Tl:dr; It was a release file for their Minecon event. It was never meant to be public. Obsessing over a password protected in a company's S3 bucket is weird and crosses many limits.
djmips · 2h ago
Telling people they should not try and crack something is kind of like the Streisand effect.
teruakohatu · 2h ago
> Telling people they should not try and crack something is kind of like the Streisand effect.
More like a reverse-streisand effect. They were honest about the contents of the file, it was Minecraft 1.0 and not interesting, but the community didn't accept the explanation.
cedws · 1h ago
I disagree with this and what Dinnerbone says about locks. It doesn’t matter who file was intended for, it’s on the internet, if people want to use their silicon to do some mathematics to turn some numbers into some other numbers that’s their choice. It’s not equivalent to breaking into a house.
neuroelectron · 1h ago
so weird. many limits.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
aswip · 1h ago
I guess only boxpig41 knows what else was protected that caused them to replace the file just to avoid the chance that the real password might get out and those might be unlocked, though at this point I’m assuming those encrypted files are gone or are no longer important.
charcircuit · 2h ago
>is weird and crosses many limits.
It's similar in format to communities that obssess over "lost media." The inability to pirate or get access to something becomes an obsession. Even if the piece of media exists in an archive somewhere, that doesn't matter to them because it's about the fact that they themselves don't have access to it that has become the obsession.
LiamPowell · 2h ago
There's also the piracy communities where a majority of users believe they have some sort of inherent right to watch something merely because it exists. I don't understand where that sentiment comes from.
vintermann · 8m ago
That should be the default assumption. It's restrictions which require justification in a liberal society, not freedoms.
Peritract · 1m ago
"Everyone has to share everything" is a restriction, not a freedom.
bakugo · 1h ago
> I don't understand where that sentiment comes from.
Human nature. Refusing to accept being told "no" by some greater force is the instinct that pushed humanity forward to where we are today.
lovich · 1h ago
I mean, part of the deal with IP law is you get government protection for your idea, in exchange for society having access to it.
I’m personally of the mind that if my tax dollars went towards protecting your shit, you owe society access.
This is not defending the ones who believe they have the right to things sans that deal
haskellshill · 42m ago
> if my tax dollars went towards protecting your shit, you owe society access
Well, the protection is only from random people accessing one's stuff, so this is a very silly (in fact nonsensical) argument. "If my tax dollars went towards you having right X, I thus deserve to infringe on that right X".
nkrisc · 16m ago
> I’m personally of the mind that if my tax dollars went towards protecting your shit, you owe society access.
Our tax dollars go towards protecting lots of different things for lots of different people (including me and you) that we have no rights to at all, nor ever will.
hebocon · 1h ago
Without IP law it is all or nothing: obfuscate, hide, encrypt, and protect lest it become public domain.
With IP law you are given the exclusive, enforceable right to control the distribution and sale of an idea for N years... at which point it becomes public domain.
In either case the decision to publish an idea will inevitably make it public domain. The government protects their shit because $REASONS but there is absolutely no obligation for it to be made public until that protection lapse. In matters of human culture this seems like a bug, not a feature but enforcing some standard of "reasonable worldwide availability" by force seems impossible. The invisible hand of piracy "solves" this oversight and functions like a safety valve.
Not an endorsement of either side, just an observation.
mik1998 · 1m ago
[delayed]
jaccola · 1h ago
This argument is so ridiculous I must be misunderstanding you.
By your logic you owe me access your house since my tax dollars pay for the legal system that gives you property rights?!
mattmanser · 1h ago
It's not ridiculous, that's the deal (at least it was). It's not actual property. It's a made up concept, you actually lose nothing physical if it's copied. That concept was created and granted to encourage people to create.
You get a certain period to commercialize it, then it's public property. Hiding it away to prevent that is a breach of the spirit of the agreement society made with the creator.
That you believe it's a "ridiculous" argument shows how much you've been brainwashed by corporations.
All this stuff is generally built on the shoulders of previous works, that are public domain. Copying story structures, phrasing, etc. Even entire storylines.
And that's before we get onto the fact that all these corporations benefited from eveything we paid for. Laws to protect their IP, enforcement, infrastructure paid with by public money, education of workers, etc..
They've got their hands out to take, take, take, but when it comes to holding up to their part of the bargain, it's suddenly extensions on copyright terms, minor tweaks to "renew" IP that was never part of the original deal, etc. while feeding a ton of cash to politicians in what looks like a bribe, acts like a bribe, but is termed "lobbying".
nkrisc · 13m ago
Physical property rights are made up too. How can you claim to own something if you aren’t actively defending it nor physically possessing it in that moment.
Do you “own” your house even when you’re not home? Yes, you do, because we all agreed on this made up thing called “property rights” and we pay our tax dollars to have it enforced. Otherwise whoever is in your house “owns” it until you or someone else forcible removes them or convinces them to leave.
All our rules are “made up”.
charcircuit · 32m ago
>It's a made up concept
Physical property is made up too. You don't lose anything from someone sleeping on your couch either.
yrxuthst · 18m ago
If someone is sleeping on your couch, then you lose the ability to sleep on it yourself, because they are taking up the space.
zdragnar · 54m ago
If that were the case then no physical artwork could be privately held. That, too, is covered by IP laws but there is no obligation to provide society access.
picafrost · 1h ago
Internet denizens love opening a locked box. This phenomenon has been weaponized by the gaming industry in the form of loot boxes.
Tl:dr; It was a release file for their Minecon event. It was never meant to be public. Obsessing over a password protected in a company's S3 bucket is weird and crosses many limits.
More like a reverse-streisand effect. They were honest about the contents of the file, it was Minecraft 1.0 and not interesting, but the community didn't accept the explanation.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
It's similar in format to communities that obssess over "lost media." The inability to pirate or get access to something becomes an obsession. Even if the piece of media exists in an archive somewhere, that doesn't matter to them because it's about the fact that they themselves don't have access to it that has become the obsession.
Human nature. Refusing to accept being told "no" by some greater force is the instinct that pushed humanity forward to where we are today.
I’m personally of the mind that if my tax dollars went towards protecting your shit, you owe society access.
This is not defending the ones who believe they have the right to things sans that deal
Well, the protection is only from random people accessing one's stuff, so this is a very silly (in fact nonsensical) argument. "If my tax dollars went towards you having right X, I thus deserve to infringe on that right X".
Our tax dollars go towards protecting lots of different things for lots of different people (including me and you) that we have no rights to at all, nor ever will.
With IP law you are given the exclusive, enforceable right to control the distribution and sale of an idea for N years... at which point it becomes public domain.
In either case the decision to publish an idea will inevitably make it public domain. The government protects their shit because $REASONS but there is absolutely no obligation for it to be made public until that protection lapse. In matters of human culture this seems like a bug, not a feature but enforcing some standard of "reasonable worldwide availability" by force seems impossible. The invisible hand of piracy "solves" this oversight and functions like a safety valve.
Not an endorsement of either side, just an observation.
By your logic you owe me access your house since my tax dollars pay for the legal system that gives you property rights?!
You get a certain period to commercialize it, then it's public property. Hiding it away to prevent that is a breach of the spirit of the agreement society made with the creator.
That you believe it's a "ridiculous" argument shows how much you've been brainwashed by corporations.
All this stuff is generally built on the shoulders of previous works, that are public domain. Copying story structures, phrasing, etc. Even entire storylines.
And that's before we get onto the fact that all these corporations benefited from eveything we paid for. Laws to protect their IP, enforcement, infrastructure paid with by public money, education of workers, etc..
They've got their hands out to take, take, take, but when it comes to holding up to their part of the bargain, it's suddenly extensions on copyright terms, minor tweaks to "renew" IP that was never part of the original deal, etc. while feeding a ton of cash to politicians in what looks like a bribe, acts like a bribe, but is termed "lobbying".
Do you “own” your house even when you’re not home? Yes, you do, because we all agreed on this made up thing called “property rights” and we pay our tax dollars to have it enforced. Otherwise whoever is in your house “owns” it until you or someone else forcible removes them or convinces them to leave.
All our rules are “made up”.
Physical property is made up too. You don't lose anything from someone sleeping on your couch either.