Mod permissions

[ndm250]

Allow me to go a bit off-course here and ask: why are you so sour about other people making it easier for people to enjoy mods more and possibly give some mods a wider audience?

I actually thought it was a great idea when I heard about it, until I thought how could this could be acceptable when modders can be so restrictive on pack rights.

[ndm250]

Technic doesn't index mods, it index modpacks.

You index 1 mod, or a group of mods, you're still indexing mods.

[CanVox]

I actually thought it was a great idea when I heard about it, until I thought how could this could be acceptable when modders can be so restrictive on pack rights.

I met a traveller from an antique land

Who said: "Two vast and trunkless legs of stone

Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,

Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown

And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command

Tell that its sculptor well those passions read

Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,

The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.

And on the pedestal these words appear:

`It was a great idea until modders ruined it.'

Nothing beside remains. Round the decay

Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,

The lone and level sands stretch far away".

[Ragnar Homsar]

I actually thought it was a great idea when I heard about it, until I thought how could this could be acceptable when modders can be so restrictive on pack rights.

So you're basically crusading for the misled ideas of a group of people who couldn't care less about you personally because reasons.

[Cheap Shot]

You have an hour to answer this before I ban you, ndm.

Oh god! One hour?!? Not much time! Ok quick, compare us to hitler! We need some to kick this whole thing off. Tell us how awful we are for spending weeks of near full time work developing the new launcher and platform for the community to use. Hit us hard with several reasons why it's a bad thing that we made professional looking and extremely useful programs and tools, all free to use, and designed to benefit of everyone, modders, players and server ops alike.

Also if you have time, please please tell us why anyone should have any reason to be mad at us for this. We get full permission for the packs we distribute. We don't have the means to police the internet and don't want to. We recommend everyone seek permissions for their packs should they choose to make them public.

We don't host anything. This is just an index. We're offering the tools publicly, because modding communities thrive on sharing and offering your work to the public to use and build from. People will use our tools however they think they should. We're going to remain neutral. Everything we do is above board. If anyone has any issues with someone elses modpacks, please take it up with them. Not us.

Platform isn't some jab at modders. It isn't a grandstand for opinions or beliefs. It isn't a declaration of war. If you look closely, it is a tool box. Don't write down your complaints and put them in the tool box. That would be silly. You would look silly. Talk to the people using the tools in ways you dislike. Leave the people who are using them properly, alone.

I'll ask everyone to stop discussing this now thanks.

[Mooseman9]

Oh god! One hour?!? Not much time! Ok quick, compare us to hitler! We need some to kick this whole thing off.

Kakermix is hitler, and you all are his nazis. I bid you good day.

[Cheap Shot]

Kakermix is hitler, and you all are his nazis. I bid you good day.

You've hurt mein feelings.

[Watson_777]

Ok quick, compare us to hitler!

Why stop there? I'm sure Stalin, Pol Pot and Attila The Hun could fit in somewhere

[lukeb28]

Three posts and it went completely off topic. Congrats Mooseman for this derailment!

I got through page one, skipped page two, and read all of page three. Unless I missed something in page two important, it seems to me that this is some FTB guy trying to start up a shit storm. Good job ndm! You caused one whether it was your intention or not! (Edit: Cheap's right. Its not much of one).

The way I got my little belt here was a debate on a similar subject. Whether or not Andrew's custom pack was legal to have some mods with "copyright".

The modders might put a copyright section on their mod but it means nothing in the legal world. The mods themselves are in a bit of a "grey area" of the law and they cannot obtain legal copyright for their mod. Sure it's nice to get permission but it's not required. We could go into whether or not it's morally correct but that's something else entirely.

[Cheap Shot]

it seems to me that this is some FTB guy trying to start up a shit storm. Good job ndm! You caused one whether it was your intention or not!

Three pages of people telling a dude he is wrong in a thread =/= a shit storm. Sorry to disappoint.

[freakachu]

I actually thought it was a great idea when I heard about it, until I thought how could this could be acceptable when modders can be so restrictive on pack rights.

that's fine up until the point where it's explained to you and you keep arguing anyway. which you did/are doing. you seem to be under the impression that the platform is like the pirate bay of minecraft when it is not. modpacks and mods are nothing like music/commercial programs/movies. if you're looking for someone "official" to start lambasting mod authors because that is how you've been told technic is, you won't get it. we like modders, we like the mods they make. even if we don't agree with some of them on many things, their mods are still pretty cool regardless.

that reason is not good enough to prevent me from banning you for being a toolbox. sorry, please get bent at your earliest convenience and take your agenda with you. thanks.

[agaricus]

Sorry if I was unclear. I mean someone has taken your game, album, movie, etc. and hosted it on their website. Their result may be the first thing that comes up when you google your movie, but google won't do anything about it. They have no responsibility to, they're not doing anything wrong, and they don't care. The correct action is to talk to the person's webhost, to the person themselves, to the government, to your lawyer. The correct action is not to talk to google, because they will do nothing.

Actually Google will remove links to allegedly infringing content when reported. Copyright removal requests can be sent from http://www.google.com/dmca.html and they have published a report with more details of their process:

How many of these requests did you comply with?

We removed 97% of search results specified in requests that we received between July and December 2011.

How quickly do you remove search results after a request is made?

We remove search results that link to infringing content in Search when it is brought to our attention, and we do it quickly. As of December 2012, our average processing time across all removal requests submitted via our web form for Search is approximately 6 hours. However, many different factors can influence the processing time for a particular removal request, including the method of delivery, language, and completeness of the information submitted.

Google as an "information location tool" online service provider chooses to operate under the DMCA safe harbor provision in 17 USC § 512(d):

(d) Information Location Tools. — A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the provider referring or linking users to an online location containing infringing material or infringing activity, by using information location tools, including a directory, index, reference, pointer, or hypertext link, if the service provider —

(1)(A) does not have actual knowledge that the material or activity is infringing;

( in the absence of such actual knowledge, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent; or

© upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material;

(2) does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, in a case in which the service provider has the right and ability to control such activity; and

(3) upon notification of claimed infringement as described in subsection ©(3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity, except that, for purposes of this paragraph, the information described in subsection ©(3)(A)(iii) shall be identification of the reference or link, to material or activity claimed to be infringing, that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate that reference or link.

You may have noticed "In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page." notices on some of your search results; this is why (but interestingly, most of the takedown notices are available on Chilling Effects and contain URLs of the allegedly infringing content in question – provided by the copyright owner themselves).

[Cheap Shot]

As much as everyone will enjoy debating Google policy for many pages to come, we are not Google, and this argument will not lead to some proof that we have anything other than good intentions for the community. This thread isn't proving very useful so I'll go ahead and close it. If all you can do is scavenger hunt for reasons to be mad at us then you should check your priorities. Focus on improving the community like we do.