Hacker News Reader

Comment by LinuxBender | Hacker News Reader

It would be up to Microsoft to say why they did it. It's probably buried somewhere in the sanction documents. [1] If Microsoft are complying with a sanction then perhaps they may have issues getting a refund, but could at least open a ticket to get an answer if they have not already. Maybe there is a corporate lawyer on here with experience in this matter?

[1] - https://ofac.treasury.gov/sanctions-programs-and-country-inf...

View on HN

I think the bigger point is that software you pay for, which requires a bannable login to use even the offline component, should not be allowed to exist.

Microsoft has been known to get around sanctions:

https://github.blog/2021-01-05-advancing-developer-freedom-g...

Why would Microsoft want to go through the effort of securing a license to allow people to play a game? That is not worth the financial effort.

It's possible to comply with sanctions and offer some services to people in Iran. It's been a while since I read the text, but I'd expect purchases and refunds are difficult, but allowing login should be ok in theory.

On the other hand, actually doing it is a lot of compliance work, and some hosts block traffic to Iran by default. Could be that something changed in the hosting and it's going to take attention and time to get it back to opened up. Microsoft should know better, but...

Why the flying fuck should sanctions infringe on someone's ability to play a game they already purchased?

Sanctions sometimes ban providing services to people in countries. Apparently Minecraft requires you to login (a service) to use the game. If the game was completely offline this wouldn't be a problem.

Barely a week goes by without some variant of "Iranian Hackers" in the tech/security press - maybe, inshallah, they could release a version that lets you play on Iran-hosted servers without needing to connect to the US for a login?

No, they don't need a 'new' client for that. That already exists. Since minecraft is basically open source, it's not really a secret that how to make a client that simply don't require login. (Surely you don't want to say it loud or legal team of MS is going to chase you hard, but lots of client just slip that function in silently)

Besides that.

The minecraft login is basically a license check allow you to join 'legal purchase required' server. And whether you want to enable the enforcement is up to server owner.

Open source means the developers release the source code willingly and encourage other people to use it. Minecraft is not now and never has been open source.

They do release the source mapping of the java version alongside the binary. Which can be used to decompile the whole game back to compilable java file. (And you can fiddle it around starting from there). It's source available if you do own the game. So I say 'basically'.

The bedrock version on the other hand is completely proprietary. With very little extension api exposed. So there is very few mods of them.

That's decompiled source and while, for Java at least, it can be pretty usable, it's actually going to differ in many ways from the original source due to optimization and obfuscation. I'm fairly sure neither Mojang nor Microsoft were particularly pleased about this, indeed their use of obfuscation implies they want to make your life more difficult doing it.

I think your point is that the Java version at least is easy to modify, but that's because it's in Java, not because Microsoft wants you to. "Open source" and even "source available" are terms of art which don't apply here. "Very hackable" seems more appropriate.

The source map is released by mojang itself.

Before this exists, there is a community project to de-obfuscate naming back to readable human names. And it usually took about a month after new minecraft version released. But this is no longer needed because mojang now release the actual mapping.

So microsoft(mojang) do want to make modders live easier out of own willing. Not just because it is java. Or they don't really need to publish that at all.

Ok, it seems we're both right in a sense. They do release obfuscation maps to help modders. However, they are adamant that this does not make Minecraft open source. I'd also be a bit surprised if they include in those maps the source of DRM/online activation components (relevant to the original topic).

https://twitter.com/Dinnerbone/status/1169242801508376582

Also, I looked at one of these things, and it's just class names, method names, and source line/column numbers. There's no comments, no variable or parameter names, no original source lines, and no hints about what optimizations or inline obfuscations were done.

https://launcher.mojang.com/v1/objects/a981dbf4095dbb2ffb078...

True. But the average kid, whether in Iran or the US, might not have the skills to edit the JAR or whatever is needed to disable the licence check.

This reply is probably a little late, but that check is just a line in the config file. You change something like verify-purchase=true to verify-purchase=false, and it's done.

Minecraft is an online game, so in today's world, he didn't purchase the game, just a license to play it online. No server access, no game.

Minecraft is not an online game, it has a multi-player option sure.. but it doesn't strictly need to be online. There is a single-player mode since basically forever..

I'm not arguing your point, but this is the general state of gaming today. A significant portion of "single player only" games require you to be online, contain "online" content, and access to the game can/will be effectively removed when servers/services go offline.

It's a sad state of affairs that you can buy an offline game, and then the developer/publisher can push out an update that turns it into an online game and then disables your access to it

It's sad, but people keep buying these games, so there is no incentive for the game companies to stop.

Half the point of sanctions is making the life of average people difficult so the leaders fear them revolting over not being able to play a game or, you know, feeding their children.

The other half is to reduce their ability to wage war on their neighbors.

Either way, the leaders are still sipping wine and eating cheese.

Honest question; has that ever worked? Cause I could see it just as easily weaponised by a sanctioned state to cause one to dislike "the west" more. Would you be more likely to overthrow your government when other governments start making your life more difficult?

You can use the US embargo on Cuba as a case study -- see this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJETjgJM-Q4. The conclusion is roughly that the sanctions did not work, they only strengthened Cuba's relationship with the Soviet Union, as well as serving to unite the citizens of Cuba against a common enemy and thus consolidating support for Fidel Castro. Another comment makes the same point about Iran and China today

Sanctions may be a very weak measure when it comes to inciting revolutions. But in general, yes, sanctions against non-military goods do work to change the minds of greedy leaderships if they can be tailored to remove a sufficient part of their income. However, that is not always the case, e.g. in Iran it is rather a measure of the "we are doing as much as we can, more than sternly worded letters, less than violence or war".

> But in general, yes, sanctions against non-military goods do work to change the minds of greedy leaderships if they can be tailored to remove a sufficient part of their income.

Why are they not working to bring about regime changes in Russia and Iran, and why did they not work to bring about regime change in Cuba and Iraq?

Because Russia and Iran have leadership that has other sources of income outside of the sanctioning west. Cuba and Iraq had that historically (with the eastern bloc as trading partners), and the regimes began to change (at least a little) when those sources for income vanished. That they didn't immediately disappear comes from the fact that the respective leadership is caught between a rock and a hard place: uncomfortable in power at home, but no safe place for comfortable exile available.

South Africa apartheid is a pretty good example.

I bet the ayatollahs are not sipping wine. I think I'm happier not knowing what they do for fun.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com