The real problem with Minecraft and why Minetest will succeed!

[joshua1991]

I have a real problem with the people behind Minecraft and more importantly, the way modern gaming companies tend to screw over their customers with this licensing crap that doesn't actually let you own a game that you paid money for.

In the T.O.S. of minecraft, it states that your paying for a freaking "permission" to use the game. The game you paid $30 U.S. for which is pretty significant FOR A FREAKING PERMISSION. Which also means that at any time they see fit, they can take that game from you. I don't think thats actually going to happen unless you violate their T.O.S. which still doesn't warrent them ripping a game (THAT YOU PAID MONEY FOR) right from your hands. What is going to happen is that some time in the future, when nobody is playing Minecraft anymore, and when it becomes too costly to run the download servers. Mojang is going to shut down MInecraft and everyone who bought MInecraft will no longer be able to play it. Remember, you paid money for it and its gone. Call me old fashion but I still have a copy of Unreal and a few dos games that I paid money for and I still get to play them.

I think the Minetest community recognizes this problem which is why I'm no longer going to bother with Minecraft anymore. I think Minetest will succeed over Minecraft and I probably will be playing it for many years.
I also think that the people who defend MInecraft should read their atrocious T.O.S.

[Krock]

1 : 0 Minetest

[rubenwardy]

If you buy a film, or a game, or a piece of music, you never own it. You own THE LICENSE TO USE IT. Minecraft is no different in this.

You don't own Minetest, you own a free license to use it, which is available to everyone. (LGPL)

Unfortunately, it's important to make this distinction.

That is why it is illegal to give the materials to your friend, for example giving them a copy of your music.

However, minetest will never cancel this licence with you, where as Minecraft might, as it is legally allowed to do.

What clause did you break?

PS: this is law in UK, and is followed by most of the modern world.

[onpon4]

If you buy a film, or a game, or a piece of music, you never own it. You own THE LICENSE TO USE IT. Minecraft is no different in this.

That's true of proprietary software, but not true of music, films, and video games that aren't downloaded through the Internet. You buy a copy. A license isn't needed to "use" (read, watch, whatever) a copyrighted work. A license is only needed to manufacture more copies of the work.

The thing with "licenses" (EULAs) in proprietary software is technical measures are taken to make sure you can't use the software without signing a contract (the "license"), which places restrictions on you that copyright can't. This isn't the natural state of copyright at all and doesn't apply to anything other than software that I'm aware of.

[rubenwardy]

I don't have enough time to explain.

If you wanted to really buy a song, it could cost you thousands of pounds/dollars/etc.

Instead you buy A COPY of the song. You don't own the song; you can't give copies to your friends.

A lecturer with degrees in business and law explained this to me.

You can't set agreements over copyrighted stuff without licences. (Unless you sell it)

[GingerHunter797]

That is why you get it for free(p***te it) I would post a link, but I feel like Ill get banned so... If someone really wants a link email me!

GingerHunter797@gmail.com <--- Prefered

or

GingerHunter797@zeldaclassic.com

I dont check very often so it might be a few days...

[joshua1991]

I don't have enough time to explain.

If you wanted to really buy a song, it could cost you thousands of pounds/dollars/etc.

Instead you buy A COPY of the song. You don't own the song; you can't give copies to your friends.

A lecturer with degrees in business and law explained this to me.

You can't set agreements over copyrighted stuff without licences. (Unless you sell it)

I understand a person doesn't own the rights to a copyrighted work but you still paid money for that copy and should be able to have access to it forever. YOU SHOULD OWN IT or at least a copy of it with a certain respect to the original authors.

I don't get it. Maybe its because I grew up in era where people understood that money is money and it doesn't grow on trees.

[onpon4]

If you wanted to really buy a song, it could cost you thousands of pounds/dollars/etc.

Instead you buy A COPY of the song. You don't own the song; you can't give copies to your friends.

Information isn't "owned"; only copies are owned. Copyright monopolies, however, are owned. Copyright monopolies are on production and distribution of additional copies and nothing else.

If you apply copyright to physical objects such as chairs, it would mean that you are not allowed to build a duplicate of that chair. That's what copying is. You would still own the chair, and not being allowed by law to make duplicates doesn't mean you don't "really" own the chair.

[shaneroach]

Copyright is the license to make copies. If you own a copy of something, you own it.

The current business model of a lot of people out there is to keep some key to making the physical copy a customer owns in the cloud somewhere so that their copy becomes useless without the key.

People are understandably miffed that even the copy they physically own can be turned off remotely after having paid good money for it.

However, I will note that if you start Minecraft on a computer that is not connected to the internet, it plays in offline mode. I haven't experimented with this, but I think you could probably migrate a copy to an external drive and always have it function in offline mode. Then you would only lose whatever free upgrades come along between the time they were to theoretically crash and burn and leave you without a functional login for your game.

All of which seems rather paranoid, even to me - a person who despises the very concept of IP. :-S

So I guess you could say I am straddling the fence on this discussion? Just my two cents...

[rubenwardy]

These comments seem to confuse copyright with patents.

You can remake the chair, but not if it's patented.

There are three types of 'copyright', commonly used.
Copyright - things you make. Is: written works, music, games, art.
Patents - design of things
Trademarks - names, logos.

Say photographer A took a picture. They would own the v copyrights of the picture.

However, if B went to the same place and took a photo, A couldn't sue them.

If A had bought a patent, they would have legal grounds.

[shaneroach]

I don't know who you are referencing, but I am well aware of the distinction between copyright, patent, and trademark. I could even go further and say that some do not think of trademark so much as IP law but rather as truth in advertising, but I suppose the point is moot since in common use they are all usually lumped together.

What I am telling you plain and simple is that for most of the known history of copyright, you OWNED a COPY. It is only in recent history that copyright has been leveraged to the point that you do not even own your own copy, but rather supposedly only have a license to use it.

This concept has spawned, for example, the novel idea that people do not have the right to SELL their own copy of a BOOK.

This so called "confusion" is precisely why I have become more or less anti-IP in general. There is no REAL confusion. Certain people prefer the rental business model to the exchange business model and are lobbying heavily to have all intellectual property moved over to a rental model by force of law.

I find it loathsome.

[rubenwardy]

I agree.

[shaneroach]

I don't get it. Maybe its because I grew up in era where people understood that money is money and it doesn't grow on trees.

Just to be difficult, money is now entirely fake - easier to make than picking trees so long as you have the authority. And it has been largely fake arguably since around the 16th century in the western world by dint of the concept of partial reserve lending.

=)

Ah economics.... So depressing.

[shaneroach]

I agree.

Lol. Ok I have been totally misunderstanding you then. Hehe!

I guess we were on the same page all along. I got very confused though...

[onpon4]

These comments seem to confuse copyright with patents.

You can remake the chair, but not if it's patented.

There are three types of 'copyright', commonly used.
Copyright - things you make. Is: written works, music, games, art.
Patents - design of things
Trademarks - names, logos.

Not quite. Designs of chairs aren't patented. Ideas ("inventions") are. We don't need to bring patents into this discussion, because they're irrelevant. Same goes for trademarks. There is no type of monopoly that can currently be used for designs of chairs, so I was trying to draw a parallel to make it clear what the ownership status of copies of creative works is.

[shaneroach]

These comments seem to confuse copyright with patents.

You can remake the chair, but not if it's patented.

There are three types of 'copyright', commonly used.
Copyright - things you make. Is: written works, music, games, art.
Patents - design of things
Trademarks - names, logos.

Not quite. Designs of chairs aren't patented. Ideas ("inventions") are. We don't need to bring patents into this discussion, because they're irrelevant. Same goes for trademarks. There is no type of monopoly that can currently be used for designs of chairs, so I was trying to draw a parallel to make it clear what the ownership status of copies of creative works is.

Where Ruben says "design of things", you say "ideas ('inventions')".

Seems the same concept...? I think we all understand the chair is both too old and too obvious for a patent...? =)

I think we may all be agreeing disagreeably at this point. BAHAHA!

[Josh]

EA Games also tend to screw there customers over, you need to do all of this junk with origin for some of there new games. You have to activate the games through origin, install origin to play, launch origin to play the games, and create an account just to play some of there games online. Do they really think that gamers like all of this stuff? If somebody is a player of Battlefield games, go take a look at the back of your copy of Battlefield 1942, does it say "Origin account and high speed internet access required to play? no, now look at the back of your Battlefield 3 or 4 copy and see if it says "Origin account and high speed internet access required to play"

[Dopium]

EA Games also tend to screw there customers over, you need to do all of this junk with origin for some of there new games. You have to activate the games through origin, install origin to play, launch origin to play the games, and create an account just to play some of there games online. Do they really think that gamers like all of this stuff? If somebody is a player of Battlefield games, go take a look at the back of your copy of Battlefield 1942, does it say "Origin account and high speed internet access required to play? no, now look at the back of your Battlefield 3 or 4 copy and see if it says "Origin account and high speed internet access required to play"

I haven't had a game in a long time that doesn't use origin or steam, it's their way to cut down on pirated copies. I am with you, it is a real pain in the ass however without it i doubt many developers will focus on PC titles. By using origin or steam a illegal copy of the product is useless for online play(which most modern games focus heavily on so it somewhat works).

Personally i have a few problems with this method as when i buy a new game i am only getting half the game on the disc(i like physical copy's of games). Now you buy half the game then activate it online to download the other half through DLC??? <--- This gives me the major shits, if i pay $80 or so for the bloody game i expect the whole game not half.

I can't completely blame them as they want to sell product however i as the customer is only buying half the game at full price and having to download the rest, that is wrong. Some these games need over 8GB of DLC just to play singleplayer. Last game i bought has needed 10GB of DLC to even run the exe...., anyway most developers are focusing on consoles that's where the money is at. Miss the days of oldschool PC gaming, nowadays they don't even bother printing a friggen decent user manual. Such a shame

[shaneroach]

EA Games also tend to screw there customers over, you need to do all of this junk with origin for some of there new games. You have to activate the games through origin, install origin to play, launch origin to play the games, and create an account just to play some of there games online. Do they really think that gamers like all of this stuff? If somebody is a player of Battlefield games, go take a look at the back of your copy of Battlefield 1942, does it say "Origin account and high speed internet access required to play? no, now look at the back of your Battlefield 3 or 4 copy and see if it says "Origin account and high speed internet access required to play"

I haven't had a game in a long time that doesn't use origin or steam, it's their way to cut down on pirated copies. I am with you, it is a real pain in the ass however without it i doubt many developers will focus on PC titles. By using origin or steam a illegal copy of the product is useless for online play(which most modern games focus heavily on so it somewhat works).

Personally i have a few problems with this method as when i buy a new game i am only getting half the game on the disc(i like physical copy's of games). Now you buy half the game then activate it online to download the other half through DLC??? <--- This gives me the major shits, if i pay $80 or so for the bloody game i expect the whole game not half.

I can't completely blame them as they want to sell product however i as the customer is only buying half the game at full price and having to download the rest, that is wrong. Some these games need over 8GB of DLC just to play singleplayer. Last game i bought has needed 10GB of DLC to even run the exe...., anyway most developers are focusing on consoles that's where the money is at. Miss the days of oldschool PC gaming, nowadays they don't even bother printing a friggen decent user manual. Such a shame

People who work in technology, and especially anyone who goes and gets a degree, have all forgotten what it really means to work. People are supposed to pay for you WORKING, not pay for you HAVING WORKED.

No one assumes I should get paid for a building I helped build 20 years ago, but the group of people who "invested" in it (i.e. redirected fiat currency in the general direction of building the thing) can get paid for it forever through rent, and this is what all the supposed "educated" believe is their right at this point.

You can see the damage it does to progress. Where is there any REAL innovation? Once something is done, it should be made better, and better, and better. Instead they just vary it a little, take out a new copyright/patent, depending on what exactly they are working on, and then start charging rent again.

In their defense, it seems people who have money lack the vision to just tell a programmer, "this is what I want," and just pay for it. This is where open source OUGHT to shine, but instead it seems everyone just wants programmers who do open source work to work for free.

[freeonlinesongs]

EA Games also tend to screw there customers over, you need to do all of this junk with origin for some of there new games. You have to activate the games through origin, install origin to play, launch origin to play the games, and create an account just to play some of there games online. Do they really think that gamers like all of this stuff? If somebody is a player of Battlefield games, go take a look at the back of your copy of Battlefield 1942, does it say "Origin account and high speed internet access required to play? no, now look at the back of your Battlefield 3 or 4 copy and see if it says "Origin account and high speed internet access required to play"

i actually don't remember that does it require or not but according to me they must know about their games players...

[Landrover110]

I agree i will always support minetest because its FOSS and i think everythig should be like that

[mauvebic]

The most recent self-congratulatory thread can be found here