The Death of Minecraft Servers?

[Pixelatorx2]

By definition, you could refer to it as a purchase. However, Moo nailed it on the head - they call it a donation. Therefore the donator is willing giving money to the organization: the organization is just giving a thank-you for support. It's kind of a legal bypass. Another example similar to. Moo's - if I donate to a foundation and they give me a blanket, it doesn't mean I purchased the blanket. Technically, I gave money and they gave me a blanket separately. Not one thing for the other. It's all in how you put it really.

 

[RC_4777]

They must have changed it since I last saw it (which is like forever, so I'm pretty out of date).

 

[HalfSquirrel]

Mojang knows they depend on their community, although I may think they aren't the smartest, they definitely aren't dumb. And after checking out this video, they have no proof of any of it. Troll maybz?

 

[Pixelatorx2]

Mojang knows they depend on their community, although I may think they aren't the smartest, they definitely aren't dumb. And after checking out this video, they have no proof of any of it. Troll maybz?

The situation, being the actual thing they mentioned might be troll, but it is in the EULA

 

[R4ng]

Although I understand that Mojang does not like the fact that other people are gaining money from their application, I find it rather absurd that they are trying to interdict this. Lets go into some statistics, there are over 220,000 Minecraft servers that exist in the world at the moment, even if there was just 1 player per server (Far more due to servers like this), there would be 220,000 players that go on Multiplayer servers. If they weren't able to self-sustain themselves then they wouldn't have money to pay for the server and Mojang would lose hundreds of thousands of players.

 

[KorStonesword]

Although I understand that Mojang does not like the fact that other people are gaining money from their application, I find it rather absurd that they are trying to interdict this. Lets go into some statistics, there are over 220,000 Minecraft servers that exist in the world at the moment, even if there was just 1 player per server (Far more due to servers like this), there would be 220,000 players that go on Multiplayer servers. If they weren't able to self-sustain themselves then they wouldn't have money to pay for the server and Mojang would lose hundreds of thousands of players.

It doesn't seem like Mojang even wants to stop servers. I watched the whole video, and along with the YouTubers supplying no evidence whatsoever, what was said was voiced via twitter, which isn't exactly the #1 place for solid facts. In fact, if I remember correctly, the member of Mojang who said this didn't want to shut down servers, but was merely frustrated and tired of receiving thousands of emails requesting for their ranks to be given back to them even though Mojang has no part in that.

Too be quite honest, I think people are making an absurdly big deal over something unimportant, especially when we have no evidence that they will attempt to shut down servers and 90% of what is being said are rumors.

 

[BlackHead]

That's correct and incorrect. It is a donation because they say it is HOWEVER
It is a purchase, because you provide a set amount of currency in exchange for a product they are obligated to provide due to an automated system that automatically deals the perks to the account that bought them. HOWEVER
If it were u a purchase, chargeback would have to be allowed; it would be a refund. Calling this a donation gives them an opportunity to make chargeback not allowed for this reason:
After donating, that is willingly giving money to someone. By this logic, taking it back is merely stealing money from them. You haven't gotten a refund but however stolen money to which you were not given consent.
It is also a donation considering this:
If you purchased a product and then you were banned causing you to be incapable of using that product, that would certainly not be legal as it is in a way damage of property. If a dealership sold you a car and then went to your home and poured milk all over the engine, that screws it up. To this same analogy but to a different degree, banning someone who purchased diamond rank is also not legal. So they would have to provide a refund like the car dealership. By this logic, they must call it donor to avoid loss of money which in my opinion is actually quite a good idea.

Good illegal idea. It's not a donation because people "donate" to get perks, and noone would do that if one wont get theur perks. The thing is it is not a donation and it would be illegal since noone pays taxes. BUT Buycraft on some way (didnt looked so much into how they work) allows this purchases without paying taxes, but you have to pay Buycraft tho. I am pretty sure Buycraft is LEGAL, so no need to worry anymore.

About shutting servers down, nah I dont believe it will happen.

 

[SixZoSeven]

Keep in mind: it may be against the rules for servers to sell ranks for money.

However, MCGamer does not sell ranks! MCGamer gives perks for your donations. Technically on MCGamer ranks aren't sold - they are donated for! ^_^

I'm not here to take sides, but I do want to point out the above. ^
Ninja edit: Annd it looks like someone pointed this out several posts before me. I guess I'll have to add some personal sentiments for this post to remain valid...

Everyone knows that you are really purchasing/buying intangible goods, rather than donating for them. Really, its just an argue of semantics.

 

[smashmaster]

Keep in mind: it may be against the rules for servers to sell ranks for money.

However, MCGamer does not sell ranks! MCGamer gives perks for your donations. Technically on MCGamer ranks aren't sold - they are donated for! ^_^

Clever and screw you mojang!

 

[JoelJCE]

SixZoSeven hit the nail on the head with his post (and his ninja edit). While realistically, we as members recognize that it's a donation (because the vast majority of the funds go to paying for the servers), legally speaking when you purchase a premium rank on any server you are purchasing intangible goods.

Back in the dawn of Minecraft multiplayer, several servers found out the hard way why you can't use PayPal "donate buttons" for anything related to Minecraft servers (ranks, in-game currency, special abilities, etc). In order for it to be considered a donation and actually access the funds you have to be a confirmed non-for-profit charity organization (that's right, many server owners lost funds that were donated to their communities because of this). So what happened? You'll recognize that most servers have replaced the word "donator" to "premium", and that you actually have to go through an entire ordering process to purchase ranks.

It's not a major difference in the grand scheme of things; but legally, semantics mean everything.

 

[RC_4777]

SixZoSeven hit the nail on the head with his post (and his ninja edit). While realistically, we as members recognize that it's a donation (because the vast majority of the funds go to paying for the servers), legally speaking when you purchase a premium rank on any server you are purchasing intangible goods.

Back in the dawn of Minecraft multiplayer, several servers found out the hard way why you can't use PayPal "donate buttons" for anything related to Minecraft servers (ranks, in-game currency, special abilities, etc). In order for it to be considered a donation and actually access the funds you have to be a confirmed non-for-profit charity organization (that's right, many server owners lost funds that were donated to their communities because of this). So what happened? You'll recognize that most servers have replaced the word "donator" to "premium", and that you actually have to go through an entire ordering process to purchase ranks.

It's not a major difference in the grand scheme of things; but legally, semantics mean everything.

That last sentence pretty much sums up my thoughts, it's all semantics.

 

[Edog]

I'm not here to take sides, but I do want to point out the above. ^
Ninja edit: Annd it looks like someone pointed this out several posts before me. I guess I'll have to add some personal sentiments for this post to remain valid...

Everyone knows that you are really purchasing/buying intangible goods, rather than donating for them. Really, its just an argue of semantics.

However, if we change the wording, to, as you said, change the semantics of it, wouldn't it be in compliance with the EULA?