ESA Claims Minecraft and Call of Duty Community Servers Are "Illegal"

Jennifer Gibbons, vice president of state government affairs for the Entertainment Software Association (ESA), has asserted that community-run servers for popular titles like Minecraft and Call of Duty are "illegal." Gibbons made these remarks to lawmakers during discussions surrounding the Protect Our Games Act, legislation that has since been voted down in the California State Senate. She argued that these servers are not affiliated with the game's developers and do not adhere to the same safety standards as official servers, equating their operation to piracy. The ESA also indicated it is pursuing legal action against some private servers, citing two pending lawsuits and their mention in the U.S. Trade Representative's Notorious Markets Reports.

However, these claims have been challenged by proponents of game preservation. Observers noted that Gibbons appeared to conflate community servers with those specifically targeted for facilitating subscription circumvention, a practice not applicable to Minecraft or classic Call of Duty titles, which do not require subscriptions to play. The Stop Killing Games movement, which advocates for the continued availability of older sold games, accused the ESA of using misleading information to influence legislators. The movement has vowed to continue its efforts to introduce similar legislation in other states and at the federal level.

The ESA has maintained its position in a statement to Video Games Chronicle, reiterating that "Private servers infringe on the intellectual property (IP) rights of game publishers." The organization expressed concern that proposed legislation allowing such servers could hinder a publisher's ability to enforce their IP rights, and pointed to a lack of publisher oversight on private servers as a potential risk to player safety. The Stop Killing Games movement initially formed in response to Ubisoft's shutdown of The Crew and argues that publishers have an obligation to maintain access to games that have already been sold, while publishers contend that such demands would make game development prohibitively expensive.