ESA Claims Private Minecraft Servers Are Illegal
A recent California State Senate committee hearing took an unexpected turn when a trade group representing the video game industry labeled community-run game servers as illegal black markets.
The debate unfolded during a session regarding the Protect Our Games Act (AB 1921), a piece of legislation backed by the "Stop Killing Games" movement. The bill aims to require video game publishers to ensure their products remain playable even after official server support is shut down. When California Assemblyman Chris Ward pointed out that games like Minecraft and Call of Duty already successfully rely on community-hosted servers to stay alive, the Entertainment Software Association (ESA) strongly objected.
Jennifer Gibbons, the ESA’s vice president of state government affairs, interrupted the hearing to push back against the idea.
“They’re illegal,” Gibbons responded. “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.”
When a committee member asked if these setups amounted to a "black market" for video games, Gibbons agreed with the comparison.
“Yes," said Gibbons. "In fact, we consider it piracy. We have lawsuits, 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.”
However, the claim directly conflicts with how games like Minecraft actually operate. The official Minecraft website openly provides server files for users to download and run, and features dedicated pages promoting third-party platforms. According to the game's official site:
"Each server offers its own brand of fun and uniqueness. Find your favorite with our Server List Site, where all listed servers have been reviewed and verified as following our community standards and guidelines."
Industry experts also pointed out that the federal government's Notorious Markets Reports do not target standard community servers built for playing with friends. Instead, those federal lists target unauthorized platforms that replicate subscription-based titles, such as World of Warcraft, which allow users to bypass paying the game's publishers.
Following media inquiries, the ESA modified its stance and issued an updated statement with adjusted language:
"Private servers that host or distribute copyrighted game content without authorization infringe on the intellectual property (IP) rights of game publishers. While publishers may take different approaches, all publishers reserve the right to exercise their rights against IP infringement. 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 Protect Our Games Act ultimately failed to secure the necessary majority votes to advance out of the committee. However, the bill was granted a reconsideration, keeping its chances alive for a future vote.
An anonymous volunteer for the "Stop Killing Games" campaign shared their thoughts on the setback on Reddit, arguing that the industry's arguments were "designed to scare a busy legislator who does not have time to fact-check a well-dressed lobbyist in real time.
"It worked just well enough this round," the volunteer added. "It will not work when we are standing in the same room, with developers and players beside us, ready to answer every single claim as it happens. Here is what happens next. We are not stopping. Not even close. Next session, we come back with an in-person lobbying presence, the funding to do this properly, and a long list of organizations and developers signed on in support."
The grassroots group also indicated it intends to expand its efforts, exploring similar legislative proposals in other states as well as at the federal level.
