13
Minecraft lawsuit, how delusional can people get?notification_important
Ey gang!
Figured this was a nice topic for discussion ...
So there is this YouTuber who claims that Mojang is breaking the law by violating European consumer rights. The irony is that he comes to that conclusion because Mojang apparently doesn't allow the use of real guns through modding within Minecraft. I call that ironic because modding isn't exactly something you're entitled to as a customer, not to mention the fact that the guy claims that Mojang's refusal to provide him the information he demands has hurt his business.
I guess he never read the section(s) in the EULA about Mojang disallowing monetization of most of Minecrafts media, including modding.
Well, the guy set up a GoFundMe because obviously he doesn't have the finances to sue Mojang, so now he's relying on others for that.
It really makes me wonder how delusional people can become, especially because several have apparently donated to this campaign. For starters: GoFundMe? Interesting, because that's one of the main funding platforms which does not hold people accountable when they break their own promises and run off with the money. "Convenient". Oh, don't take my word on that, just check item 6c:
See what I mean? These are the terms you agree to when you sign up for GoFundMe.. yes, they claim to be very lenient with refunds on their main site, but that's just the thing... no where in their terms of service does it mention that you're entitled to this. Like I said: "convenient". Especially because someone who seeks funds doesn't have to meet their goals.
And there's even more... the European consumer protection law is actually addressing software services in a different way, when dealing with that you're looking at a specific section: Purchasing of digital contents and services. Follow this last link, don't worry: there won't be any major legal mumbojumbo. Notice how the emphasis on that page is fully on "You didn't receive the order as promised", and "You got a wrong or damaged product" and "the product turns out to be faulty after a while"?
I dunno about you... but I purchased my licence for Minecraft around 2012. In the mean time I've purchased several more (a few "alt accounts") because I love this game, and because being able to work on a redstone circuit from multiple angles at once... is gold!
Here's the thing: after 12 years (!) I can still play the base game. I'm not even limited to having to use the official Mojang launcher but can also rely on 3rd parties because Mojang has even made sure that their authentication mechanics are based on open standards, thus allowing anyone to use these as they seem fit. Which allows me, as a consumer, to use something as Prism to start my game.
Now, one of the things this YouTuber is hammering on is an allegid unfair contract directive, you can see the official EU directive right here. And you can get the full directive here.
Once again the focus and intent is on fair use. Protecting consumer rights when something goes wrong.
So then we need to ask ourselves an important question... what is the #1 intent (and purpose) of buying a game? I'd say it's playing said game. Does Mojang in any way, shape or form hinder us in doing so? Considering the open standards that even allow you to move away from their own launcher and use others.. I find this very hard to believe.
Then we get to the issue of modding the game. Here's the problem: you don't buy games, you buy a license to use said game. But the publisher / company will always remain in control, they own the intelligent property to it. And for good reasons: otherwise I could just grab Minecraft, rename it into ShellCraft and re-sell that as my own.
Another thing... gaming companies also have a right to deny game modifications, especially when we get into the realms of cheating.
The important detail here is that all these issues have little to do anymore with consumer rights, the ones the Tuber claims are being violated? Because those consumer rights are fully geared towards ensuring that you get to enjoy your purchase in the way that was both expected and intended. And I'd say that easily applies to Minecraft.
You're not entitled to modding. You're not entitled to being allowed to monetize on those efforts either.
SO maybe... take this into consideration before you decide on wasting your money to fund someone's flawed desire for attention.
Figured this was a nice topic for discussion ...
So there is this YouTuber who claims that Mojang is breaking the law by violating European consumer rights. The irony is that he comes to that conclusion because Mojang apparently doesn't allow the use of real guns through modding within Minecraft. I call that ironic because modding isn't exactly something you're entitled to as a customer, not to mention the fact that the guy claims that Mojang's refusal to provide him the information he demands has hurt his business.
I guess he never read the section(s) in the EULA about Mojang disallowing monetization of most of Minecrafts media, including modding.
Well, the guy set up a GoFundMe because obviously he doesn't have the finances to sue Mojang, so now he's relying on others for that.
It really makes me wonder how delusional people can become, especially because several have apparently donated to this campaign. For starters: GoFundMe? Interesting, because that's one of the main funding platforms which does not hold people accountable when they break their own promises and run off with the money. "Convenient". Oh, don't take my word on that, just check item 6c:
(c) Refunds and Disputes: If you believe that an error has occurred in any of your donations, please contact us immediately so we can help resolve the issue. Any fraud disputes or chargebacks initiated with your payment provider may be contested by us on the basis of this authorization.
See what I mean? These are the terms you agree to when you sign up for GoFundMe.. yes, they claim to be very lenient with refunds on their main site, but that's just the thing... no where in their terms of service does it mention that you're entitled to this. Like I said: "convenient". Especially because someone who seeks funds doesn't have to meet their goals.
Mojang doesn't break any consumer laws
The whole argument is just bullshit. But first, let's say that they do... then this still doesn't resolve anyone from the imposed limitaiton which claim that you cannot monetize on your mods. Which, according to this YouTuber, is one of the main reasons why he wants to sue because Mojang has allegidly cost him revenue. Yet in focussing his attention fully on the consumer rights... he totally glosses over this small tidbit.And there's even more... the European consumer protection law is actually addressing software services in a different way, when dealing with that you're looking at a specific section: Purchasing of digital contents and services. Follow this last link, don't worry: there won't be any major legal mumbojumbo. Notice how the emphasis on that page is fully on "You didn't receive the order as promised", and "You got a wrong or damaged product" and "the product turns out to be faulty after a while"?
I dunno about you... but I purchased my licence for Minecraft around 2012. In the mean time I've purchased several more (a few "alt accounts") because I love this game, and because being able to work on a redstone circuit from multiple angles at once... is gold!
Here's the thing: after 12 years (!) I can still play the base game. I'm not even limited to having to use the official Mojang launcher but can also rely on 3rd parties because Mojang has even made sure that their authentication mechanics are based on open standards, thus allowing anyone to use these as they seem fit. Which allows me, as a consumer, to use something as Prism to start my game.
Now, one of the things this YouTuber is hammering on is an allegid unfair contract directive, you can see the official EU directive right here. And you can get the full directive here.
Once again the focus and intent is on fair use. Protecting consumer rights when something goes wrong.
So then we need to ask ourselves an important question... what is the #1 intent (and purpose) of buying a game? I'd say it's playing said game. Does Mojang in any way, shape or form hinder us in doing so? Considering the open standards that even allow you to move away from their own launcher and use others.. I find this very hard to believe.
Then we get to the issue of modding the game. Here's the problem: you don't buy games, you buy a license to use said game. But the publisher / company will always remain in control, they own the intelligent property to it. And for good reasons: otherwise I could just grab Minecraft, rename it into ShellCraft and re-sell that as my own.
Another thing... gaming companies also have a right to deny game modifications, especially when we get into the realms of cheating.
The important detail here is that all these issues have little to do anymore with consumer rights, the ones the Tuber claims are being violated? Because those consumer rights are fully geared towards ensuring that you get to enjoy your purchase in the way that was both expected and intended. And I'd say that easily applies to Minecraft.
You're not entitled to modding. You're not entitled to being allowed to monetize on those efforts either.
SO maybe... take this into consideration before you decide on wasting your money to fund someone's flawed desire for attention.
Create an account or sign in to comment.
13
Also even if he is doing a lawsuit, does he forget Microsoft owns Mojang? And Microsoft is a muti-trillion dollar corporation. I'm pretty dure he's screwed.
He is not selling the mod, he is selling things on a server that just so happens to be "modded". See Hypixel. It is not about gun mods, those are still up, gun servers are the ones targeted. Private computers, owned by contractees of the Minecraft EULA, are missing out on thousands of dollars because the multibillion dollar company did not notify them, as they were legally required to have. Let me know Gates' shoe size while you're at it.
GoFundMe is the standard for stuff like this. It is a grey flag, but it is not forcibly malicious.
Minecraft is not playable anymore if you purchased it in, say, 2013 and then proceeded to take no further action. It was incorrectly advertised as a purchase.
"EULA about Mojang disallowing monetization of most of Minecrafts media, including modding."
Which...they obviously don't uphold like the rest of the EULA unless they feel like it.
"Purchasing of digital contents and services"
Is specifically about the digital purchase and issues of said purchase. Which this lawsuit isn't on about. you should be looking over here: https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/consumer-protection-law/consumer-contract-law/unfair-contract-terms-directive_en Been as we are looking at a ambigious EULA mainly.
Hence the statement on: "Standard contract terms have to be drafted in plain intelligible language and ambiguities are to be interpreted in favour of consumers."
Which mojang has oviously breached with "or anything we don't like" whatever they said.
"Protecting consumer rights when something goes wrong"
If the EULA is ambiguous. Somethings gone wrong.
"here"
See article 5. And relate back to previous paragraph.
Did you enven watch the video? You addressed (some) points of his argument, but not his biggest argument: changing the eula and vague clauses. Mojang HAS used this in ways against the EU’s consumer laws.
GoFundMe is the standard for stuff like this. It is a grey flag, but it is not forcibly malicious.
Minecraft is not playable anymore if you purchased it in, say, 2013 and then proceeded to take no further action. It was incorrectly advertised as a purchase.
"EULA about Mojang disallowing monetization of most of Minecrafts media, including modding."
Which...they obviously don't uphold like the rest of the EULA unless they feel like it.
"Purchasing of digital contents and services"
Is specifically about the digital purchase and issues of said purchase. Which this lawsuit isn't on about. you should be looking over here: https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/consumer-protection-law/consumer-contract-law/unfair-contract-terms-directive_en Been as we are looking at a ambigious EULA mainly.
Hence the statement on: "Standard contract terms have to be drafted in plain intelligible language and ambiguities are to be interpreted in favour of consumers."
Which mojang has oviously breached with "or anything we don't like" whatever they said.
"Protecting consumer rights when something goes wrong"
If the EULA is ambiguous. Somethings gone wrong.
"here"
See article 5. And relate back to previous paragraph.
Did you enven watch the video? You addressed (some) points of his argument, but not his biggest argument: changing the eula and vague clauses. Mojang HAS used this in ways against the EU’s consumer laws.
I never claimed he was selling it.
But now that I'm paying more attention to the video.. I noticed that the Tuber is lying from the very getgo => the original video literlly states: "I am suing Mojang". Fun fact: he's not, he's just trying to raise money, assumingly to fund the proceedings .. on a platform which won't hold you accountable if you run off with the money.
Why wasn't he honest about this from the start?
... maybe because he assumed most players wouldn't look past the "evil corporations" dogma?
The more I look into this, the most shady things start to look; the story just doesn't add up.
But now that I'm paying more attention to the video.. I noticed that the Tuber is lying from the very getgo => the original video literlly states: "I am suing Mojang". Fun fact: he's not, he's just trying to raise money, assumingly to fund the proceedings .. on a platform which won't hold you accountable if you run off with the money.
Why wasn't he honest about this from the start?
... maybe because he assumed most players wouldn't look past the "evil corporations" dogma?
The more I look into this, the most shady things start to look; the story just doesn't add up.
oh he's actually
Honestly I’m just here to see the sh**storm
Plenty of seating, but odd taste in entertainment
I'm more informed about the day-to-day idiocies attempted in the US legal system, but have no reason to expect the EU's system is free from the like.
That said, without being both schooled in the intracacies of EU law [probably contract law] and notr having read the actual complaint, I'd hesitate to call the filer delusional.
That said, without being both schooled in the intracacies of EU law [probably contract law] and notr having read the actual complaint, I'd hesitate to call the filer delusional.
In hindsight * I agree that I may have been a bit too harsh in my wording. Then again, the original video doesn't share much love either not to mention... the Tuber is a bit of a hypocrite because his original video clearly states: "which I am suing for breaking the law". Fun fact: he's not suing, he's raising funds trying to sue.
I realize that for most people this is but a detail (maybe insignificant?), but when it comes to honesty.. details matter. A lot. And this Tuber obviously isn't honest from the getgo. He is trying to sue yet presents it as if it were a given fact.
Not to mention... "anyone can have everything, even if it wasn't part of the original game", that too is a blantant lie.
I mean.. he wants to hold Mojang accountable to their policies yet that works both ways. Laws (usually) are (should be) absolute. Ergo: it doesn't matter who you are, the law applies and is above you. You can't apply them as you deem fit.
And Mojang is very clear when it comes to modding. Heck, even the EU's rulings make a clear distinguish between an original work and modded additions. And yet... no mention nor recognition of this fact. Laws work both ways.
Not to mention that, once again, consumer laws only go so far. If you buy a door at a convenience store, then change the whole thing you just cannot expect any warranty from that moment on. Things don't work that way. Even the EU consumer laws acknowledge this.
So why would that be any different for digital goods?
There's a fun fact here, but ... I posted enough :)
I realize that for most people this is but a detail (maybe insignificant?), but when it comes to honesty.. details matter. A lot. And this Tuber obviously isn't honest from the getgo. He is trying to sue yet presents it as if it were a given fact.
Not to mention... "anyone can have everything, even if it wasn't part of the original game", that too is a blantant lie.
I mean.. he wants to hold Mojang accountable to their policies yet that works both ways. Laws (usually) are (should be) absolute. Ergo: it doesn't matter who you are, the law applies and is above you. You can't apply them as you deem fit.
And Mojang is very clear when it comes to modding. Heck, even the EU's rulings make a clear distinguish between an original work and modded additions. And yet... no mention nor recognition of this fact. Laws work both ways.
Not to mention that, once again, consumer laws only go so far. If you buy a door at a convenience store, then change the whole thing you just cannot expect any warranty from that moment on. Things don't work that way. Even the EU consumer laws acknowledge this.
So why would that be any different for digital goods?
There's a fun fact here, but ... I posted enough :)
Given that the man appears to be a Swede (and therefore most likely an ESL speaker), I'm willing to overlook some ambiguity WRT the distiction between 'have filed the paperwork for a lawsuit' and 'am actively preparing to file a lawsuit'.
While the difference is quite important, the actiual point at which one is legally considered to be suing is also a fairly lawyerly distinction – even for people not working in something other than their first language.
He's also taking/contemplating taking action under Swedish and/or EU laws, of both of which I am quite ignorant. [Looking at the 15 min video he posted, it appears he has already been exploring options for bringing suit, including talking to Swedish legal aid and various lawyers.]
Even under US law [of which I have at least a bit more knowledge] some of the terms MS/Mj has published and some of the actions alleged MAY be actionable.
[Assuming one could get this before a jury, the "All permissions and consents are given by us at our discretion and may be revoked at any time if we think that it is appropriate to do so, or we don’t like what you are doing" is going to rub a very large fraction of people the wrong way.]
In any case (whether in s formal court or 'merely' that of public opinion), having a service provided held to account on issues of clarity of terms, transparency of operations, and fair & equal enforcemnet of said terms is not something for which I'm able to see a downside.
While the difference is quite important, the actiual point at which one is legally considered to be suing is also a fairly lawyerly distinction – even for people not working in something other than their first language.
He's also taking/contemplating taking action under Swedish and/or EU laws, of both of which I am quite ignorant. [Looking at the 15 min video he posted, it appears he has already been exploring options for bringing suit, including talking to Swedish legal aid and various lawyers.]
Even under US law [of which I have at least a bit more knowledge] some of the terms MS/Mj has published and some of the actions alleged MAY be actionable.
[Assuming one could get this before a jury, the "All permissions and consents are given by us at our discretion and may be revoked at any time if we think that it is appropriate to do so, or we don’t like what you are doing" is going to rub a very large fraction of people the wrong way.]
In any case (whether in s formal court or 'merely' that of public opinion), having a service provided held to account on issues of clarity of terms, transparency of operations, and fair & equal enforcemnet of said terms is not something for which I'm able to see a downside.
I get your argument & can see where you're coming from :D
I too have owned Minecraft multiple times for many years, and yes, they don't owe us anything beyond the base game, but...
There's a difference between monetizing modded content & trying to pay the bills to keep a server running. So in that regard I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, especially because he criticized the lootbox systems of many popular servers.
Also, Mojang/Microsoft being so hush-hush about their EULA changes is actually weird & not a particularly fair business practise. Thus, I do also understand that he's frustrated by them suddenly banning "guns & weapons/firearms" without a proper definition, after he's invested a lot of his own time & money into a project he might not be able to publish now. (Even though I think we don't need military stuff in the game, this is fair criticism in my eyes.)
Well, let's see when, how & if this goes to court .;)
I too have owned Minecraft multiple times for many years, and yes, they don't owe us anything beyond the base game, but...
There's a difference between monetizing modded content & trying to pay the bills to keep a server running. So in that regard I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, especially because he criticized the lootbox systems of many popular servers.
Also, Mojang/Microsoft being so hush-hush about their EULA changes is actually weird & not a particularly fair business practise. Thus, I do also understand that he's frustrated by them suddenly banning "guns & weapons/firearms" without a proper definition, after he's invested a lot of his own time & money into a project he might not be able to publish now. (Even though I think we don't need military stuff in the game, this is fair criticism in my eyes.)
Well, let's see when, how & if this goes to court .;)
Just donated 1000 SEK to it, would do it again.
Good post. Many people will probably have wasted their money over this. The youtuber only shows things and says things that would make you want to help and invest in the go fund me.
You are providing a well thought out and collected view on this subject. People should think for themselves and not just accept this video at face value.
I get that this youtuber is salty about what happened. But the video is not entirely fair.
You are providing a well thought out and collected view on this subject. People should think for themselves and not just accept this video at face value.
I get that this youtuber is salty about what happened. But the video is not entirely fair.
very.
