AnarchyMod Source Mirror

• Mojang sells a modding platform, then polices mods as infringement. Fabric, Forge, Loom, and the official mappings exist because Mojang allows and encourages third-party modification. Filing a copyright takedown against a mod built on those official tools treats the ecosystem as a liability instead of the product.
• A client-side blacklist is platform control, not a copyright interest. Blocking a hostname in a client does not create a copyrighted work that a mod can copy. Deciding which servers a player may join is a policy decision, and the DMCA is not a policy enforcement tool.
• The takedown required no court, no judge, and no adversary. A single sworn form removed 15 repositories within hours. That is the entire point of the counter-notice process, and it is also why overreach like this needs to be documented publicly rather than quietly absorbed.
• We are not the owners of AnarchyMod. We did not write it, we do not maintain it, and we take no credit for it. We host a copy because the original was removed without a legal finding against it.

Licensing. AnarchyMod is released under the MIT License, copyright © 2025 6b6t. MIT expressly permits use, copying, modification, and redistribution, with or without modification, provided the copyright notice and permission notice are preserved. The unmodified LICENSE file ships inside the source archive on this page. Re-hosting this code is not merely defensible — it is the specific activity the license was written to allow. 2p2t is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or acting on behalf of the AnarchyMod project, 6b6t, qbasty, or Kian Bröse.

1. The notice never identifies what was copied. Section 3, the part of a DMCA notice that must identify the allegedly infringing material, names exactly one thing: the repository URL. There is no accused file, no function, no copied snippet, and no side-by-side comparison. Section 2 identifies Minecraft as the copyrighted work, but copyright protects fixed expression — specific code and art — not the idea of a game or an abstract right to control who plays it. The notice never connects the two.
2. The mod does not contain a single byte of Minecraft's compiled code. We unzipped the released jar ourselves and counted. The entire artifact is 17 entries: four .class files written by the project, three mixin classes, a 292-byte PNG icon, and small metadata files. That is the whole thing. No Minecraft classes, no Mojang artwork, no decompiled or extracted assets, no bundled launcher. The mod is a client-side Fabric mod that depends on Minecraft at runtime, which is what every Fabric mod does, and which Mojang's own tooling is built to support.
3. The declared work is artwork and character designs. None are present. Section 2 leans on U.S. Copyright registrations covering “artwork and character designs featured in the game”, and on the MINECRAFT trademark. Scroll through the viewer above and try to find any of it. The icon is a 292-byte file authored for the project. The strings in the source are server hostnames like 6b6t.org — not the MINECRAFT mark. You cannot claim artwork was copied when the accused artifact contains no artwork.
4. The anti-circumvention claim describes Microsoft's storefront, not Minecraft. The notice asserts technological protection measures, citing “Azure Active Directory sign in with license checks” and “compiled code and encrypted sub-components.” That is a description of a distribution platform's licensing stack. Minecraft Java Edition has no equivalent protection that this mod defeats: it ships uncompiled to the extent that Loom and the official mappings exist precisely so third-party code can interact with it. Notably, GitHub itself wrote that it “did not find sufficient information to determine a valid anti-circumvention claim.”
5. The internal claim is self-defeating. The notice argues the repository “incorporates and depends upon Minecraft intellectual property,” then points at the project's own description of bypassing a server block. The mod does not ship Minecraft IP; it interoperates with Minecraft, which is the entire premise of Minecraft's modding ecosystem and is expressly contemplated by the license Mojang grants. Where an ecosystem depends on interoperability, circumventing a client-side list of hostnames is not access control over a copyrighted work — it is a disagreement about policy, and the DMCA is the wrong instrument for that disagreement.
6. One mod, fifteen repositories, no judge. GitHub's own note on this notice records that it was processed against “the entire network of 15 repositories, inclusive of the parent repository.” The submitter did not examine each fork; they affirmed that reviewed forks were representative and asked for all of them. Fifteen projects, each independently MIT-licensed and freely forkable, went dark on one sworn declaration, with no opportunity for the authors to respond first. That is the mechanism, and it is the reason mirrors exist.
7. The licence already granted the rights being disputed. AnarchyMod is MIT licensed, copyright © 2025 6b6t. MIT grants everyone the right to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and sell the software. Even if every other argument here failed, the licence would still authorise this mirror, and no third party can revoke a grant that the copyright holder already made to the public.

Additional community copies that survived the takedown, both independent of 2p2t: esaiaswestberg/AnarchyMod (MIT) and PluotioXYZ/Anarchymod-Archive.