Markus “Notch” Persson, the original creator of Minecraft, has publicly condemned the Entertainment Software Association (ESA) after ESA Vice President Jennifer Gibbons called community-hosted servers “illegal” during a California State Senate hearing.
Notch described the trade group’s attempt to weaponize his game against players as “scummy” and “borderline evil,” while the ESA doubled down on its stance, claiming private hosting violates intellectual property rights.
What Did Notch Say About the ESA’s Claims?
Following widespread outrage across the gaming community, Markus “Notch” Persson took to X (formerly Twitter) on July 1, 2026, to criticize the trade association’s legal position. Although Notch sold Minecraft and Mojang Studios to Microsoft in 2014, he voiced strong opposition to how his foundational creation is being framed in ongoing anti-preservation lobbying:
“I’m not part of either any more, but I feel like the ESA is being incredibly scummy by pulling this. I’ve never liked them, but even less so now. I did not wish for my work to be used against people. This is borderline evil.”
How the Controversy Escalated: Senate Hearing to Corporate Statements
The dispute originated during a legislative hearing regarding California’s Protect Our Games Act (AB 1921)—a bill supported by the Stop Killing Games campaign aimed at preserving online multiplayer titles after official publisher support ends.
- The Initial Hearing Incident
California Assemblymember Chris Ward pointed to Minecraft and Call of Duty community servers as prime examples of player-driven game preservation. ESA VP Jennifer Gibbons immediately interrupted, labeling community servers as “illegal,” un-affiliated with Microsoft, and lacking corporate safety standards.
- ESA Doubles Down to the Press
Rather than backpedaling, the ESA issued a follow-up statement to PC Gamer reinforcing their position against community hosting provisions in the proposed bill:
“Private servers infringe on the intellectual property (IP) rights of game publishers. Publishers reserve the right to exercise their rights against them. 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.”
Community Realities vs. Lobbying Claims
On server legality, ESA statements have broadly categorized community servers as IP infringement and piracy. Mojang’s official policy is different — it explicitly permits private servers under the Minecraft EULA.
Regarding server tools, ESA portrayed them as unauthorized workarounds. Mojang takes the opposite approach and actively distributes official public .jar server files so anyone can host a server.
When it comes to game preservation, ESA has opposed community efforts through anti-preservation lobbying. Mojang, however, treats community hosting as central to Minecraft’s long-term survival and keeps it supported as part of the game’s ecosystem.
While the ESA argues that private hosting undercuts copyright enforcement and safety standards, Mojang’s official End User License Agreement (EULA) has long permitted players to download server software, host multiplayer sessions, and monetize under explicit brand guidelines.