If that doesn't work, you could end up throwing the following at them:

Regarding the legality of a compilation of a set of mods, of which the original authors potentially hold no copyright in the first place as that [b]cannot[/b] be decided by neither the Mod Author or Mojang, but actually has to be contested in the court of law. [sub][sub]Durham Industries, Inc. v. Tomy Corp 630 F.2d 905 (2d Cir, 1980)[/sub][/sub]

Those compiling a "mod pack" fall under fair use defense, and as the mods are not a commercial product, nor the "mod pack" is being sold for a profit, there are no damages as long as credit for work is given. When Nintendo pursued Game Genie for allowing players to customize Nintendo games, the appellate court held that “a party who distributes a copyrighted work cannot dictate how that work is to be enjoyed. Consumers may use … a Game Genie to enhance a Nintendo Game cartridge’s audiovisual display in such a way as to make the experience more enjoyable.” [sub][sub]Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc. 964 F.2d 965 (9th Cir. 1992)[/sub][/sub]

This can be used in the argument that the "mod pack" is designed to allow the various mods to work together by modifying the base mods.

Basically, compilations of free software has been contested in the past as has compiling software and making changes to code so that it is compatible with other software (in this case, editing the code to prevent block ID errors as the such) qualify mod packs as fair use. The mod authors are in the wrong in this section as they cannot claim copy right to their derivative work unless they take it to court and prove that there is enough separation from the main product (in this case, Minecraft, which is a hard sales since mods modify the gameplay of that software) to warrant their own copyright. Mod Author use of Terms and Conditions are not binding since they do not hold this copyright, they are also, for the most part, using TACs incorrectly. When they have a link pulled by claiming copyright they are actually opening themselves up to attack for false claims, of course taking this to court would be rather silly.

Having your linked pulled should be a relatively simple fix, contact the people who made the decision, inform them that they should request proof of copyright of the product, inform them that the claimed copyrighted product is a nonprofit product and that your redistribution falls under fair use as proven in Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America.




Honestly, the whole situation is stupid, but a lot of these people need to be told to shut up because they do not know what they are claiming, the administration staff at the MCF need to be told that they are encouraging would could end up being illegal claims if someone actually was crazy enough to go to court over this and that unless the admin who wrote their whole "enforced copyright policy" rule is a copyright lawyer, needs to take that shit down. :/