Support NeoGAF

[iconmaster]

Apparently, the dude only had Anthem in his library in the first place

https://www.twitch.tv/smokethrone/clip/AgitatedAttractiveTeaNotATK

Thanks Kadayi. I'm going to call this one a non-issue.

However, I would recommend to anyone that you purchase physical versions where possible for games you care about hanging onto. My personal rule is I don't pay more digitally then I'd be willing to throw away.

 

[HerpDerpstreit]

I was accepted into the closed alpha and received no less than two emails in addition to the origin and in-game pop-ups reminding the user of it being a closed alpha ND not to breach the NDA. There is no way someone that was accepted into the alpha was unaware of the NDA.

 

[Halo is Back]

Technically you are correct. But in reality, most people don't read the TOS of things we "okay" ourselves to. Let us be realistic here and stop being fake or acting as if we are all lawyers. Most of us just scroll through it and click "Next". Is this the world we want to live in, in the future? Where lawyers and corporations have this much of the upper hand on the items that we buy?

Again, and this is the most important part.......all of this could have been avoided if he wasn't a bdumbass. Thousands of youtubers and journalists go through this all of the time and how many do you see breaking the agreement? You guys are acting like EA is going to sue the guy for every penny he is worth.

 

[mckmas8808]

Again, and this is the most important part.......all of this could have been avoided if he wasn't a bdumbass. Thousands of youtubers and journalists go through this all of the time and how many do you see breaking the agreement? You guys are acting like EA is going to sue the guy for every penny he is worth.

I'm not acting this way. I'm just super against the "digital-only" future, so I'm sensitive to stories like this. It's like the Digital Apocalypse lol.

I hate when people say they want a digital-only future and never think about what any of the downsides can be.

 

[Halo is Back]

I'm not acting this way. I'm just super against the "digital-only" future, so I'm sensitive to stories like this. It's like the Digital Apoloyse lol.

I hate when people say they want a digital-only future and never think about what any of the downsides can be.

I do agree with that. I still but physical games when I can. I still buy blu-rays too for my movie collection.

 

[kevm3]

You guys will love the future when you have to connect to some digital platform and 'sign in' even if you buy the disc version since the disc will essentially just end up serving as an installer. Once the precedent is set, then even your disc versions of games can be whisked away in the blink of an eye because corporations wrote some legal mumbo jumbo that entitles them to remove your account and all that is on it whenever and however they want.

 

[lukilladog]

Did you read this before you posted it? An honest question, because I fail to see anything resembling a point. You're entire post is just 7 words: "Like, why is it legal and moral?".

With access to the entire wealth of human knowledge via a Google search, you seriously need me to explain the history of the concept of law and contracts, how legislation has been built up over the course of western civilisation, designed to protect parties and enforce agreements of an nearly infinite variation, how precedents have been established throughout various levels of the legal system that enable predictable outcomes from specific wordings, how legal terms and phrases and their interpretation has evolved throughout history, resulting in the current legal system that enables multiple parties to create legally enforceable and binding agreements that when broken, do not result in a crime punishable by the criminal justice system, but rather a self-referencing agreement that stipulates punitive measures that all parties agree to? It's legal because literally the entire history of western civilisation dictates that this agreement is legal. Why do you think agreements are not legal? Furthermore, when you shoplift, do you ask why its illegal?

As for why it is moral, it becomes moral when the individual agreed to not do something, lied, went back on their word, and broke their agreement. This action, the actions of the individual, is the immoral action in this situation. You're hand-waving this away to maintain your bias. EA's response to this action is not immoral, because they literally provided an optional agree that stipulated we're going to do this if you break the agreement. The individual had no obligation to agree to it, to sign it, or to participate. They did so because they wanted access to EA's new product. The punitive measure in question is not disproportionate. As I have explained, it is actually very lenient. So, the end result is someone lied and broke their agreement for their own potential gain, and received a lenient punishment as per their agreement. Not only is this perfectly moral, I literally cannot see how this can be interpreted as immoral.

As this point - where you're literally asking how a commonplace legal contract is legal, and how a punitive measure for breaking that legal contract is moral - I'm seeing a bad faith argument. I'm happy to continue this discussion, but please offer something more substantial.

Ah no, my post was about pointing the fallacious conclusion. But now that you have picked your answer, "It's legal because literally the entire history of western civilisation dictates that this agreement is legal", so you can see that you are just assuming that there is nothing illegal on this contract, the form makes it legal for you, that´s all you care about with your good faith, but since agreements in the form of contracts are either legal or illegal depending on whether they infringe laws or not, stating that they are legal just because they adhere to certain forms is disingenuous at best. Your moral justification is equally fallacious, you are assuming again that the formulation of the contract is moral, or that the dispensation and dimension of the punishment is fairly moral, or that the signature of the individual made it moral, or that the infrigement of the contract by the individual makes the other part morally right by default, and or that EA is a moral example for not making his life bad. The claim is barely wishful thinking, and you already recongnized you would need to read that shit on the real world where you can lose your job for light or bad judgments.

 

[Gander]

People test the waters to see if you are bullshitting. Apparently they are not.

 

[#Phonepunk#]

lol wow so this was the only game this guy lost. i heard about this story when it broke and people were flipping out over it. hahaha.

this is entirely on this guy's head. if you don't read something before you sign it, that's on you. if you sign a NDA contract and you break it, don't be surprised when lawyers come after you.

personally ill continue to buy digital. as long as i don't publicly break a contract i've signed like a huge jackass i think my games will be safe.

 

[spannicus]

He got off easy.

 

[Kagey K]

Technically you are correct. But in reality, most people don't read the TOS of things we "okay" ourselves to. Let us be realistic here and stop being fake or acting as if we are all lawyers. Most of us just scroll through it and click "Next". Is this the world we want to live in, in the future? Where lawyers and corporations have this much of the upper hand on the items that we buy?

 

[YayNJ]

Lol. It's illegal to take his library on their own platform?
No.

You know what's actually illegal? Breaking an NDA, as that is actually a LEGAL DOCUMENT.
I hate it when people ask this question, but I have to do it: how old are you and what world do you live in?
You don't seem prepared for the real world lol

Edit: to reply to what you said above: you think taking him to court would be the better option?
How?
You do realise that he'd have to pay them more than whatever his games were worth, right? Right?

We live in an time where entitlement is expected. Kids dont know they are born these days.

 

[YayNJ]

There's actually a difference between signing a paper contract with your legal name and checking a checkbox as XxGamerDudexX on a popup

Nope. A digital signature (footprint) is legally binding.

 

[BlitzerRadic]

I'm guessing

My contention has always been that cancelling the licenses (which doesn’t really apply here, since he only had one license) would’ve been better than having sued. Wage garnishment and/or forced sale of assets to fulfill a judgment of damages isn’t something you want to face. Losing access to games you bought sucks, but not as much as losing 20% of your paycheck every time.

The actual damages for breaking this particular NDA wouldn't have been much at all. But the killer is having a judgement show up on your credit report. I'd rather lose all the hundreds of games I have on my account than have a civil judgement stuck on my credit report and screwing up my credit score for at least 7 years.

People thinking dude got screwed because he lost his games prolly have bad credit lol.

 

[ZehDon]

Ah no, my post was about pointing the fallacious conclusion. But now that you have picked your answer, "It's legal because literally the entire history of western civilisation dictates that this agreement is legal", so you can see that you are just assuming that there is nothing illegal on this contract, the form makes it legal for you, that´s all you care about with your good faith, but since agreements in the form of contracts are either legal or illegal depending on whether they infringe laws or not, stating that they are legal just because they adhere to certain forms is disingenuous at best. Your moral justification is equally fallacious, you are assuming again that the formulation of the contract is moral, or that the dispensation and dimension of the punishment is fairly moral, or that the signature of the individual made it moral, or that the infrigement of the contract by the individual makes the other part morally right by default, and or that EA is a moral example for not making his life bad. The claim is barely wishful thinking, and you already recongnized you would need to read that shit on the real world where you can lose your job for light or bad judgments.

Thanks for coming back with something more substantial, it's good to see that online. And... unfortunately I disagree with just about everything you've said.

I think I can see our disconnect now, so I'm going to change tracks here: the bolded words is the part we're you're completely wrong. I'm not assuming here, you are, and my conclusion is not fallacious, yours is. To help you understand why, try and answer the following:
In what way is the contract potentially illegal?
What laws have EA broken to make the contract illegal? And I want specifics here - what specific laws have been broken?
What elements of this situation make you think that EA has literally broken the law and committed a crime?
What aspect of this situation is immoral?
In what way has EA conducted itself in an immoral manner?

Hopefully you'll start running into your issues. Here's where you go wrong: I am not required to prove that the NDA or contract is legal. You're making the claim here, the burden of proof is on you. Now, your first reaction is likely to turn this around - but lets be clear: the agreement is legal and binding because the lawyers who prepared it followed precedent. That's the purpose of precedent. It ensures clear interpretation and legality. The base assumption is that this is legal, because it follows precedent, until you can prove otherwise. The presumption of innocence does extend into contract law. If you believe it is illegal you're going to need to explain the deep specifics here.

 

[BlitzerRadic]

Just to clear things up regarding contracts... contracts are legally binding as long as they contain the three basic elements: an offer, acceptance (meeting of the minds) and an exchange of consideration. A contract may contain terms that violate law but that doesn't void the entire contract. It just means if that if there is non-performance of that term or it is breached it can't enforced.

 

[BlitzerRadic]

double post

 

[lukilladog]

Thanks for coming back with something more substantial, it's good to see that online. And... unfortunately I disagree with just about everything you've said.

I think I can see our disconnect now, so I'm going to change tracks here: the bolded words is the part we're you're completely wrong. I'm not assuming here, you are, and my conclusion is not fallacious, yours is. To help you understand why, try and answer the following:
In what way is the contract potentially illegal?
What laws have EA broken to make the contract illegal? And I want specifics here - what specific laws have been broken?
What elements of this situation make you think that EA has literally broken the law and committed a crime?
What aspect of this situation is immoral?
In what way has EA conducted itself in an immoral manner?

Hopefully you'll start running into your issues. Here's where you go wrong: I am not required to prove that the NDA or contract is legal. You're making the claim here, the burden of proof is on you. Now, your first reaction is likely to turn this around - but lets be clear: the agreement is legal and binding because the lawyers who prepared it followed precedent. That's the purpose of precedent. It ensures clear interpretation and legality. The base assumption is that this is legal, because it follows precedent, until you can prove otherwise. The presumption of innocence does extend into contract law. If you believe it is illegal you're going to need to explain the deep specifics here.

Nice shift burden of proof, I never said it was illegal and immoral.

 

[ZehDon]

Nice shift burden of proof, I never said it was illegal and immoral.

Oh cool, you’re shit posting. Sorry, thought your half dozen or so posts had a point you were failing to convey. My bad - you just take a lot of words to say nothing intelligent. Please, continue.

 

[lukilladog]

What?. Why should I prove it´s illegal?, I don´t think it´s illegal, I think it´s questionable and probably illegal. But unlike you, I´m honest enough to not try to pass a non sequitur by well poisoning, appealing to my own authority, ad hominems, proof shifting, straw mans, and arguments from ignorance. You are terrible and you are going into my ignore list.

 

[yurinka]

Dont sign the NDA if you dont read and agree to it... simple as that.

This