Support NeoGAF

[Halo is Back]

I get it, I’m in the minority. I don’t think actions shouldn’t have consequences, but I also don’t think it should be so one-sided. I don’t think it’s fair, or right, that companies can take away your account and purchases. An NDA is just as legally enforceable as the TOS you agree to with every software install. To me, it’s ridiculous that you can sign away all consumer rights and be left with very little recourse.

Haha this dude got off easy. Other industries and companies can ruin you. Like my example with hollywood. The can blacklist you and you will never work in the industry again. But good news! All of that can be avoided by not being a dumb ass! The consequence this guy got is MORE than fair game. Welcome to the real world.

 

[DeepEnigma]

As he should. If someone breaks a Samsung NDA on samsung phones, Samsung should be able to come in his house and take his Samsung washer and dryer and samsung tv as well?

Nope. And the lesson in all of this, if you want to break a gaming Alpha NDA, then buy physical.

 

[Aenima]

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

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

I was ready to trash origin if he lost his purshaded library over this. Losing the access to the alpha was expected when you break NDA

 

[Fuz]

Atonished by the number of corporate apologists here.

 

[Zog]

Atonished by the number of corporate apologists here.

It's the reason the game industry is such shit now. When your own consumers want to throw away their consumer rights then this is what happens.

 

[Xenon]

As he should. If someone breaks a Samsung NDA on samsung phones, Samsung should be able to come in his house and take his Samsung washer and dryer and samsung tv as well?

Yes because losing access to one game would be a successful deterrent for people breaking NDA's. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

 

[Zog]

Yes because losing access to one game would be a successful deterrent for people breaking NDA's. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

Run a stop sign, lose your house?

 

[Mihos]

Run a stop sign, lose your house?

He only lost access to that one game. There were no other games on that account.

 

[Kadayi]

Atonished by the number of corporate apologists here.

Fuz, he only lost access to the Beta. He had no other games on that account. This is a prime example of people jumping the gun without a bit of due diligence beforehand.

 

[Zog]

He only lost access to that one game. There were no other games on that account.

Yeah I know but some people seem to be ok with him losing his entire account. How do you feel about that?

 

[zeorhymer]

Did I miss the outrage train after finding out the full info?

 

[Fuz]

Fuz, he only lost access to the Beta. He had no other games on that account. This is a prime example of people jumping the gun without a bit of due diligence beforehand.

Yeah, I've read the development. Still, the apologists here didn't go away. It changed nothing on that matter.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

So it turns out all this guy lost was access to the beta, as he had no other games? LOL

Social media spewing cart-before-the-horse strikes again.

 

[Mihos]

Yeah I know but some people seem to be ok with him losing his entire account. How do you feel about that?

Guess it depends on how many hypotheticals you want to stack on top that hypothetical situation.

 

[Fuz]

Guess it depends on how many hypotheticals you want to stack on top that hypothetical situation.

Not hypotetical at all, just read the replies on this thread.

 

[Petrae]

Understanding that there are consequences for breaking a legally binding contract isn’t a an apologist-only concept. You break a contract, you invite consequences. This is a concept that most people used to learn as children.

It’s good for the dumbass streamer in this case that all he lost (for now) is access to this one game. EA is still well within its rights, however, to sue the streamer for breach of contract if it so chooses. Whether EA should or shouldn’t do so is up for debate, though making a legal example of this dude would show others who think NDAs are a joke that they most certainly aren’t.

If you break the NDA, you’re an idiot. If you plead ignorance because you didn’t read a contract that you signed, you’re a fucking idiot. Don’t sign shit without reading and understanding it. Wanna be an “influencer”? Wanna do streaming and gaming media for a living? You’d better invest in some legal advice, because there are contracts and NDAs everywhere that you’re going to be faced with.


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.

Most consumers don’t have to get involved in NDAs, so this isn’t an anti-consumer argument. It’s discussing the punishment that results from a breach of contract.

 

[Mihos]

Not hypotetical at all, just read the replies on this thread.

I am not sure exactly what his nda said. Sounds like he should have just been kicked out of the alpha which is what happened.
If your asking is there ever a cases where you should lose your account and everything on it, of course there is. I have signed ndas where I not only would have lost my career if I broke them, but would be fined and sued for damages. Nda is a contract, this particular one was probably pretty light, but pretending it isn't binding is silly.

 

[shira]

I got in the Alpha.

Didn't read any of the NDA crap I signed off on.

 

[ZehDon]

So the answer is no, of course not, a lawyer would know that it´s way more complicated than "you signed for this punishment, therefore it´s legal and moral".

Lol, not at all. A lawyer would read the appointment brief, and hand it off to someone like myself to read Origin’s TOS and the NDA, and come back to them. The only way you’d “win” in a legal sense would be to prove you’d signed away an inalienable right, or that punishment is unethically disproportionate. Origin’s TOS makes the first point moot, and given that Anthem is EA’s next billion dollar franchise, and an unfavourable leak might cost them millions in sales, your lawyer would tell you: “You got off light, don’t push your bloody luck”.

I guess we can add one more armchair lawyer to the pile.

If by armchair lawyer you mean “the informed opinion of a person who’s spend the better part of a decade specialised in contract law vs the opinions of people who think that “Samsung took my washing machine” is a valid comparison”, sure. I suppose the key problem with being wholly uneducated on a matter is that you’re not able to identify poor opinions. But hey - why let facts get in the way of a good outrage.

 

[5secondrulesucks]

Lol you're trolling right? It's their business, their money, their livelihood at stake... If someone challenges your income for 15 minutes of fame youre telling me you'd move on? It's not a video game, it's their business, it's how they make money and pay people.
.

ill never get kissing companies booties

 

[Zewp]

Yeah, keep supporting launchers and control over consumers, people. This is what you deserve.

No he did not. What the fuck is wrong with you people? He deserved to lose access to Anthem, not to his full fucking library.

The alternative is getting sued for leaking private information that he specifically signed a contract for, stating that he wouldn't. He should count himself lucky that losing his account is the worst that happened.

NDAs are not to be taken lightly. If you have no intention of honoring the NDA, you shouldn't sign it. It's a legally binding contract. It's incredibly simple. I don't know why people think that breaking an NDA should warrant nothing more than a slap on the wrist.

I interviewed at Amazon a few years ago and I had to sign an NDA before I was even allowed on the premises. The worst I could do was leak details about their office layout or interview process. What do you think Amazon would do to me if I got caught breaking their NDA?

It's not corporate apologism. It's common sense. If you want to leak information, don't sign NDAs.

 

[JareBear: Remastered]

I have an honest and stupid question:

If I played the alpha and posted “I’m really impressed, can’t wait for final build,” is that breaking NDA?

Yeah, I’m an idiot who doesn’t read things I sign

 

[sendit]

I mean, if he paid for the games I'm pretty sure he'd win a court case. But he's a nobody that won't be able to take on a company like that so it won't happen.
And yes they could sue him for breaking the NDA and take everything he owns in damages for all I know but that'd be a different case altogether, nothing to do with the games he bought. If he bought, as I said.
Maybe he'll accept it as the better alternative to the latter but it doesn't make it legal on its own. Not everything you click "agree" to online/before use has legal grounds.

I think the point being made here is cost to re-buy the games in his library versus cost he would face if EA took further legal actions for breaking a NDA. Either way, the guy did not comply with the NDA. Face the consequences and move on with your life. I doubt he would win here if he took legal actions.

 

[Kreydo]

I have an honest and stupid question:

If I played the alpha and posted “I’m really impressed, can’t wait for final build,” is that breaking NDA?

You don't disclose anything, you give an impression.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Yeah I know but some people seem to be ok with him losing his entire account. How do you feel about that?

He got off easy. A lot of NDAs can sue you for damages or potential damages.

Just make a new account, no?

 

[sendit]

I have an honest and stupid question:

If I played the alpha and posted “I’m really impressed, can’t wait for final build,” is that breaking NDA?

Yeah, I’m an idiot who doesn’t read things I sign

Every NDA is different. In this case, he broke the rule of streaming the game according to the specifics of this NDA.

 

[Halo is Back]

ill never get kissing companies booties

No one is kissing EAs booties this guy was fucking dumb. Be an adult and take responsibility for your actions.

 

[Halo is Back]

I have an honest and stupid question:

If I played the alpha and posted “I’m really impressed, can’t wait for final build,” is that breaking NDA?

Yeah, I’m an idiot who doesn’t read things I sign

No not as long as you give specific details of the game and or show footage like this guy did you will be fine

 

[Ten_Fold]

Read the NDA before you sign, I’m not a fully only digital guy but if he signed it and didn’t read that’s pretty much his fault, only other thing that would suck if he brought other games an couldn’t play them.

 

[DeleteriousObnoxious]

I just have a few questions in regard to all this.

What was the procedure for him to get access to the closed alpha?
i am questioning if the person targeted for crime just signed up through a Website with click this and that, scroll down accept and then done.. wait for approval?
or was it a traditional way of having him actually have to sign off a contract with Pen & Paper and with both partners doing a agreement handshake?

what I am trying to aim at here is that i feel this alpha beta nonsense is becoming pretty easy to obtain and not fully understanding how much serious it can be to violate what ever agreements is written. i don't know how to battle this, but i don't think anyone gets anything out of ruining a persons life before it even has begun. That is all.

 

[5secondrulesucks]

No one is kissing EAs booties this guy was fucking dumb. Be an adult and take responsibility for your actions.

i cant be convinced of this being a big deal

 

[sendit]

I just have a few questions in regard to all this.

What was the procedure for him to get access to the closed alpha?
i am questioning if the person targeted for crime just signed up through a Website with click this and that, scroll down accept and then done.. wait for approval?
or was it a traditional way of having him actually have to sign off a contract with Pen & Paper and with both partners doing a agreement handshake?

what I am trying to aim at here is that i feel this alpha beta nonsense is becoming pretty easy to obtain and not fully understanding how much serious it can be to violate what ever agreements is written. i don't know how to battle this, but i don't think anyone gets anything out of ruining a persons life before it even has begun. That is all.

The procedure for signing up for the alpha was a simple online registration form. However, I don't think taking away his account, with whatever games he claimed he had on there is ruining his life. This is more of a slap on the wrist.

 

[Halo is Back]

i cant be convinced of this being a big deal

It’s not. Guy got what he deserved it’s a non issue

 

[DeleteriousObnoxious]

The procedure for signing up for the alpha was a simple online registration form. However, I don't think taking away his account, with whatever games he claimed he had on there is ruining his life. This is more of a slap on the wrist.

True but some people are suggesting EA taking him to court and stuff.. I mean if it does mention that no streaming is allowed of closed alpha before he signs up.. then i guess he is just stupid.. still i ask for understanding of that in these days Everyone can Stream and everyone can become Alpha testers in games. I think that is all i don't disagree with punishment of his actions, but if a action like this can potentially legally ruin this persons life then... there should be a question of why is it so easy to getting the access in the first place.

I think that is all.

 

[Zog]

If by armchair lawyer you mean “the informed opinion of a person who’s spend the better part of a decade specialised in contract law vs the opinions of people who think that “Samsung took my washing machine” is a valid comparison”, sure. I suppose the key problem with being wholly uneducated on a matter is that you’re not able to identify poor opinions. But hey - why let facts get in the way of a good outrage.

By armchair lawyer I mean 'not a lawyer'.

 

[ZehDon]

By armchair lawyer I mean 'not a lawyer'.

Well, there’s our problem right there. Typically, armchair [profession] is used to describe people who might have some knowledge on the topic, but no experience or practical understanding with which to apply it. At least, that’s how it’s used in my part of the world. If you read through the thread, lots of legal terms and assertions are being thrown around. People clearly have some knowledge of the basics here. However, a good number don’t have the proper understanding of how to apply that knowledge, hence my posts.

Might I suggest that having a term “armchair lawyer” mean “not a lawyer” feels a tad unnecessary because the term doesn’t add anything to the conversation - you can just say “not a lawyer”. It’s shorter, clearer, and doesn’t have the baggage of an overriden term.

 

[lukilladog]

Lol, not at all. A lawyer would read the appointment brief, and hand it off to someone like myself to read Origin’s TOS and the NDA, and come back to them. The only way you’d “win” in a legal sense would be to prove you’d signed away an inalienable right, or that punishment is unethically disproportionate. Origin’s TOS makes the first point moot, and given that Anthem is EA’s next billion dollar franchise, and an unfavourable leak might cost them millions in sales, your lawyer would tell you: “You got off light, don’t push your bloody luck”.
...

Ohh, so it´s case specific then, it´s not as simple as "Ok, here's the punishment you agreed to accept". Then I don´t know how you came to the conclusion that "Not only is this legal, it's perfectly moral " without reading the TOS and the NDA, seems you are heavily biased.

 

[Stuart360]

Its his fault at the end of the day. I still dont like this idea of having stuff taken off you that you paid for though, i'm surprised so many are fine with this.

 

[Conan-san]

He broke the rules, as depicted in the rules of Karate, his hair is forfit.

 

[ZehDon]

Ohh, so it´s case specific then, it´s not as simple as "Ok, here's the punishment you agreed to accept". Then I don´t know how you came to the conclusion that "Not only is this legal, it's perfectly moral " without reading the TOS and the NDA, seems you are heavily biased.

Case specific insomuch as contracts are always case specific. I'm not sure what your point is here. "Oh, you'd have to read it? Haha - gotcha - bias!" Is this really the totality of your point? I'm biased in the same way as anyone who knows what they're talking about is biased; I'm biased towards the facts. Anyone with a basic understanding of these proceedings knows this is open and shut, common place law. What are you trying to say here, exactly? You seem to be inferring that EA's lawyers, who constructed both the TOS and NDA in my hypothetical, have not only produced an illegal document that enables illegal and immoral behaviour, but that somehow anyone who points out the fact that if you agreed to NDA and break it, you're held accountable to the terms you agreed you, is condoning some kind of illegal behaviour. Seems you're heavily biased, and are wilfully ignoring basic facts to maintain it. As for my conclusion, it's "legal" in that contract law is older than western civilisation and forms the basis of virtually all of modern society, and is "perfectly moral" insomuch as the punishment is actually lenient considering the damage the individual could have done to the other party, and that said individual agreed to accept said lenient punishment in order to gain access to a game they happily attempted to stream for their own benefit. Again - what exactly is your point here?

 

[lukilladog]

Case specific insomuch as contracts are always case specific. I'm not sure what your point is here. "Oh, you'd have to read it? Haha - gotcha - bias!" Is this really the totality of your point? I'm biased in the same way as anyone who knows what they're talking about is biased; I'm biased towards the facts. Anyone with a basic understanding of these proceedings knows this is open and shut, common place law. What are you trying to say here, exactly? You seem to be inferring that EA's lawyers, who constructed both the TOS and NDA in my hypothetical, have not only produced an illegal document that enables illegal and immoral behaviour, but that somehow anyone who points out the fact that if you agreed to NDA and break it, you're held accountable to the terms you agreed you, is condoning some kind of illegal behaviour. Seems you're heavily biased, and are wilfully ignoring basic facts to maintain it. As for my conclusion, it's "legal" in that contract law is older than western civilisation and forms the basis of virtually all of modern society, and is "perfectly moral" insomuch as the punishment is actually lenient considering the damage the individual could have done to the other party, and that said individual agreed to accept said lenient punishment in order to gain access to a game they happily attempted to stream for their own benefit. Again - what exactly is your point here?

My point is that you are being unsubstantiated. See:

"The NDA EA presented likely listed a permanent ban of the Origin account linked to the Anthem Closed Alpha as a punitive measure. EA didn't "come in his house" to take anything; they banned the account that the individual used to break the NDA, which the individual agreed to when signing the NDA... that they then broke. Not only is this legal, it's perfectly moral "

Which is pretty much this:

Company "a" presented contract "X" listing punitive measure "Y". Individual "b" agrees and signs contract "X" but then fails to respect this contract. Company "a" executes punitive measure "Y". Not only is this legal, it´s perfectly moral.

Seems fine... except for the fallacious conclusion. Like, why is it legal and moral?... because signatures make all contracts legal and moral?. Because EA legal contracts are always legal and moral?. Because this contract was legal and moral?. Because contract law is useful to societies?. Because armchair lawyers are always wrong?. Because you know what you are talking about?. Because EA didn´t break into his house?. Or is it because the individual is an idiot that can´t respect contracts?.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Let's not pretend this is some trade secret thing. Closed alphas/betas are a glorified demo put out to raise hype among gamers. The fact that they're "closed" is only to make the gamers who participate feel more charitable toward the game's flaws ("I was a part of a closed beta! I'm super special"), which in turn means they'll signal boost the game leading up to launch.

 

[ZehDon]

My point is that you are being unsubstantiated.... Like, why is it legal and moral?... because signatures make all contracts legal and moral?. Because EA legal contracts are always legal and moral?. Because this contract was legal and moral?. Because contract law is useful to societies?. Because armchair lawyers are always wrong?. Because you know what you are talking about?. Because EA didn´t break into his house?. Or is it because the individual is an idiot that can´t respect contracts?.

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.

 

[mckmas8808]

Having signed a few NDA's for similar stuff in the past, if that's all that happens, he gets off easy.

The people whining about 'muh games' aren't taking into account that it's a TOS violation for his Origin account as well.

Games in development are in development. Joe Customer seeing issues in an Alpha test will be confused and think their shipping product has problems.

This is LITERALLY the reason why I'm so anti "digital only". I would hate to live in a world where I have to read and understand every TOS violation that could get all the games I paid for stripped from me. In this stupid world, the lawyers are the true winners and the gamers lose.

 

[DreamsiclesPlz]

This isn't anti-consumer. He signed an agreement and broke the agreement. It's his dumbass fault.

 

[Thiagosc777]

This is LITERALLY the reason why I'm so anti "digital only". I would hate to live in a world where I have to read and understand every TOS violation that could get all the games I paid for stripped from me. In this stupid world, the lawyers are the true winners and the gamers lose.

A TOS is just a piece of paper. They can write anything they want on it, it doesn't mean it is legal.

 

[DonF]

"Hey, you can test this unreleased product under one condition, don't show it to anyone, agreed?"
"yup"
*Proceeds to show it to, potentially, everyone*
*gets banned*
surprisedpikachu.jpeg

 

[mckmas8808]

This isn't anti-consumer. He signed an agreement and broke the agreement. It's his dumbass fault.

It would be anti-consumer to me if we have an All-Digital Future. At that point we'd need everyone to be reading TOSes from every software developer.

 

[Gahadmor12]

It would be anti-consumer to me if we have an All-Digital Future. At that point we'd need everyone to be reading TOSes from every software developer.

If you accepted a TOS, you explicitely confirmed that you read it.
I'm sure you take the time to read a lease or a work contract before signing it, taking 5 minutes to read through the TOS if you are unsure of what's in it isn't the end of the world.

 

[mckmas8808]

If you accepted a TOS, you explicitely confirmed that you read it.
I'm sure you take the time to read a lease or a work contract before signing it, taking 5 minutes to read through the TOS if you are unsure of what's in it isn't the end of the world.

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?