You haven't answered the question. That Mojang paid some money isn't disputed. What they paid for is the unknown.
> It is a reasonable amount of money for the kind of work that was completed.
Paying to use something isn't the same as paying to own it and from what we know use vs own wasn't clarified at the time.
> Both sides didn't clear up the legal side of things, yes, but it doesn't change the fact that both were OK with it until... until what?
What changed was Mojang trying to strong arm the author into giving them the copyright to the work for free, as part of a due diligence process in a billion dollar deal.
Copyright isn't automatically transferred in most places and it doesn't sound like the author typically agrees to anything other than a license. Mojang failed take action to obtain the copyright until it became obvious that it could hold up their billion dollar acquisition. Mojang then attempted to pressure the author into signing over the copyright for free.
The author clearly believes he granted a license. Mojang seem to have unilaterally decided post-facto that they had purchased the copyright to the work. Mojang's interpretation would be incorrect without prior agreement.
Well, they payed for this text to be included in the game (for further distribution, obviously).
That's a bad legal definition. It needs a clarification which usually comes in a form of a contract.
Mojang clearly acted un-professionally: there's money on the table without a clear job definition. What happens with the copyright? Authorship? Should the author be mentioned in the game? etc.
Same goes to the writer, obviously. Even this post sounds almost... Jealous?
The contract they suggested is a standard document suggested to contractors of the kind in IT. This is not "strong arming". The only thing that changes the discussion is the fact that it happened post-factum. And the text author, having seen the success of the game, is clearly not satisfied with just signing the doc.
He mentions money a lot so, i guess, this is root the problem.
Either way. 99.99% of Minecraft players would still play and enjoy the game with or without this text. It's a nice little touch to a brilliant game, not much beyond it.
> Well, they payed for this text to be included in the game (for further distribution, obviously).
They paid for the deal they agreed on as described in that first email. We don’t know the contents of that email, so it’s impossible for us to know if it they agreed on just including the poem in the game, transfer of copyright or anything else.
Not "almost", he openly admits being jealous (and how it's a bad, in many senses, feeling), how else are we supposed to interpret the monkey and bananas bit ?
> It is a reasonable amount of money for the kind of work that was completed.
Paying to use something isn't the same as paying to own it and from what we know use vs own wasn't clarified at the time.
> Both sides didn't clear up the legal side of things, yes, but it doesn't change the fact that both were OK with it until... until what?
What changed was Mojang trying to strong arm the author into giving them the copyright to the work for free, as part of a due diligence process in a billion dollar deal.
Copyright isn't automatically transferred in most places and it doesn't sound like the author typically agrees to anything other than a license. Mojang failed take action to obtain the copyright until it became obvious that it could hold up their billion dollar acquisition. Mojang then attempted to pressure the author into signing over the copyright for free.
The author clearly believes he granted a license. Mojang seem to have unilaterally decided post-facto that they had purchased the copyright to the work. Mojang's interpretation would be incorrect without prior agreement.