Killer-of-Lawyers

No. There isn't and won't be. The team wants the donations to go to the modders, no matter how simpering they may be.

The Mojang Devs, and the actions of companies you submit false DCMA's to aren't the law. If I wanted to I could issue a DCMA to your own personal IP right now. The only law is what the court decides. Take someone to court. I'd suggest you start with small claims. Here's information for it in your state: http://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/resources/?fa=newsinfo_jury.scc&altMenu=smal

What, this? 08[01 7:01 pm] <CovertJaguar> it should be noted that until you meet my reqs, I will be quite displeased if I see a modern version of railcraft in one of your packs That's not ambiguous at all! Also, I'm right. You have no legal ground. IF you do, then serve me papers. Otherwise, stop being a child.

There is no legal ground that I have to do anything when it comes to his mod. It's posted on the internet. It's a mod, not a product. You seem confused.

If covert can't prove what he says, why should Technic have to prove anything it says. If it says it has permission, then that's good enough. Covert should put up or shut up. Oh, and here's the conversation in forge about using things wiether you like it or not: http://forums.technicpack.net/threads/lexmanos-vs-flower-child-forge-is-now-run-by-nazis.32725/

Prove it. Post the PM. Post screenshots of every pm you sent if you want anyone to believe you. Shouldn't be too much to ask, I mean, you do the same with your permissions lists. I'll use his mod wiether he likes it or not. I believe that is the offical stance of the forge folks these days!

Then why haven't you exercised your expertise pro bono for this man?

Yeah, what state did you take your Bar in?

Good. Then he should do it! Serve Papers.

He won't. He's not getting his ego stroked enough to post.

The problem is Covert is right. No one has any respect for him. He's a wailing manchild. He'll never get respect, no matter how many take down notices he serves, now matter how man DRM tricks he tries, no matter how many times he goes forestry on packs using his mod. No one respects a child.

Covert, if you're ready to take more drastic actions, then please do! My personal information is easy to find, and I'd love for you to put some legal weight behind your batshit insane restrictions! Serve me papers or shut up.

I don't know. Call me paranoid, but this coupled with the change in the mod pack TOS put in place half a month ago, along with the changing attitudes of people that hang out on that modder's TS doesn't make me feel comfortable at all.

The last thing this place needs is a FYAD. edit: Cause MCF is FYAD. GET IT? :getin:

That is a very good post, Eric. I think you sum up a lot of the end user sentiments, particularly among server operators.

Beep Boop. Please insert blocks.

What in the hell just happened? Did anyone get the number of that bus?

To be fair, Jay, we're just answering the question slowpoke asked us.

Kerbal is a small community with it's share of problems. Similar to minecraft. Large modding communities, like say, the nexus for mods on Oblivion do not have this requirement.

http://www.minecraftforum.net/topic/274523-to-mod-creators-copyrights/ This is one of the copyright threads that always seemed off to me. The amount of legalese in this mod stickied thread is a bit on the unreal side. Other modding communities don't do this. Never mind the fact that the basis of the thread is laughable. Legal standing in case xyzcraft puts your mod up on their site? No one is going to go to Civil court over something like that. It's contributing to toxic attitude in the community over there that makes the entire forums read like a bad Ayn Rand novel. Also, it's a bit misleading, because all mods are derivative work (Derived from the minecraft code that is edited to get them to load in the first place.) As such, their rights under US law are more limited than non-derivitive copyright. Here it is from Mojang itself: "What You Can Do If you've bought the game, you may play around with it and modify it. We'd appreciate it if you didn't use this for griefing, though, and remember not to distribute the changed versions of our software. Basically, mods (or plugins, or tools) are cool (you can distribute those), hacked versions of the Minecraft client or server are not (you can't distribute those). Any tools you write for the game from scratch belongs to you. Other than commercial use (unless specifically authorized by us in our brand and assets usage guidelines - for instance you are allowed to put ads on your YouTube videos containing Minecraft footage), you're free to do whatever you want with screenshots and videos of the game, but don't just rip art resources and pass them around, that's no fun. Plugins for the game also belong to you and you can do whatever you want with them, as long as you don't sell them for money. We reserve the final say regarding what constitutes a tool/plugin and what doesn't." Essentially, like modding with most other software, it's all down to Mojang and it's policies, which it's free to change at will. As they say themselves: "We reserve the right to change this agreement at any time with or without notice, with immediate and/or retroactive effect."

We should focus on what's important. How terrible MCF's is.

Either way, you think that they'd make more if they cut out the middleman. Why don't they get together, make a mod database, and slap some google adsense on there? Everyone profits, people don't get viruses, fun times all around.

To be fair, the personal motivations of the mod makers isn't too relivant, and talking about them in this thread will probably put a few hairs up their asses. As far as I'm concerned, dropping it was the best thing ever done. It doesn't need to be discussed, not here, at least. Nothing productive is going to come from it, and everyone's opinions on that matter is going to be set in stone.

They're just old screenshots taken from various servers and single player worlds.

Not a fan of Locksley, are you Narcisism? As far as the illegality goes, it's going to always be a point of contention due to the nature of derivative copy write law. Never mind the fact that people asking to be asked for permission to use their GNU3 licensed work violates the GNU3 license. I think talking about the respect to the authors is a much more reasonable thing to discuss than the illegality.