Plus+ Pack

[MagusUnion]

I don't know whether you constantly updated to check this thread, or if you simply glanced at it after being away after while. Since you bumped it, I guess you want to 'invoke your message' now...

So sorry, did I not respond "correctly"? Let me rephrase myself...

Which ends up causing you to continue attempting to repeat the same argument over and over ad infinium. Your point of view is merely that: A point. It is subjective, and surely has errors as do all subjective artifacts.

So do yours, if you want to make that accusation...

I said "proper", which means "correct" or "satisfactory" in the context. A legal deliberation will not be "right" to some people, and it'll be "right" to other people. But it will be, until it is overturned in the future (if it ever is), the correct decision which would give satisfaction to the legal disagreement in this debate, ergo the reason I used the term "proper" versus right.

It is still not the correct decision, only the legal one (or rather, the one that the supporting side can bash more executive weight with). If the legal solution turns into s solution that you dislike, I'm fairly certain you will find ways to bypass said measure...

Thank you very much, though, for your permission and borderline demand to do as I want within a specific range of actions.

At least I don't psychoanalyze you in order to discriminate your point of view, or re-class it in a way "to my liking". I'm fairly used to the disfranchisement that people use to discredit others, and your attempts aren't nearly as clever as you'd like to believe...

You just appear to be unwilling to agree with the people you are discussing with to the point that the discussion has looped around, and as such has passed the stage of critical failure into an argument.

In other words, I didn't cede my opinion... So what?

Thank you for pointing that out (in your seemingly standard passive-aggressive way), though, because while I already knew that there may have been someone that thought you were hanging on my every post.

(Btw people: this is used to imply that "my opponent doesn't have a life. Look at how he keeps posting. Isn't he a loser for arguing on the internet". It's usually used in order to end threads in an attempt to gain some upper hand at either 'saying the last word' or by saying 'ha, he can't post now because he'll prove me correct'... Ironically, they've shot themselves in the foot with this one...)

 

[Entropy]

You two aren't even arguing about Plusplus anymore, just give it a rest.

 

[MagusUnion]

You two aren't even arguing about Plusplus anymore, just give it a rest.

I did... he keeps talking...

 

[Entropy]

I did... he keeps talking...

You literally just posted a wall of words, the exact opposite of stopping.

 

[MagusUnion]

It actually relates to the topic at hand. A "prepared response" if you will...

Course, I'm sure you didn't take the time to read the text, either...

 

[Hydra]

And if someone copies a software against the will of its copyright holder, then that is illegal.

No. That part is simply wrong. And no matter what you put in a license, it doesn't supersede the law. If I put in a license or contract that I can kill you if you use my software that doesn't suddenly make it legal for me to do so. And that goes for anything else too.

And please PLEASE don't come with US copyright laws. Mojang is a european company and we have different laws here. US laws are completely irrelevant in this discussion even if the mod author is american.

 

[Endyl192]

No. That part is simply wrong. And no matter what you put in a license, it doesn't supersede the law. If I put in a license or contract that I can kill you if you use my software that doesn't suddenly make it legal for me to do so. And that goes for anything else too.

And please PLEASE don't come with US copyright laws. Mojang is a european company and we have different laws here. US laws are completely irrelevant in this discussion even if the mod author is american.

I'm not talking about US copyright laws, I'm talking about the Berne Convention, and that has been signed by all european countries. And according to that:

The 1886 Berne Convention first established recognition of copyrights among sovereign nations, rather than merely bilaterally. Under the Berne Convention, copyrights for creative works do not have to be asserted or declared, as they are automatically in force at creation: an author need not "register" or "apply for" a copyright in countries adhering to the Berne Convention. As soon as a work is "fixed", that is, written or recorded on some physical medium, its author is automatically entitled to all copyrights in the work, and to any derivative works unless and until the author explicitly disclaims them, or until the copyright expires. The Berne Convention also resulted in foreign authors being treated equivalently to domestic authors, in any country signed onto the Convention.

And again, from the Copyright Wikipedia page, regarding exclusive rights of the copyright holder:

Several exclusive rights typically attach to the holder of a copyright:

• to produce copies or reproductions of the work and to sell those copies (including, typically, electronic copies)
• to import or export the work
• to create derivative works (works that adapt the original work)
• to perform or display the work publicly
• to sell or assign these rights to others
• to transmit or display by radio or video.

The phrase "exclusive right" means that only the copyright holder is free to exercise those rights, and others are prohibited from using the work without the holder's permission. Copyright is sometimes called a "negative right", as it serves to prohibit certain people (e.g., readers, viewers, or listeners, and primarily publishers and would be publishers) from doing something they would otherwise be able to do, rather than permitting people (e.g., authors) to do something they would otherwise be unable to do. In this way it is similar to the unregistered design right in English law and European law. The rights of the copyright holder also permit him/her to not use or exploit their copyright, for some or all of the term.

From that, we can see, that unless a copyright holder allowed you to produce copies of a work, you are infringing on their rights. And yes, it applies both here in Europe and in the US as well (and in all other countries that signed said Convention). And there is nothing against the law in this, on the contrary, this is the law. And by the way, copyright holds for the full lifetime plus at least fifty years (or more) after the death of the author, so yeah. And yes, while you're not allowed to put in a license that you can kill someone if they use your software, but you most certainly can say for whom you grant none, some or all of your exclusive copyrights. And if you don't get those rights with the software, you shouldn't go against that. Then your bees and machines wouldn't suddenly explode either

 

[Hydra]

I'm not talking about US copyright laws, I'm talking about the Berne Convention, and that has been signed by all european countries. And according to that:

The berne convention is completely useless in discussions regarding software because software simply has different laws than for example writings or plays. As you might know, computers didn't exist in the 19th century. Yes, software still has copyrights. But how that copyright gets assigned to you and what it entitles you to is very different from example books. Unfortunately a lot of people here are VERY uninformed and just regurgitate stuff they heard (I mean, the Berne convention, aren't you a wiki pro!) somewhere even when it's completely irrelevant.

So please show me any european law that states that it is in fact illegal to mirror free software. Copyright law was part of my education as a software engineer so I'm looking forward to it.

Then your bees and machines wouldn't suddenly explode either

Funny you would say that. That is EXACTLY the reason I think some of the authors of mods should just pack up and leave the community. Punishing your fans (who just want an easy way to install all these mods) because you have an ethical disagreement with pack authors (because it's nothing more than ethical) is just a dick move. If a mod author can't understand that he has no place in public software and he should just 'enjoy' his mod by himself. What's next, wipe someone's harddrive because they installed a modpack you don't like?

 

[Endyl192]

So please show me any european law that states that it is in fact illegal to mirror free software. Copyright law was part of my education as a software engineer so I'm looking forward to it.

You asked for it:
WIPO Copyright treaty, extending the terms of the Berne Convention to software (digital work in general). Many if not all European countries signed it.
You might also want to read up on the following and refresh your studies:

• Copyright law of the European Union
• An article about software copyright
• Copyright in the information society (from the European Commission)

Now, I believe, it is your turn to show me any law (from the EU or other Berne Convention/Copyright treaty signees), that allows the redistribution of any copyrighted material (or just software). (After all, you're highly qualified in copyright law as a software engineer -I doubt it (at least the copyright law part), but oh well; on the internet, nobody knows, you're a dog. It should take you no time, to qoute something relevant, since you're so well informed, so please enlighten me.)

Funny you would say that. That is EXACTLY the reason I think some of the authors of mods should just pack up and leave the community. Punishing your fans (who just want an easy way to install all these mods) because you have an ethical disagreement with pack authors (because it's nothing more than ethical) is just a dick move. If a mod author can't understand that he has no place in public software and he should just 'enjoy' his mod by himself. What's next, wipe someone's harddrive because they installed a modpack you don't like?

IMHO:
On the contrary, those should leave the community, who cannot respect the copyright of others (be it legal or moral). You shouldn't be surprised if a stolen not rightfully obtained software does not work as intented.

I wonder how the FTB team managed to get permission from authors. Clearly either blackmailing or dark magic was involved in the process, so noone else can reproduce it. Come on guys, is it so hard to ask? I think not.

 

[Hydra]

You asked for it:
WIPO Copyright treaty, exapnding the terms of the Berne Convention to software (digital work in general). Many if not all European countries signed it.
You might also want to read up on the following and refresh your studies:

• Copyright law of the European Union
• An article about software copyright
• Copyright in the information society (from the European Commission)

Again, show me an example of a court case or whatever where software with a free license cannot be mirrored by another party.

You keep saying that an author of a work has copyright. That's not the debate. Everyone knows that with a 100% original work you do (in the case of mods it's a HUGE grey area since it's derived work). The problem is that just having copyright to software doesn't make it illegal to just mirror /copy it.

For example: if I make a copy of your Windows 7 DVD, is that illegal? No. Is it illegal for me to install it on my PC and use it? Yes. If I buy a license for Windows 7 and install YOUR DVD on my machine and use it, is it then illegal? No, I have a license to use that software. Can Microsoft try to prevent me from copying that DVD? Yes. Can they sue me if I do? No.

With mods it's dead simple: they're free. This means that "everyone" has a license. And since the authors don't sell the software (they are not allowed), they're not being damaged if someone else mirrors the download for them.

This discussion isn't about copyright, it's about licenses. Copyright is very complex (especially when it comes to software and mirroring), licencing less so. You either have a license or your don't. With free software (where everyone has a license) it's pretty dead simple: as an author you basically say "you can download it and I don't care what you do with it". The best you can do as an author is to ask someone to hit that paypal button. Aside from that, it's completely out of your hands. Ofcourse, the copyright will prevent others from pretending that it's their work and use it as such, but that's simply not the case with these modpacks.

The guys running the Plus+Pack are 100% right from a legal perspective. If a mod author would try to sue them he would not have a chance. You can go on about copyright and all, but that's simply isn't the issue here. It's licensing and damages. Since the license is free there is no damage they can claim in a civil suit. Copyright laws are mainly there to other people using your hard work to make money off. If there is no damage and they're not making money off of your work, there's not a single judge that is even going to bother with you.[DOUBLEPOST=1362563624][/DOUBLEPOST]

On the contrary, those should leave the community, who cannot respect the copyright of others (be it legal or moral). You shouldn't be surprised if a stolen not rightfully obtained software does not work as intented.

If you really think it's okay for a mod author to do damage like that there is really no point in having any further discussion with you, since our views are 180 degrees opposite.

 

[luacs1998]

Can a moderator like seriously, padlock this before everyone starts bashing each other up and digging each others' innards out?

 

[Endyl192]

With free software (where everyone has a license) it's pretty dead simple: as an author you basically say "you can download it and I don't care what you do with it". The best you can do as an author is to ask someone to hit that paypal button. Aside from that, it's completely out of your hands. Ofcourse, the copyright will prevent others from pretending that it's their work and use it as such, but that's simply not the case with these modpacks.

Did you get any license with said mods that says "You can do whatever you want to do with it." I think not. Your argument has been invalidated many times now. Just because something is free to download, it does not mean that it comes without a license (writing which is under the discretion of the author, and by using the software you accept those terms), or the author cannot exercise his/her exclusive copyrights. And holding back the right to copy or distribute is clearly one of those.

And no, mods are not in a grey area. Minecraft's terms of use clearly states that plugins to the game belong to their respective authors. Nothing unclear or uncertain here.

 

[Hydra]

Can a moderator like seriously, padlock this before everyone starts bashing each other up and digging each others' innards out?

We're having a civil discussion and there's no reason whatsoever to lock tis.

Did you get any license with said mods that says "You can do whatever you want to do with it." I think not. Your argument has been invalidated many times now. Just because something is free to download, it does not mean that it comes without a license (writing which is under the discretion of the author, and by using the software you accept those terms), or the author cannot exercise his/her exclusive copyrights. And holding back the right to copy or distribute is clearly one of those.

And no, mods are not in a grey area. Minecraft's terms of use clearly states that plugins to the game belong to their respective authors. Nothing unclear or uncertain here.

It also says you're not allowed to make money on them. Since everyone gets a free license and mirroring free software is in no way a breach of copyright you're simply wrong. I never said it's without license; you seem to misunderstand what I was trying to tell you what the difference is in copying and using software. All modpacks do is mirror the mod, they don't use it. So they are not in breach of anything.

Anyway, we're starting to go around in circles and I have better things to do than repeating myself over and over again

 

[Endyl192]

Just to clarify my position here:

• I'm all for open source software
• But I can respect mod authors' choice of not releasing their mods under open source licenses or into the public domain
• The Plus+ pack does nothing against me, I could care less about it, since I use FTB.
• But I sympathise with authors willing to defend their copyright
• I cannot bear people spreading misinformation. That's why I've quoted relevant and/or official sources about this topic (Copyright and related rights), of which some members seem to be uncapable.

 

[Endyl192]

Anyway, we're starting to go around in circles and I have better things to do than repeating myself over and over again

Indeed it seems we cannot convince each other. And that is fine by me. But it was worth a try

 

[fyj]

It also says you're not allowed to make money on them.

This does not obligate you to give your mods to everyone. It just means you can't make money off them. A mod maker can put whatever license rules on it (Within the limits of law), and the only restriction mojang's comment has made is that they can't make money. They never said "you must make it freely available to everyone" or "All mods must be distributed under MIT licensing" or anything like that. They just said you can't make money off them.

I think you'd at least admit I'd be well within my rights to make a mod and not be obligated to give you a copy. So in choosing to distribute a copy I have provided, either explicitly or implicitly, a license for you to use that item and your rights to that are what I've licensed them as (Assuming my license is within the law, and that I'd fulfilled my licensing obligations from Mojang - namely not charging any money).

Since everyone gets a free license and mirroring free software is in no way a breach of copyright you're simply wrong. I never said it's without license; you seem to misunderstand what I was trying to tell you what the difference is in copying and using software. All modpacks do is mirror the mod, they don't use it. So they are not in breach of anything.

If you have a free license permitting you to redistribute then yes. However, something not costing money doesn't mean redistribution with no obligations is guaranteed.


Really that's the crux of it - you assume "can't charge money" = "everyone gets full rights to it for free". Those are separate concepts. Hell, just look at the list of available different open source licensing schemes (GPL, LGPL, MIT, BSD, Apache, MS-RL, and even creative commons - though admittedly some of those aren't exclusively no money they're all usable within the "can't charge money" domain and have very different restrictions on the licensee).

All that said, I wish all mod makers would be willing to take the equivalent of a CC-BY-SA licence or something even more permissive, but it's their mod. It's their work. Even if the law wasn't on their side (Which I think it is, but I also think it's irrelevant cause I doubt anyone's going to take it to court ) I'd say on a general common decency level if the person who made something says "Please don't do X with my work" you'd hope people would respect their wishes.

PS: My knowledge of copyright is largely non-European as I live in Australia, so I guess your mileage may vary but I think most of it's covered by international treaties as mentioned earlier

 

[tedyhere]

::Gets out another tub of popcorn:: This is getting good now

 

[Katrinya]

Before this thread gets locked, can someone explain what a "goon" is, in the context of Minecraft? I assume you are not referring to a dimwitted muscular thug.

 

[vibur]

Before this thread gets locked, can someone explain what a "goon" is, in the context of Minecraft? I assume you are not referring to a dimwitted muscular thug.

As has been stated several times, a goon (as referenced in this thread) is a member of the Something Awful forms (http://forums.somethingawful.com).

As has also been stated, there is absolutely no reason to lock this thread.

 

[Katrinya]

As has been stated several times, a goon (as referenced in this thread) is a member of the Something Awful forms (http://forums.somethingawful.com).

As has also been stated, there is absolutely no reason to lock this thread.

Doesn't mean it won't be locked. Moderators tend to tire of these debates quickly.

Sorry if goon had been defined before, must've missed it.