Minecraft creator Markus “Notch” Persson, one of the gaming world’s most iconic yet controversial figures, has joined the simmering debate over digital game ownership with a explosive comment. Notch, a supporter of the consumer movement “Stop Killing Games,” criticized publishers for assuming they have the right to permanently kill games, reviving his provocative view, which he has championed for years: If the money we pay for a game doesn’t grant us full ownership, then piracy isn’t theft in the traditional sense.

This statement highlights a widening fault line between gamers and major publishers in the gaming industry. At the heart of the debate lies a simple question: What exactly do we own when we “buy” a digital game?

Is the Minecraft developer right?

It all began with the “Stop Killing Games” initiative, launched to combat the fear that games paid for by players could one day become completely unplayable at the publisher’s discretion. Electronic Arts’ announcement that it will permanently shut down the servers of Anthem, a game developed by BioWare and released with high hopes, on January 12, 2026, is the latest example to fuel this anger. After that date, Anthem will be nothing but digital ruin for the thousands of players who paid for the game.

This movement, which has garnered nearly 1.3 million signatures and aims to submit a bill to European parliaments, has cornered publishers. The publishers’ defense is familiar: Keeping servers open is “too expensive,” and such a law could result in higher game prices. This is perceived as a veiled threat.

Markus Persson, who enters the scene at this point, isn’t actually saying anything new; he simply connects the philosophical foundation he established 13 years ago to the current problem. While Notch has never morally condoned piracy, he has always opposed the industry dogma that labels it “theft.”

• 2011, Game Developers Conference: Notch told his colleagues, “Piracy isn’t theft.” His argument was simple: “Steal one car, there’s one less car in the world. Pirate a game, there’s one more copy in the world, potentially gaining a new fan.”
• 2012, Social Media: When a fan complained that they couldn’t afford to buy the game, Notch took a stance far outside industry standards by saying, “Download the pirated version. If you still like it when you can afford it later, you can buy it. So don’t feel bad.”

His comment today, “If purchasing isn’t property, then piracy isn’t theft,” is a continuation of this consistent philosophy. According to Notch, if a publisher can arbitrarily take back or render unusable a product they’ve sold, the money paid by the player isn’t a “purchase,” but a “license to rent.” In this case, creating an unlicensed copy doesn’t fall under the definition of “theft,” which is a crime against property.

So, is Notch simply criticizing? No, he also offers a solution. When asked what publishers should do, he recalls the old days: a model that allows developers to set up their own private servers even after official servers are shut down. This way, games can be kept alive by their communities for years to come, without incurring any additional costs for the developer.

While this debate continues, it’s noteworthy that Notch has been testing the waters of his followers for some time, raising the possibility of returning to work on a spiritual successor to Minecraft. Time will tell whether this dissenting voice, who built the gaming industry with money but constantly challenges its corporate structure, will influence the course of the digital ownership wars. But one thing is certain: When Notch speaks, the entire industry is forced to listen.