I suspect the TOS say google can remove or deny apps for any reason. If in the EU, there might be a DMA claim though.
skywal_l · 2026-08-28 12:18:37 UTC
Can a TOS waive any rights? Surely there are some unalienable rights.
Borealid · 2026-08-28 12:22:36 UTC
I, personally, don't feel that "making money by doing business in a particular market" should be a right it is illegal to waive.
If it were inalienable, things like regional distribution agreements would be void, since you could sign away your ability to sell in a certain country and then compete with your distributor anyway.
Let's keep some perspective here - there is no "inalienable right to sell apps to smartphone users via a private commercial storefront".
iamnothere · 2026-08-28 12:30:25 UTC
> Let's keep some perspective here - there is no "inalienable right to sell apps to smartphone users via a private commercial storefront".
This is unacceptable in a world where governments and businesses are increasingly gating services behind those same marketplaces.
Something’s got to give here. We can’t allow people to create a captive, gatekept marketplace and then create/allow significant pressure that herds people into that same marketplace.
IMO, break up all the gatekeepers using antitrust and require that critical infrastructure and businesses (government, banking, utilities, payments, etc) allow alternate access paths that don’t require a smartphone.
skywal_l · 2026-08-28 12:44:09 UTC
Imagine the landlord of a library were to close the store just because someone complained that the library was selling stolen books. Would you consider this acceptable?
And we are talking about a landlord that basically own the city here.
I don't know in this particular case of Luanti, but this could be people's livelihood we are talking about, there should be some sort of legal due process.
It really feels like middle-ages kind of justice.
ekianjo · 2026-08-28 12:47:45 UTC
at the same time google is moving to forbid other app stores so...
matheusmoreira · 2026-08-28 12:53:41 UTC
All rights should be inalienable, simply because if they are not then all corporations will put "you waive all your rights" into their standard legal boilerplate.
The consequences do not matter. Voiding regional distribution agreements is a small price to pay for actually having rights.
Borealid · 2026-08-28 13:26:21 UTC
If all rights were inalienable, an employment contract would not mean I need to pay my employee, because I would have an inalienable right to keep my own property (cash).
Also nobody would offer the contract in the first place because the employee would keep their inalienable right to choose how they spend their own time (not working).
EVERY contract is about giving something up in exchange for getting something. In most legal systems a contract is void if either party gives nothing. So in a world where nothing can be signed away, no contracts exist at all.
horsawlarway · 2026-08-28 13:08:03 UTC
I think this take holds up very poorly when the reality boils down to:
"Government policy and critical services have made it so there are functionally two markets for mobile software, each owned by the manufacturers and developers of the mobile OS and hardware"
This isn't like physical sales, where I can open up a store anywhere. This also isn't like classic software sales for windows/mac desktops, where I can sell you a program from any website or physical store.
---
Functionally - this is like these private companies revoking your business license at their whim. I don't find it a tenable position.
limagnolia · 2026-08-28 12:19:17 UTC
Sue Microsft, not Google. It was Microsoft who filed the DMCA notice, Microsft is the responsible party.
conartist6 · 2026-08-28 12:48:40 UTC
The TOS isn't a defense against purposely trying to ruin someone else's business by lying
mysterydip · 2026-08-28 12:27:43 UTC
Could the sequence of events be:
1) open source project publishes source
2) AI scrapes source
3) AI generates code for proprietary game similar to that of the source
4) AI tool scans jar files and finds similar code, triggers copyright violation
puskavi · 2026-08-28 12:30:26 UTC
It probably just looks at pictures
clort · 2026-08-28 12:34:14 UTC
Could be, but unfortunately (3) can generate the code but it is not copyrightable (Thaler v. Perlmutter)
sidewndr46 · 2026-08-28 12:35:32 UTC
No, that isn't what that case ruled at all. It ruled that the program generating the code cannot be the author.
em-bee · 2026-08-28 13:29:51 UTC
interesting interpretation. most other articles on the topic have a different interpretation. if the AI can not be the author, then who can? is writing the prompt enough to establish being the creator? i think we need a few more cases to get an answer to that.
astrobe_ · 2026-08-28 12:37:26 UTC
It's very unlikely. The DMCA notification is from Microsoft, who owns Minecraft.
The sequence of events is:
1) US votes a law that is hilariously favourable to copyright holders
2) Copyright holders abuse it for a while with non-AI bots
3) Copyright holders abuse it with AI-bots
4) Copyright holders will continue to abuse it until the law is amended.
SXX · 2026-08-28 13:05:25 UTC
Fun part is that US legislative branch did not have much say in creation of DMCA.
US executive branch back then was just lobbied by major copyright holders and they literally bypassed much of legislation process around congress by creating and signing international agreements instead.
By the time DMCA landed in congress there was very little that could be changed because US already had to honour intetnational agreements it's already created and signed.
Didn't the international agreements require ratification from legislative?
zdragnar · 2026-08-28 13:12:48 UTC
Except, of course, Luanti holds copyright over their own assets and app. Copyright is not something you get when you file paperwork with the government, it is automatic for creative works.
DMCA is punitive to platforms who do not correctly adjudicate the law and self enforce, which is why they err on the side of the claimant rather than the accused (or the side more likely to defend their copyright in court).
So, the law doesn't really favor copyright holders, it favors extremely conservative and risk averse behavior from large platforms, regardless of who would actually win a dispute over copyright.
duskdozer · 2026-08-28 13:06:50 UTC
>Luanti’s Android app is currently not available on the due to a baseless DMCA notice filed on behalf of Microsoft by Tracer.AI, alleging that Luanti infringes Minecraft’s copyright.
>Luanti is a voxel game-creation platform where anyone can make, share, discover, and play blocky games.
Doubt it. Microsoft probably just sees "voxel game" and files the claim, because they don't lose anything if it fails.
em-bee · 2026-08-28 13:25:03 UTC
you doubt what? the claim they are filing is that luanti violates the copyright. that's the point of filing a DMCA notice. that means they are alleging that luanti infringes minecraft’s copyright. what else could it be?
matheusmoreira · 2026-08-28 12:50:22 UTC
It's just the usual corporate censorship via "good faith" DMCA notices that nobody but other corporations can afford to actually fight.
shevy-java · 2026-08-28 13:18:26 UTC
They created the perfect mafia system here. It is fascinating to see how easily democracies can be undermined.
sam_lowry_ · 2026-08-28 12:51:56 UTC
One can still install Luanti from F-Droid.
It's great little tool to teach coding.
vintermann · 2026-08-28 12:56:22 UTC
> We received a similar notice from the same company in 2023 and successfully appealed against it. This company also filed a similar notice this year against an indie game with similar voxel art style by the name of Allumeria.
They'll backtrack and apologize - again.
At some point, the pathway for Microsoft to regain some of the goodwill associated with Minecraft is to fire the senior lawyer most responsible for sending out these notices.
Hnrobert42 · 2026-08-28 13:01:48 UTC
There is no cost to Tracer.ai for false positives.
There is a cost to them for false negatives, if only just lost revenue.
The beatings will persist until morale improves.
testing22321 · 2026-08-28 13:06:51 UTC
If there are no consequences for filing a false DMCA takedown, what stops people or companies filing them all the time to take apps from Apple or Microsoft offline?
Aerroon · 2026-08-28 13:12:15 UTC
How do the lawyers filing these bogus claims not end up in prison? How is it not fraud?
shevy-java · 2026-08-28 13:17:53 UTC
These de-facto monopolies such as "Google Play", must be
forced open by governments. It can not be that they continue
to turn a blind eye to these vile, ruthless and - most
importantly - extremely evil action by the giant that was
formerly known as Google (now known as adMonster).
whizzter · 2026-08-28 13:22:40 UTC
Someone should copyright the American flag and popular advertised variants of blue/white/red and something alike and start DMCA'ing politicians, maybe that would wake them up to how bad the law is?
Comments
If it were inalienable, things like regional distribution agreements would be void, since you could sign away your ability to sell in a certain country and then compete with your distributor anyway.
Let's keep some perspective here - there is no "inalienable right to sell apps to smartphone users via a private commercial storefront".
This is unacceptable in a world where governments and businesses are increasingly gating services behind those same marketplaces.
Something’s got to give here. We can’t allow people to create a captive, gatekept marketplace and then create/allow significant pressure that herds people into that same marketplace.
IMO, break up all the gatekeepers using antitrust and require that critical infrastructure and businesses (government, banking, utilities, payments, etc) allow alternate access paths that don’t require a smartphone.
I don't know in this particular case of Luanti, but this could be people's livelihood we are talking about, there should be some sort of legal due process.
It really feels like middle-ages kind of justice.
The consequences do not matter. Voiding regional distribution agreements is a small price to pay for actually having rights.
Also nobody would offer the contract in the first place because the employee would keep their inalienable right to choose how they spend their own time (not working).
EVERY contract is about giving something up in exchange for getting something. In most legal systems a contract is void if either party gives nothing. So in a world where nothing can be signed away, no contracts exist at all.
"Government policy and critical services have made it so there are functionally two markets for mobile software, each owned by the manufacturers and developers of the mobile OS and hardware"
This isn't like physical sales, where I can open up a store anywhere. This also isn't like classic software sales for windows/mac desktops, where I can sell you a program from any website or physical store.
---
Functionally - this is like these private companies revoking your business license at their whim. I don't find it a tenable position.
1) open source project publishes source
2) AI scrapes source
3) AI generates code for proprietary game similar to that of the source
4) AI tool scans jar files and finds similar code, triggers copyright violation
The sequence of events is:
1) US votes a law that is hilariously favourable to copyright holders
2) Copyright holders abuse it for a while with non-AI bots
3) Copyright holders abuse it with AI-bots
4) Copyright holders will continue to abuse it until the law is amended.
US executive branch back then was just lobbied by major copyright holders and they literally bypassed much of legislation process around congress by creating and signing international agreements instead.
By the time DMCA landed in congress there was very little that could be changed because US already had to honour intetnational agreements it's already created and signed.
Louis Rossman have a video on it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0-j89LJysY
DMCA is punitive to platforms who do not correctly adjudicate the law and self enforce, which is why they err on the side of the claimant rather than the accused (or the side more likely to defend their copyright in court).
So, the law doesn't really favor copyright holders, it favors extremely conservative and risk averse behavior from large platforms, regardless of who would actually win a dispute over copyright.
>Luanti is a voxel game-creation platform where anyone can make, share, discover, and play blocky games.
Doubt it. Microsoft probably just sees "voxel game" and files the claim, because they don't lose anything if it fails.
It's great little tool to teach coding.
They'll backtrack and apologize - again.
At some point, the pathway for Microsoft to regain some of the goodwill associated with Minecraft is to fire the senior lawyer most responsible for sending out these notices.
There is a cost to them for false negatives, if only just lost revenue.
The beatings will persist until morale improves.