Certainly there's a world where the author just knew, at some point in this process, "let me just give this giant stressor of a problem to a lawyer"—without losing whatever it means to "be an artist" or opportunities at growth he attributes to only occurring because he was awful at business.
Yeah I feel a twist in my gut for this guy. He is so frustrated it's incredible. He wrote 90% more than he needed to on this topic. The essay is long and rambling and I've missed any point he's trying to make... much like the words of his "End Poem". They are senseless and, ultimately, meaningless. They are not deep. They are incoherent. No wonder he's stuck in a narrative of his own creation. That's his life. If his emails with Carl were anything like his writing in this essay, then any reasonable person would have been at wits end trying to negotiate with this guy. He is right about one thing, though: the universe owes him nothing.
All of his problems could have been solved if he just did the sensible normal thing any person would do and have a lawyer help him figure it out.
I found it the opposite. I felt touched, it was very human and raw and real.
It's not an essay about a problem, it's an essay about experiencing a problem. The former can be solved with a lawyer, the latter with... Well nothing really. It's an experience.
For what it’s worth I found this to be a very worthwhile read. And not too hard to follow.
He’s very open about his responsibility for the miscommunication. And says he does not blame Carl (except for apparently hiding the Microsoft buyout from him).
As for the end poem, I’ve never played Minecraft but I found it to be beautiful and touching writing.
The end poem is fine. It doesn’t have particularly interesting rhythm, sound or structure in a ‘poetic’ way until the last bit. It has some weird stops, starts and repetition, but it’s coherent overall and has a functional enough core metaphor. Plus, the payoff is being told you matter, that you’re not alone. You know, the ‘we are all made of stars’ bit. It can be a powerful thought if you let it.
I realize I'm being critical. For me any message contained therein would have landed much more powerfully if it was communicated more gracefully. I, personally, believe that such stylized writing serves more to cover up shortcomings in an author's ability to communicate than it does any service to the reader. But that's my opinion. Maybe don't write the poem on drugs... idk.
Curious where you got that impression? I can't see anything in the bit where he's writing the poem that he mentions anything even vaguely pertaining to drugs.
> All of his problems could have been solved if he just did the sensible normal thing any person would do and have a lawyer help him figure it out.
Whilst this may have reached a better legal and financial conclusion, I don't think it would have helped the author that much. It's obvious that he cares of the art, and for his perceived friendship.
> All of his problems could have been solved if he just did the sensible normal thing any person would do and have a lawyer help him figure it out.
Did you mean:
All of his problems could have been solved if he just did the sensible normal thing any person would do and flat out assume all the other humans on the planet are complete assholes.
He also made it clear that he had an agent. And he had worked with large corporations in the past given his background so I'm surprised he tripped up here. It's not like this was some first time author learning about how cruel the real world can be.
That's all pretty tangential to the claim that he should "just" get a lawyer. He even describes how his life was kind of falling apart and his first marriage ended partially due to stress and partially due to his financial situation. It's wonderful to say you can "just" do this and "just" do that but it seems like things weren't "just" that simple for this person.
If you have a case, especially one presumably of this profile, then many firms would take it for no up front cost with an expectation of some cut of the damages.
But then Mojang sent the money without a contract. The writer thought he was working under some conditions, the company thought he was doing it under other conditions and they never actually agreed to anything. Sending the money without a contract is just as sloppy as sending the work and I really don’t see how the author would be responsible here.
Not having a contract does not mean that Mojang’s terms are in force.
It depends on those initial emails and what was agreed upon. Assuming no information was left out and he truly said "The contract was for a comprehensive buyout, signing away all my rights forever, which was exactly the thing I’d told Carl that I never did with my work", it could be presumed that what he was paid for was essentially just a license to use his work for the Java game.
Then he would have been told as much by any lawyer he approached. Point was that not having money wouldn't be a nonstarter.
And of course, even though he said he didn't approach anybody, the speculative part of my brain actually thinks he informally may have done so and received such advice (that he didn't have a case) and conveniently omitted as much from the narrative.
I doubt any lawyer would bring a suit against one of the biggest corporations on the planet on contingency. Its going to be a hell of a lot of work to win even a clear-cut case against an opponent with this much resources. See also: the cave-diver that sued Elon Musk for defamation. Or Miller UK vs Caterpillar Inc (they won, but it took 5 years)
I'd like to believe the contrary. It is in the nature of an artist to create needless complication. That is art, that is culture, that is human life. Without it, we just consume starches and protein until we are full, grunt directions at one another, and fuck passionlessly to soothe the itch in our loins. And then we die.
Then again, maybe that's all that's happening anyways.
He had an agent he could have just called up— but you see this all the time. People think that sorting out business with contracts ruins friendships, but it’s very often the lack of contract and the resulting fight that irreparably severs relationships.
It’s not just some capitalism v art thing either. It’s communicating and promising and accountability.
To anyone reading, if you’ve got a business partner and you think he’s given you 50% of a business because he said it one night at dinner, saying you’re cofounders— get it on paper in terms you both agree to. Go halfsies on a lawyer who helps you both accurately match terms (copyright assignment is one of those things where particular wording, intent and employment arrangement are important.) If you have doubts, maybe watch The Social Network or read about Hoefler&Co. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoefler_%26_Co.)
What struck me is it doesn't seem these people really were his friends. He didn't know them before writing the poem, it seems he only communicated with them via email, and then only regarding the poem, and he certainly wasn't friends with them afterwards.
I mean I'm probably missing a lot of details that weren't necessary to the telling of this story, but perhaps the lesson here is don't assume people are your friends when all you have is a brief business relationship.
There definitely was, as they mentioned in the article. They choose not to though, opting instead to just sit on it for a long time I guess? Hopefully they talked to a lawyer before releasing this though, and hopefully Microsoft doesn’t go after this guy.
They had a long conversation over email and an exchange of payment for the right to at least use the poem. Whether you like it or not, that can count as a contract. It might be different in different jurisdictions but here's the US definition of a contract (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/contract):
> The basic elements required for the agreement to be a legally enforceable contract are: mutual assent, expressed by a valid offer and acceptance; adequate consideration; capacity; and legality.
> They had a long conversation over email and an exchange of payment for the right to at least use the poem.
I agree with that.
This would be a real encumberance if the author were to decide he wants to sue someone. But that is not what we are discussing here. We are discussing if Microsoft will sue the author.
We are not discussing if Microsoft can sue him. The way this works anyone can sue anyone for pretty much any reason. So that is not an interesting question.
So will they sue? The problem with these kind of informal contracts is that they are vague. Vague in practical terms means two things: 1 the outcome of any legal action is uncertain. 2 things take longer. This means that litigating things about them are expensive and uncertain.
And here I repeat: the question here is not if they can use it, but if they paid for exclusive rights.
So on one hand you have a huge mess of a litigation. On an other hand do you think microsoft is meaningfully and perceptibly harmed here? Do you think they will sell less game licences or ender dragon plushies because of this? I very much doubt it.
Based on the balance of these two above do you feel it is in the best interest of Microsoft to sue the author?
That's a fair point. I think I was looking at it from the other perspective where the author was claiming that he had never approved a contract with Mojang and therefore deserved additional compensation which is pretty far from true. But I agree that Microsoft probably doesn't have a strong case here either and wouldn't gain anything from suing anyway.
It would not be too hard for Microsoft to argue that they did come to an agreement with the artist to transfer the rights in exchange for 20,000 euros, so they do now own the copyright to the End Poem and will sue for damages if the artist reneges on the deal and starts claiming it's public domain.
I hope they don't, but they definitely could. It would be a PR nightmare though, and there's not all much to be gained either (how much money can you make with the poem if you can't mention Minecraft?), so with any luck that will stop them.
For legal purposes, verbal agreements can be contracts, plus here there's an email trail that includes what very much looks like an acceptance of terms by the author.
Such a world sounds unappealing, if not naive and silly - why can't people be motivated by multiple reasons anyways? The author doesn't claim that they are a great at business in the first place.
They do express regret for not simply doing this, so I guess you are right. But, the story wouldn't be very interesting if it had played out that way, so I guess here we are.
He even had an agent. He realizes he should have just let the agent handle it. And then when they come back for the contract in 2014, he just does it again!
Still, thought this was very well written, and he's not assigning them the blame.
