Git bundles of Eaglercraft repositories disabled due to DMCA takedown
github.com
github.com
DMCA is just as broken, as always has been
And it seems that some repositories disappearing from gitlab too (example: https://gitlab.com/lax1dude/eaglercraftx-1.8).
(if you read the takedown notice they claim that this project is Eaglercraft, which is not true)
Quite a few of us migrated to ms accounts, only to get blocked and the minecraft username/account ransomed until we gave Microsoft our mobile phone numbers due to "suspicious activity".
Said activity being signing in to the launcher post migration....
I refuse to migrate my account, until the day they shut the Mojang servers down. Which I fear may be soon.
Does PolyMC still let you log in with a Mojang account? I know that MultiMC doesn’t.
For multimc there's a fork called ultimmc that allows playing without an account.
Some servers do not require authenticated accounts and work in so-called "offline mode" where authenticity of usernames is not verified with mojang servers (created for playing on a LAN). Many servers on the other hand require usernames of connecting clients to be verified -- and this does not work anymore (at least for me) with the mojang login. wiki.vg has a large repository of minecraft protocol descriptions: [1] and [2]
[0] http://ni.sijanec.eu/sijanec/n/tree/etc/portage/patches/game... [1] https://wiki.vg/Legacy_Mojang_Authentication [2] https://wiki.vg/Protocol_Encryption#Authentication
This is an archive of the page for the second version of the game that had multiplayer. "You need to log in to join multiplayer games."
https://web.archive.org/web/20090612021333/http://www.minecr...
It was free to play the game before indev, which was before infdev, which was before the alpha. This older version of the game remained on the site as a demo, but it still required you to sign in for multiplayer.
The users of Eaglercraft.
>Surely you're not suggesting that someone can pirate their own property?
Mojang owns Minecraft. People who have a license to play the game can still pirate the game if they download the game from someone who does not have the rights to distribute the game. Eaglercraft did not even require someone to own an account to run.
There are obvious IPR concerns (EULA, derivative work, etc), but it's not a "pirated version" in the conventional sense.
I see various patch files with the context redacted.
The only thing that I see is "texturey" are various MineCraft character skins, which are not original Alex/Steve but closely related to them.
Can you point to what you're seeing?
The lwjgl-rundir/ folder contains the default minecraft assets.
javascript/classes.js contains a lot of symbols from a decompiled version of the game.
sp-server/src/main/ contains many decompiled classes. The classes.js file has a lot more than what is here
If you start up a local server you can load html files in the repo and it will load the game right up.
The other bundles that I pointed to do not contain any assets or code from what I can tell (other than the skins mentioned above).
The DMCA mentions taking down repos named "eaglercraft-beta". If you search for a mirror of this on google you will see the repo contains copyrighted material.
https://docs.minecraftforge.net/en/1.19.2/gettingstarted/#mi...
> (2) No person shall ... provide any technology ... that...
> (A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
> (B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or
> (C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
This is erroneous on multiple levels.
1. The DMCA takedown provision doesn't apply to circumvention devices: only direct infringements of copyrighted works.
2. Notice the "primary designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing..." "has only limited ..." etc. Format shifting Minecraft to the web has value beyond whatever authentication mechanisms are lost.
If you mean the notice-and-takedown system in Section 512 of the DMCA you're correct, that isn't the relevant section of the DMCA.
But if this software is an anti-circumvention technology than it's illegal for GitHub to host it under a different section (see my citation you replied to).
So GitHub accepts other kinds of takedown requests, including anti-circumvention takedowns, and acts on them if it determines that would be appropriate [1].
> Format shifting Minecraft to the web has value beyond whatever authentication mechanisms are lost.
I don't know enough to predict how a court would rule on that. But I'm pretty sure the necessary analysis is much much more complicated.
[1] https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/content-removal-polic... (added in edit)
* In cases where we are unable to determine whether a claim is valid, we will err on the side of the developer, and leave the content up.
* In other words, we will not disable a repository based on a claim of circumvention technology without attempting to contact a repository owner to give them a chance to respond or make changes first.
Etc, etc.
Note Github in this case explicitly said "GitHub did not find sufficient information to determine a valid anti-circumvention claim"
At the top of this thread I said the DMCA bans anti-circumvention tech.
You've made a lot of good points, but I don't get why you're arguing with me. None of that contradicts me.
Finally, while Github hosting something that is a circumvention device might qualify as "trafficking", a provider's exact scope of responsibility to avoid hosting circumvention devices is not well defined or tested.
Wouldn't it be correct to say that if there exist a technology to circumvent a technological measure of access control then that measure is in fact ineffective?
The devil’s advocate argument that I can come up with for it is that it allows developers incapable of adding sufficient protection to have their work have protection of the law, rather than code.
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_City_Studios,_Inc._v...
I don't think the linked case tried to challenge anti-circumvention provision using the reasoning I've given but it would be interesting to know if anybody else tried it :)
One particularly infuriating case involved a box that blocked the low-frequency part of a signal. That's all it took to interfere with a cable company's billing systems. Appeals court finds that was an effective measure.
The main developers of Eaglercraft have done great work that deserves to be archived. And it seems that it isn't illegal to do reverse engineering on Minecraft Java Edition.
I don't known the community around Eaglercraft, but I guess that the illegal issues come from people who don't care about software development and serves tons of static sites with Eaglercraft client but mostly ad$.
I don't think that Eaglercraft is illegal but some uses are made of it. Spigot and other servers are not illegal. But if someone publish a software for dev purposes to run Spigot server which allow to join without mojang auth: this is where that dishonest persons comes in.
You might not be aware but that's a feature that the official Mojang server provides.
It does violate copyright but I don’t think that’s the main purpose of it
Maybe if they worked out a way to patch and compile the game in the browser from an uploaded JAR file it would be OK