Hello ibx! I thought I should drop in to answer the points you brought up since there seems to have been some information you may have missed. Certain arguments provided in the video appear to stem from the idea that I am holding the community accountable for funding a lawsuit for my own personal benefit, this is based off of the statement "he is looking for the public to crowdfund HIS lawsuit" where the goal is for me to recover what I "lost", whether it be time or money, in my own personal project. Based on the gofundme's description (which I believe you may have read as it is shown in your video and cited near the end), it says that "To clarify any possible misconception, this is no longer about me or my personal losses due to the project I showed in the video which started all of this. This has become about holding Mojang accountable for its illegal actions on behalf of the entire Minecraft community.", a statement which is again present in the video's 10 000 word document that comes attached to it in the Q&A section under "What exactly is the lawsuit about?" where it states that "I'm currently seeing lots of misinformation online stating that I'm suing to reclaim my personal losses. As outlined above this is not the case, I accept that anything related to my project is considered lost financially and cannot be recovered". To complete this point, as it was stated both in the accompanying document, gofundme page and the second video where I go visit Mojang HQ, this is a COLLECTIVE CLASS ACTION lawsuit, not just a lawsuit, in that this is a lawsuit by a large group of individuals affected by the same issue; and thus again is not a lawsuit by one person to reclaim damages. I believe it may have been a mistake to hide the text that appeared on the second short video that was released at 14:07 where the text that popped up on screen was specifically "collective class action lawsuit", referring to the fact that this is a collective class action lawsuit and not a lawsuit funded by the community for my own personal benefit. One of the points you mention is that I launched the server anyways. This is a good point that was discussed on the 5th of December during a 7 hour long stage where I answered all questions from the community. From my perspective as a gun server owner, I had just seen a server receive a notice that essentially meant they have to completely remove their guns from the game. Given that what I was creating was a game about guns, it essentially means everything is scrapped. Under reasonable expectations, an enforcement whose new rules directly affect my project's ability to exist should be reasonably considered to also be an "attack" on me, which is subsequently how gun server owners united in the gun server group as they were all equally affected by it. As I was in a state of denial where I thought that "it may just go away and they change there minds as they see that banning pixelated weapons is detrimental to the community", I proceeded to launch anyways with that hope that it was going to get resolved by itself and I wouldn't need to worry about anything. I believe that this choice to launch a project that had months of work put into it even though I knew that this enforcement existed was a reasonable human reaction as I don't think anyone that has put months into a project only to be told "ye nah, scrap it all" 1 day before launch would just be like "okay, my bad" and move on with life. However, even though I continued with the launch, the thought of the enforcement not going away, leading to the scrapping of the project, lingered in my mind constantly and made me unable to properly commit any resources to its growth as them not changing their minds would only mean I'd invested more time into it only for all of it to be scrapped. In economic terms, this is called "sunk cost fallacy" (the idea that you already put so much into something that you may as well continue, like how for example League of Legends players keep playing the game even though they hate it just because they already have years into it (which goes back to the notion of every single League of Legends player telling anyone wanting to start the game to NOT ever play it)). You also go into the point of the project being "dead" in terms of players, that is correct & is attributed to me being unwilling to put more financial resources into it due to said lingering thought it would all be scrapped. Regardless of how much money I lost though or my personal feelings, the underlying laws still apply. A point that you bring up is that I was attempting to make a business out of it; this project was a re creation of a server I loved back in 2013 and its re creation was not due to wanting to make something for economic benefit (unlike the majority of servers nowadays that are basically casino simulators with a side of gameplay), but rather by the nostalgia I once had having fun in this server as it was simply fun to play; a thought which thankfully united lots of the original community that was part of the server back in 2013 to find its way to the new project. There was never a plan for a store, marketplace etc in the conception of the project even to this day; there is no way to make any purchases at all, it doesn't have a website (even though I have experience in website making, have experience making commercial websites with custom payment systems and have the full ability to monetize it) as it simply has never been a priority, the main objective has always been to recreate a server I used to have fun in so that others can have fun in it as well. On the topic of brand guidelines, the eula / mug do have some vague explanations that could be considered to be brand guidelines but are rather vague clauses which are a short section of the usage guidelines. There are multiple things to note here. In their email communications, they refer to the brand guidelines AND usage guidelines (where said clauses that could be interpreted to be brand guidelines are located) as if they were separate entities and not one (which under what was described in the video appears to indicate that the brand guidelines are a part of the usage guidelines). There I ask, why do they name them specifically as their own separate document? A while ago there used to be a dedicated page to brand guidelines that was publicly available by itself (this can be seen in the video as Google at the time still cached its existence, and there were in fact public documents before that specifically name brand guidelines, link is archive DOT is SLASH gHa40). Nowadays though, as I have later been informed after posting this video, the brand guidelines DO actually exist as its own separate document locked behind an NDA that needs to be signed by becoming an official Minecraft partner. Another point you bring up is that the partner signups have been closed for years/months. This is correct on the surface! The official way to apply through the website has been closed, but getting in if you know the right people is trivial based on information I have received by talking to several sources in the bedrock world. The new eula update is cited in a way that makes it seem that it becomes better for players. One intersting thing of note is that the gun guidelines were not added to the new eula, on top of this kind of update having to be vetted by the key figures which at that point had been ignoring us for months. Another point that is mentioned is the enforcement of guns and crates. There is one major difference in what was said. Guns themselves were being prohibited based on a reinterpretation of a clause that was written in the eula; however, the gambling issue just straight up goes against what they wrote verbatim (aka a lie, not even arguable to be a reinterpretation). It is mentioned that the settlement amount will be very low, as in few dollars per person at most due to the amount of people that would be part of it, and this is perfectly true and aligns with what was answered during the 7 hour long stage. When divided between participants, any resulting settlement will be big on Mojang's end but individually small on a per user scale; but again we're not trying to get rich here, we're trying to fix the rules. As a final note, I am fully aware and agree with the notion that Minecraft as intellectual property is owned by Mojang and it is within their full right to modify the game's rules to be whatever they want. Where the laws come in is HOW they write & modify them which is where they've been doing it wrong. At the end of the day, if they decide to ban guns that's perfectly fine as it's their game and their decision, but the aim of the class action is to end the days of having to always "guess" whether they will interpret something ambiguous against you or have to fear the existence of rules that are not written in the contract.
If you are still here, may I ask: What about the fact that since the common Minecraft player hasn't been directly affected by the no exit clause, why should they need compensation? Interesting in your response
Hi. I just figured you might have the best chance of seeing it under this comment but I want you to know that neither Sweden nor the US consider loot boxes to be gambling because there's no chance of any real monetary profit for the person buying. That's like saying 15 year old shouldn't be able to play overwatch because they have loot boxes and that's gambling
@@MyNameIsBhex to be fair, a lot of servers require you to pay real world money for keys, be it patreon, be it paypal payment, the keys alone make it this way.
@Zongzue I would assume that it’s the principle of the matter. We agreed to a contract that contained an illegal clause. They’re not allowed to just change the rules because they say so. While it did not directly affect me, I think this class action lawsuit is very valid and should take place. I doubt they’d recoup any money though and I don’t think they should because it’s a dumb issue that they’re focusing on. Just call it’s a blaster.
Out of everything I just want Mojang to enforce the no gambling rule. I've been against loot boxes since their inception because I immediately recognized them as gambling-lite for children and how much damage that will do.
The hypocrisy is quite a lot. That's the issue to me. While I may have agreed with you in the past on the gambling issue, I am now leaning into my rights as a customer which allow for everything possible within the four corners of the agreement I signed, so I will not support Mojang in prohibiting third parties from gambling if they engage in hypocrisy, or if they do not honor the contracts of early adopters, even knowing all the pitfalls. It's better to let that be sorted out down the line than to decapitate the rights of customers through a stranglehold that appears all powerful in the advent of the "Community Standards" language that most customers are subject to in their EULA.
@@peppermintpig974 Then don't label your game as "Safe for kids" if you're going to allow kid-focused servers expose gambling to kids from a young age. Someone's suing mojang for 2.5B because he developed a gambling addiction when he was 11 and he's now in serious debt. Mind you, the starting catalyst was minecraft servers. The gateway for it.
@@MasterElements one game I played as a kid had loot boxes, and oh boy where they a hot commodity and basically farmed by daily players. I would sit in the center of the map waiting for them to drop for hours.
@MasterElements the problem with loot boxes is they technically fit in a loophole that officially is not "gambling". Because when it comes to what officially defines gambling it usually comes down to does the person participating have the chance to actually lose money. As long as the base worth of the boxes are worth a minimum amount compared to what they cost or have no monetary worth to begin with it isn't considered to be gambling in most countries. Like technically in a state in the US that bans gambling you can still play poker or slots as long as no money is at stake and that is legal, it is only once you start risking your money that it tips into illegal territory. People have taken this issue to court several times now and pretty much loot boxes were allowed as long as they met the requirements...
they broke swedish law as a swedish company breaking consumer protection rights in their country several times. they also changed their EULA without telling people under said EULA that it changed which is illegal under consumer protection law.
@@rxt1991 Microsoft never bought Mojang, it bougt shares. Then M$ owns 100% of shares of Swedish company, they sit in HQ of Swedish company and make decisions (details are probably more complicated). It is not a case when M$ bought a product and facelifted it and then was selling it as its own MS-DOS. I bougth some shares of Intel, AMD, BMW and N-Vidia - are those companies under laws of my country? (spoiler - not because of my ownership of tiny fraction of them)
I really wish people would be less aggressively biased on this, considering this IS a big deal. Mojang DOES deserve to lose this, but this doesnt justify hatred towards developers and artists just doing their job. Lawsuits are RARELY addressed publicly, you dont see nintendo posting about their lawsuits on their main social medias so why would mojang?
People blame devs over companies too much already tbfh. It’s always stuff like “lazy artist/dev” etc, before or liked less than “terrible company” Pokemon fanbase is a really bad case of this. Even if Gamefreak are subpar devs. I said it. Not that there aren’t mediocre and bad devs but people want weird narratives around gamedev and are more vocally hostile toward workers than execs.
That's a fair argument. I would still however say Mojang's customer support was pathetic when it came to solving account issues and Microsoft's Legal Compliance and Ethics department are staffed by people who do not understand the definition of legal compliance or ethics. I have the transcripts. I have evidence of their stonewalling and misrepresentation of customer rights. I will continue to be vocal about this aspect. The people who complain about in-game content don't realize that they're not entitled to new game content, and yet that's most of the noise and drama you hear from most customers.
The term fake or pretend gun is horrible. Unless the screen infront of me hands me an AR15 and frag grenades, it's all fake and pretend. No video game shoots bullets
@@_BangDroid_bruh, you think a kid can load a crossbow? Go grab one. Go to your local Bass Pro Shop and ask to see one, and try loading a crossbow. Those take STRENGTH to load. Even a 14 year old cant load one. Let alone a 8 year old. Also, who in the world is going to think 'ah yes, crossbow is good for harming others?' outside a horror flick?
@miimiiandco Nothing on my contract about tone. This outcome is based on the creation and use of a "Community Standards" policy, which is Mojang/Microsoft lying to your face and saying they act on the community's interests. Individuals in the community want firearm mods, else they wouldn't exist. You are not forced to use them or like them. This is nothing more than a cover to push politics and ideology as policy from people who not only blur the lines between actual violence and pretend violence and feel hurt by words and ideas, but they invert the context so that they portray themselves as peaceful and not violent for taking away guns, which appears to be their real world ideology, which is based on violent oppression of individual self defense. The fact that we're even talking about this tells us there's a problem with expanding the scope way beyond what this should be. It is not Microsoft's responsibility to appease absentee parenting or political agendas. As a customer with an alpha contract, these demands to censor and control content violate the agreement we entered into. If you try to push people around, it's going to backfire. I'm not compromising on this because I see where this is heading.
I thin toycat got confused. The law suit isn't about the damages to his server/business, it's about mojangs misuse of the EULA. the way the handle things was illegal and so the goal is to make them pay for it so that they don't do it again. I did watch the whole video and I don't think he mentioned the case being about damages once, he just mentioned the issues it cased him once or twice as a clear example. I may have missed it or forgot. Some of toycat's point as still valid tho.
Toycat was saying that Kian's accusations can't be used in court because Mojang didn't damage anything. His accusations are invalid because they didn't even use the Eula against him to begin with.
I believe damages are a consideration, but you are correct in pointing out the EULA notice issue. I think that has the strongest chance of eliciting a positive response in court.
@@destiny4963 "Toycat was saying" I have never seen this Toycat content creator before, so I would love it if you, a common watcher of his content (i presume) could tell me: Is Toycat an experienced lawyer or involved in the legal system in ANYway?
It wasn't always confusing, but it is now. "Community Standards" established a sort of executive authority to make up the rules as they go along. It's counterproductive. I understand if Mojang wants to use discretion to do less than fully execute a claim that they have a right to ban you for doing X, but to say we reserve the right to determine what is a violation based on our interpretation, and we won't tell you ahead of time how the scope of this power is limited makes it a power that goes outside of the bounds of reasonable expectation of contractual adherence. It's a legitimate legal argument to stand on as it is intentionally ambiguous and in a one-sided way.
This doesnt seem to be a lawsuit for payback of the server but against minecrafts frequent use of "Its only okay when we can make money off of it" rules. The amount of people that are seeing this as a "oh this guys just mad his server sucks!" are completely missing the point of the lawsuit. His server is the START to this journey, not the REASON he is doing it. It's also imperative to point out, this is no PERSONS fault. Its not the team making the rules, its not the writer of the article, its not the people who gave the go ahead for nerf guns. It is the COLLECTIVE company of minecraft that has been okay with things that would be unacceptable fall through the cracks because there is nobody holding minecraft as a collective accountable, especially being the most popular game with numbers continuing to grow. Everyone complains "oooh the minecraft community never happy" but lets be brutally honest here, people arent going to stop playing minecraft over a bad update, a broken rule, or promises not being kept up. A class action lawsuit is something that can ACTUALLY keep minecraft in check and give them some level of accountability.
i dont think microsoft will ever be pushed into making quality updates because they dont sell. movies and trash spin offs sell. sounds bad towards them because they are bad. they bought minecraft for 2.5 billion dollars....and they intend to make it back + profit. the best thing that can happen is for microsoft to lose or sell minecraft to someone who will actually care and have passion for miencraft updates. reguardless if the updates dont meet the standards of the community, you can always play a previous version. youre not really missing much when you go from 1.18 to 1.21+ so far.
Ok, I'd like to point put something people seem to forget about. It doesn't matter why Kian talks about Mojang's bad actions. For attention to his server? Ok. To create a drama? Ok. To make Mojang have rules that are user-friendly and won't change whenever they feel like it? Ok and respectable. What matters is Mojang's actions and what we do about them. Even if he was a r*pist, a pdf file and a serial k*ller, we shouldn't dismiss his claims because "he is a bad person". Thats attacking a person instead of challenging the argument (it's called "ad hominem" btw, and it's a logical fallacy) And it seems to me that you kinda didnt understand some points. Like, at 9:20. No, them saying "this decision isn't final" doesn't mean they allowed him to have gundls and backed down. It means "you can have fun for now, but you effectively cant invest in a server as we leave ourselves the right to prohibit gun mods and servers at will" I don't understand how you don't see why this is damaging and problematic
When projects can just be terminated overnight mod developers are going to run off to better games, Minecraft won't last forever and Microsoft is making sure of it.
i think you misunderstand what ad hominem is lol it would be if i called you a "poopy head" or something like that. kian's intentions DO matter considering he has already recieved literal thousands of dollars in donations. plus, the chances of ANYTHING coming out of this are near zero, there is no suing one of the biggest companies in the world (microsoft)
Many things are absolutely illegal in Mojang's actions, and what appears to be stomping towards Kian can easily be waved away by "The man is not a lawyer, he spent maybe a couple dozen hours doing research in a field he does not know" There appears to be a clear bias in how things are regulated to allow guns in some servers and not in others, and contracts are not done nor enforced by "felt like it", so therefor illegal The gambling issue is kind of muddy, if one comment I saw is true about lootcrates not counting as gambling in Sweden. It's almost certain some servers have ways to convert game items gambled for into real money at statistic gains, just like a casino. Also Minecraft is global, so every country's laws need to be accounted for if loot crates are allowed The "repay everyone who agreed to ___" thing will likely not survive a lawyer, and I never heard it in the video (to my memory) so it's (less) likely that it's a scam There are absolutely grounds for Mojang and maybe Mircrosoft to be sued, but the details on who can start the lawsuit are what lawyers would know It's said in this video that Kian "suffered no losses" and therefore has little grounds to stand on, however it was explicitly stated in Kian's video that he had spent money on the project, and then such project is being taken down for no truly discernible reason The whole point of the fundraiser was for Kian to get a lawyer and get a professional take on this, and continue as needed. If the lawyer has doubts about the case then we should trust the person who actually went to law school. If the lawyer thinks there is a serious chance at doing legal damage against Mojang then we should trust them. But we need to hear them first, so fundraiser. Minecraft TH-camrs and commenters are not lawyers, so we give the information and needed money to someone who is and see what they think. Kian felt that a company was doing something illegal, and needs help to get help to stop the possibly illegal things. Nothing is inherently wrong with that, and almost everything else is just semantics.
1 given what the guy showed/talked about in his video, mojang broke no laws. And he would know this if he read the laws he put on screen. 2 his server died on its own, not due to mojang.
3:56 loot boxes like that were made illegal in cod back in the day based on a lawsuit if I am correct (because it IS gambling being promoted to children)
biggest red flag for me is when they have "...if we don't like what you're doing" in their terms. Like how can you be that ambiguous and not transparent as a professional entity??
@@FriendlyCobblestone Toxic elements like what for example? Pardon that I don't know much about law, but aren't you supposed to make your rules sound as clear and understandable as possible to the customers when making these kind of stuffs?
For permissions and consent. Not for playing the game. Consent is for brand deals, think the SpongeBob add on. They can then take that off the marketplace if in the show he kills somebody. Permissions is more broad, but it does fall under a similar category, mostly the same but mainly towards server owning and mods(mods are by default against EULA)
Why it haven't responded... Because maybe the lawsuit isn't out yet? Looking for a lawyer is quite time consuming, then you've gotta make your lawsuit Regardless of all that Even if mojang already received it It would take some time to write back They would also think about what to etc etc I don't know why people think it would just be one day later after said person said he has enough for a lawyer Jesus Christ that's not how world works
Yeah the amount of meatriding I see for Mojang in this comment sections is pathetic. Like if a company breaks the law, they need to be held responsible.
@@megaman37456you're completely misrepresenting the argument the arguments isn't that Mojang shouldn't be held accountable, it's that this lawsuit does literally nothing there were no damages he didn't suffer anything because of Mojang there is nothing to win here
@@MyNameIsBhex Nah. Mojang are the one who changed the EULA, and Mojang have been just as bad as microsoft since they were bought out, not misplaced anger at all.
@@DavidsFeverDream There's plenty to win here: Forcing companies that break the law to take accountability. This is needed more than ANY financial gain.
I want to see a new 10 year old series where he builds a lawsuit, on a lawsuit, untill the goverment expands with brand new modern rules, untill he starts making up stuff for arguments
@@Cronrath64 ....Because the Bedrock marketplace probably does it for you? Even if you're downloading an Add-on from a third party website, Bedrock Addon files have their own formats (.mcpack or .mcaddon) that basically makes them self-installing.
"Guidelines" are not a legal agreement. They are not covered under contract law nor are they enforceable under such. Only EULA, ToS and SLA have ANY legal binding to them. What is written in any "guideless" does not have any power what-so-ever. Guidelines are more akin to "requests" or "advice" made by the publisher of said guidelines. There is nothing legally binding about them. If they do talk about stuff they intend to enforce, it is usually mentioned within the EULA or the ToS first where the guidelines are meant to make it easier to understand without the word-salad of a legal document. Guidelines are meant to express the publishers intent as a "curtesy" to the user and not a means of defining the rules that they can then enforce.
@@timohara7717The "Guidelines" being referenced here are not in the EULA, but a separate document which we don't have access to. It's the one which specifically singles out real life weapons as not allowed.
@@timohara7717The video specifically says the section that they are quoting are the guidelines, not the EULA. These are not the same thing. If what was being showcased was the EULA and not the Guidelines, then that's a fault of the video and it's editor, as this comment was talking about how they said "guidelines" followed by "legally binding". Like at around --7:10 to --7:45 This is an issue of where toycat conflates EULA with GUIDELINES, as they are not the same thing nor do they hold the same level of merit. What is said in the guidelines flat out do not matter if it's not also reflected in the EULA as EULA, ToS or any SLA are the only things that actually matter; are legally binding. Again, guidelines are just a curtesy to restate what "should" already be in those other 3 agreements where the guidelines only exist to make it easier to read. An attempt at "transparency", that's it. You can remove the guidelines entirely and it would have no impact what-so-ever as far as legal bindings go, as again, guidelines are not a form of contract law, they literally are just a curtsey and nothing more.
@@timohara7717 I think there's a 50% chance of it being a case where he just misspoke in the edit/worded it poorly. I'd still say however that there's the other 50% chance that he misunderstood the original video when it was stating how something isn't in the EULA but is supposedly in the "guidelines" which was linked incorrectly when mojang responded to him. So in short, toycat either knows better. . . or he doesn't. Idk which honestly. xD
if those guns have an irl counterpart and are named after real guns then mojang could be sued for that by those gun companies, sounds a bit silly but these lawsuits have happened to other companies like activision and EA
@@Ked7 You completely missed the argument. Guns being depicted in a videogame deal no harm. Gambling being implemented in a legally gray way in a videogame actively make it worse.
Are people just expecting from mojang to make a whole post in game like "we are getting sued time to get the lawyer kids" or make the "laws and flaws" update... No of course not lawsuits are never addressed publicly and shouldn't be addressed publicly, would you want to be sued for something or get arrested for something and have someone announce it to the whole world ?
its more that they are being held accountable by their community and they aren't adressing any of the things they are being scrutinized for. Nobody expects them to just straight up mention the lawsuit, moreso their scummy business practices.
The thing I don't understand is that the EULA says you are not allowed to sell modifications but somehow on bedrock this is okay as long as it's on the bedrock store and Mojang gets a cut
1:01 OBJECTION! One of the new bedrock updates deleted a file that lets mod creators make mods. So sure. They may not force java to use the marketplace. But they make sure bedrock won't use free addons. Thus forcing them to buy from the marketplace.
Why hasn't Mojang responded to the lawsuit? Because it literally only hit it's goal 2 days ago this isn't Ace Attorney it's going to be a long legal process until they respond to the lawsuit
One thing people don't consider is the fact that Mojang is owned by Microsoft, and that it's very likely that a lot of the unpopular decisions that get introduced, either in the game itself, or in the TOS/EULA/Guidelines, are made by Microsoft, and not Mojang.
Read discussion on it on r/Minecraft before the post was nerfed. Actual adults having civil discourse about why the lawsuit could fail. & then the lawsuit's comment section was about as toxic & childish as Twitter during an election year.
I believe moderators on r/Minecraft work on behalf of Microsoft's interests. Virtually every post about account issues is zero'd out so that the visibility is suppressed. I have been the personal target of stalking by a moderator who wanted to suppress some of these posts from customers who were trying to obtain a remedy over lost/stolen accounts and account issues as resulting from the migration fiasco. What would happen is I would respond to a 2 month old thread to give someone helpful contact information for Microsoft, and within a few hours the Moderator would delete or shadowban the posting. I've had people respond to thank me for providing said information and they confirmed that they received a notice that their post was closed, so I had proof that human intervention occurred based on my activity on the forum, so yeah, there's proof of moderators stalking and suppressing. I have also seen accounts which only post to negatively gaslight the people posting these problems and then when a moderator locks a thread, some of these accounts all of a sudden are deleted. This could be automated by reddit for deleting accounts with suspicious activity (new, low posts, possibly created just for this purpose). It could also be evidence of the use of burner accounts. It's not really surprising that they are locking these threads based on everything else I have seen.
r/Minecraft is controlled and they suppress content that is controversial or paints a negative light on Microsoft. Corporations manipulating public opinion on reddit happens despite the rules against it, and I have evidence of harassment that indicates r/Minecraft is compromised and corrupted.
One of the major issues with this video is the fact that ibx entirely misinterpreted almost if not more than half of this video (read the pinned comment by Kian Brose for more information!!!)
Oh yes, the Eula agreement fiasco where is the last time they talked about that in their social media or from the game launcher I do remember they never announced that updated EUla agreement to every one of their customers which we all live in different countries having different laws and some protection laws as a customer which you do need to notify us of a new agreement or a modify updated version of it. This means if you fail to notify us properly, you are technically breaking the law in those countries that have those protection laws for the customers. That’s the lawsuit is about. It’s the failure to notify the customers of the new Eula changes and other hitting information which technically should be out to the public to be noticed which is the main issue of the lawsuit.
The US does have case law regarding notification as well. Douglas v US District Court is the case if anyone wants to look that one up. The relevant conclusion is that no one who is a party to a contract with a revision clause is required on any particular schedule to read a contract in order to hunt down clues to see how it has changed. They call this onerous and unreasonable, so there should be a better form of notice associated with contractual updates. All that being said, sending customers an email about migration does not apply to this situation because email does not meet the standard of legal notice in contract law to prove the customer was aware and Mojang did not update their EULA to grant themselves the ability to set an arbitrary deadline in order to mass delete accounts that were not migrated. Mojang was required to make an update to the EULA in order to have the power to mass terminate accounts. They didn't do this. Had they sent it out as a EULA update, Mojang would have been required by law to treat it as a contractual update, and since there is no language about time limits nor is there language supporting account termination on these grounds, it is a breach of contract. Nobody had any expectation of losing their account prior to the announcement of the migration. And then customers who purchased during Alpha are not subject to contractual revision, so in their situation as soon as Mojang went on twitter and said Migration was mandatory, they were making an unlawful demand to sign a third party contract under threat of losing your contractual rights. The US does not recognize the legality of contracts signed under duress. This particular issue needs to go to court or be reported to the FTC (anybody in any country can call the FTC and file because it involves Microsoft and Microsoft shared legal opinions about your rights in regard to your contract with Mojang).
As an American, if what our friend said happened is true even remotely, the only issues I had was fundamental misunderstandings of United States Civil Law. For example; despite what some may think, just because you put it in a contract here doesn't mean it's lawful. It's especially not lawful if what the contract asks you to do literally breaks criminal law, which is why a NDA that tells you not to disclose literal fraud is very much so NOT enforceable. Overall, though, even though his video was quite sensational I still support his suit. How Mojang behaved is bothed completely unaccetable and completely unprofessional, not to mention potentially outright *illegal* depending on the specifics of how things played out. I could easily see this suit being followed up by something from, say, the Federal Trade Commission for breach of anti-trust laws. *Please note I have not finished the video yet. If relevant I will update this comment once I do.* *EDIT #1:* Wow. I was cooking, clearly. Still not quite done but DAMN was I fooled. Honestly genuinely impressed by how manipulatively charismatic he was through the whole video AND the lengths he went to even edit it, or have it edited, pretty damn well. To think THIS is how he used those skills honestly is just kind of a bummer. *EDIT #2:* The issue with not being sure where they stand on this stuff is two-fold, IMO. For one, if it's in the EULA but they're choosing not to enforce it temporarily...that's a problem because they could start enforcing it at any time and are under no legal obligation to give warning of this enforcement. After all, their EULA never changed, they just decided to start enforcing it. The other issue, again if this is true, just has to do with Mojang's track record. They've shown a willingness to secretly update the EULA, which while very much so makes the contract NOT binding, still isn't stress that server owners should reasonably be subjected to. *EDIT #3:* Regardless of what changes they made to their EULA it is still incredibly concerning and NOT okay that they actively decided NOT to inform their users. This back and forth on not only enforcement, but also what is in their EULA, as WELL as what is CLEARLY told to users is still a major issue. Credit where credit is due, yes, and I genuinely appreciate more consumer-friendly actions like that. But don't downplay their violation of the consumer's trust.
The thing I keep thinking about with this whole deal at all is the fact that Mojang has Crossbows. Which are considered firearms under most legal jurisdictions. So them doing this at all would mean at least in some countries they'd have to get rid of them 😂 kinda shooting themselves in the foot tbh
0:35 It actually is right. Minecraft where bedrock is concerned gets rid of many competitors including MC Addon. They told them when they removed it that they didn’t like because it allowed people to access the files and when MC Addon redid the entire app and removed the ability to access files and reapplied they were denied with the same explanation regardless of it not being true.
5:45 u would have to be stupid to think he was saying he was being attacked by Mojang. he does however state....THE SERVER FOR MC GTA WAS ATTACKED/THREATENED THO. so why not break that down not a strawman you just built to be right against? like he never even mentioned if his server was up or down. u had to of found that out on your own. 7:21 if it is in there, and this is supposed to be legally binding then yes it can indeed be used in a legal ATTACK. remember he is going after them not the other way around he isn't legally defending himself he is the aggressor. 8:30 he doesn't explain what he means by safe harbor except just that it means something is safe and okay, but they never stated what is safe and okay, and u cant go by what's on the market place bc stuff gets removed. also just saying its nerf guns n laser guns doesn't dismantle the argument like he feels it does because: the issue is they don't explain what guns n fire arms are, and yet they themselves have full on guns and fire arms by legal definitions to use in game or buy on their curated store (again not a way to tell what is safe to use but is an argument what they are at least at the moment making an exception for if lasers or other kinds of guns are to be stricken against later.) 9:38 my stopping point. i have lost all faith in u as a news source and will be avoiding ur content in the future. this lawsuit is about unclear rules and enforcement of said rules, and ur just hung up that the basis of this outrage is over guns. good by 10 years of my life i hardly enjoyed it to begin with.
@bot-just-bot so butt hurt for what? because someone has a different opinion than you? get over it man just because someone has a different opinion doesn't mean you should hate them for it grow up
@@Ked7To get a better EULA. Under how it is currently, anything can be banned because 1) they don't notify any changes, 2) they can also hide the changes, 3) they use selective enforcement so you can't rely on what other servers do. I get that most people won't read the EULA, but it's beneficial for all if you actually know what is allowed or not
@@DavidsFeverDreamhaving a different opinion doesn’t excuse having bad/illogical/mischaracterizing arguments. They’re not butthurt, they’re pointing out legitimate issues with the arguments made in the video
something important to note is that loot boxes aren't even legally considered gambling in sweden where the lawsuit would take place. As far as I can tell, the swedish courts havent decided this, and its been ruled both ways in other parts of the world like canada and austria, so saying that mojang is unfairly enforcing their guidelines may not even be a legal ground to stand on.
Yeah, I thought there was something kind of off about this. I asked Kian directly what he was actually suing for in damages and he didn't really have an answer. As well as he's strange gofundme goals, a quote from his gofundme 'Assuming a duration of one year (the case is assumed to be relatively short due to the overwhelming amount of evidence against Mojang and clear violations that make it a really clear cut)' - Same guy who got upset government employees wont fund his lawsuit. Whole thing smelt funny, apparently no lawyer wants to take on a class action case? Rather I think it isn't clear cut as Kian makes it out to be. I wanted to make a video myself casting some potential skepticism on his potential suit, but I didn't feel smart enough.
I think calling any uninitiated civil suit a 'clear cut' immediately starts raising red flags. There are so many ways for a strong legal team to wiggle out of the strongest cases that a clear cut case sounds unimaginable.
i know nothing about swedish/european law, but what he said seems to make logical sense and it feels like he has good intentions, and i really WANT him to be right, i just don't think he expected it to take off as much as it did like, if i were in his position and wanted to spearhead a class action against mojang, i wouldn't think i'd reach my monetary goal in even a few weeks, let alone a few days i just hope things will clear up with time
The problem I see is that the guy is suing Microsoft/Mojang, but Microsoft being the parent company needs to have rules that can comply in 200+ countries and territories with their own laws and rules. If it is legal in 1 country on something, it might be illegal in another country. That is included with guns, either real or fictional, or crates if it is gambling or not. All companies are like this, Google/TH-cam have their own rules that they have to follow in 200+ countries. That is why some videos are allowed in some countries and not in other countries.
Ok so Mojang is ok with FAKE Guns aka guns that are made up and don't exist IRL or if it is a toy gun made into the game. That is the big difference here. 9:00
This is why I keep telling people if you want to go up against Mojang, you need to recognize their policies involve retroactive enforcement and unilateral revision clauses in all customer contracts beginning from May 24, 2011. If you want to have firearm mods on your servers, you need to have someone who purchased the game during Alpha or early Beta (preferably alpha) on your development/server team because this class of customer is not subject to unilateral changes to their EULA/contract, and that includes server licenses. It is a breach of contract for Mojang to censure such developers for creating, publishing, using, or selling mods, and that includes firearm mods. Mojang in typical fashion pretends that 'use equals consent' statements on their website or launcher establish consent to new terms, but this is not true for customers not subject to revision, particularly when the revisions they wish to enforce on you obliterate the terms you and Mojang ageed to at time of purchase, and the rights that were promised to you as well. Really, telling someone you must agree to new terms after money has exchanged hands or you won't get what you paid for is unjust. When your contract promises you unobstructed access to download and use what you paid for and Mojang steps in and tries to alter the deal, that is textbook bait and switch fraud. Understandably, there's only a little over 1 million early adopters who purchased Minecraft compared to the 250 million or so total accounts created (which probably includes consoles, etc), so while it might not seem like a significant portion of the customer base has any cause or reason to support the original customers who funded the game's existence and popularization, you might think twice when you consider what I've just mentioned: Defending the rights of alpha customers is in fact defending the right of all customers to enjoy the contractually permitted creations and activities of those original customers based on their most excellent licenses and the creative freedom it allows. There's some discussion suggesting that Notch regrets the fact that he couldn't write a better EULA, however even he must recognize that this is a legally binding contract, and many of us alpha customers consider what he wrote a "gentleman's agreement" that was based on the best elements of what independent development and the open source community was all about. As you may be aware, Minecraft pulled from open source sound libraries. It was no stranger to relying on the community for development or growth. At one point it even had a thriving development project called Bukkit. Those who know the controversy over that and how all of this transitions into the Microsoft era, then you probably understand why there's a lot of duly earned resentment/mistrust/pushback against Mojang and Microsoft for straying from the development roots of Minecraft.
It's worth noting the lawsuit would be a regional class action lawsuit and thus only cover end-users of that region. It would not be a global lawsuit cause he is specifically targeting that regions laws. So the payout would be greater per-person but would be given to less users.
I'm sorry toycat. All your points are either assumptions that weren't actually stated by mojang or just completely miss the point. This indeed is just a consumer vs incompetent company thing and we should be supporting this.
@DavidsFeverDream not going to list off every point but for an example of an assumption: toycat says that his servers didn't do well because of a lack of interest instead of mojang fearmongering, and example for missing the point: toycat says they can just change the guns to blasters which isn't just silly since that would get rid if it's main appeal, but it's also an assumption because we don't know HOW MUCH the guns have to be changed to be compliant with the made up EULA Long story short: mojang isn't telling us the exact guidelines people have to follow and expects people to know them anyway, and that's illegal
@JakiIsHere bro you didn't watch the video 1. The server was shut down due to lack of interest. Mojang was never gonna take it down. 2. ToyCat wasn't saying that he should've just replaced the guns with blasters. He was using that as an example to CRITICIZE Mojang. He was saying that that's a BAD thing, not a good thing. literacy is important
Hate to say it but, i'm fine paying a few $ for mods on my Xbox. It's not like i'm buying them all, I only pick up the 1s I use every week. I think picking up a mod for $5 every few months isn't the worst thing in the world.
What are you talking about, add-ons are a terrible copy of modding on PC while trying to suck your wallet dry for Microsoft, never heard a single person say they enjoy the Minecraft Marketplace add-ons
@munkmunk7670 if modders were allowed to charge high prices for their mods, all big java/bedrock mods would be around 30 bucks as some developers have said to do if it was allowed. Thankfully, marketplace exist and let's be most mods be only around 5 or 2 bucks, instead of 30+
People are sueing Minecraft for this stuff like gamballing but not Roblox who does not allow gamballing. Minecraft is more safe for kids that the platform Roblox which does nothing to protect the players.
I don't know enough about the specifics to say if this is the case, but just because the server launched does not mean that it wasnt negatively affected by the Mojangs actions. For example, would you as a gamer invest time and money into starting a new MMO that you'd just heard the Devs were considering shutting down next month? Probably not, and even if you would, many gamers wouldn't Now again, I'm not saying that is what happened here. I haven't done the research. But you can't dismiss the issue out of hand by saying the server launched.
Toycat has glazed mojang, Microsoft and downplayed their misfortune of behavior for YEARS but this is a new low, even for him. His miscommunication which seems almost purposeful or the other way which is that he’s just misinformed and KNOWS it but still makes his lackluster points which hold no weight or relevance to the case Toycat, please do more research when doing videos on important subjects like these, play goofy maps and promote shitty addons with little to no research on the topic but this, this is something which you’re misinforming many of your viewers into a false narrative
It's okay to dislike mojang, it's not okay to invent reasons to dislike mojang. I offer a lot of critique on the channel, but unlike the video I reference, I'm actually going to want some substance, and you should too honestly
@@toycat He read out the law clear as day. Regardless, it's up to the interpretation of the courts, not you, who is smearing his reputation to try and stop his attempt to take it to court.
I apreciate the end goal of this suit. My issues with it stem more from having moral and/or practical dissagrements with the existance of some of the laws that are allegedly being broken by Mojang.
6 Months seems pretty quick as they have to negotiate with so many country's child protection laws. And since so many of them make the company liable but only give vague requirements. Mojang themselves likely don't know the exact answers yet. I also think he is on pretty shaky ground with the Get-Out Clause. If Mojang was selling a movie to a distribute and had a clause that they would terminate the agreement if you start selling pirate copies. That's not a Get-Out Clause. It's just a clause
Something is telling me this guy is praying for a payday From my recollection you are not allowed sell stuff on a mc server, sell mods for a price and use irl guns because that in its self if anyone is selling that as a mod or buy from the server the manufacturer of the guns can come after Mojang for copyright (like Nintendo and valve for Gary’s mod) All that needs doing is not make irl guns and design em that they don’t look like a carbon copy and a new name
This would still be super illegal because it relies on the "new" EULA which they didn't notify about. They would have to roll out a new EULA with proper notice and no overly broad or hidden clauses if he won.
Sounds like your just trying to stir the pot, making it out that the guy pointing out that Mojang is breaking the law could somehow harm the community??? Always gotta turn the gun on people trying to create change 😔
That's not how lawsuits work. The defendant is Mojang in this situation meaning, they may be forced to fend for themselves depending on how Swedish laws work, implying that Microsoft, being an American company, cannot interfere.
@@megaman37456 wrong. When someone sued TH-cam, Google represented them. Microsoft may be an American company, but doesn't mean they couldn't back them up with a lot of cash to get a good lawyer.
The marketplace is already filled with stuff that can get Mojang in trouble like copyright fanmade stuff that they literally sell for money and get a cut of as well as the creator
@@creeperz653have you? Every law he shows doesn’t apply. The one he mentions are only half right, but either unprovable or false(they did give notification, at least on ps4)
I see where kian is coming from but idk if this lawsuit will even make it to court. I dont like the fact that "blasters" are okay but guns arent. Blasters are just guns rebranded. They need to allow all or none in this instance cuz modders have had guns in minecraft forever and thats been fine but a server that seems f2p being taken down is ridiculous
Mojang should legally be forced to enforce the whole EULA or not be let enforce any part of it at all and change it. They should not be allowed to pick and choose what parts of it they want to enforce or not enforce as it benefits them. I hope he wins because Mojang are slowly ruining the game by refusing to accept its not just a kids game. They are refusing to grow with their OG player base and its going to be what kills the greatest game of all time if they continue down this path. Im very against the censorship in chat and on signs and items in bedrock. Adults should be let have servers for adults.
How do you verify that those joining the servers are adults? You can’t. It is a game for all ages, which means nothing that can’t be shown to all ages.
@@Ked7Mojang should not be policing the speech of private servers, ruining the game play for adults all because parents are too lazy to look at what their kids are doing. It’s a parent’s responsibility to monitor what their children view online if they are concerned about it. Not Mojang’s.
But like mojang has a point Minecraft doesn’t need guns It does seem like they’ve acted shady about it tho Overall don’t know what this lawsuit will actually achieve it sort of seems like its not really going to go anywhere
What if the server owners just renamed guns and weapons?? Glock=Block p90=p mine-ty Warthog=netherwarthoglin Cyclon B=poison II potion ect. It would not be egainst eula since those arent irl weapons
because it isnt clear how much the guns have to be changed, also the fact that mojang can decide to whenever they want to change their eula unnoticed to get rid of your hardwork. Ibx did a good job sowing misinformation, but this is a collective class action lawsuit, it isn't just about his minecraft server, it's mainly about how mojang enforces or chooses when to enforce their clearly confusing and vague eula.
its not just him and some gun server owners its anyone who seeks innovation in the Minecraft engine and the vagueness of the legal wording on the terms of use contract they all sign by using their engine much like epic games and their unreal engine that palworld, multiversus devs and many others the only difference is the engine but they don't get it in the Mojang legal department
Why care so much about trash talking a multi-billion-dollar mega-corporation? Microsoft routinely finds new ways to scam you as a consumer and steal your data. They are a tech conglomerate; they are not your friend. Imagine someone breaks into your home, puts a camera in your living room, and tracks everything you do. Should you maintain respect with that person? Do you not have a right to be angry? The trash talking in this situation is 100% necessary. Quit being fooled into standing up for corporations that *do not care about you,* only the profit you give them.
At the end of the day this Mod Server is based on the IP owned by another party. I think he would struggle to justify fair use to a sufficient degree and so then becomes reliant on what the standards are which seems to be squeamish about realistic firearms but I do think 6 months was a fair time for Mojang to consider their response especially when you factor in the various parties both within the Studio and Parent Company that would have had input into it. And I would guess that Microsoft umbrella would maybe take exception to Minecraft being retooled to put it in the same market as titles by Activision Blizzard or Bethesda which it also has interest in seeing succeed. I think rights to create Playthroughs and tutorials VODS or Livestreams are completely different to building a Mod which you then directly sell access to without benefit to the owner of the Property.
This isn't a fair use case in the traditional sense of using someone else's IP in a limited way. These are customers with a contract. This will likely boil down to statutes regarding contracts and notices.
Gunpowder exists in Minecraft btw. If you been playing Minecraft from way back you might come across Gunpowder not being called that at all it was “Sulphur”.
Even if i am wring in stating this as a piflvital moment for gaming, it will definitely not help the situation surrounding gaming, and games as a whole when companies neglect the fact that people still play they games and remember there impact. The LBP franchise and the crew 1 did not deserve to be removed, they still and a community and had historical significance, but if Mojang 100% wins this case, than we know damn well that every other company will start caring less about gamers rights and laws and what not. Its only a matter of time
I heard summit about a lawsuit but I didn't think much of it. I'd say Mojang deserve this, the main idea of Minecraft is that you can pretty much do anything!
@miimiiandco I mean guns are alright, I'd say if you want to keep it Minecraft friendly, you can make like, 17th century flintlock pistols that pirates used
@@Zaneisemo1 fluff's point is that people should have waited before donating to the legal fund to have second opinions on the viability of certain legal claims that were made. I don't know how long they discussed the issues in private before making this public and soliciting for donations. They claim they've done some research but I too have my doubts because some of what they argue like child gambling has more to do with finding legitimate claimants to bring that specific issue to a court. They need a lawyer to be involved for the research portion of this. I do know that one of the ways that Microsoft anticipated a number of potential issues was to intentionally convert currency into minecoins for their storefront. I believe EULA notification is an important element and they may rely on legal statutes to make that case, which is good. I think that's the main area of dispute that wouldn't be immediately thrown out on standing. That said, it's not quite as bulletproof compared to the Alpha contract breach angle since that can be proven using Mojang's own contracts against their actions, but I don't think they're aware of that.
I think that the main objective of the lawsuit is for Mojang to be transparent and clear about their rules, and to not hide certain rules from the consumer, or change things unnoticed, which he does have solid ground for (in his video, not this one which misrepresents multiple of his points). All in all, I personally think that he has good intentions at heart, his reasons for doing so and the eventual outcome he hopes for would improve our experience as the consumers. I can see why people would support this.
No competent lawyer is going to touch this one. There isn’t going to be any payout here. I wouldn’t be surprised if the money that was crowdfunded ends up paying for Mojang’s lawyers in the end.
0:05 Might be true in some cases but the information provided by the lawsuits is CRYSTAL CLEAR that Mojang broke EU consumer protection laws as there HQ is located in Sweden even if they are owned by a US company that doesn't matter.
I'm getting worried actually. Minecraft was some of my childhood and I don't want it getting shut down or anything, but there might be a reason for the lawsuit.
The worst that could happen is that mojang would become strict about which mods they'd allow, which would limit modders and server owners' freedom in what they want to make.
"They arn't making you. Java don't have one. Only few people can get into the marketplace." Oh right ya not making people. Just giving only 1 option of a market place only letting in choice people, disincentivizing anyone not using the marketplace with demands they follow a new rule poping up every year or you can't make money from it, and have a money system that if your useing feeds all of it into their account eventually. Totally not trying to force you to use it. What possable gain do they have doing that.. Im not even past the intro yet..
Mojang did not start with age ratings or adult vs child based game content considerations. When Mojang retrofits the game to argue age based conditions, or retrofits the EULA to include an arbitration clause, all customers who purchased before these changes can argue that these are infringements of contractual or statutory law, as it undermines the initial transaction that started the contract through material diminishing, not merely for what was advertised, but your legal standing.
Yeah but just making a compromise and renaming something to get around rules is how we got to where we are today where we have all these slang words to get around monetization we need a real fix and they deserve to be sued.
The weapon mods in the marketplace are sci-fi/fantasy/toy based. The X-Buster from Mega Man X, for example, is sci-fi and the enemies are all machines. The War server has overly realistic weapons and nearly realistic deaths (deserving to be rated Mature/18 if it was it's own game). If anything, Mojang has to clarify what is and what isn't acceptable. (People often say the X-Buster fires off lemons of all things. Hopefully those Mavericks didn't have any prior paper cuts.)
and now with the false advertising for a cape (IRL Minecraft Creeper Cape promotion), they are seriously open for more lawsuits if they don't correct the situation
They never advertised that cape code being true, people assumed it based off a single image of a cape. Can't see how it's false advertising if it was never advertised
@@damiangaming5696 it's always best to wait for official confirmation before purchasing something based off a single twitter image though, plenty of people believed the one image, even though plenty of sources denied it being true
Hello ibx!
I thought I should drop in to answer the points you brought up since there seems to have been some information you may have missed.
Certain arguments provided in the video appear to stem from the idea that I am holding the community accountable for funding a lawsuit for my own personal benefit, this is based off of the statement "he is looking for the public to crowdfund HIS lawsuit" where the goal is for me to recover what I "lost", whether it be time or money, in my own personal project.
Based on the gofundme's description (which I believe you may have read as it is shown in your video and cited near the end), it says that "To clarify any possible misconception, this is no longer about me or my personal losses due to the project I showed in the video which started all of this. This has become about holding Mojang accountable for its illegal actions on behalf of the entire Minecraft community.", a statement which is again present in the video's 10 000 word document that comes attached to it in the Q&A section under "What exactly is the lawsuit about?" where it states that "I'm currently seeing lots of misinformation online stating that I'm suing to reclaim my personal losses. As outlined above this is not the case, I accept that anything related to my project is considered lost financially and cannot be recovered". To complete this point, as it was stated both in the accompanying document, gofundme page and the second video where I go visit Mojang HQ, this is a COLLECTIVE CLASS ACTION lawsuit, not just a lawsuit, in that this is a lawsuit by a large group of individuals affected by the same issue; and thus again is not a lawsuit by one person to reclaim damages. I believe it may have been a mistake to hide the text that appeared on the second short video that was released at 14:07 where the text that popped up on screen was specifically "collective class action lawsuit", referring to the fact that this is a collective class action lawsuit and not a lawsuit funded by the community for my own personal benefit.
One of the points you mention is that I launched the server anyways. This is a good point that was discussed on the 5th of December during a 7 hour long stage where I answered all questions from the community. From my perspective as a gun server owner, I had just seen a server receive a notice that essentially meant they have to completely remove their guns from the game. Given that what I was creating was a game about guns, it essentially means everything is scrapped. Under reasonable expectations, an enforcement whose new rules directly affect my project's ability to exist should be reasonably considered to also be an "attack" on me, which is subsequently how gun server owners united in the gun server group as they were all equally affected by it. As I was in a state of denial where I thought that "it may just go away and they change there minds as they see that banning pixelated weapons is detrimental to the community", I proceeded to launch anyways with that hope that it was going to get resolved by itself and I wouldn't need to worry about anything. I believe that this choice to launch a project that had months of work put into it even though I knew that this enforcement existed was a reasonable human reaction as I don't think anyone that has put months into a project only to be told "ye nah, scrap it all" 1 day before launch would just be like "okay, my bad" and move on with life. However, even though I continued with the launch, the thought of the enforcement not going away, leading to the scrapping of the project, lingered in my mind constantly and made me unable to properly commit any resources to its growth as them not changing their minds would only mean I'd invested more time into it only for all of it to be scrapped. In economic terms, this is called "sunk cost fallacy" (the idea that you already put so much into something that you may as well continue, like how for example League of Legends players keep playing the game even though they hate it just because they already have years into it (which goes back to the notion of every single League of Legends player telling anyone wanting to start the game to NOT ever play it)). You also go into the point of the project being "dead" in terms of players, that is correct & is attributed to me being unwilling to put more financial resources into it due to said lingering thought it would all be scrapped. Regardless of how much money I lost though or my personal feelings, the underlying laws still apply.
A point that you bring up is that I was attempting to make a business out of it; this project was a re creation of a server I loved back in 2013 and its re creation was not due to wanting to make something for economic benefit (unlike the majority of servers nowadays that are basically casino simulators with a side of gameplay), but rather by the nostalgia I once had having fun in this server as it was simply fun to play; a thought which thankfully united lots of the original community that was part of the server back in 2013 to find its way to the new project. There was never a plan for a store, marketplace etc in the conception of the project even to this day; there is no way to make any purchases at all, it doesn't have a website (even though I have experience in website making, have experience making commercial websites with custom payment systems and have the full ability to monetize it) as it simply has never been a priority, the main objective has always been to recreate a server I used to have fun in so that others can have fun in it as well.
On the topic of brand guidelines, the eula / mug do have some vague explanations that could be considered to be brand guidelines but are rather vague clauses which are a short section of the usage guidelines. There are multiple things to note here. In their email communications, they refer to the brand guidelines AND usage guidelines (where said clauses that could be interpreted to be brand guidelines are located) as if they were separate entities and not one (which under what was described in the video appears to indicate that the brand guidelines are a part of the usage guidelines). There I ask, why do they name them specifically as their own separate document? A while ago there used to be a dedicated page to brand guidelines that was publicly available by itself (this can be seen in the video as Google at the time still cached its existence, and there were in fact public documents before that specifically name brand guidelines, link is archive DOT is SLASH gHa40). Nowadays though, as I have later been informed after posting this video, the brand guidelines DO actually exist as its own separate document locked behind an NDA that needs to be signed by becoming an official Minecraft partner.
Another point you bring up is that the partner signups have been closed for years/months. This is correct on the surface! The official way to apply through the website has been closed, but getting in if you know the right people is trivial based on information I have received by talking to several sources in the bedrock world.
The new eula update is cited in a way that makes it seem that it becomes better for players. One intersting thing of note is that the gun guidelines were not added to the new eula, on top of this kind of update having to be vetted by the key figures which at that point had been ignoring us for months.
Another point that is mentioned is the enforcement of guns and crates. There is one major difference in what was said. Guns themselves were being prohibited based on a reinterpretation of a clause that was written in the eula; however, the gambling issue just straight up goes against what they wrote verbatim (aka a lie, not even arguable to be a reinterpretation).
It is mentioned that the settlement amount will be very low, as in few dollars per person at most due to the amount of people that would be part of it, and this is perfectly true and aligns with what was answered during the 7 hour long stage. When divided between participants, any resulting settlement will be big on Mojang's end but individually small on a per user scale; but again we're not trying to get rich here, we're trying to fix the rules.
As a final note, I am fully aware and agree with the notion that Minecraft as intellectual property is owned by Mojang and it is within their full right to modify the game's rules to be whatever they want. Where the laws come in is HOW they write & modify them which is where they've been doing it wrong. At the end of the day, if they decide to ban guns that's perfectly fine as it's their game and their decision, but the aim of the class action is to end the days of having to always "guess" whether they will interpret something ambiguous against you or have to fear the existence of rules that are not written in the contract.
Ok
If you are still here, may I ask:
What about the fact that since the common Minecraft player hasn't been directly affected by the no exit clause, why should they need compensation?
Interesting in your response
Hi. I just figured you might have the best chance of seeing it under this comment but I want you to know that neither Sweden nor the US consider loot boxes to be gambling because there's no chance of any real monetary profit for the person buying. That's like saying 15 year old shouldn't be able to play overwatch because they have loot boxes and that's gambling
@@MyNameIsBhex to be fair, a lot of servers require you to pay real world money for keys, be it patreon, be it paypal payment, the keys alone make it this way.
@Zongzue I would assume that it’s the principle of the matter. We agreed to a contract that contained an illegal clause. They’re not allowed to just change the rules because they say so. While it did not directly affect me, I think this class action lawsuit is very valid and should take place. I doubt they’d recoup any money though and I don’t think they should because it’s a dumb issue that they’re focusing on. Just call it’s a blaster.
Out of everything I just want Mojang to enforce the no gambling rule. I've been against loot boxes since their inception because I immediately recognized them as gambling-lite for children and how much damage that will do.
This issue is also not MC exclusive. many game servers across the scene has these and usually are not allowed to have it like DayZ servers and so on
The hypocrisy is quite a lot. That's the issue to me. While I may have agreed with you in the past on the gambling issue, I am now leaning into my rights as a customer which allow for everything possible within the four corners of the agreement I signed, so I will not support Mojang in prohibiting third parties from gambling if they engage in hypocrisy, or if they do not honor the contracts of early adopters, even knowing all the pitfalls. It's better to let that be sorted out down the line than to decapitate the rights of customers through a stranglehold that appears all powerful in the advent of the "Community Standards" language that most customers are subject to in their EULA.
@@peppermintpig974 Then don't label your game as "Safe for kids" if you're going to allow kid-focused servers expose gambling to kids from a young age. Someone's suing mojang for 2.5B because he developed a gambling addiction when he was 11 and he's now in serious debt. Mind you, the starting catalyst was minecraft servers. The gateway for it.
@@MasterElements one game I played as a kid had loot boxes, and oh boy where they a hot commodity and basically farmed by daily players. I would sit in the center of the map waiting for them to drop for hours.
@MasterElements the problem with loot boxes is they technically fit in a loophole that officially is not "gambling". Because when it comes to what officially defines gambling it usually comes down to does the person participating have the chance to actually lose money. As long as the base worth of the boxes are worth a minimum amount compared to what they cost or have no monetary worth to begin with it isn't considered to be gambling in most countries. Like technically in a state in the US that bans gambling you can still play poker or slots as long as no money is at stake and that is legal, it is only once you start risking your money that it tips into illegal territory. People have taken this issue to court several times now and pretty much loot boxes were allowed as long as they met the requirements...
they broke swedish law as a swedish company breaking consumer protection rights in their country several times. they also changed their EULA without telling people under said EULA that it changed which is illegal under consumer protection law.
aren’t they now an american company because microsoft bought them though?
@@rxt1991 No.
Mojang Studios (the ones who actually develop minecraft) are physically based in Sweden, therefore Sweden's rules apply.
@@rxt1991 Microsoft never bought Mojang, it bougt shares. Then M$ owns 100% of shares of Swedish company, they sit in HQ of Swedish company and make decisions (details are probably more complicated). It is not a case when M$ bought a product and facelifted it and then was selling it as its own MS-DOS.
I bougth some shares of Intel, AMD, BMW and N-Vidia - are those companies under laws of my country? (spoiler - not because of my ownership of tiny fraction of them)
@@rxt1991Microsoft bought Mojang and the intellectual Property in 2014 for 2.5billion. So microsoft is a Parent company.
@@stanislavbandur7355There Linked-in says they are owned by Microsoft.
I really wish people would be less aggressively biased on this, considering this IS a big deal. Mojang DOES deserve to lose this, but this doesnt justify hatred towards developers and artists just doing their job.
Lawsuits are RARELY addressed publicly, you dont see nintendo posting about their lawsuits on their main social medias so why would mojang?
People blame devs over companies too much already tbfh. It’s always stuff like “lazy artist/dev” etc, before or liked less than “terrible company”
Pokemon fanbase is a really bad case of this. Even if Gamefreak are subpar devs. I said it. Not that there aren’t mediocre and bad devs but people want weird narratives around gamedev and are more vocally hostile toward workers than execs.
@@idontcheckmynotifications fortnite is the worst, the player base is the most spoiled yet still complains everywhere
When the people who won't shut up about mojang not being an indie studio get angry at Mojang when they do not respond like an indie studio would
MOJANG doesn't deserve to lose this lawsuit, unless you're living in USSR or worse, Europe.
That's a fair argument. I would still however say Mojang's customer support was pathetic when it came to solving account issues and Microsoft's Legal Compliance and Ethics department are staffed by people who do not understand the definition of legal compliance or ethics. I have the transcripts. I have evidence of their stonewalling and misrepresentation of customer rights. I will continue to be vocal about this aspect.
The people who complain about in-game content don't realize that they're not entitled to new game content, and yet that's most of the noise and drama you hear from most customers.
The term fake or pretend gun is horrible. Unless the screen infront of me hands me an AR15 and frag grenades, it's all fake and pretend. No video game shoots bullets
I can see why Minecraft wouldn't want an AK47 in their game but would be fine with a Megaman-style Arm Cannon. It's about tone, methinks.
@miimiiandco Give children crossbows IRL and see how that turns out lol. Mojang are full of it
@@_BangDroid_bruh, you think a kid can load a crossbow? Go grab one. Go to your local Bass Pro Shop and ask to see one, and try loading a crossbow. Those take STRENGTH to load. Even a 14 year old cant load one. Let alone a 8 year old. Also, who in the world is going to think 'ah yes, crossbow is good for harming others?' outside a horror flick?
Dosn't that depend on the poundage and loading mechinism of the individual bow?
@miimiiandco Nothing on my contract about tone. This outcome is based on the creation and use of a "Community Standards" policy, which is Mojang/Microsoft lying to your face and saying they act on the community's interests. Individuals in the community want firearm mods, else they wouldn't exist. You are not forced to use them or like them.
This is nothing more than a cover to push politics and ideology as policy from people who not only blur the lines between actual violence and pretend violence and feel hurt by words and ideas, but they invert the context so that they portray themselves as peaceful and not violent for taking away guns, which appears to be their real world ideology, which is based on violent oppression of individual self defense. The fact that we're even talking about this tells us there's a problem with expanding the scope way beyond what this should be. It is not Microsoft's responsibility to appease absentee parenting or political agendas.
As a customer with an alpha contract, these demands to censor and control content violate the agreement we entered into. If you try to push people around, it's going to backfire.
I'm not compromising on this because I see where this is heading.
I thin toycat got confused. The law suit isn't about the damages to his server/business, it's about mojangs misuse of the EULA. the way the handle things was illegal and so the goal is to make them pay for it so that they don't do it again.
I did watch the whole video and I don't think he mentioned the case being about damages once, he just mentioned the issues it cased him once or twice as a clear example. I may have missed it or forgot. Some of toycat's point as still valid tho.
Toycat was saying that Kian's accusations can't be used in court because Mojang didn't damage anything. His accusations are invalid because they didn't even use the Eula against him to begin with.
🎉
@@destiny4963 The accusations aren't invalid though because Mojang DID break swedish law. I watched the video twice.
I believe damages are a consideration, but you are correct in pointing out the EULA notice issue. I think that has the strongest chance of eliciting a positive response in court.
@@destiny4963 "Toycat was saying"
I have never seen this Toycat content creator before, so I would love it if you, a common watcher of his content (i presume) could tell me: Is Toycat an experienced lawyer or involved in the legal system in ANYway?
I kind of get his reasons the EULA is always super confusing
It wasn't always confusing, but it is now. "Community Standards" established a sort of executive authority to make up the rules as they go along. It's counterproductive. I understand if Mojang wants to use discretion to do less than fully execute a claim that they have a right to ban you for doing X, but to say we reserve the right to determine what is a violation based on our interpretation, and we won't tell you ahead of time how the scope of this power is limited makes it a power that goes outside of the bounds of reasonable expectation of contractual adherence. It's a legitimate legal argument to stand on as it is intentionally ambiguous and in a one-sided way.
This doesnt seem to be a lawsuit for payback of the server but against minecrafts frequent use of "Its only okay when we can make money off of it" rules. The amount of people that are seeing this as a "oh this guys just mad his server sucks!" are completely missing the point of the lawsuit. His server is the START to this journey, not the REASON he is doing it. It's also imperative to point out, this is no PERSONS fault. Its not the team making the rules, its not the writer of the article, its not the people who gave the go ahead for nerf guns. It is the COLLECTIVE company of minecraft that has been okay with things that would be unacceptable fall through the cracks because there is nobody holding minecraft as a collective accountable, especially being the most popular game with numbers continuing to grow. Everyone complains "oooh the minecraft community never happy" but lets be brutally honest here, people arent going to stop playing minecraft over a bad update, a broken rule, or promises not being kept up. A class action lawsuit is something that can ACTUALLY keep minecraft in check and give them some level of accountability.
i dont think microsoft will ever be pushed into making quality updates because they dont sell. movies and trash spin offs sell. sounds bad towards them because they are bad. they bought minecraft for 2.5 billion dollars....and they intend to make it back + profit.
the best thing that can happen is for microsoft to lose or sell minecraft to someone who will actually care and have passion for miencraft updates. reguardless if the updates dont meet the standards of the community, you can always play a previous version. youre not really missing much when you go from 1.18 to 1.21+ so far.
Ok, I'd like to point put something people seem to forget about.
It doesn't matter why Kian talks about Mojang's bad actions. For attention to his server? Ok. To create a drama? Ok. To make Mojang have rules that are user-friendly and won't change whenever they feel like it? Ok and respectable.
What matters is Mojang's actions and what we do about them. Even if he was a r*pist, a pdf file and a serial k*ller, we shouldn't dismiss his claims because "he is a bad person". Thats attacking a person instead of challenging the argument (it's called "ad hominem" btw, and it's a logical fallacy)
And it seems to me that you kinda didnt understand some points. Like, at 9:20. No, them saying "this decision isn't final" doesn't mean they allowed him to have gundls and backed down. It means "you can have fun for now, but you effectively cant invest in a server as we leave ourselves the right to prohibit gun mods and servers at will"
I don't understand how you don't see why this is damaging and problematic
I am thinking it is because he one of the PR influencers that Microsoft paid-off.
@@masterlinktmohhh prolly yea, now this makes more sense. They were also forced to sign NDAs.
thank you mr reddit
When projects can just be terminated overnight mod developers are going to run off to better games, Minecraft won't last forever and Microsoft is making sure of it.
i think you misunderstand what ad hominem is lol
it would be if i called you a "poopy head" or something like that.
kian's intentions DO matter considering he has already recieved literal thousands of dollars in donations. plus, the chances of ANYTHING coming out of this are near zero, there is no suing one of the biggest companies in the world (microsoft)
Many things are absolutely illegal in Mojang's actions, and what appears to be stomping towards Kian can easily be waved away by "The man is not a lawyer, he spent maybe a couple dozen hours doing research in a field he does not know"
There appears to be a clear bias in how things are regulated to allow guns in some servers and not in others, and contracts are not done nor enforced by "felt like it", so therefor illegal
The gambling issue is kind of muddy, if one comment I saw is true about lootcrates not counting as gambling in Sweden. It's almost certain some servers have ways to convert game items gambled for into real money at statistic gains, just like a casino. Also Minecraft is global, so every country's laws need to be accounted for if loot crates are allowed
The "repay everyone who agreed to ___" thing will likely not survive a lawyer, and I never heard it in the video (to my memory) so it's (less) likely that it's a scam
There are absolutely grounds for Mojang and maybe Mircrosoft to be sued, but the details on who can start the lawsuit are what lawyers would know
It's said in this video that Kian "suffered no losses" and therefore has little grounds to stand on, however it was explicitly stated in Kian's video that he had spent money on the project, and then such project is being taken down for no truly discernible reason
The whole point of the fundraiser was for Kian to get a lawyer and get a professional take on this, and continue as needed. If the lawyer has doubts about the case then we should trust the person who actually went to law school. If the lawyer thinks there is a serious chance at doing legal damage against Mojang then we should trust them. But we need to hear them first, so fundraiser. Minecraft TH-camrs and commenters are not lawyers, so we give the information and needed money to someone who is and see what they think. Kian felt that a company was doing something illegal, and needs help to get help to stop the possibly illegal things. Nothing is inherently wrong with that, and almost everything else is just semantics.
Keep yapping nobody cares
1 given what the guy showed/talked about in his video, mojang broke no laws. And he would know this if he read the laws he put on screen.
2 his server died on its own, not due to mojang.
@@Ked7 read the pinned comment
3:56 loot boxes like that were made illegal in cod back in the day based on a lawsuit if I am correct (because it IS gambling being promoted to children)
Wait, CoD is being promoted to children?
@miimiiandco bro where have you been? lol 😆
@@COKTilYouDrop I don't know anything about Call of Duty. Seemed like a PEGI 18 affair to me.
@miimiiandco oh no, they avoid that these days
@miimiiandco you get mic banned for saying "bad words" after a game ends in cod these days
biggest red flag for me is when they have "...if we don't like what you're doing" in their terms. Like how can you be that ambiguous and not transparent as a professional entity??
This is standard practice when you want to prevent toxic elements from rules lawyering.
@@FriendlyCobblestone Toxic elements like what for example?
Pardon that I don't know much about law, but aren't you supposed to make your rules sound as clear and understandable as possible to the customers when making these kind of stuffs?
For permissions and consent. Not for playing the game.
Consent is for brand deals, think the SpongeBob add on. They can then take that off the marketplace if in the show he kills somebody.
Permissions is more broad, but it does fall under a similar category, mostly the same but mainly towards server owning and mods(mods are by default against EULA)
Why it haven't responded... Because maybe the lawsuit isn't out yet?
Looking for a lawyer is quite time consuming, then you've gotta make your lawsuit
Regardless of all that
Even if mojang already received it
It would take some time to write back
They would also think about what to etc etc
I don't know why people think it would just be one day later after said person said he has enough for a lawyer
Jesus Christ that's not how world works
Yeah the amount of meatriding I see for Mojang in this comment sections is pathetic. Like if a company breaks the law, they need to be held responsible.
@@megaman37456you're completely misrepresenting the argument
the arguments isn't that Mojang shouldn't be held accountable, it's that this lawsuit does literally nothing
there were no damages
he didn't suffer anything because of Mojang
there is nothing to win here
@@megaman37456also Microsoft is responsible more than mojang is and no one is talking about Microsoft lmao
Misplaced anger. All of it.
@@MyNameIsBhex Nah. Mojang are the one who changed the EULA, and Mojang have been just as bad as microsoft since they were bought out, not misplaced anger at all.
@@DavidsFeverDream There's plenty to win here: Forcing companies that break the law to take accountability.
This is needed more than ANY financial gain.
0:00 Because that’s the lawyers job
😭
Ibxtoycat looks like he's dressed as a lawyer
A very poorly dressed one at that.
He looks like Arthur from the Joker movie
@ Yeah 😂
Toycat Saul Goodman arc
I want to see a new 10 year old series where he builds a lawsuit, on a lawsuit, untill the goverment expands with brand new modern rules, untill he starts making up stuff for arguments
Devils lawyer moment
IBXlawcat
“You’re honor, but you weren’t there”
P. Diddy & Drake Collab Leaked😮
If mojang is going to crack down violence and toxicity, maybe they should crack down on servers that are glorified slot machines and P2W.
Can we get this comment to the top? Please? This is just raw truth.
Java is not available on my Nintendo switch PS4 or Xbox or mobile phone so yes it forces people to buy mods that would be free to Java players
No not really because how are you going to download it those mods to switch or PlayStation
@@Cronrath64 ....Because the Bedrock marketplace probably does it for you? Even if you're downloading an Add-on from a third party website, Bedrock Addon files have their own formats (.mcpack or .mcaddon) that basically makes them self-installing.
"Guidelines" are not a legal agreement. They are not covered under contract law nor are they enforceable under such. Only EULA, ToS and SLA have ANY legal binding to them. What is written in any "guideless" does not have any power what-so-ever.
Guidelines are more akin to "requests" or "advice" made by the publisher of said guidelines. There is nothing legally binding about them. If they do talk about stuff they intend to enforce, it is usually mentioned within the EULA or the ToS first where the guidelines are meant to make it easier to understand without the word-salad of a legal document. Guidelines are meant to express the publishers intent as a "curtesy" to the user and not a means of defining the rules that they can then enforce.
But that's a Eula.....
@@timohara7717The "Guidelines" being referenced here are not in the EULA, but a separate document which we don't have access to. It's the one which specifically singles out real life weapons as not allowed.
@@timohara7717The video specifically says the section that they are quoting are the guidelines, not the EULA. These are not the same thing. If what was being showcased was the EULA and not the Guidelines, then that's a fault of the video and it's editor, as this comment was talking about how they said "guidelines" followed by "legally binding". Like at around --7:10 to --7:45
This is an issue of where toycat conflates EULA with GUIDELINES, as they are not the same thing nor do they hold the same level of merit. What is said in the guidelines flat out do not matter if it's not also reflected in the EULA as EULA, ToS or any SLA are the only things that actually matter; are legally binding. Again, guidelines are just a curtesy to restate what "should" already be in those other 3 agreements where the guidelines only exist to make it easier to read. An attempt at "transparency", that's it. You can remove the guidelines entirely and it would have no impact what-so-ever as far as legal bindings go, as again, guidelines are not a form of contract law, they literally are just a curtsey and nothing more.
@Hadeks_Marow I'm thinking it's probably an error then, sorry
@@timohara7717 I think there's a 50% chance of it being a case where he just misspoke in the edit/worded it poorly. I'd still say however that there's the other 50% chance that he misunderstood the original video when it was stating how something isn't in the EULA but is supposedly in the "guidelines" which was linked incorrectly when mojang responded to him.
So in short, toycat either knows better. . . or he doesn't. Idk which honestly. xD
Imagine servers with gambling systems that cost real money is legal, but a harmless server with guns, no gambling or any other bad stuff is illegal
Guns are against EULA+user agreement. Those “gambling” servers are not gambling under Swedish law as the prizes have no monetary value.
@ked49 i think the only problem is gambling uses real money wich is a shame
if those guns have an irl counterpart and are named after real guns then mojang could be sued for that by those gun companies, sounds a bit silly but these lawsuits have happened to other companies like activision and EA
@@Ked7 You completely missed the argument. Guns being depicted in a videogame deal no harm. Gambling being implemented in a legally gray way in a videogame actively make it worse.
Are people just expecting from mojang to make a whole post in game like "we are getting sued time to get the lawyer kids" or make the "laws and flaws" update... No of course not lawsuits are never addressed publicly and shouldn't be addressed publicly, would you want to be sued for something or get arrested for something and have someone announce it to the whole world ?
"Welcome to Minecraft Monthly! Today, kids, we're taking a look at lawsuits!"
its more that they are being held accountable by their community and they aren't adressing any of the things they are being scrutinized for. Nobody expects them to just straight up mention the lawsuit, moreso their scummy business practices.
The thing I don't understand is that the EULA says you are not allowed to sell modifications but somehow on bedrock this is okay as long as it's on the bedrock store and Mojang gets a cut
its cause shitcrosoft can get a cut from it too, while on java they cant
@@XeosLolicon Why is Mojang, not Microsoft, being sued?
@@HOLDENPOPE cause mojang is the one at fault here even if microsoft gave the order
mojang has no say in what mods people add or use. or what people do on servers. they should NOT be able to demand a server be shut down
Mojang does have say, at least starting from 2011. Customers before May 24, 2011 however can't be dictated to from Mojang in terms of mods.
He shut it down because of lack of players. It's up again
They actually have full control over that. Mods are against ToS and EULA. They just allow some.
1:01 OBJECTION!
One of the new bedrock updates deleted a file that lets mod creators make mods. So sure. They may not force java to use the marketplace. But they make sure bedrock won't use free addons. Thus forcing them to buy from the marketplace.
Better Call ToyCat
Better call Saul 😂😂😂
@@carriethompson84 yes genius that’s the joke well done 👍
@@JohnStevens5118 are u being sincere or making fun of me?
@@carriethompson84 making fun of you 😝
@BritishGovernment1815 since u put the cute fave, I won't be mad.... lol
Why hasn't Mojang responded to the lawsuit?
Because it literally only hit it's goal 2 days ago this isn't Ace Attorney it's going to be a long legal process until they respond to the lawsuit
One thing people don't consider is the fact that Mojang is owned by Microsoft, and that it's very likely that a lot of the unpopular decisions that get introduced, either in the game itself, or in the TOS/EULA/Guidelines, are made by Microsoft, and not Mojang.
Read discussion on it on r/Minecraft before the post was nerfed. Actual adults having civil discourse about why the lawsuit could fail.
& then the lawsuit's comment section was about as toxic & childish as Twitter during an election year.
I believe moderators on r/Minecraft work on behalf of Microsoft's interests. Virtually every post about account issues is zero'd out so that the visibility is suppressed. I have been the personal target of stalking by a moderator who wanted to suppress some of these posts from customers who were trying to obtain a remedy over lost/stolen accounts and account issues as resulting from the migration fiasco. What would happen is I would respond to a 2 month old thread to give someone helpful contact information for Microsoft, and within a few hours the Moderator would delete or shadowban the posting. I've had people respond to thank me for providing said information and they confirmed that they received a notice that their post was closed, so I had proof that human intervention occurred based on my activity on the forum, so yeah, there's proof of moderators stalking and suppressing.
I have also seen accounts which only post to negatively gaslight the people posting these problems and then when a moderator locks a thread, some of these accounts all of a sudden are deleted. This could be automated by reddit for deleting accounts with suspicious activity (new, low posts, possibly created just for this purpose). It could also be evidence of the use of burner accounts.
It's not really surprising that they are locking these threads based on everything else I have seen.
r/Minecraft is controlled and they suppress content that is controversial or paints a negative light on Microsoft. Corporations manipulating public opinion on reddit happens despite the rules against it, and I have evidence of harassment that indicates r/Minecraft is compromised and corrupted.
One of the major issues with this video is the fact that ibx entirely misinterpreted almost if not more than half of this video (read the pinned comment by Kian Brose for more information!!!)
0:34 fish for no resin
Mojang certainly deserves to be sued because mojang didn’t even make the original game, Notch did, and he just left
And despite his views, he IS the creator of it. They had no righteous standing to deny his presence during the 10th & 15th anniversary.
Oh look, this thing is more nuanced than it first appears… color me surprised.
That's definitely a first in the history of humanity. Nothing ever was nuanced until now!
I don't have the crayon to color myself surprised: unfortunately.
Oh yes, the Eula agreement fiasco where is the last time they talked about that in their social media or from the game launcher I do remember they never announced that updated EUla agreement to every one of their customers which we all live in different countries having different laws and some protection laws as a customer which you do need to notify us of a new agreement or a modify updated version of it. This means if you fail to notify us properly, you are technically breaking the law in those countries that have those protection laws for the customers. That’s the lawsuit is about. It’s the failure to notify the customers of the new Eula changes and other hitting information which technically should be out to the public to be noticed which is the main issue of the lawsuit.
The US does have case law regarding notification as well. Douglas v US District Court is the case if anyone wants to look that one up. The relevant conclusion is that no one who is a party to a contract with a revision clause is required on any particular schedule to read a contract in order to hunt down clues to see how it has changed. They call this onerous and unreasonable, so there should be a better form of notice associated with contractual updates.
All that being said, sending customers an email about migration does not apply to this situation because email does not meet the standard of legal notice in contract law to prove the customer was aware and Mojang did not update their EULA to grant themselves the ability to set an arbitrary deadline in order to mass delete accounts that were not migrated. Mojang was required to make an update to the EULA in order to have the power to mass terminate accounts. They didn't do this. Had they sent it out as a EULA update, Mojang would have been required by law to treat it as a contractual update, and since there is no language about time limits nor is there language supporting account termination on these grounds, it is a breach of contract. Nobody had any expectation of losing their account prior to the announcement of the migration. And then customers who purchased during Alpha are not subject to contractual revision, so in their situation as soon as Mojang went on twitter and said Migration was mandatory, they were making an unlawful demand to sign a third party contract under threat of losing your contractual rights. The US does not recognize the legality of contracts signed under duress. This particular issue needs to go to court or be reported to the FTC (anybody in any country can call the FTC and file because it involves Microsoft and Microsoft shared legal opinions about your rights in regard to your contract with Mojang).
I like that you give credit to your editor in the description, editors are so critical for good content
As an American, if what our friend said happened is true even remotely, the only issues I had was fundamental misunderstandings of United States Civil Law. For example; despite what some may think, just because you put it in a contract here doesn't mean it's lawful. It's especially not lawful if what the contract asks you to do literally breaks criminal law, which is why a NDA that tells you not to disclose literal fraud is very much so NOT enforceable.
Overall, though, even though his video was quite sensational I still support his suit. How Mojang behaved is bothed completely unaccetable and completely unprofessional, not to mention potentially outright *illegal* depending on the specifics of how things played out. I could easily see this suit being followed up by something from, say, the Federal Trade Commission for breach of anti-trust laws.
*Please note I have not finished the video yet. If relevant I will update this comment once I do.*
*EDIT #1:* Wow. I was cooking, clearly. Still not quite done but DAMN was I fooled. Honestly genuinely impressed by how manipulatively charismatic he was through the whole video AND the lengths he went to even edit it, or have it edited, pretty damn well. To think THIS is how he used those skills honestly is just kind of a bummer.
*EDIT #2:* The issue with not being sure where they stand on this stuff is two-fold, IMO. For one, if it's in the EULA but they're choosing not to enforce it temporarily...that's a problem because they could start enforcing it at any time and are under no legal obligation to give warning of this enforcement. After all, their EULA never changed, they just decided to start enforcing it. The other issue, again if this is true, just has to do with Mojang's track record. They've shown a willingness to secretly update the EULA, which while very much so makes the contract NOT binding, still isn't stress that server owners should reasonably be subjected to.
*EDIT #3:* Regardless of what changes they made to their EULA it is still incredibly concerning and NOT okay that they actively decided NOT to inform their users. This back and forth on not only enforcement, but also what is in their EULA, as WELL as what is CLEARLY told to users is still a major issue. Credit where credit is due, yes, and I genuinely appreciate more consumer-friendly actions like that. But don't downplay their violation of the consumer's trust.
The thing I keep thinking about with this whole deal at all is the fact that Mojang has Crossbows. Which are considered firearms under most legal jurisdictions. So them doing this at all would mean at least in some countries they'd have to get rid of them 😂 kinda shooting themselves in the foot tbh
0:40 he never stated that the marketplace is for java
0:35 It actually is right. Minecraft where bedrock is concerned gets rid of many competitors including MC Addon. They told them when they removed it that they didn’t like because it allowed people to access the files and when MC Addon redid the entire app and removed the ability to access files and reapplied they were denied with the same explanation regardless of it not being true.
0:43 he didn't argue that/
y are you even saying its wrong by arguing against falsehoods of what he meant then
5:45 u would have to be stupid to think he was saying he was being attacked by Mojang. he does however state....THE SERVER FOR MC GTA WAS ATTACKED/THREATENED THO. so why not break that down not a strawman you just built to be right against? like he never even mentioned if his server was up or down. u had to of found that out on your own.
7:21 if it is in there, and this is supposed to be legally binding then yes it can indeed be used in a legal ATTACK. remember he is going after them not the other way around he isn't legally defending himself he is the aggressor.
8:30 he doesn't explain what he means by safe harbor except just that it means something is safe and okay, but they never stated what is safe and okay, and u cant go by what's on the market place bc stuff gets removed. also just saying its nerf guns n laser guns doesn't dismantle the argument like he feels it does because: the issue is they don't explain what guns n fire arms are, and yet they themselves have full on guns and fire arms by legal definitions to use in game or buy on their curated store (again not a way to tell what is safe to use but is an argument what they are at least at the moment making an exception for if lasers or other kinds of guns are to be stricken against later.)
9:38 my stopping point. i have lost all faith in u as a news source and will be avoiding ur content in the future. this lawsuit is about unclear rules and enforcement of said rules, and ur just hung up that the basis of this outrage is over guns. good by 10 years of my life i hardly enjoyed it to begin with.
@@bot-just-botwhat is the point of the lawsuit? He can’t sue for damages, he can’t sue for criminal. So what is he even trying to do?
@bot-just-bot so butt hurt for what? because someone has a different opinion than you? get over it man
just because someone has a different opinion doesn't mean you should hate them for it
grow up
@@Ked7To get a better EULA. Under how it is currently, anything can be banned because 1) they don't notify any changes, 2) they can also hide the changes, 3) they use selective enforcement so you can't rely on what other servers do. I get that most people won't read the EULA, but it's beneficial for all if you actually know what is allowed or not
@@DavidsFeverDreamhaving a different opinion doesn’t excuse having bad/illogical/mischaracterizing arguments. They’re not butthurt, they’re pointing out legitimate issues with the arguments made in the video
I just noticed something.... You said that their is no marketplace for Java? He was obviously talking about bedrock
something important to note is that loot boxes aren't even legally considered gambling in sweden where the lawsuit would take place. As far as I can tell, the swedish courts havent decided this, and its been ruled both ways in other parts of the world like canada and austria, so saying that mojang is unfairly enforcing their guidelines may not even be a legal ground to stand on.
What about those who have gotten Gambling addictions from loot boxes? That was a point Kean has made in his video
They SHOULD be considered gambling. The fact that they aren't is a crime in itself.
@@minecraftexpertstudios7368 how would you prove that anyone got a gambling addiction from those, seems like a difficult thing to do.
@@Goat_Girl_Gwen You sure no one has said they have gotten one? He showed examples in his video.
@@Josue_S_6411 "it should be against the law for the law to be the law" brother what
Putting on my tin foil hat for a second, what if this whole lawsuit is just a publicity stunt fro Kian to get people on his borderline dead server?
A server that hasn't launched yet, but sure, it's dead.
I had the same thought...
@@GothAtheist It literally launched and he shut it down due to low amount of players.
Or, possibly even more likely, to commit fraud by just stealing the gofundme money
@@PlankDotIt didn't actually. Idk why people keep saying it did, it still hasn't
Yeah, I thought there was something kind of off about this. I asked Kian directly what he was actually suing for in damages and he didn't really have an answer.
As well as he's strange gofundme goals, a quote from his gofundme
'Assuming a duration of one year (the case is assumed to be relatively short due to the overwhelming amount of evidence against Mojang and clear violations that make it a really clear cut)'
- Same guy who got upset government employees wont fund his lawsuit.
Whole thing smelt funny, apparently no lawyer wants to take on a class action case? Rather I think it isn't clear cut as Kian makes it out to be.
I wanted to make a video myself casting some potential skepticism on his potential suit, but I didn't feel smart enough.
I think calling any uninitiated civil suit a 'clear cut' immediately starts raising red flags.
There are so many ways for a strong legal team to wiggle out of the strongest cases that a clear cut case sounds unimaginable.
i know nothing about swedish/european law, but what he said seems to make logical sense and it feels like he has good intentions, and i really WANT him to be right, i just don't think he expected it to take off as much as it did
like, if i were in his position and wanted to spearhead a class action against mojang, i wouldn't think i'd reach my monetary goal in even a few weeks, let alone a few days
i just hope things will clear up with time
In the very least I think Mojang should get a slight reality check out of this and actually comply with their literal law lol
@@Sapfiiit makes no logical sense what he says. Everything he says is contradicted by what he shows.
@@MichaelTenn-w4gthey comply with the law.
8:45 Exactly. Mojang once made an add-on with Nerf that included guns that shoot blaster pellets.
The problem I see is that the guy is suing Microsoft/Mojang, but Microsoft being the parent company needs to have rules that can comply in 200+ countries and territories with their own laws and rules. If it is legal in 1 country on something, it might be illegal in another country. That is included with guns, either real or fictional, or crates if it is gambling or not. All companies are like this, Google/TH-cam have their own rules that they have to follow in 200+ countries. That is why some videos are allowed in some countries and not in other countries.
Ok so Mojang is ok with FAKE Guns aka guns that are made up and don't exist IRL or if it is a toy gun made into the game. That is the big difference here. 9:00
This is why I keep telling people if you want to go up against Mojang, you need to recognize their policies involve retroactive enforcement and unilateral revision clauses in all customer contracts beginning from May 24, 2011. If you want to have firearm mods on your servers, you need to have someone who purchased the game during Alpha or early Beta (preferably alpha) on your development/server team because this class of customer is not subject to unilateral changes to their EULA/contract, and that includes server licenses. It is a breach of contract for Mojang to censure such developers for creating, publishing, using, or selling mods, and that includes firearm mods.
Mojang in typical fashion pretends that 'use equals consent' statements on their website or launcher establish consent to new terms, but this is not true for customers not subject to revision, particularly when the revisions they wish to enforce on you obliterate the terms you and Mojang ageed to at time of purchase, and the rights that were promised to you as well. Really, telling someone you must agree to new terms after money has exchanged hands or you won't get what you paid for is unjust. When your contract promises you unobstructed access to download and use what you paid for and Mojang steps in and tries to alter the deal, that is textbook bait and switch fraud.
Understandably, there's only a little over 1 million early adopters who purchased Minecraft compared to the 250 million or so total accounts created (which probably includes consoles, etc), so while it might not seem like a significant portion of the customer base has any cause or reason to support the original customers who funded the game's existence and popularization, you might think twice when you consider what I've just mentioned: Defending the rights of alpha customers is in fact defending the right of all customers to enjoy the contractually permitted creations and activities of those original customers based on their most excellent licenses and the creative freedom it allows.
There's some discussion suggesting that Notch regrets the fact that he couldn't write a better EULA, however even he must recognize that this is a legally binding contract, and many of us alpha customers consider what he wrote a "gentleman's agreement" that was based on the best elements of what independent development and the open source community was all about.
As you may be aware, Minecraft pulled from open source sound libraries. It was no stranger to relying on the community for development or growth. At one point it even had a thriving development project called Bukkit. Those who know the controversy over that and how all of this transitions into the Microsoft era, then you probably understand why there's a lot of duly earned resentment/mistrust/pushback against Mojang and Microsoft for straying from the development roots of Minecraft.
I am one of those early adopters of Minecraft. I don't see how I can help.
Some countries have laws agaisnt retroactive contracts, idk if Sweden is one
It's worth noting the lawsuit would be a regional class action lawsuit and thus only cover end-users of that region. It would not be a global lawsuit cause he is specifically targeting that regions laws. So the payout would be greater per-person but would be given to less users.
I'm sorry toycat. All your points are either assumptions that weren't actually stated by mojang or just completely miss the point. This indeed is just a consumer vs incompetent company thing and we should be supporting this.
like what?
what did toycat say that was wrong?
@DavidsFeverDream not going to list off every point but for an example of an assumption: toycat says that his servers didn't do well because of a lack of interest instead of mojang fearmongering, and example for missing the point: toycat says they can just change the guns to blasters which isn't just silly since that would get rid if it's main appeal, but it's also an assumption because we don't know HOW MUCH the guns have to be changed to be compliant with the made up EULA
Long story short: mojang isn't telling us the exact guidelines people have to follow and expects people to know them anyway, and that's illegal
I swear Mojang pays this guy
@JakiIsHere bro you didn't watch the video
1. The server was shut down due to lack of interest. Mojang was never gonna take it down.
2. ToyCat wasn't saying that he should've just replaced the guns with blasters. He was using that as an example to CRITICIZE Mojang. He was saying that that's a BAD thing, not a good thing. literacy is important
@JakiIsHere It's literally just a texture change, he shut down his server before any of this happened
As a Switch player I'm happy the add-ons category exists on the marketplace, even if I disagree with how using add-ons disables achievements
Same and this!
Hate to say it but, i'm fine paying a few $ for mods on my Xbox. It's not like i'm buying them all, I only pick up the 1s I use every week. I think picking up a mod for $5 every few months isn't the worst thing in the world.
It makes total sense for them to disable achievements. Someone could just create a addon that makes it incredibly easy to get harder achievements.
What are you talking about, add-ons are a terrible copy of modding on PC while trying to suck your wallet dry for Microsoft, never heard a single person say they enjoy the Minecraft Marketplace add-ons
@munkmunk7670 if modders were allowed to charge high prices for their mods, all big java/bedrock mods would be around 30 bucks as some developers have said to do if it was allowed.
Thankfully, marketplace exist and let's be most mods be only around 5 or 2 bucks, instead of 30+
People are sueing Minecraft for this stuff like gamballing but not Roblox who does not allow gamballing. Minecraft is more safe for kids that the platform Roblox which does nothing to protect the players.
It's about time someone pulled up a big company on their shady practises good on him.
5:24 loving the Wii tanks theme here
SOMEONE ELSE NOTICED OMG THE NOSTAILGIA WAS INSANE
I don't know enough about the specifics to say if this is the case, but just because the server launched does not mean that it wasnt negatively affected by the Mojangs actions.
For example, would you as a gamer invest time and money into starting a new MMO that you'd just heard the Devs were considering shutting down next month? Probably not, and even if you would, many gamers wouldn't
Now again, I'm not saying that is what happened here. I haven't done the research. But you can't dismiss the issue out of hand by saying the server launched.
Toycat has glazed mojang, Microsoft and downplayed their misfortune of behavior for YEARS but this is a new low, even for him.
His miscommunication which seems almost purposeful or the other way which is that he’s just misinformed and KNOWS it but still makes his lackluster points which hold no weight or relevance to the case
Toycat, please do more research when doing videos on important subjects like these, play goofy maps and promote shitty addons with little to no research on the topic but this, this is something which you’re misinforming many of your viewers into a false narrative
It's okay to dislike mojang, it's not okay to invent reasons to dislike mojang. I offer a lot of critique on the channel, but unlike the video I reference, I'm actually going to want some substance, and you should too honestly
It seems that Toycat's reply only proves what the original commenter said. No offense Toycat, I'm a long-time viewer and subscriber.
@@toycat He read out the law clear as day. Regardless, it's up to the interpretation of the courts, not you, who is smearing his reputation to try and stop his attempt to take it to court.
this video isn't entirely "here's why this guy is wrong", it's also "here's what mojang should do and i agree with some of his concerns"
@@LazerDiskhe read out the title of the laws. But those don’t apply based on the laws actually wording.
I apreciate the end goal of this suit. My issues with it stem more from having moral and/or practical dissagrements with the existance of some of the laws that are allegedly being broken by Mojang.
6 Months seems pretty quick as they have to negotiate with so many country's child protection laws. And since so many of them make the company liable but only give vague requirements. Mojang themselves likely don't know the exact answers yet.
I also think he is on pretty shaky ground with the Get-Out Clause. If Mojang was selling a movie to a distribute and had a clause that they would terminate the agreement if you start selling pirate copies. That's not a Get-Out Clause. It's just a clause
_"It's not loot boxes, it's surprise mechanics."_ - Mojang, probably.
I don't think Mojang are dumb enough to do what EA did.
They'll probably say something else
@@jamesgiles4517 Well, actually that's BASICALLY what Swedish Law says :V
Loot Boxes arent considered Gambling there.
@@higueraft571 even though they literally are? Like, by definition?
@@Gozieaaa Well, apparently not over there, if you wanna argue it, argue with their government :V
Something is telling me this guy is praying for a payday
From my recollection you are not allowed sell stuff on a mc server, sell mods for a price and use irl guns because that in its self if anyone is selling that as a mod or buy from the server the manufacturer of the guns can come after Mojang for copyright (like Nintendo and valve for Gary’s mod)
All that needs doing is not make irl guns and design em that they don’t look like a carbon copy and a new name
Going to be funny if he wins and Mojang starts clamping down on modding and destroys the community.
They would end up hurting their own game's popularity if they did that.
We did it, Reddit
I'm not sure "funny" is the word I'd have chosen there.
This would still be super illegal because it relies on the "new" EULA which they didn't notify about. They would have to roll out a new EULA with proper notice and no overly broad or hidden clauses if he won.
Sounds like your just trying to stir the pot, making it out that the guy pointing out that Mojang is breaking the law could somehow harm the community??? Always gotta turn the gun on people trying to create change 😔
Wait a second, if he is suing Mojang, that means he is suing Microsoft. He might be cooked guys.
If the lawsuit dosnt go anywhere, he would scam thousands of people
@@JoaoMiguelCordeiro-fl3wb yeah that also is a problem
That's not how lawsuits work. The defendant is Mojang in this situation meaning, they may be forced to fend for themselves depending on how Swedish laws work, implying that Microsoft, being an American company, cannot interfere.
@@megaman37456 wrong. When someone sued TH-cam, Google represented them. Microsoft may be an American company, but doesn't mean they couldn't back them up with a lot of cash to get a good lawyer.
@@megaman37456 But they are backed by Microsoft, they can easily fund them to get insane lawyers
The marketplace is already filled with stuff that can get Mojang in trouble like copyright fanmade stuff that they literally sell for money and get a cut of as well as the creator
Malicious compliance. Mass report all marketplace -mods- _addons_ that contain guns or blasters or loot box gambling.
I'm honestly only supporting the lawsuit because Mojang broke European Union law with their bullcrap EULA
bruh another dogpack situation where some things said are true while the rest is complete Bull crap
???? Actually watch the video
@@creeperz653have you? Every law he shows doesn’t apply. The one he mentions are only half right, but either unprovable or false(they did give notification, at least on ps4)
@@Ked7 bro hop off this is a week old
I see where kian is coming from but idk if this lawsuit will even make it to court. I dont like the fact that "blasters" are okay but guns arent. Blasters are just guns rebranded. They need to allow all or none in this instance cuz modders have had guns in minecraft forever and thats been fine but a server that seems f2p being taken down is ridiculous
Mojang should legally be forced to enforce the whole EULA or not be let enforce any part of it at all and change it. They should not be allowed to pick and choose what parts of it they want to enforce or not enforce as it benefits them. I hope he wins because Mojang are slowly ruining the game by refusing to accept its not just a kids game. They are refusing to grow with their OG player base and its going to be what kills the greatest game of all time if they continue down this path. Im very against the censorship in chat and on signs and items in bedrock. Adults should be let have servers for adults.
How do you verify that those joining the servers are adults? You can’t. It is a game for all ages, which means nothing that can’t be shown to all ages.
@@Ked7Mojang should not be policing the speech of private servers, ruining the game play for adults all because parents are too lazy to look at what their kids are doing. It’s a parent’s responsibility to monitor what their children view online if they are concerned about it. Not Mojang’s.
But like mojang has a point Minecraft doesn’t need guns
It does seem like they’ve acted shady about it tho
Overall don’t know what this lawsuit will actually achieve it sort of seems like its not really going to go anywhere
Thank you for using your platform to speak out on this
What if the server owners just renamed guns and weapons?? Glock=Block p90=p mine-ty
Warthog=netherwarthoglin
Cyclon B=poison II potion
ect. It would not be egainst eula since those arent irl weapons
Correct, but instead of doing that simple fix, why not make a gofundme for free money lmao
Somewhat. They might also have to rework the models and maybe reconsider the ragdoll deaths.
@@firehartThe server was already operational 2 but closed down due to low player count.
@@samuelhulme8347 i know, they launched 2 times and both 2 died yea
because it isnt clear how much the guns have to be changed, also the fact that mojang can decide to whenever they want to change their eula unnoticed to get rid of your hardwork. Ibx did a good job sowing misinformation, but this is a collective class action lawsuit, it isn't just about his minecraft server, it's mainly about how mojang enforces or chooses when to enforce their clearly confusing and vague eula.
Love the shirt and jacket for the lawyer look lol
its not just him and some gun server owners its anyone who seeks innovation in the Minecraft engine and the vagueness of the legal wording on the terms of use contract they all sign by using their engine much like epic games and their unreal engine that palworld, multiversus devs and many others the only difference is the engine but they don't get it in the Mojang legal department
Does Mojang deserve this? 100%
Do I think this could have been done a hella lot better and with less trash talk? 100%
i really wish it was Microsoft that would be effected by this lawsuit, but apparently not
Why care so much about trash talking a multi-billion-dollar mega-corporation? Microsoft routinely finds new ways to scam you as a consumer and steal your data. They are a tech conglomerate; they are not your friend.
Imagine someone breaks into your home, puts a camera in your living room, and tracks everything you do. Should you maintain respect with that person? Do you not have a right to be angry? The trash talking in this situation is 100% necessary. Quit being fooled into standing up for corporations that *do not care about you,* only the profit you give them.
7:30 You're right, but the lack of clarity is still a solid spawning ground for Confusion, Which means he still has a valid argument.
Oh man its obvious who signed the NDAs and is on that PR payroll
I *wanted* to agree with him but his arguments feel like easy hate bait.
13:07 That's mostly because of Warcraft/DOTA precedent (Look it up, it's actually pretty interesting)
At the end of the day this Mod Server is based on the IP owned by another party. I think he would struggle to justify fair use to a sufficient degree and so then becomes reliant on what the standards are which seems to be squeamish about realistic firearms but I do think 6 months was a fair time for Mojang to consider their response especially when you factor in the various parties both within the Studio and Parent Company that would have had input into it. And I would guess that Microsoft umbrella would maybe take exception to Minecraft being retooled to put it in the same market as titles by Activision Blizzard or Bethesda which it also has interest in seeing succeed. I think rights to create Playthroughs and tutorials VODS or Livestreams are completely different to building a Mod which you then directly sell access to without benefit to the owner of the Property.
This isn't a fair use case in the traditional sense of using someone else's IP in a limited way. These are customers with a contract. This will likely boil down to statutes regarding contracts and notices.
Also that must have been the shortest into and exit to a video at 14:48 lmao
Gunpowder exists in Minecraft btw. If you been playing Minecraft from way back you might come across Gunpowder not being called that at all it was “Sulphur”.
Even if i am wring in stating this as a piflvital moment for gaming, it will definitely not help the situation surrounding gaming, and games as a whole when companies neglect the fact that people still play they games and remember there impact. The LBP franchise and the crew 1 did not deserve to be removed, they still and a community and had historical significance, but if Mojang 100% wins this case, than we know damn well that every other company will start caring less about gamers rights and laws and what not. Its only a matter of time
I heard summit about a lawsuit but I didn't think much of it.
I'd say Mojang deserve this, the main idea of Minecraft is that you can pretty much do anything!
But I can see why they wouldn't want the image of a Minecraft guy killing another Minecraft guy with a realistic gun on their server list.
@miimiiandco I mean guns are alright, I'd say if you want to keep it Minecraft friendly, you can make like, 17th century flintlock pistols that pirates used
@@BaileyCooperwilkinsonthe Lego approach
Can’t believe people gave money without doing research 💀
if they did it would have the same outcome.
Because no one was informed about it before.
Research on?
@@Zaneisemo1 fluff's point is that people should have waited before donating to the legal fund to have second opinions on the viability of certain legal claims that were made.
I don't know how long they discussed the issues in private before making this public and soliciting for donations. They claim they've done some research but I too have my doubts because some of what they argue like child gambling has more to do with finding legitimate claimants to bring that specific issue to a court. They need a lawyer to be involved for the research portion of this.
I do know that one of the ways that Microsoft anticipated a number of potential issues was to intentionally convert currency into minecoins for their storefront.
I believe EULA notification is an important element and they may rely on legal statutes to make that case, which is good. I think that's the main area of dispute that wouldn't be immediately thrown out on standing.
That said, it's not quite as bulletproof compared to the Alpha contract breach angle since that can be proven using Mojang's own contracts against their actions, but I don't think they're aware of that.
I think that the main objective of the lawsuit is for Mojang to be transparent and clear about their rules, and to not hide certain rules from the consumer, or change things unnoticed, which he does have solid ground for (in his video, not this one which misrepresents multiple of his points). All in all, I personally think that he has good intentions at heart, his reasons for doing so and the eventual outcome he hopes for would improve our experience as the consumers. I can see why people would support this.
U have too many brain cells for the Minecraft community. Good luck to you.
You’ve summed up here quite nicely what I thought as well. Thank you.
No competent lawyer is going to touch this one. There isn’t going to be any payout here. I wouldn’t be surprised if the money that was crowdfunded ends up paying for Mojang’s lawyers in the end.
0:05 Might be true in some cases but the information provided by the lawsuits is CRYSTAL CLEAR that Mojang broke EU consumer protection laws as there HQ is located in Sweden even if they are owned by a US company that doesn't matter.
Why are ppl making videos without doing more research??
I'm getting worried actually. Minecraft was some of my childhood and I don't want it getting shut down or anything, but there might be a reason for the lawsuit.
It won't. It's too big to.shut down
The worst that could happen is that mojang would become strict about which mods they'd allow, which would limit modders and server owners' freedom in what they want to make.
guns are adult content but breeding villagers in broad daylight isn't?
Jenny mod, that is the equivalent. And guess what? That was shut down.
guys if you make a gun mod/data pack, its yours, not illegal also if your anywhere else in the world i dont think it matters
Dang. Mojang paid off ibxtoycat.
Way. To. Go.
It's more the guy is Sus.
Also Microsoft*
"They arn't making you. Java don't have one. Only few people can get into the marketplace." Oh right ya not making people. Just giving only 1 option of a market place only letting in choice people, disincentivizing anyone not using the marketplace with demands they follow a new rule poping up every year or you can't make money from it, and have a money system that if your useing feeds all of it into their account eventually. Totally not trying to force you to use it. What possable gain do they have doing that.. Im not even past the intro yet..
Mojang did not start with age ratings or adult vs child based game content considerations. When Mojang retrofits the game to argue age based conditions, or retrofits the EULA to include an arbitration clause, all customers who purchased before these changes can argue that these are infringements of contractual or statutory law, as it undermines the initial transaction that started the contract through material diminishing, not merely for what was advertised, but your legal standing.
Yeah but just making a compromise and renaming something to get around rules is how we got to where we are today where we have all these slang words to get around monetization we need a real fix and they deserve to be sued.
The weapon mods in the marketplace are sci-fi/fantasy/toy based. The X-Buster from Mega Man X, for example, is sci-fi and the enemies are all machines. The War server has overly realistic weapons and nearly realistic deaths (deserving to be rated Mature/18 if it was it's own game). If anything, Mojang has to clarify what is and what isn't acceptable. (People often say the X-Buster fires off lemons of all things. Hopefully those Mavericks didn't have any prior paper cuts.)
Because they’re too busy making lawsuits against people just for saying the game’s name.
and now with the false advertising for a cape (IRL Minecraft Creeper Cape promotion), they are seriously open for more lawsuits if they don't correct the situation
They never advertised that cape code being true, people assumed it based off a single image of a cape.
Can't see how it's false advertising if it was never advertised
@@firehart Interpretation is everything in legal code. Its why 3 letter agencies in the US get away with so much crap.
@@damiangaming5696 it's always best to wait for official confirmation before purchasing something based off a single twitter image though, plenty of people believed the one image, even though plenty of sources denied it being true
Who else noticed he is playing bedrock in the background
You look really nice in that shirt