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.