[tehbeard]

Because parents and the general public won't see that it's Bob's private server for $game. They see $game_name by $developer/publisher.

Mojang (creators of Minecraft ) is an unfortunate good case study for this. It's sale to Microsoft is in part down to not being able to balance freedom for server owners and the PR issues caused by people scamming others, in this case children, while obscuring it under the Minecraft brand.

I don't agree that we should be coerced into being in the kid safe padded play area, but I ain't blind enough to not see why we are.

[AnthonyMouse]

> Because parents and the general public won't see that it's Bob's private server for $game. They see $game_name by $developer/publisher.

That isn't how liability works. The judge isn't going to let you sue the wrong person because you're confused.

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

$developer/publisher’s lawyer still has to show up and explain the confusion to the judge. Not a legal liability but a financial one. Then if one judge somewhere says something something trademark? they would also have to appeal.

[maverwa]

Not legaly liable, but the "court of popular opinion" cares very little about facts, details, or legal entities.

[delfinom]

But the sale to Microsoft resulted in more scamming. In fact, the Xbox version of the game has in game currency added that requires dollars. And Microsoft allows servers free reign to scam children into spending that currency and buying more.

[theshackleford]

> It's sale to Microsoft is in part down to not being able to balance freedom for server owners and the PR issues caused by people scamming others, in this case children, while obscuring it under the Minecraft brand.

Source? This is the first time I’ve heard this claim.

[OkayPhysicist]

Minecraft's sale to Microsoft had a lot more to do with Notch not being particularly keen on turning down a billion dollar check than anything else.

[stathibus]

Imagine if the kids were all hanging out on Bob's Private Club Penguin Server.