who has only dabbled in things like mods and maps, and has only played on a couple servers.

What exactly is going on and is there somewhere I can read up on whatever this big controversy is?

  • [-]
  • Liiiink
  • 1 Points
  • 15:55:40, 6 June

'Legally binds you'

  • [-]
  • robertoccu
  • 4 Points
  • 13:25:09, 6 June

But, the only stuff that can't be bought on servers are the vanilla itemes/block? A /home or other commands developed for the server can be given as "thanks for support the server"?

Is this true? I need an answer :S

  • [-]
  • Galaxy_2Alex
  • 2 Points
  • 13:37:12, 6 June

Good question. I can remember an Agrarian Skies server that sold all kinds of stuff (for real money), and I think that neither Mojang nor the mod authors were happy about it.

At the moment, things like that are currently a grey zone (so it's currently not prohibited, but that might change with the updated EULA).

  • [-]
  • robertoccu
  • 1 Points
  • 13:40:53, 6 June

Umm... the new EULA should contain anything like "You can't sell in-game features belonging to Vanilla Minecraft or mods whose creators not permit sell it"

  • [-]
  • ken27238
  • 1 Points
  • 14:03:33, 6 June

Modded servers are even worse...

"Oh you want to use a BC Quarry? You'll need to pay me $10 to have access to markers."

How can you sell stuff on an AgSkies server? most if not anything in that pack is vital to gameplay.

  • [-]
  • Galaxy_2Alex
  • 2 Points
  • 14:09:05, 6 June

That's the point, it wasn't allowed. The sold stuff like a stack of dirt blocks or iron ingots or copper ingots.

  • [-]
  • Demokade
  • 1 Points
  • 15:37:30, 6 June

It is not a grey zone at all. You're not allowed to sell or try to make money from mods.

Mojang have merely been very lax about it in the past. Hell, even mandatory ads on mod downloads are probably not allowed.

  • [-]
  • MrTastix
  • 3 Points
  • 16:04:27, 6 June

The condescending tone of these posts is getting old. You argue that we miss the point whilst missing the point yourself: This isn't about bullshit donation servers and it barely ever was. It's about server admins monetizing off plugins tailored for their servers.

Servers selling items under the false pretense of a "donation" is an issue but the controversy spurned because server owners are afraid it applies to every single item in Minecraft, made by Mojang or not.

Network owners want to know if plugin-based items are included in this EULA or not, not meaningless vanilla items. Network owners who host hundreds or thousands of players want to know if they should pack up and leave because they can't monetize off basic premium features ranging from extra commands and coloured names to custom items not included in the vanilla Minecraft package.

This argument has gone on for years and there's still been no definitive answer on the actual problem and that is where the controversy begins and ends.

We know that the "donation" servers are a problem. What you need to know is that the people with the problem are people running custom plugins on high-populated servers. They're not fucking morons. They don't deserve to be patronized and treated like they are.

  • [-]
  • _Grum
  • 8 Points
  • 15:25:07, 6 June

I can just say thanks :/

Thanks <3

-- Erik

  • [-]
  • WriterV
  • 2 Points
  • 16:32:44, 6 June

We all still luv you Erik. <3

  • [-]
  • Pyrix0
  • 1 Points
  • 17:15:29, 6 June

HUGS! <3

  • [-]
  • Meat_Sheild
  • 8 Points
  • 08:46:44, 6 June

Finally someone said it!, I've been waiting for this

  • [-]
  • Three_Pounds
  • 6 Points
  • 10:19:18, 6 June

I'm so happy too. A voice of reason in all this madness.

  • [-]
  • Cryptite
  • 2 Points
  • 14:24:32, 6 June

It's crazy to me that there even exists such a thing as "Pay to be unbanned". What's worse is that people do it...

  • [-]
  • Luthery
  • 2 Points
  • 14:49:55, 6 June

How to be sneaky: Make people buy "tokens / coins" that are stored on your website, have an website-shop setup than you can purchase kits, commands, etc with the tokens / coins, you receive those things in-game, kablam!

  • [-]
  • jfb1337
  • 1 Points
  • 15:41:08, 6 June

that's essentially selling parts of the game as parts of the game can be bought with those tokens.

  • [-]
  • Delightfully_Insane
  • 1 Points
  • 14:55:18, 6 June

How to be a good citizen: Monetize in effective ways, and non illegal ways.

  • [-]
  • gerusz
  • 2 Points
  • 16:20:45, 6 June

I don't plan on running a server anytime soon, but can you (or Erik) clarify this:

  1. The server has a game feature blocked for users by default. Say, you can't build a nether portal.
  2. You can unblock this feature by paying X amount of in-game cash. This X amount is perfectly possible to gather via in-game means.
  3. You can buy in-game cash for real-life cash too.

OK or not?

  • [-]
  • Galaxy_2Alex
  • 1 Points
  • 16:27:16, 6 June

...that would actually be a good solution: If you can buy something with real-life money, you should also be able to gather it by actually playing. There should be nothing that is only available with real money. That could even be a good term in the EULA if you ask me...

  • [-]
  • gerusz
  • 1 Points
  • 16:41:55, 6 June

But then again, this is a core game feature we're talking about. There might be other features that are not in the core game (say, /home and /sethome commands, mods, etc...). Should they be reachable without payment then?

  • [-]
  • Galaxy_2Alex
  • 1 Points
  • 16:49:23, 6 June

If they do it, they should also do it for non-Vanilla features, although this might cause some more trouble in this whole thing. In my opinion, this should apply to basically everything. Because in the particular case with /home, the plug-in author is the owner and should actually decide on what is allowed and what isn't. A server should not be allowed to sell thing that they don't "own".

  • [-]
  • Broiledvictory
  • 1 Points
  • 16:44:00, 6 June

Wait, so people are supposed to do MC servers for charity, solely out of the goodness of their hearts? Profit isn't this inherent evil, it can make things really amazing and huge.

  • [-]
  • OneWhoGeneralises
  • 3 Points
  • 11:41:20, 6 June

This is quite interesting, and if nothing else shows that law is just plain tricky business. I'm curious about those who run unofficial server software, as the EULA for those is potentially different.

As an example, if I wrote my own server software (a project I have actually considered on numerous occasions) and sold higher functions or data in this server to players under the guise of 'donations' would I still be committing acts of EULA violation as there would be no EULA for my own project?

Edit: Not that I would hide or withhold anything behind a paywall or anything like that, I dislike such business practices on principle.

  • [-]
  • Casurin
  • 3 Points
  • 14:19:56, 6 June

Of course it would fall under MCs EULA:
You are writing launcher, thus you fall under the category of 3rd party tools for their software. With publishing such software, you agree to give up on any copyright on it what so ever.
You could take donations, but not against reward.
That's not only against Minecrafts EULA; but against the law in nearly every country of the world.

TL;DR: it would be illegal nearly all over the world. One is IP-theft, the other is tax-evasion.

  • [-]
  • OneWhoGeneralises
  • 3 Points
  • 14:56:31, 6 June

One minor correction to make there, it would not be a launcher at all as it would be a server, rather than a client, and it would be at it's core a state machine that handles connections and transfer of data packets. It mightn't even know what a "block" is other than a byte at a random memory address.

In fact, the server would most likely contain no Minecraft assets at all, as those are contained within the Minecraft client, and it's only connection to Minecraft's code would be a simulation of the server protocol.

Currently the Minecraft EULA states:

> If you buy, download, use or play our Game, you are agreeing to stick to the rules of these end user licence terms ("EULA”).

And a custom server arguably does none of those things. That said, the EULA also says this:

> We have the final say on what constitutes a tool/mod/plugin and what doesn‘t.

Which is why I raise the question on 3rd party server software.

  • [-]
  • SamueI_Andeson
  • 4 Points
  • 12:12:50, 6 June

Yes that would be against the EULA Erik said that you either ask for nothing, an if they donate they should "get absolutely nothing in return". So you're not allowed to reward for people donating. However according to him you can make your server a pay to play so that nobody can join unless they've payed.

  • [-]
  • OneWhoGeneralises
  • 2 Points
  • 13:16:16, 6 June

I understand Mojang's position and I agree, but that's not a responce to the question I'm posing. The question underneath my turbulent writing is this: what are the legalities of 3rd party server software, are they bound to the Minecraft EULA because of the service they provide despite not being owned or produced by Mojang?

If I wrote my own server software from scratch, would I not be allowed to monetise either the server experiance or the software itself?

  • [-]
  • Balthanos
  • 2 Points
  • 13:58:24, 6 June

That's a major generalization. I think you already know the answer.

  • [-]
  • space_fountain
  • 2 Points
  • 14:48:54, 6 June

You could get sued for intellectual property violation.

  • [-]
  • Delightfully_Insane
  • 1 Points
  • 11:54:09, 6 June

Highly dependant. There needs to be specifics on exactly what you're selling. "Higher functions" and "data" are very broad terms.

  • [-]
  • OneWhoGeneralises
  • 3 Points
  • 12:10:32, 6 June

I suppose in this instance that the terms "higher functions" and "data" refer to what the server software can do and what it knows, stores or remembers. The two are not mutually exclusive, but I feel that there's a necessary distinction between them.

As some examples, I would consider the following to be higher functions:

  • Logging in and out, booting a normal player so that a VIP could log into a full server.
  • Tracking, authenticating and propegating player controlls, movement, block placement and so on.
  • Accepting and relaying messages to players, both as general chat and private communication.

I would consider these sort of things as data:

  • Items in the game.
  • Player statistics.
  • Mobs and entites, and all that comes with them.

And then there are cases like these that are both:

  • Allocated land and block protection to players.
  • Inventory management, tracking, trading and in-game economy.
  • PvP and other advanced minigames.

Either way, the argument of 3rd party software or personal custom/unique software is a very grey area.

  • [-]
  • Delightfully_Insane
  • 1 Points
  • 12:18:42, 6 June

Well, its all still really dependent. If you want to see how Mojang would act I suppose you can look to what they do with tekkit. I in no way represent them and am not qualified to. I just like to provide reason and defend people who are being abused for no reason.

  • [-]
  • OneWhoGeneralises
  • 3 Points
  • 12:33:39, 6 June

I certainly agree. I'm just idly talking because this is an interesting situation, really. I'll be keeping an eye on everything as it develops, this could be anywhere between a backlash that lasts a few days to even a complete redirection of the community as a whole.

I fully support Mojang with this though, as far as I'm concerned they have a right to enforce their EULA and in my mind they're doing it for the benefit of both their player base (especially the young players) and themselves in both sort and long term.

An off-topic aside, one thing I don't like though is how vitriolic some of the responses and comments by others to or at Mojang have been... there have been some rather viscous words said and that's not okay. I'm quite impressed at how cordial Eric and the other people at Mojang have been dealing with it all.

  • [-]
  • Delightfully_Insane
  • 0 Points
  • 12:44:41, 6 June

I agree. Its nice to see some people can still discuss matters instead of fighting.

  • [-]
  • Galaxy_2Alex
  • 5 Points
  • 12:30:57, 6 June

Thank you for the PSA, I think a bunch of people will know what is going on (including me, I've been playing too much Mario Kart...)

I've always been against the server purchases on various popular servers, especially on Hypixel lately with the introduction of even more special ranks with very "special" prices. I know, hosting those kinds of servers is expensive, but I think it's time to acknowledge that Minecraft itself maybe has a limit of players on a server. After a certain point, it becomes practically impossible to host the server without having such kinds of "purchases" for the users (which are currently not really allowed). But the solution to that? Only seeling non-helping things to the player like fireworks or just a special name color? Well, then the people wouldn't buy the perks and the system collapses.

Don't get me wrong, as I said before: I really don't like the current purchasing system (yeah, not gonna say donations) of most servers, but for most of them, it's really the only way to keep them alive. We don't know exact numbers of how much they make and how much they need to stay online and pay all their workers, and it might be shocking if we would know it.

We'll see what the updated EULA brings, let's all hope the best for the future of this still awesome community. I'm really happy to be a part of it.

  • [-]
  • fuzzycamel
  • 1 Points
  • 15:52:41, 6 June

I wonder what their stance is on the kind of purchases that CivCraft uses. After all, those store items are more like skins for the buildings you already have access to for free, which is not really p2w.

  • [-]
  • Fellowship_9
  • 1 Points
  • 16:53:17, 6 June

I was confused there for a second because I play on a different server with the same name, there's too many Civcrafts at this point, lol

  • [-]
  • Kat_The_Friendly_Spy
  • 3 Points
  • 13:38:19, 6 June

Did you just call Grumm the "epitome of customer service"? How could you possibly say that seriously?

  • [-]
  • YandereLemonade
  • 1 Points
  • 14:21:04, 6 June

Found a server owner!!!!

(Don't take it seriously, it's a joke)

  • [-]
  • Jashin23
  • 3 Points
  • 12:54:14, 6 June

I've been playing SWGEmu, a fan-made revival of the old MMO Star Wars Galaxies, for years now. The game is rewritten from scratch by a team of enthusiasts and the servers are hosted by a professional company : anyone can enjoy this great game without paying a cent as long as they own the original discs. However, the project has never been out of funds since its creation. There are no perks, no fancy commands, objects or anything : just dedication on the part of the team and quality work.

I'm glad Mojang is doing this. It was necessary. It will cut out the crap, and hopefully make mainstream servers enjoyable again.

  • [-]
  • CuganCraft
  • 2 Points
  • 15:14:04, 6 June

There will be no mainstream servers. The majority of minecraft players don't donate to support the servers; they donate to get perks. And since servers require large amounts of money to keep alive, they will not be able to continue.

  • [-]
  • Metavoxel
  • 3 Points
  • 12:04:20, 6 June

So I understand that Mojang doesn't want to have pay to win mini game servers and the like. Cool. But I come from a custom RPG minecraft server. Our devs spent hundred of hours creating new and amazing content, along with our builders.

A donation based model would've never worked. Things like selling custom fireworks as novelty items was the way we monetized as well as an advanced subscription which gave you access to less cluttered servers and gave you some novelty perks.

They had to pay for things like server costs and DDos protections. They had to pay for their devs who poured hours into the game. My question is what about these kind of servers? Ones that use novelty items or novelty perk packages to foot the bills? Huge modded servers that offer an entirely new gameplay and push the minecraft community in an awesome direction?

That's really one of the big issues here. How does a server like that support their costs? There's really no easy if even any business model to even break even, never mind profit. A lot of us adults have day jobs working as developers, such as myself, but at night love developing for Minecraft. But when servers can't pay developers anymore, it makes it hard to push the limits of minecraft and create amazing modded versions of the game.

TL;DR: there's still large, amazing modded servers out there that really have no business model to break even anymore. Not just terrible mini game servers. Attracting developer talent will be harder when you can't pay to have them in the first place.

  • [-]
  • YandereLemonade
  • 1 Points
  • 14:40:22, 6 June

Still, why monetize something for a sandbox game where everyone can publicly use the items made by the developer or the player which is already found in game. But IMHO in terms of donations, "Donate to support the Devs, but do not donate when you need to pay for content which is already there created by the Devs."

Example: You need to buy VIP rank to have access for Ice Magic and Level 25+ Skills.

  • [-]
  • WolfieMario
  • 2 Points
  • 16:12:10, 6 June

I agree that this should be permitted. However, Mojang does not: you cannot profit off mods or plugins in any way, and that includes selling custom content on servers. This was clarified several times here.

  • [-]
  • massive_potatoes
  • 1 Points
  • 13:34:49, 6 June

Well, this will separate the good and righteous from the bad and hateful.

  • [-]
  • mysterydetectivemyst
  • 1 Points
  • 13:40:31, 6 June

But that blue text at the top that looks like a link isn't a link according to my browser.

Might just be because this college is locked into using an older version of IE. Just thought I'd point it out.

  • [-]
  • Chryseus
  • 1 Points
  • 14:38:52, 6 June

This isn't going to change anything, I doubt Mojang is going to go around taking server owners to court just because they don't comply with their EULA.

  • [-]
  • Jonny_Axehandle
  • 1 Points
  • 14:55:13, 6 June

> The issue with the EULA is non existent. There is no issue. There is nothing wrong with Mojang. There is nothing wrong with Erik. The only thing that is wrong is the community.

From the EULA: (emphasis mine)

> The one major rule is that you must not distribute anything we‘ve made. By “distribute anything we‘ve made” what we mean is “give copies of the game away, make commercial use of, try to make money from, or let other people get access to our game and its parts in a way that is unfair or unreasonable”. So the one major rule is that (unless we specifically agree it – such as in brand and asset usage guidelines) you must not:

> give copies of our Game to anyone else; > make commercial use of anything we‘ve made; > try to make money from anything we‘ve made; or > let other people get access to anything we‘ve made in a way that is unfair or unreasonable.

So selling in game items is bad. However:

> Within reason you‘re free to do whatever you want with screenshots and videos of the Game. By “within reason” we mean that you can‘t make any commercial use of them or do things that are unfair or adversely affect our rights.

Seems making money off youtube videos would be bad as well, but mojang has stated that they will allow it. And it makes sense why: LPs and such promote the game while in-game purchases hurt their brand. But inconsistencies like this, and the fact that they allowed it to happen for so long, would be an issue if mojang were to attempt to take a server owner to court.

  • [-]
  • jfb1337
  • 1 Points
  • 15:40:26, 6 June

But google pays LPers for ad space, it's not within the primary intent of the LPer to make money, the intent is to entertain.

  • [-]
  • Evesgallion
  • 1 Points
  • 14:57:46, 6 June

I feel if server owners can't accept money (not charge but accept) for there serve then mojang should create some sort of system to feature a server a month or something so we can get some of the better servers a chance to get new members. I don't really care if server owners make money I care if those same server owners can have a good server and they spend the time and effort on there own server then they should be allowed the right to enjoy that server.

  • [-]
  • Delightfully_Insane
  • 0 Points
  • 15:01:24, 6 June

Your original idea is wrong. Servers will and have always been allowed to accept pure DONATIONS.

  • [-]
  • Evesgallion
  • 1 Points
  • 17:24:07, 6 June

but donations won't keep a server running and I realize I'm not saying that the server should be for profit but the fact the servers list have no quality control it's impossible to tell which server to play on unless you really go and try them all. Mojang should fix the lack of quality control if they want servers to not be ran "for profit" or with the ability to make money.

  • [-]
  • Delightfully_Insane
  • 1 Points
  • 17:24:52, 6 June

Theres always new ideas to be explored, but for now lets stick with the fundamentals: They broke the rules, they pay for it.

  • [-]
  • Nathan2055
  • 1 Points
  • 15:06:50, 6 June

Now, what about selling access to a server? Is that included in this?

  • [-]
  • Delightfully_Insane
  • 1 Points
  • 15:08:12, 6 June

Depends. I can't really answer that one.

  • [-]
  • jfb1337
  • 1 Points
  • 15:34:15, 6 June

Judging by erik's twitter conversations, I think selling access to a server is allowed.

  • [-]
  • klutch2013
  • 1 Points
  • 15:19:07, 6 June

Hopefully this will put an end to servers that charge outrageous amounts of money for in game items. I see this way too often on servers that claim to be survival but then you can buy all kinds of diamonds and items.

  • [-]
  • Liiiink
  • 1 Points
  • 15:19:29, 6 June

> The EULA issue is caused by the majority of people not reading the EULA for Minecraft.

While Mojangs EULA is short compared to most; you honestly cannot expect anyone to read EULA's. Often you are presented with them AFTER you bought the software/hardware so you have a choice of accepting or refunding (And good luck getting a refund on software). EULA's also often are hideously long; Apple's EULA is essentially a very long book. I would rather read the Lord of the Rings than Apples EULA.

When was the last time you actually read an EULA (besides Mojangs) in its entirity. If software/hardware manufacturer's intention for EULA's was for the consumer to read them they have failed. EULA's exist purely to cover the companies arse, nothing else.

If there is anything important in an EULA the producure NEEDS to make it clear before purchasing the hardware/software. Anything longer than a dozen or so bullet points is not going to be read. Heck, many people won't even read your post in its entirity.

EULA's are dumb and in there current form they need to die. Blaming people for not reading EULA's is dumb; although less dumb when people set out to create a server and spend a lot of money on it.


I understand why Mojang is doing this, a few server's are damaging Minecraft as a brand and people do complain to Mojang about them. I can't think of any way of enforcing rules that won't result in outrage.

  • [-]
  • BrickTale
  • 1 Points
  • 15:51:20, 6 June

TL;DR: Just because a EULA is long doesn't give anybody an excuse. In the same way just because the law is very long and tedious and annoying doesn't mean that you don't read and understand it.

A EULA (or end-user license agreement) is a contract between the person selling the software (Minecraft) and the consumer (you). Usually, if there is a contract, it is extremely important to read that contract. In real life, if you don't read a contract and then later on you disagree with it after you accept it, then it is your fault for not having read the contract.

This situation is exactly the same, except it's everybody who didn't read it. Absolutely nobody read a contract which they could very well disagree with. If it takes time to read a EULA and therefore nobody wants to read it, that's a huge risk that those consumers are taking.

In fact, let me say something broader. For anybody saying that Mojang is taking risks right now in what they are doing, those people are wrong. It was those who decided not to read a contract which must be followed who first stepped onto thin ice. Sure, Mojang might not be boosting their sales with their actions right now, but they are not wrong. It is the consumers who violated the EULA that are wrong.

Edit: words and such and things like stuff

  • [-]
  • Liiiink
  • 1 Points
  • 15:56:42, 6 June

It gives the EU enough of an excuse to invalidate parts of some EULA's

http://www.destructoid.com/eu-court-rejects-eulas-says-digital-games-can-be-resold-230641.phtml

This is just one example but EULA's don't always hold up in court. Don't act all high and mighty and say you have read every single EULA you have ever needed to read ever.

  • [-]
  • BrickTale
  • 1 Points
  • 16:16:23, 6 June

I never said that I have read every EULA for every piece of software I own. Heck, I didn't read the one for Minecraft. But that's my fault, not Mojang's.

The article you gave me talks about an EU court making part of a EULA void because it went beyond it's boundaries of authority, not because people didn't read the EULA.

My point still stands: if you violate a EULA, it's your fault.

  • [-]
  • TheShroomHermit
  • 1 Points
  • 15:28:54, 6 June

An argument can be derogatory, insulting, and not phrased as a suggestion and still be a valid argument.

  • [-]
  • jfb1337
  • 2 Points
  • 15:32:19, 6 June

But such an argument can usually be rephrased to NOT be derogatory, insulting, or part of a suggestion.

  • [-]
  • HaitherecreeperMC
  • 1 Points
  • 15:35:30, 6 June

I'm sorry Mojang, I guess I didn't read the EULA properly. I will remove donor ranks from my server now.

  • [-]
  • jfb1337
  • 1 Points
  • 15:44:31, 6 June

Why is there always some huge controversy in the minecraft community? fake conventions, pixelmon backdoors, and now pay2win servers.

Anyway, it doesn't really affect me because I mostly play singleplayer, however I think it's wrong for server owners to make money off other people's work, especially if it violates the EULA.

  • [-]
  • WriterV
  • 1 Points
  • 16:30:36, 6 June

There are huge controversies everywhere, they just get bigger depending on how large the following is, how connected they are, and how open people are about issues. Since the values are high on all three of these, controversies tend to be big and regular. Which is a good thing, because it means no hidden shady crap is going on in the background unbeknownst to all of us.

  • [-]
  • GenericCleverNme
  • 1 Points
  • 16:29:46, 6 June

Well if Jeb_ didn't like how some items on the server were 'locked' so to speak, couldn't you just enforce a 'nothing is locked' policy so that you don't HAVE to donate to get nice things but it will help you out. That would probably sort out these 'bad seed' servers Jeb_ is taking about

  • [-]
  • FlareWingman
  • 1 Points
  • 16:34:20, 6 June

Although Notch is being cryptic, I sort of understand what he's getting at. I have a few questions, though.

Some servers sell enchanted items for money etc. fair enough. But what about servers that sell things like the ability to fly or the ability to heal yourself or repair your items? Does that also break the EULA?

  • [-]
  • janitor61
  • 1 Points
  • 17:27:04, 6 June

There's a difference between Minecraft and your examples of Borderlands, Halo 4 and Starcraft: Mojang lets Minecraft servers run mods, whereas the other games do not. By allowing mods, Minecraft is no longer just a game, but a software platform, and your examples break down. Apple sells you OS X (the platform), but charging for an app is not illegal.

  • [-]
  • Delightfully_Insane
  • 1 Points
  • 17:28:56, 6 June

Unfortunately due to the fact that i'm answering a huge number of people. Please simply accept the invalid argument response and read through several other responses to similar questions/statements. I cannot individually repeat things to everyone.

  • [-]
  • BebopVox
  • 1 Points
  • 17:30:47, 6 June

Just posted a video as well breaking it down. Sorry self posting! But this chaos is a bit much. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnSx_Zk8A7o

  • [-]
  • Delightfully_Insane
  • 1 Points
  • 17:32:47, 6 June

Goddamit, I was making a PSA. No matter. I'll try to watch it through half squinted eyes and gulps of coffee.

  • [-]
  • inmatarian
  • 1 Points
  • 12:48:15, 6 June

End User License Agreements aren't the law, they are a Contract with civil consequences. In the same way that Mojang can sue a server for violations, so can a server sue Mojang. Likewise any contract can be renegotiated. The biggest server runners can always take steps to get their server legitimized by contacting the mojang legal department and negotiating new terms. Its the small guys who get affected by the new EULA enforcement.

My opinion though is that any and all Pay-to-win servers can go to hell.

  • [-]
  • Demokade
  • 1 Points
  • 15:41:18, 6 June

Well. Sort of.

The Copyright Mojang do hold over the game IS however the law. This isn't entirely an EULA issue, even if the EULA is a convenient tool for clarifying what a given company permits that they don't have to, and provides some level of safety for people making plugins not being entirely arbitrarily treated.

  • [-]
  • Delightfully_Insane
  • 0 Points
  • 12:54:43, 6 June

EULAs are pretty damn close to a law. When you accept one without reading it its not the companies fault that they want to enforce it.

  • [-]
  • inmatarian
  • 3 Points
  • 13:08:35, 6 June

American Law does treat EULA violations, in some cases, as a computer use crime. That's another issue though, as I'm not aware of any game-related EULA violation becoming a criminal matter.

But yes. Mojang has the leverage in these negotiations. The only recourse for us if we find the terms unagreeable is to stop playing and move to another game. Short of that we just accept the terms and go back to playing.

Its important to note that Minecraft isn't firefox or chrome. It wasn't created to be an online economic platform. It's a bit harsh to say it but if the servers still want to make money and not abide the mojang EULA then it's time to branch off, write their own MMORPG game, and compete with WOW.

  • [-]
  • ZeldenGM
  • 1 Points
  • 15:31:16, 6 June

Holy shit, people sell perks for cash? This is pretty disgusting.

When my flatmate and I used to host a server, we paid for it every month out of our poor ass student bank accounts.

We asked for donations everytime the bill came in, we never once considered selling perks for the game - how is it fair to even consider selling parts of the game to people?

Looking at some of these servers that sell mob-spawners and commands for cash is lower than low. I hope Mojang follows through the EULA breach with a lawsuit. I dread to think how many people are being robbed by greedy server hosts.

  • [-]
  • BrickTale
  • 1 Points
  • 16:07:17, 6 June

TL;DR: Big servers who may have to shut down or downsize were violating the EULA. It's their's and the community's fault for this mess, not Mojang's.

I use the term illegal in the sense that it violates the EULA, just to clear up confusion.

So far, everyone has been talking about big servers like Hypixel, Mineplex, etc...

...but the fact is, those servers were making profits illegally. I'm definitely not bashing those servers, like they are bad. I play on them all the time. But the fact is, they too neglected to read the EULA. The EULA, if people haven't already figured it out, is a necessary read. Servers like Mineplex and Hypixel are a huge issue right now because they are a huge part of the community. But what if, in the first place, server owners had read and understood the EULA?

If people had read the EULA in the first place, then potential server owners could have had a nice, formatted conversation with Mojang to solve this issue. But we didn't read it, and pay-to-win servers became ingrained in the Minecraft community. Now, their is an internet riot because everybody was made aware of the fact that these servers have been doing something illegal for a while now. Their is no fault in what Mojang is doing. Big servers potentially shutting down doesn't matter to the issue directly; nobody can say that because a company is huge they should get away with federal crimes. Although there might be big impacts from servers possibly having to shut down, people need to stop blaming it on Mojang.

Just accept the facts: it's the communities fault.

  • [-]
  • ChuckAP
  • -2 Points
  • 12:32:36, 6 June

Servers such as Mineplex, Hypixel, Hive and Shotbow are a huge part of Minecraft and what keeps it alive. With this new EULA, every server that has more than 50 - 60 players on will likely have to shut down. A server that needs to handle 5,000+ players will usually cost thousands of dollars to run every month. Where are they supposed to get their money from now?

Regardless if the money is to keep the server running or for profit, these payments are still needed or a large percentage of the Minecraft community will be soon gone.

  • [-]
  • inmatarian
  • 5 Points
  • 12:41:12, 6 June

Hypixel isn't a vanilla server and the features it offers go beyond what mojang created. What will likely happen is that mojang will produce an official statement about the EULA, Hypixel will audit his services, and adjust the features to be compliant.