Participation criteria changed to the 9th of December 2013

Hello @everyone,

After two back to back meetings with our lawyers this week (mini-announcements for those that like to check in), it was decided that a change in the participation criteria must be made to increase our chances of success.

Before: Must have purchased the game before the 23rd of January 2015

Now: Must have purchased the game before the 9th of December 2013

While this does mean that we lose roughly 20% of the group that prevously qualified for the 2015 criteria, the benefits it brought were sufficiently important to warrant the change; where the purpose of this announcement is to explain the reasoning behind the decision.

Privacy perspective

One of the points that we are heavily pushing for is privacy and data processing, particularly in regards to the idea that the way in which data is currently collected and processed does not conform with what was agreed upon at the point of sale.

This is part of the reason we had previously set the criteria to the 23rd of January 2015, as that marked the point at which Mojang had implemented Microsoft into its privacy policy with the implication that they could use and access customer data.

What we were anticipating is that Mojang would claim that even if a new party was involved (aka Microslop), the actual data processing adhered with the purposes of the previous revision (since there were some clauses in the privacy policy giving themselves permission to use the data for purposes similar to the Microsoft one, like marketing, tracking, product improvement etc).

If we look at the privacy policy from the 9th of December 2013 however:

Privacy Policy

When you purchase a game from us, you fill in your personal/company details. You agree that we store and use your information in our organization to complete the agreement towards you. You have the right, according to the law Personuppgiftslagen (PUL) in Sweden to know about the information registered about you. If it is wrong, insufficient or irrelevant you have the right to make sure that it gets corrected or removed.

That’s it, one paragraph; no marketing, no tracking, no analytics purposes, nothing. They collect data solely to complete the agreement, aka provide the game.

This basically mitigates any potential mental gymnastics they could have used to justify adherence to the previous terms privacy policy wise.

Ownership perspective

A major change that happened in 2015 is that they changed the wording as such:

(2013) You have bought the game so you can use it, yourself, on your computer.

to

(2015) You have been granted a license to the game so you can play and use it, yourself, on your computer devices.

This touches the topic of ownership because back in 2013, it was specifically worded as purchasing the game rather than a license that gives you permission to play the game, further reinforcing the topic that this was a perpetual one-time purchase that cannot be revoked, as there is no license to revoke in the first place.

Given that we’ve got evidence (some of which was shown in the second video) of them admitting to have revoked the license that wasn’t even a license in the first place, they kind of cooked themselves with an admission even further. This also allows us to use laws specifically geared towards “products” rather than “services” due to the way it is worded.

Modification perspective

A major point is the uncertainty in how Mojang actually enforces the contract, particularly with regard to mods, plugins and servers due to but not limited to hidden clauses etc that they make up on the spot and selectively enforce.

This is a rather sensitive topic as some mods that tens of thousands of players rely on would not exist in their current state if its developer was unable to get compensated for the work being put in.

Part of the filings are thus geared towards the fact that Mojang does not even have the right to control mods and plugins at all in the first place, including their monetization and distribution, due to the simple fact that they neither created them nor own any of its intellectual property (with the sole exception of a mod/plugin that specifically contains Mojang IP which in itself is extremely rare).

As a simple example, what right does a car manufacturer have to regulate the production, sale and use of an accessory that is COMPATIBLE with the underlying product (the car), such as a phone holder? None, they neither created or own any part of the accessory, compatibility does not equate to them having either ownership or control over it (especially in the EU where there are case law precedents of in-memory mods not being copyrightable and reverse engineering for the sake of compatibility being a statutory right).

As such, one of the important points in the 2013 revision of the agreement is how the contract specifically allowed the monetization of user made tooling (incl. mods under definition of tools):

You may develop tools, plug-ins and services for commercial use

As opposed to the 2015 revision which in itself already contained a full monetization prohibition.

Overall this point isn’t as much geared towards the benefits of monetization, rather getting Mojang to back off controlling things they have no business or rights getting involved in.

The “consequences” of group reduction

The largest “consequence” of losing 20% of the group due to the benefits cited above are that those who could have participated would not be eligible to receive damages (as in a monetary sum on top of the recovered account if applicable) for this first class action.

Even if we achieve the goals we have set out to achieve, the migration reversal will apply not only for the direct participants, but also for EU/EEA users at a bare minimum (with the highest probability being a global reversal), meaning that the effects of it will not be solely reserved for those who participate “directly”.

The further specification of the group is thus really just a benefit as it reduces vectors of attack that Mojang’s legal team could have tried to use against us.

Filing When 1!!1!1!!

Given that the filings are essentially completed as of the meeting 2 days ago, only minor adjustments are necessary to certain sections to reflect this date criteria change. I specifically asked whether it would be reasonable to expect the filings to be submitted within a week or so and the answer was yes.

This is in other words not an estimate I guessed based on the state of things, rather a direct estimate from our lawyers.

Another large announcement will be send out right as the filings are sent in, along with their translation in English (original is in Swedish).