Sue them for tortious interference

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.

Can a TOS waive any rights? Surely there are some unalienable rights.

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".

> 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.

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.

at the same time google is moving to forbid other app stores so...

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.

Sue Microsft, not Google. It was Microsoft who filed the DMCA notice, Microsft is the responsible party.

The TOS isn't a defense against purposely trying to ruin someone else's business by lying

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

It probably just looks at pictures

Could be, but unfortunately (3) can generate the code but it is not copyrightable (Thaler v. Perlmutter)

No, that isn't what that case ruled at all. It ruled that the program generating the code cannot be the author.

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.

It's just the usual corporate censorship via "good faith" DMCA notices that nobody but other corporations can afford to actually fight.

One can still install Luanti from F-Droid.

Just saying. It's great little tool to teach coding.