Since 2 projects got deleted/banned from TW (who don’t even host project) after a DMCA takedown request , does it mean that Minecraft content is now banned ?

I think so but im not sure

I don't presume so, since the single most loved/favorited/viewed project on Scratch is about Minecraft. The taken-downs might have credited improperly.

SapphirePX wrote:

I don't presume so, since the single most loved/favorited/viewed project on Scratch is about Minecraft. The taken-downs might have credited improperly.

But it is a full game with copyright im not sure but i think if it has copyright then you cant post it on scratch even with credit.

Mojang doesn’t do take downs that much, the project may have just been inappropriate.

sup3r_r0ck wrote:

Mojang doesn’t do take downs that much, the project may have just been inappropriate.

Actually 2 Minecraft project (on TURBOWARP YES) goes DMAC’d

No. It's all bogus. Any company or individual claiming DMCA over a project must display valid, reasonable evidence of damage to their business in actual numbers (money). Since these are just automated requests, they probably don't have any evidence of some kid's project that a bunch of kids play actually tanks their sales on Minecraft, the already-biggest game in the world. They claim that it “damages the goodwill and reputation of Microsoft Corporation and causes consumer confusion as to whether your website is authorized, endorsed, or sponsored by Microsoft Corporation when, in fact, it is not” even though it's undoubtedly obvious to any functioning human (which is why this is so obviously automated) that it's a scratch project with blocks on a kid's site.On the more opinionated side, it's wild for them to assume Microsoft had any goodwill and reputation, since it's only being held up by the fact people have gotten used to their greedy corporate actions. Everyone, including me, uses their products, but they don't seem to have any goodwill behind their slop.

Furthermore, whatever dumb automated scraper did this didn't realize that the projects aren't hosted on TurboWarp but rather Scratch, which makes this all the more less valid. It's sad that TurboWarp folded under 0 pressure when they could've dug deeper and just stood their ground, although I guess fighting back in court is usually more expensive than anything.

Fortunately, they usually remove these clanker-produced claims once you spam their social medias enough for an actual human to look at it, but other than that, fighting in court needs you big money bucks.

thephoneguys wrote:

SapphirePX wrote:

I don't presume so, since the single most loved/favorited/viewed project on Scratch is about Minecraft. The taken-downs might have credited improperly.

But it is a full game with copyright im not sure but i think if it has copyright then you cant post it on scratch even with credit.

not necessarily, you can use copyrighted content with credit on scratch. it's just that sometimes (rarely though) the copyright holder will decide to take it down (again, this is actually extremely rare)

I doubt Minecraft content would be banned, even if the DMCAs affected Scratch. If you don’t believe me, then I’ll give you this: even after the Geometry Dash project DMCA, GD projects were not banned from Scratch (though they were blacklisted from search).

thephoneguys wrote:

SapphirePX wrote:

I don't presume so, since the single most loved/favorited/viewed project on Scratch is about Minecraft. The taken-downs might have credited improperly.

But it is a full game with copyright im not sure but i think if it has copyright then you cant post it on scratch even with credit.

mario content, sonic content, kirby content, and so on is still up
may have been against CGs somehow or it got DMCA'd or something (happened to me once because incredibox was mad at me even though it was a kids site, and was a remix of a different project, and to my knowledge not on any sites)

For context on the DMCA takedown, see https://github.com/TurboWarp/transparency/commit/d18581b4e770c24ccdecaa8e51cdbb6eeb1a90ad and https://turbowarp.org/662310182

scratchcode1_2_3 wrote:

It's sad that TurboWarp folded under 0 pressure when they could've dug deeper and just stood their ground

Isn't turbowarp ran by one singular guy (garbomuffin)? I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt by assuming he just wanted to get it over with & couldn't bother to do any legal debauchery
/f

No, Minecraft is still allowed.
The removed projects were extremely realistic versions of the game. Normal MC games are still allowed.

_-ALTERI-_ wrote:

Since 2 projects got deleted/banned from TW (who don’t even host project) after a DMCA takedown request , does it mean that Minecraft content is now banned ?

No, for two reasons:

• This was TurboWarp rather than Scratch. I have no idea what legal differences there are between the two, but Minecraft projects have existed on Scratch for years without being DMCA'd, and this is the first time I am hearing of this happen, so I suspect there is something either about TurboWarp or the two specific projects you mention that Microsoft did not like.
  
  
• Scratch always has the position of “Fair Use,” which to my knowledge means that the Scratch Team allows you to post content that you may not be a copyright holder for. In other words, if the Scratch Team sees you use Minecraft content, that does not mean that they will remove your project for the sole reason of using Minecraft content. As a result, the only issue on that front would be if Microsoft sends a DMCA takedown request for specific Minecraft projects. Even if they do, I don't expect the Scratch Team to preemptively ban all Minecraft content on Scratch.
  

scratchcode1_2_3 wrote:

No. It's all bogus. Any company or individual claiming DMCA over a project must display valid, reasonable evidence of damage to their business in actual numbers (money).

This doesn't seem to be correct based on the DMCA page on Scratch. Based on the information here, I read that anyone can submit a DMCA takedown request as long as they have valid, reasonable evidence of being the copyright holder — no monetary damage required.

scratchcode1_2_3 wrote:

Since these are just automated requests,

I'm not convinced this is an automated request. Maybe if this were posted on YouTube, I could be convinced, but the fact that two TurboWarp projects were targeted without any Scratch projects being targeted (to my knowledge) suggests to me that this was deliberate.

scratchcode1_2_3 wrote:

They claim that it “damages the goodwill and reputation of Microsoft Corporation and causes consumer confusion as to whether your website is authorized, endorsed, or sponsored by Microsoft Corporation when, in fact, it is not” even though it's undoubtedly obvious to any functioning human (which is why this is so obviously automated) that it's a scratch project with blocks on a kid's site.

You'd be surprised as to how not-obvious things can be to people. It's obvious to you and me since we know what Scratch and TurboWarp are. For those who don't, it's much more complex.

scratchcode1_2_3 wrote:

Furthermore, whatever dumb automated scraper did this didn't realize that the projects aren't hosted on TurboWarp but rather Scratch, which makes this all the more less valid.

The projects don't appear to be shared on Scratch. So, unless Microsoft also sent the Scratch Team a DMCA request to remove the projects on Scratch (which would only be necessary if the projects were shared on Scratch), it was TurboWarp that had these projects publicly displayed. This is likely why Microsoft went to TurboWarp. (Indeed, as far as I know, there are no rules on Scratch — DMCA or otherwise — that prevent you from making unshared projects with copyrighted material if you don't plan to publicly release them ever.)

scratchcode1_2_3 wrote:

It's sad that TurboWarp folded under 0 pressure when they could've dug deeper and just stood their ground, although I guess fighting back in court is usually more expensive than anything.

Well, of course it's expensive, especially when (to my knowledge) they would have had no legal ground to stand on. The creator of TurboWarp is not the copyright holder of Minecraft, so I'm not sure how exactly they could fight back against it.

As stated on the DMCA page, “You should only submit a counter-notification if the content was removed because of a mistake or misidentification and you are willing to go to court to defend your use of the material.” Submitting a counter-notification is a serious action, and presumably the creator of TurboWarp has no authorization to freely use Microsoft's copyrighted material, so I can see why the creator of TurboWarp may not find it worth it to fight.

Za-Chary wrote:

(#14)
This doesn't seem to be correct based on the DMCA page on Scratch. Based on the information here, I read that anyone can submit a DMCA takedown request as long as they have valid, reasonable evidence of being the copyright holder — no monetary damage required.

If it gets fought in court, the Scratch Team could use the fact that you need to consider Fair Use under penalty of perjury.
Also, not to be weird, but your message looks AI with all the em dashes and the overall style of the writing. I doubt it's actually AI but it makes your post weird to read.
Second of all, what does the Scratch DMCA page have to do with the actual, official law? Under section 1201©(1), “ OTHER RIGHTS, ETC., NOT AFFECTED.—(1) Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title.” as per the official statute at https://www.congress.gov/105/plaws/publ304/PLAW-105publ304.pdf

Za-Chary wrote:

(#14)
I'm not convinced this is an automated request. Maybe if this were posted on YouTube, I could be convinced, but the fact that two TurboWarp projects were targeted without any Scratch projects being targeted (to my knowledge) suggests to me that this was deliberate.

The DMCA was carried out by Tracer on behalf of Microslop, which is quite literally an AI platform to carry out automated infringement by searching platforms. Go to their platform at https://www.tracer.ai/ . It's not even debatable because that's just what it is.

Za-Chary wrote:

(#14)
The projects don't appear to be shared on Scratch. So, unless Microsoft also sent the Scratch Team a DMCA request to remove the projects on Scratch (which would only be necessary if the projects were shared on Scratch), it was TurboWarp that had these projects publicly displayed. This is likely why Microsoft went to TurboWarp. (Indeed, as far as I know, there are no rules on Scratch — DMCA or otherwise — that prevent you from making unshared projects with copyrighted material if you don't plan to publicly release them ever.)

And they were on the TurboWarp main site, which can't host projects by themselves. All projects “on” TurboWarp are literally just from Scratch. The bug that allowed unshared projects to be downloaded through the API (and therefore on platforms like TurboWarp) was literally patched years ago, if you remember. The only place TurboWarp can actually host their own projects is on share.turbowarp.org, which provides a Version 4 UUID for each project instead (see RFC 4122 and the newer RFC 9562), not a project ID like Scratch's system.

Za-Chary wrote:

(#14)
You'd be surprised as to how not-obvious things can be to people. It's obvious to you and me since we know what Scratch and TurboWarp are. For those who don't, it's much more complex.

Scratch is ubiquitous, and any functioning human being would take the 2 seconds to read the disclaimers or platform information.

Za-Chary wrote:

(#14)
The projects don't appear to be shared on Scratch. So, unless Microsoft also sent the Scratch Team a DMCA request to remove the projects on Scratch (which would only be necessary if the projects were shared on Scratch), it was TurboWarp that had these projects publicly displayed. This is likely why Microsoft went to TurboWarp. (Indeed, as far as I know, there are no rules on Scratch — DMCA or otherwise — that prevent you from making unshared projects with copyrighted material if you don't plan to publicly release them ever.)

Well, yeah, they aren't shared anymore…

Za-Chary wrote:

(#14)
Well, of course it's expensive, especially when (to my knowledge) they would have had no legal ground to stand on. The creator of TurboWarp is not the copyright holder of Minecraft, so I'm not sure how exactly they could fight back against it.

As stated on the DMCA page, “You should only submit a counter-notification if the content was removed because of a mistake or misidentification and you are willing to go to court to defend your use of the material.” Submitting a counter-notification is a serious action, and presumably the creator of TurboWarp has no authorization to freely use Microsoft's copyrighted material, so I can see why the creator of TurboWarp may not find it worth it to fight.

Like I said, you have to swear under penalty of perjury that you considered fair use before DMCA. They would probably win on the trademark (even thought the project was called Minceraft, not Minecraft), but Microsoft has no legal grounds on how obvious their case fails when fair use is considered on copyright law.
Furthermore, they're never actually willing to go to court, and (I'm not encouraging this to anyone if they're not actually ready for a lawsuit), under Section 512(g)(2)(B)-(C), the copyright holder has 14 days to begin the lawsuit or the claim is dropped and the content must be brought back, essentially the bluff method, “‘‘(B) upon receipt of a counter notification described in paragraph (3), promptly provides the person who pro-ided the notification under subsection ©(1)(C) with a copy of the counter notification, and informs that person that it will replace the removed material or cease disabling access to it in 10 business days; and (C) replaces the removed material and ceases disabling access to it not less than 10, nor more than 14, business days following receipt of the counter notice, unless its designated agent first receives notice from the person who submitted the notification under subsection ©(1)(C) that such person has filed an action seeking a court order to restrain the subscriber from engaging in infringing activity relating to the material on the service provider’s system or network.”

So yes, it's still bogus. You just gotta have big money bucks to prove it.

Proof (the literal notice):

Tracer (on behalf of Microsoft Corporation) wrote:

(source)

Dear Registrant of https://turbowarp.org/1209181919, https://turbowarp.org/662310182,

We write to you on behalf of Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft Corporation”) regarding your unauthorized use of Microsoft Corporation's intellectual property on your website, https://turbowarp.org/1209181919, https://turbowarp.org/662310182 (the “URL”).

It has come to our attention that the URL you have registered and are operating contains content (the “Infringing Content”) which infringes the copyright, intellectual property rights, goodwill, and reputation of Microsoft Corporation. This includes, but is not limited to, the following copyright (the “MINECRAFT Copyright”) owned by Microsoft Corporation, which can be found on Microsoft Corporation's official website at https://www.minecraft.net/:

Copyright: MINECRAFT

Your unauthorized use of the Infringing Content constitutes a direct infringement of Microsoft Corporation's intellectual property rights in the MINECRAFT Copyright. This unauthorized use damages the goodwill and reputation of Microsoft Corporation and causes consumer confusion as to whether your website is authorized, endorsed, or sponsored by Microsoft Corporation when, in fact, it is not.

Microsoft Corporation has a strict obligation to the public to police against copyright-infringing content that causes marketplace confusion. Your actions dilute Microsoft Corporation's MINECRAFT Copyright, harm its associated goodwill, and constitute a misappropriation and violation of the exclusive rights of Microsoft Corporation.

This damage to its business entitles Microsoft Corporation to various forms of relief, including monetary compensation and statutory damages.

We represent under penalty of perjury that the information in this notice is true and correct, and that we are authorized to act on behalf of Microsoft Corporation as owner of the MINECRAFT Copyright. We have a good faith belief that this use of the Infringing Content on your website is not authorized by Microsoft Corporation, its agents, or the law.

Accordingly, we demand that you immediately cease and desist from any further use of the MINECRAFT Copyright, and that you permanently remove the Infringing Content from https://turbowarp.org/1209181919, https://turbowarp.org/662310182 without delay.

Please resolve this matter immediately and confirm in writing within the next seven (7) days that the Infringing Content has been permanently removed. Failure to comply may result in further escalation, including notifying your web hosting provider to suspend your services and pursuing formal legal remedies.

Microsoft Corporation reserves the right to take whatever action it considers appropriate to protect its rights. Nothing contained in this notice is intended to constitute a waiver of any of Microsoft Corporation's legal rights or remedies, all of which are hereby expressly reserved.

Please let us know if you need any additional information.

Sincerely,
Director of Enforcement at Tracer
(on behalf of Microsoft Corporation)

+

scratchcode1_2_3 wrote:

And they were on the TurboWarp main site, which can't host projects by themselves. All projects “on” TurboWarp are literally just from Scratch. The bug that allowed unshared projects to be downloaded through the API (and therefore on platforms like TurboWarp) was literally patched years ago, if you remember.

I believe websites that display copyrighted content are required to respond to DMCA takedown requests even if the content is hosted somewhere else. Google sometimes removes search results because of takedown requests, even though they're just links.

scratchcode1_2_3 wrote:

Like I said, you have to swear under penalty of perjury that you considered fair use before DMCA. They would probably win on the trademark (even thought the project was called Minceraft, not Minecraft), but Microsoft has no legal grounds on how obvious their case fails when fair use is considered on copyright law.

I doubt it's that obvious. My understanding is that whether something is considered fair use depends on multiple criteria, such as how much of the original work is being used. Using copyrighted content in a Scratch project is more likely to be fair use because it's an educational platform, but that's not the only factor – being shared on Scratch doesn't automatically make something fair use.

scratchcode1_2_3 wrote:

Also, not to be weird, but your message looks AI with all the em dashes and the overall style of the writing. I doubt it's actually AI but it makes your post weird to read.

To me, it looks like exactly like a message written by Za-Chary, who already had the same writing style years before generative AI was available. I find it really annoying when people (not you specifically, this is quite common) complain that human writing looks like AI because it's formatted in a certain way – humans have been using em dashes for centuries; why should we stop now just because AI likes to use them?

Maximouse wrote:

(#17)

scratchcode1_2_3 wrote:

And they were on the TurboWarp main site, which can't host projects by themselves. All projects “on” TurboWarp are literally just from Scratch. The bug that allowed unshared projects to be downloaded through the API (and therefore on platforms like TurboWarp) was literally patched years ago, if you remember.

I believe websites that display copyrighted content are required to respond to DMCA takedown requests even if the content is hosted somewhere else. Google sometimes removes search results because of takedown requests, even though they're just links.

That is true, but it's still silly that the companies go for TurboWarp instead.

Maximouse wrote:

(#17)

scratchcode1_2_3 wrote:

Like I said, you have to swear under penalty of perjury that you considered fair use before DMCA. They would probably win on the trademark (even thought the project was called Minceraft, not Minecraft), but Microsoft has no legal grounds on how obvious their case fails when fair use is considered on copyright law.

I doubt it's that obvious. My understanding is that whether something is considered fair use depends on multiple criteria, such as how much of the original work is being used. Using copyrighted content in a Scratch project is more likely to be fair use because it's an educational platform, but that's not the only factor – being shared on Scratch doesn't automatically make something fair use.

I meant obvious in the sense that Scratch is what hosts projects and TurboWarp only runs them, similarly with the fact that they're both educational platforms. I do believe Microsoft would have the upper hand in trademark law (although the notice conflates trademark with copyright law), but under copyright law, it would definitely be fair use.
That's one of the reasons why I would find a lawsuit interesting. Such as the lawsuits with the Software Freedom Conservancy, they are standing on principles rather than just asking for money. On a lawsuit specific to DMCA and Fair Use (such as Lenz v. Universal Music Corp.), it would be to set a precedent in fair use and win against these companies' never-ending greed…

Maximouse wrote:

(#17)

scratchcode1_2_3 wrote:

Also, not to be weird, but your message looks AI with all the em dashes and the overall style of the writing. I doubt it's actually AI but it makes your post weird to read.

To me, it looks like exactly like a message written by Za-Chary, who already had the same writing style years before generative AI was available. I find it really annoying when people (not you specifically, this is quite common) complain that human writing looks like AI because it's formatted in a certain way – humans have been using em dashes for centuries; why should we stop now just because AI likes to use them?

I know, it was not my intention to be disrespectful. That post struck me odd specifically because of the way the sentence was structured, which led up with the context and the “— no monetary damage required.” rather than starting with that, which made me need a double take since the sentence was made to build suspense into that part rather than explain it outright. For me, I don't find em dashes to be a tell-tale sign of AI, nor is it bad for a human to use them, but there are specific ways and situations to use them in where it fits much better for the sake of readability and the argument/claim. For an anecdotal analogy, it reminds me of a friend in real life that keeps telling me my code lacks hygiene because of the abundance of if statements, in many cases where I could've used a switch/case. Now, I actually agree on that, but not to the extreme that he does, since if statements are still important and switch cases can be used in special cases where it fits better for development speed and code readability. So it's more about finding a balance rather than using them out of habit.