### The Dispute Regarding Community Servers: ESA VP Calls Them “Illegal”
A recent comment from Jennifer Gibbons, the Vice President of State Government Affairs for the Entertainment Software Association (ESA), has ignited debate online. During a California State Senate hearing focused on the Protect Our Games Act proposed by Assemblyman Chris Ward, Gibbons claimed that community servers for popular games such as *Minecraft* and *Call of Duty* are “illegal” and amount to “piracy.” This statement has provoked considerable discussion concerning the legality and consequences of private gaming servers.
#### The Protect Our Games Act
The Protect Our Games Act (POG Act), intended to ensure game preservation and consumer rights, was examined during a hearing conducted by the California Senate’s Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee. Assemblyman Chris Ward pointed out existing community servers for *Minecraft* and *Call of Duty* as examples of how gamers might continue enjoying these games after official publisher support ceases. In reply, Gibbons interjected to categorize these community-hosted services as illegal, arguing that they do not meet the safety standards maintained by official Microsoft servers.
#### A Misunderstood Perspective?
Gibbons’ comments drew attention, particularly when further questioned about whether private servers resembled a “black market” for video games. She supported this view, comparing private servers to piracy and mentioning ongoing lawsuits against them. However, detractors argue that her description is inconsistent with established definitions or legal standards. The United States Trade Representative’s Notorious Markets Reports, mentioned by Gibbons, mainly targets servers that circumvent subscription fees, which does not pertain to games like *Minecraft* or *Call of Duty*, where players can engage for free on PC.
#### Opposition to the POG Act
The ESA’s resistance to the POG Act is unsurprising, given its history of lobbying against regulations viewed as threats to the gaming industry. Notably, ESA President and CEO Stan Pierre-Louis wrote an opinion piece contending that the POG Act, despite appearing consumer-friendly, ultimately harms both players and creators. He stressed that numerous modern games rely on evolving online communities and that the bill misinterprets industry dynamics.
This opposition prompts inquiries into the ESA’s motivations, especially in light of its previous lobbying against proposals targeting loot boxes and microtransactions directed at minors. Critics have highlighted the contradictions in promoting profit-oriented monetization strategies while opposing initiatives that would enhance long-term game preservation and player freedom.
#### Financial Motivations Behind the ESA
As a non-profit entity, the ESA publicly discloses its financial activities. In the fiscal year concluding March 2025, the ESA reported revenues of approximately $36.6 million, with about $27.8 million derived from dues paid by major gaming corporations like Electronic Arts, Microsoft, and Sony. The organization’s expenditure patterns demonstrate significant lobbying efforts, with roughly $2.3 million designated for lobbying activities alone.
The ESA’s financial dependency on its members raises questions regarding its agenda in opposing the POG Act. With the rising need for game preservation, the organization seems to prioritize the interests of its corporate affiliates over potential advantages for consumers and the gaming community.
#### International Lobbying Campaigns
The opposition to the Protect Our Games Act extends beyond the United States. Video Games Europe, a comparable interest group, has similarly lobbied against the POG Act within the European Union, reflecting a collective position among major gaming corporations against regulations seen as jeopardizing their profits.
### Conclusion
ESA’s Jennifer Gibbons’ assertion that community servers for *Minecraft* and *Call of Duty* are “illegal” has ignited a broader conversation about the legitimacy and future of private gaming servers. This controversy highlights fundamental tensions between consumer rights, game preservation, and the financial motivations of corporate entities within the gaming sector. As discussions progress, the necessity for transparent and equitable regulations that reconcile these interests becomes increasingly urgent.
