Nintendo sends a cease and desist to insider that has leaked pretty much every E3 2019 announcement

carlosrox

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,309
Vancouver BC
So because someone else leaked something the company has a right to threaten me with being fired. You really don't see how fucked up that is?
Um. I mean, whoever is responsible for the leak is probably the one getting fired. And everyone would be a suspect til they know who did it.

Are they supposed to give everyone a raise when someone on the team was an asshole and leaked something? This is on them, not the company.

The threat is directed at whoever leaked it, rightfully so.
 

Gridlock

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,105
Unova
Did something else happen? Last I check she (Sabi) posted the lawyers person info in a Tweet. Did anything come of that? Or is this thread just alive to be alive?
 

Icemonk191

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,285
Um. I mean, whoever is responsible for the leak is probably the one getting fired. And everyone would be a suspect til they know who did it.

Are they supposed to give everyone a raise when someone on the team was an asshole and leaked something? This is on them, not the company.
But we had people here post that their jobs were threaten because someone else had leaked something. Now do you understand how fucked that is and why it's a problem?
 

Baccus

Member
Dec 4, 2018
1,813
Sabi has gone quiet. Not a tweet in the last 11 hours.
The decision to announce the C&D was their downfall.

of course if they had kept quiet and kept leaking things from other companies nothing would have happened, but by publiticing their affair with Nintendo they made other companies take notice and probably already got dozens more

just not a smart move
 

HockeyBird

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,436
Huh so gamexplain but up video about this and they mentioned that Sabi was part of their blog theory discussion for Smash Bros ultimate back in September. I watched that video back then but I didn't realize it was Sabi in that video. I checked video and sure enough, Sabi is on it:


I can see how Nintendo could easily identify Sabi in person.
 

sapien85

Member
Nov 8, 2017
2,090
The game industry's obsession with secrecy over even minor details is borderline fetishistic. Not specifically meaning Nintendo here but embargoes over minor things ending at specific days and hours for example.
 

Syriel

Member
Dec 13, 2017
4,925
You're saying the work in question isn't a work that can be or is copyrighted? That's really the only way it doesn't apply. And I've argued why in several other posts.
I'm saying that copyright protects duplication of a work. It does not protect the existence of a work.

You can't claim breach of copyright because someone reports that you have product X in development.
 

mael

Avenger
Nov 3, 2017
6,389
The game industry's obsession with secrecy over even minor details is borderline fetishistic. Not specifically meaning Nintendo here but embargoes over minor things ending at specific days and hours for example.
Can't really blame Nintendo, they've got decades long history of secrecy at this point.
 

Stinkles

343 Industries
Verified
Oct 25, 2017
12,212
The game industry's obsession with secrecy over even minor details is borderline fetishistic. Not specifically meaning Nintendo here but embargoes over minor things ending at specific days and hours for example.

It’s much much much easier to create blanket rules and plans and systems than discrete exceptions or outliers- so the thing you’re characterizing as “fetishistic “ is actually just practical ubiquity in the pursuit of a manageable strategy.

It may look overengineered from the outside but it’s actually just the most manageable approach in many cases.


On the OP tweets —

She might simply be paraphrasing the c&d but the fact she admits she posted “trade secrets “ as opposed to “information I happened upon” is a pretty serious statement (regardless of your feelings on the matter or it’s seriousness) and contains consciousness of the nature of the material and its value in an admission of guilt. It also contains the nature of Nintendo’s concern. The Wii managed to get to market as a unique way to play games in large part because the invention was really application rather than new tech and as such required strict protection to avoid being beaten to the punch by competitors.

It’s not always as trivial as story or names or release dates.
 
Last edited:

Peltz

Member
Oct 26, 2017
3,036
People in this thread forget that there's a non-partial judge in a civil case and and judges are rarely stupid when it comes to law.

It's not just a specious argument, it's just impossible to prove legally.

The only thing I could see is proving that leaking all the E3 made you spend a lot of marketing money for nothing. IF you can prove it was for nothing.
Gotta prove the financial damage.

"They didn't buy our game because someone leaked our commercial" is a specious argument.
Usually the damages for violating an NDA are spelled out in the terms of the NDA in a liquidated damages provision. I imagine that NDA breach damages are often NOT consequential in nature although such consequential damages can be contracted for as well.

In other words, no one needs to show a loss of sales, nor should they, for violation of the NDA to merit any award to the aggrieved party. People who sign NDAs are compensated, in part, for their secrecy surrounding their work. They contractually AGREE to the value of that secrecy (or damages) by the very contract terms under which they sign. In consideration for their secrecy, often a term of their employment, they are compensated.

Anyone saying that a company needs to show damages for an NDA violation is simply ignorant of the fact that the company in question can refer to the NDA, itself, to show the quantum of legal harm owed by the leaking employee.

Everyone: stop armchair lawyering. It’s a bad look. We get it, many of you are unsophisticated and are grappling with legal concepts for the first time. But how about you admit you know little and take the time to ask questions rather than purport to know what the law says or how a judge might think.
 
Last edited:

EVIL

Senior Concept Artist
Verified
Oct 27, 2017
549
Frankfurt am Main, Germany
More open development. Another way to put an end to leaks. Sounds like a great idea.

I suspect that having an open and documented development would go to further humanize the developers as actual humanize developers. I had a bad taste in my mouth over getting burned by Double Fine but got over it after watching the Double Fine documentary.

Sadly, an open development concept would clash with the pageantry of marketing and sales and those matter more than actual people.
an open development concept clashes with the core nature of making games.
There is a whole thread dedicated to this very topic and devs coming in saying why its a bad idea
 

Septimius

Member
Oct 25, 2017
417
I'm saying that copyright protects duplication of a work. It does not protect the existence of a work.

You can't claim breach of copyright because someone reports that you have product X in development.
Yes, you can. It's called "right to first publish". When you're the copyright holder of a work, you also control when you let the public know about it, and when you let the public see it.

Nevermind, sabi just posted:

Wow. What an attention grab.
 

Stinkles

343 Industries
Verified
Oct 25, 2017
12,212
But we had people here post that their jobs were threaten because someone else had leaked something. Now do you understand how fucked that is and why it's a problem?

Ok so making a fake but reasonable and realistic example here:

You work at a small video color correction company with three editors, a CEO and an admin. You color correct trailers and short videos.

Nintendo sends you a new secret video to clean up for e3. You need this work to keep the lights on. You have a contract with Nintendo that absolutely contains very strict industry standard confidentiality and NDArequirements. Further, Nintendo did due diligence in your security systems. But they can’t do due diligence on individual behavior.

One of your four workers leaks the video. You don’t know which. Nintendo says they can no longer trust your firm and is not renewing the contract. You can’t fire the individual and save the firm because you can’t tell who it was. So you go out of business and everyone there loses their job.


Now, whose fault is that and is it serious?
 

blondkayvon

Member
Oct 26, 2017
457
Some of you are trying to compare movie announcements with video game announcements which I don't think is a fair comparison. When blockbuster movies are announced years in advance, they are rarely cancelled. Video games, on the other hand, get cancelled behind-the-scenes all the time. Fans get really pissed when they find out about cancelled games, too.

Do we really want to live in a world where games are announced 4 years prior to release and a good chunk of them never see the light of day?
 

mael

Avenger
Nov 3, 2017
6,389
Some of you are trying to compare movie announcements with video game announcements which I don't think is a fair comparison. When blockbuster movies are announced years in advance, they are rarely cancelled. Video games, on the other hand, get cancelled behind-the-scenes all the time. Fans get really pissed when they find out about cancelled games, too.

Do we really want to live in a world where games are announced 4 years prior to release and a good chunk of them never see the light of day?
No games should be announced 4 years prior to completion anyway.
 

Xaszatm

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,729
To be fair, it's not like tv and movie also doesn't have a spoiler culture problem. Those industries tend to go about it in different ways like trying to subvert expectations...which is its own can of rotten worms tbh.
 

mael

Avenger
Nov 3, 2017
6,389
We know when a Studio is producing a movie years in advance (like many many years). Why shouldn't this be the case with games?
We can know that a studio is working on a game, they just shouldn't announce it like they do with shitty misleading trailers that the dev team has to crunch to deliver
If we're going for the movie analogy, that would be the timeline.
I don't think we get trailers for movies years before release though.
 

Syriel

Member
Dec 13, 2017
4,925
Usually the damages for violating an NDA are spelled out in the terms of the NDA in a liquidated damages provision. I imagine that NDA breach damages are often NOT consequential in nature although such consequential damages can be contracted for as well.

In other words, no one needs to show a loss of sales, nor should they, for violation of the NDA to merit any award to the aggrieved party. People who sign NDAs are compensated, in part, for their secrecy surrounding their work. They contractually AGREE to the value of that secrecy (or damages) by the very contract terms under which they sign. In consideration for their secrecy, often a term of their employment, they are compensated.

Anyone saying that a company needs to show damages for an NDA violation is simply ignorant of the fact that the company in question can refer to the NDA, itself, to show the quantum of legal harm owed by the leaking employee.

Everyone: stop armchair lawyering. It’s a bad look. We get it, many of you are unsophisticated and are grappling with legal concepts for the first time. But how about you admit you know little and take the time to ask questions rather than purport to know what the law says or how a judge might think.
This. If there is an NDA, damages are almost always stated as liquidated because it would be near impossible to otherwise quantify.

If Sabi signed an NDA and leaked this information, they are perhaps the stupidest person on the planet.

Yes, you can. It's called "right to first publish". When you're the copyright holder of a work, you also control when you let the public know about it, and when you let the public see it.
Right to first publish has to do with publication. There is nothing in copyright law in the US that prevents an unrelated third party from telling others that they learned about something in development. That's one of the reasons why so many projects use code names.
 

blondkayvon

Member
Oct 26, 2017
457
We can know that a studio is working on a game, they just shouldn't announce it like they do with shitty misleading trailers that the dev team has to crunch to deliver

I don't think we get trailers for movies years before release though.
I didn't say we'd get trailer announcements. I don't want an announcement that something is in development when devs are constantly developing things that never pan out.
 

Stinkles

343 Industries
Verified
Oct 25, 2017
12,212
No games should be announced 4 years prior to completion anyway.
Why? You have to hire hundreds of people to make a game. Sometimes that’s vastly more easy when you can attract talent to a beloved franchise- an unnamed title will not produce the same resumes- and there are lots of other business reasons too.
 

Muffin

Member
Oct 26, 2017
6,722
Yes, you can. It's called "right to first publish". When you're the copyright holder of a work, you also control when you let the public know about it, and when you let the public see it.
Source that. The first right to publish only concerns actually selling/publishing the work in question. If somebody gives a specific publisher the right to sell their book first before anyone else like Amazon etc., that is the first right to publish that the author of the work gave to them.

Partial spoilers or leaking the name of the work have nothing to do with that.
 

pseudotsuga

Member
Feb 4, 2018
820
I can't say I understand the idea that the game industry is toxic so leaks aren't a real problem. Yes, the game industry and the work culture it has created is toxic in a lot of ways and in that sense, leaks aren't the only problem. However, if someone (i.e. the leaker) knows that something is extremely flammable (i.e. the games industry), they can't exactly claim innocence if they choose to set it on fire. You can certainly say that something should be less flammable and that was a contributing factor, but at the end of the day if someone knowingly blew it up, that person is culpable for the harm caused too.

In a perfect world I would love for the game industry to be somewhat more open and not rely on a precariously built marketing plan, but let's not advocate for knocking it down for that reason and spiting the devs in the process. Not to mention that leaking like this is likely going to lead to a closed internal development process, which will lead us even further from a more open industry. If there is danger of something being leaked, dev teams may end up keeping it secret from more and more people within the team, until a dev has no idea what's going on outside of the work they're doing personally. That's the last thing anyone needs. Leaks aren't just about image, they're about trust, and destroying trust within a team can have disastrous consequences.

In other words, I think that the industry and present-day marketing can have its own problems, but I think that leak culture is harmful as well and isn't going to help the former. I also think that the toxicity of gaming culture is going to make it really hard to change any of this (see: Puddlegate). We as a community need to learn that things change and "downgrade" in development and it's not some sort of betrayal unless someone is actively trying to deceive us about it. That's veering into another discussion entirely, though.
 

mael

Avenger
Nov 3, 2017
6,389
I didn't say we'd get trailer announcements. I don't want an announcement that something is in development when devs are constantly developing things that never pan out.
I don't really mind that though.
It's rather immaterial and can be part of the broader strategy.
Kinda like how we know that Sony is working on ps5 years before we see anything.
or how we know they want to make Metroid Prime 4 but were shown nothing before the project was rebooted.
Why? You have to hire hundreds of people to make a game. Sometimes that’s vastly more easy when you can attract talent to a beloved franchise- an unnamed title will not produce the same resumes- and there are lots of other business reasons too.
True but there is to be a middle ground between pulling a Killzone 2 and going Sega with the Saturn "it's out now".
Announcement trailers are the least useful thing in this regard.
 

Helio

Member
Oct 28, 2017
7,562
Some of you are trying to compare movie announcements with video game announcements which I don't think is a fair comparison. When blockbuster movies are announced years in advance, they are rarely cancelled. Video games, on the other hand, get cancelled behind-the-scenes all the time. Fans get really pissed when they find out about cancelled games, too.

Do we really want to live in a world where games are announced 4 years prior to release and a good chunk of them never see the light of day?
Movies rarely get outright cancelled. They get stuck in development hell and that happens all of the time.
 

Angie22

Member
Nov 20, 2017
4,885
Portugal
The game industry's obsession with secrecy over even minor details is borderline fetishistic. Not specifically meaning Nintendo here but embargoes over minor things ending at specific days and hours for example.
Well, that is another subject of discussion, companies spend a ton to keep it secret - it's a fixation with the industry. In any other entertainment industry you know about projects being made as soon as they enter production whether it's movies or music or literature.
The main reason why video games have this secrecy is because of how important marketing is in this particular industry, more so than in movies or music, which often sell based on the names of the artists and their merits. Because of how saturated the games industry is, and the fact that games tend to have longer production cycles than other mediums and a higher cost of entry for a consumer, publishers will want to market their games on their own terms, waiting until the right moment to maximize consumer interest.
Additionally, people who play games often don't comprehend how a game is actually made and the work that goes behind them. There is a disconnect of how games are actually made vs how they are perceived to be made; and publishers will also want to capitalize on the "magical" nature of their projects.
This explains why companies spend a lot of money and time to keep it secret, and why they have options in place to act when someone leaks projects and breaks their NDA.

I would just say I would not want to be in Sabi's place right now.
 

Septimius

Member
Oct 25, 2017
417
Source that. The first right to publish only concerns actually selling/publishing the work in question. If somebody gives a specific publisher the right to sell their book first before anyone else like Amazon etc., that is the first right to publish that the author of the work gave to them.

Partial spoilers or leaking the name of the work have nothing to do with that.
The whole point is that you control what you make. In this case, the announcement itself may be what's copyrighted. Putting it in terms of books and Amazon will not paint the whole picture. If I've made an album, I have the right to control how that's shared. That's my right to first publication. Giving that right to someone else is a case of Amazon and a book. So 'publishing' the name of a copyright work infringes that right the author has. The substansiality of what is revealed would be relevant in a fair use defense. Of course, a lot of this would come down to the author's interpretation of the substansiality. Given games, it's pretty big to know that, say, a new Sim City game is being made. If you make your claim that someone shared an announcement – a copyrighted work in itself – then you can argue that the name of what's being announced is a substantial part of that work. As I understand it, publishing something before the author has decided to make it available is a compounding factor to copyright infringement, since you are infringing the copyright if it's before or after first publication.

The point is that copyright grants the author the rights to control who can do what with their work.
 

Syriel

Member
Dec 13, 2017
4,925
The whole point is that you control what you make. In this case, the announcement itself may be what's copyrighted. Putting it in terms of books and Amazon will not paint the whole picture. If I've made an album, I have the right to control how that's shared. That's my right to first publication. Giving that right to someone else is a case of Amazon and a book. So 'publishing' the name of a copyright work infringes that right the author has. The substansiality of what is revealed would be relevant in a fair use defense. Of course, a lot of this would come down to the author's interpretation of the substansiality. Given games, it's pretty big to know that, say, a new Sim City game is being made. If you make your claim that someone shared an announcement – a copyrighted work in itself – then you can argue that the name of what's being announced is a substantial part of that work. As I understand it, publishing something before the author has decided to make it available is a compounding factor to copyright infringement, since you are infringing the copyright if it's before or after first publication.

The point is that copyright grants the author the rights to control who can do what with their work.
This is a clear misunderstanding of copyright law.

A specific performance (say a trailer or TV ad) falls under copyright.

Mere facts cannot, as a matter of law, be copyrighted.

Saying "X game is in development at Y company" will never be a copyright violation.