Minecraft, Call Of Duty Community Servers Are “Illegal,” Claims ESA Rep
Overview & Key Takeaways
The Protect Our Games Act--a piece of legislation endorsed by the Stop Killing Games movement--has been voted down at the California State Senate. However, one of the most noteworthy incidents from this legislative battle was a comment made by an Entertainment Software Association lobbyist who claimed that Minecraft and Call of Duty private community servers are "illegal."
Jennifer Gibbons, the ESA's vice president of state government affairs, told lawmakers that community servers for Minecraft and Call of Duty games are both breaking the law.
"They’re illegal," said Gibbons. "They are not in any way affiliated with Microsoft. Microsoft, for Minecraft, has gotten a lot of criticism because of those community servers not employing the same safety standards that Microsoft does on their Minecraft servers ... In fact, we consider it piracy. We have ... two pending lawsuits against private servers right now, and the United States Trade Representative (USTR) in their Notorious Markets Reports on counterfeiting and piracy has named some of these big private servers as a notorious market."
As PC Gamer and Video Games Chronicle have noted, Gibbons has apparently conflated community-run servers with the ones actually targeted by the USTR for allowing players to circumvent subscription fees. Neither Minecraft nor classic Call of Duty games fall under those parameters and they don't require a subscription to play. There are even links to Minecraft community servers on the game's official site.
On Reddit, an advocate for Stop Killing Games accused Gibbons and the ESA of making claims that were "designed to scare a busy legislator who does not have time to fact-check a well-dressed lobbyist in real time." In response, the advocate vowed to continue the fight in future legislation.
"We are not stopping. Not even close," reads the statement. "We are not limiting this to California. We intend to introduce versions of this in other state legislatures, and we are seriously looking at the federal level. The ESA is about to learn what it is like to fight on many fronts at once. They have to win every single time to keep things the way they are. We only have to win once to change them. That math does not favor them."
In a statement to Video Games Chronicle, the ESA doubled down on its claims about private servers.
"Private servers infringe on the intellectual property (IP) rights of game publishers," reads the statement. "Publishers reserve the right to exercise their rights against them. The provision in CA AB 1921 that proposed these servers as a legitimate alternative to keep games running raises concerns about a publisher’s ability to enforce their IP rights. In addition, private servers operate with no oversight from the publisher and do not uphold the same trust and safety standards. This could create an unsafe environment for players and be counter to the industry's commitment to fostering safe and fun game play for all players."
The Stop Killing Games movement initially came together when Ubisoft decided to shut down The Crew. Since then, activists for the group have argued in Europe and North America that gaming companies have an obligation to keep older games alive that have already been sold to players. Video game publishers have in turn argued that following the demands of these players "would curtail developer choice by making these video games prohibitively expensive to create."
The Protect Our Games Act–a piece of legislation endorsed by the Stop Killing Games movement–has been voted down at the California State Senate. However, one of the most noteworthy incidents from this legislative battle was a comment made by an Entertainment Software Association lobbyist who claimed that Minecraft and Call of Duty private community servers are “illegal.”
Jennifer Gibbons, the ESA’s vice president of state government affairs, told lawmakers that community servers for Minecraft and Call of Duty games are both breaking the law.
“They’re illegal,” said Gibbons. “They are not in any way affiliated with Microsoft. Microsoft, for Minecraft, has gotten a lot of criticism because of those community servers not employing the same safety standards that Microsoft does on their Minecraft servers … In fact, we consider it piracy. We have … two pending lawsuits against private servers right now, and the United States Trade Representative (USTR) in their Notorious Markets Reports on counterfeiting and piracy has named some of these big private servers as a notorious market.”
As PC Gamer and Video Games Chronicle have noted, Gibbons has apparently conflated community-run servers with the ones actually targeted by the USTR for allowing players to circumvent subscription fees. Neither Minecraft nor classic Call of Duty games fall under those parameters and they don’t require a subscription to play. There are even links to Minecraft community servers on the game’s official site.
On , an advocate for Stop Killing Games accused Gibbons and the ESA of making claims that were “designed to scare a busy legislator who does not have time to fact-check a well-dressed lobbyist in real time.” In response, the advocate vowed to continue the fight in future legislation.
“We are not stopping. Not even close,” reads the statement. “We are not limiting this to California. We intend to introduce versions of this in other state legislatures, and we are seriously looking at the federal level. The ESA is about to learn what it is like to fight on many fronts at once. They have to win every single time to keep things the way they are. We only have to win once to change them. That math does not favor them.”
In a statement to Video Games Chronicle, the ESA doubled down on its claims about private servers.
“Private servers infringe on the intellectual property (IP) rights of game publishers,” reads the statement. “Publishers reserve the right to exercise their rights against them. The provision in CA AB 1921 that proposed these servers as a legitimate alternative to keep games running raises concerns about a publisher’s ability to enforce their IP rights. In addition, private servers operate with no oversight from the publisher and do not uphold the same trust and safety standards. This could create an unsafe environment for players and be counter to the industry’s commitment to fostering safe and fun game play for all players.”
The Stop Killing Games movement initially came together when Ubisoft decided to shut down The Crew. Since then, activists for the group have argued in Europe and North America that gaming companies have an obligation to keep older games alive that have already been sold to players. Video game publishers have in turn argued that following the demands of these players “would curtail developer choice by making these video games prohibitively expensive to create.”
