Streamer Breaks Anthem NDA, loses entire Origin library while recording (UP: Anthem may have been only game in library)

saenima · Dec 10, 2018

Dreamwriter said:
Physical goods...I've signed NDA's for trying early-access development hardware, where if I break the NDA I lose the harware. I paid $3000 for that hardware. Exact same circumstance.

Will they take your other hardware as well? Or just the one you are using under NDA?

Pryme said:
Nintendo is banning Switch consoles from online play after detecting they've hacked their consoles. Microsoft and Sony have banned consoles from online play after detecting piracy.

Basically, Physical goods have had functionality restricted, so your point is moot.

Is Nintendo going to your home and taking you Wii away? Did Microsoft and Sony ever go to these people's homes and take their games away?

The only thing moot in here is your nonsensical whataboutism.

Xeontech · Dec 10, 2018

Dude streamed publicly on twitch ?

BWAHAHAHA

life lessons bros. Take note. Consequences and all that

Mesoian · Dec 10, 2018

EHuntington said:
You're right, he broke the contract. EA was probably completely covered. I still don't like it. I don't like that an NDA, TOS, or whatever can lead to a closed account. I hate that everyone is fine with this. I hate that there's no ownership, and everyone here at ERA is fine with that. More than that, they're cheering EA on. There should be consequences, but blocking access to paid content really bothers me.

Also, not paying your rent is different that breaking an NDA, at least in my mind. I mean, simply, I guess a contract is a contract. Is that it then, it's all black and white? Every civil contract broken is the same?

I mean, would you prefer EA hit him with a 10,000 dollar fine?

Like, real talk, as someone working in media, losing access to previously paid content is getting off LIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT for breaking an NDA.

elenarie said:
There isn't much to say on this subject other than, please remember to respect the legally binding agreements you sign. :)

Especially when they break it down this fucking simply before hand.

Like, there have been times where I've had to ask about NDA specifics before because it's written in legalese and it's tough to parse, but this one is basically "DON'T STREAM THIS!!!" in big bold letters.

saenima said:
I don't give a shit about this dude. This conversation is much bigger than some idiot who decided to play himself for 15 minutes of internet fame. It's about the constant erosion of customer rights in the digital space. No company whatsoever should be allowed to remove content that was bought and paid for. None of this would fly with physical goods.

This happens ALL THE TIME with physical products, especially machine shops.

Read your contracts people.

Leviathan · Dec 10, 2018

Are people here seriously taking his side on this? Non-disclosure is in the damn title. The lack of regard for clear, legally binding agreements here baffles me.

Pryme · Dec 10, 2018

saenima said:
Will they take your other hardware as well? Or just the one you are using under NDA?

Is Nintendo going to your home and taking you Wii away? Did Microsoft and Sony ever go to these people's homes and take their games away?

The only thing moot in here is your nonsensical whataboutism.

I pointed out cases where functionality of physical goods have been reduced as a consequence of breaking rules...not my fault if you can't see how this puts the lie to your earlier statement.

Any 'whataboutism' you infer is all in your head.

saenima · Dec 10, 2018

Pryme said:
I pointed out cases where functionality of physical goods have been reduced as a consequence of breaking rules...not my fault if you can't see how this puts the lie to your earlier statement.

Any 'whataboutism' you infer is all in your head.

You pointed out cases that have literally nothing to do with what i'm talking about.

Good job?

Grimminski · Dec 10, 2018

Leviathan said:
Are people here seriously taking his side on this? Non-disclosure is in the damn title. The lack of regard for clear, legally binding agreements here baffles me.

Of course, it's EA so they have to side against the evil gaming publisher.

READ THE FUCKING CONTRACTS PEOPLE. I signed it, and guess what? I read it too, especially the sections where they clearly state they will fuck my life up if I violate the agreement.

RogerL · Dec 10, 2018

saenima said:
The difference being the games were paid for in full. In your analogy it would be the same as Ford towing away your car after you finished paying.

Be happy they only took all games. NDAs are serious, they could have taken your house or flat... and put you in jail...
Read carfully before signing, especially if the plan is to break the NDA then read with a lawyer... (would probably advice against breaking the NDA)

Imran · Dec 10, 2018

Amibguous Cad said:
I'm... do people think NDAs are that important? Half the scoops you guys read about upcoming games come from someone breaking an NDA.

Do you want to expound on this

TheYanger · Dec 10, 2018

saenima said:
Will they take your other hardware as well? Or just the one you are using under NDA?

Is Nintendo going to your home and taking you Wii away? Did Microsoft and Sony ever go to these people's homes and take their games away?

The only thing moot in here is your nonsensical whataboutism.

Did they take his other games away? None of us even know if he had any other games, based on his obvious piracy, I'm gonna guess he didn't.

Shadow of the Void · Dec 10, 2018

Yet another example of a copyright holder demonstrating quite clearly to everyone a simple truth: "You don't own your digital copies."

Yes, this guy brought on itself, but if we could simply move past our desire to be all "the rules are the rules #LawfulNeutral" for a second, we should be asking ourselves if it's okay for copyright holders and content distributors to be able to delete individual digital copies or even entire libraries of content. This isn't the first time a similar scenario has occurred, either. I've seen stories about how entire Steam, Origin, and Kindle libraries were nuked in the past "for reasons," even though there was often no clear-cut case of wrongdoing on the part of the consumer.

Now, I can't speak for other countries, but under current U.S. jurisprudence physical copies of books, movies, music, and console games are treated as "sold, not licensed." Your books, Blu-rays, CDs/records, and game discs/cartridges are your property, and as such are covered by the First-sale Doctrine, meaning you can sell, lend, trade, or gift them at your own discretion without requiring the permission of the publisher or distributor. The only thing you're prohibited from doing is creating new copies for any commercial purpose, along with maybe a couple of other narrowly-defined restrictions. But in any case, all those physical copies on your shelf are yours, and the publisher or seller cannot take them away from you.

This is not the case with digital, which is treated as "licensed, not sold." Any digital copy you have is not yours. The First-sale Doctrine does not apply. The publisher or distributor can rescind your possession of a digital copy at any time for any reason or no reason at all, and can make said possession contingent on you adhering to whatever set of rules they demand you agree to.

We wouldn't tolerate any of that with any kind of physical good. Nobody would agree to such a system. Yet we tolerate and even expect it with digital. Why is that? Why shouldn't digital downloads be treated at "sold, not licensed"? Why should we think the current status quo regarding digital is acceptable? Why should publishers and distributors be allowed to delete your legitimately purchased copies for any reason at all? The fact that it's even possible and legal for them to do so in the first place makes me wary of digital distribution.

That's hardly the only problem I have with digital, but I won't get into those reasons right now. But needless to say, until such time as there is some meaningful reforms to IP law here in the U.S., I refuse to invest any considerable sum of money into digital. While I have purchased a small handful of Virtual Console titles this decade (and they were all titles I have physical copies of anyway), I haven't purchased any digital games from Xbox Live since 2010, and I've never once bought a digital copy of a new $60 game. And it's going to stay that way for a good long time.

Trace · Dec 10, 2018

Shadow of the Void said:
Yet another example of a copyright holder demonstrating quite clearly to everyone a simple truth: "You don't own your digital copies."

Yes, this guy brought on itself, but if we could simply move past our desire to be all "the rules are the rules #LawfulNeutral" for a second, we should be asking ourselves if it's okay for copyright holders and content distributors to be able to delete individual digital copies or even entire libraries of content. This isn't the first time a similar scenario has occurred, either. I've seen stories about how entire Steam, Origin, and Kindle libraries were nuked in the past "for reasons," even though there was often no clear-cut case of wrongdoing on the part of the consumer.

Now, I can't speak for other countries, but under current U.S. jurisprudence physical copies of books, movies, music, and console games are treated as "sold, not licensed." Your books, Blu-rays, CDs/records, and game discs/cartridges are your property, and as such are covered by the First-sale Doctrine, meaning you can sell, lend, trade, or gift them at your own discretion without requiring the permission of the publisher or distributor. The only thing you're prohibited from doing is creating new copies for any commercial purpose, along with maybe a couple of other narrowly-defined restrictions. But in any case, all those physical copies on your shelf are yours, and the publisher or seller cannot take them away from you.

This is not the case with digital, which is treated as "licensed, not sold." Any digital copy you have is not yours. The First-sale Doctrine does not apply. The publisher or distributor can rescind your possession of a digital copy at any time for any reason or no reason at all, and can make said possession contingent on you adhering to whatever set of rules they demand you agree to.

We wouldn't tolerate any of that with any kind of physical good. Nobody would agree to such a system. Yet we tolerate and even expect it with digital. Why is that? Why shouldn't digital downloads be treated at "sold, not licensed"? Why should we think the current status quo regarding digital is acceptable? Why should publishers and distributors be allowed to delete your legitimately purchased copies for any reason at all? The fact that it's even possible and legal for them to do so in the first place makes me wary of digital distribution.

That's hardly the only problem I have with digital, but I won't get into those reasons right now. But needless to say, until such time as there is some meaningful reforms to IP law here in the U.S., I refuse to invest any considerable sum of money into digital. While I have purchased a small handful of Virtual Console titles this decade (and they were all titles I have physical copies of anyway), I haven't purchased any digital games from Xbox Live since 2010, and I've never once bought a digital copy of a new $60 game. And it's going to stay that way for a good long time.

You're incorrect in your assumption that you "own" a physical console game. You own the disc, the data itself is licensed to you.

saenima · Dec 10, 2018

TheYanger said:
Did they take his other games away? None of us even know if he had any other games, based on his obvious piracy, I'm gonna guess he didn't.

I said as much earlier in this thread. This guy didn't lose anything as far as we know. That's why i'm talking about the bigger picture here, otherwise there is no point to this thread anymore. This particular case is nothing. Dude broke NDA and lost access to the Beta, as he should. My whole thread of posts was regarding the ability that companies literally give themselves to take away things that customers have paid for, which imo should be illegal. That's it.

saenima · Dec 10, 2018

Shadow of the Void said:
Yet another example of a copyright holder demonstrating quite clearly to everyone a simple truth: "You don't own your digital copies."

Yes, this guy brought on itself, but if we could simply move past our desire to be all "the rules are the rules #LawfulNeutral" for a second, we should be asking ourselves if it's okay for copyright holders and content distributors to be able to delete individual digital copies or even entire libraries of content. This isn't the first time a similar scenario has occurred, either. I've seen stories about how entire Steam, Origin, and Kindle libraries were nuked in the past "for reasons," even though there was often no clear-cut case of wrongdoing on the part of the consumer.

Now, I can't speak for other countries, but under current U.S. jurisprudence physical copies of books, movies, music, and console games are treated as "sold, not licensed." Your books, Blu-rays, CDs/records, and game discs/cartridges are your property, and as such are covered by the First-sale Doctrine, meaning you can sell, lend, trade, or gift them at your own discretion without requiring the permission of the publisher or distributor. The only thing you're prohibited from doing is creating new copies for any commercial purpose, along with maybe a couple of other narrowly-defined restrictions. But in any case, all those physical copies on your shelf are yours, and the publisher or seller cannot take them away from you.

This is not the case with digital, which is treated as "licensed, not sold." Any digital copy you have is not yours. The First-sale Doctrine does not apply. The publisher or distributor can rescind your possession of a digital copy at any time for any reason or no reason at all, and can make said possession contingent on you adhering to whatever set of rules they demand you agree to.

We wouldn't tolerate any of that with any kind of physical good. Nobody would agree to such a system. Yet we tolerate and even expect it with digital. Why is that? Why shouldn't digital downloads be treated at "sold, not licensed"? Why should we think the current status quo regarding digital is acceptable? Why should publishers and distributors be allowed to delete your legitimately purchased copies for any reason at all? The fact that it's even possible and legal for them to do so in the first place makes me wary of digital distribution.

That's hardly the only problem I have with digital, but I won't get into those reasons right now. But needless to say, until such time as there is some meaningful reforms to IP law here in the U.S., I refuse to invest any considerable sum of money into digital. While I have purchased a small handful of Virtual Console titles this decade (and they were all titles I have physical copies of anyway), I haven't purchased any digital games from Xbox Live since 2010, and I've never once bought a digital copy of a new $60 game. And it's going to stay that way for a good long time.

Thank you.

Penny Royal · Dec 10, 2018

saenima said:
No. It's not the same at all. The service is there as a portal to the content. You buy the content, not the service.

I don't give a shit about this dude. This conversation is much bigger than some idiot who decided to play himself for 15 minutes of internet fame. It's about the constant erosion of customer rights in the digital space. No company whatsoever should be allowed to remove content that was bought and paid for. None of this would fly with physical goods.

Look up John Deer tractors and what happens to you if you're found to have modded their control software.

Budi · Dec 10, 2018

elenarie said:
There isn't much to say on this subject other than, please remember to respect the legally binding agreements you sign. :)

Think about it, it requires you to do nothing, to take no action at all. I'm surprised it doesn't happen more tbh!

MrLuchador · Dec 10, 2018

Break NDA, a legal contract that allows the property holder to recoup losses due to the NDA and losing your digital library is getting off easy.

saenima · Dec 10, 2018

Kyser73 said:
Look up John Deer tractors and what happens to you if you're found to have modded their control software.

I don't need to look it up because a) i doubt it has anything to do with my point, and b) if it has indeed anything to do with my point then i'm against them doing it as well.

I've made my point clear. Don't really care if we're talking about games, tractors or strawberries. If you buy Product X, then company has no business taking Product X away from you because of issues with Product Y or Issue Z. I know it happens. I'm saying it's wrong and it shouldn't be allowed to happen legally.

Leviathan · Dec 10, 2018

saenima said:
I don't need to look it up because a) i doubt it has anything to do with my point, and b) if it has indeed anything to do with my point then i'm against them doing it as well.

I've made my point clear. Don't really care if we're talking about games, tractors or strawberries. If you buy Product X, then company has no business taking Product X away from you because of issues with Product Y or Issue Z. I know it happens. I'm saying it's wrong and it shouldn't be allowed to happen legally.

When you bind yourself into a contract, it explicitly overrides whatever lack of obligations you may have felt you had previously. You get something in exchange for giving something. When you breach that contract, there are consequences and those consequences may not be convenient for you.

TheYanger · Dec 10, 2018

saenima said:
I said as much earlier in this thread. This guy didn't lose anything as far as we know. That's why i'm talking about the bigger picture here, otherwise there is no point to this thread anymore. This particular case is nothing. Dude broke NDA and lost access to the Beta, as he should. My whole thread of posts was regarding the ability that companies literally give themselves to take away things that customers have paid for, which imo should be illegal. That's it.

They don't give it to themselves. You sign a document giving it to them.

We're not talking about tenuous at best shit like a Eula, we're talking about a document with actual legal repercussions. Like, they could literally sue this dude into the ground, they won't, but they could.

You can't use this as evidence of anything other than what it is, going "SEE WE DONT OWN DIGITAL CONTENT" is meaningless when you don't know that the guy lost anything to begin with, and certainly in the face of an actual NDA. Nothing about this is applicable to random fucking steam games I own.

saenima · Dec 10, 2018

Leviathan said:
When you bind yourself into a contract, it explicitly overrides whatever lack of obligations you may have felt you had previously. You get something in exchange for giving something. When you breach that contract, there are consequences and those consequences may not be convenient for you.

Ok. Stepping aside the obvious fact that there are indeed contracts that are illegal, immoral or otherwise subject to criticism, so the platitudes you wrote will always be under scrutiny from society on a case by case basis, i really suggest you read my posts in this thread. What you say has nothing to do with what i'm arguing.

Deleted member 43084 · Dec 10, 2018

saenima said:
Stepping aside the obvious fact that there are indeed contracts that are illegal, immoral or otherwise subject to criticism

That is true. This NDA definitely isn't one of them, though.

saenima · Dec 10, 2018

minimaxir said:
That is true. This NDA definitely isn't one of them, though.

Never said it was.

Driver · Dec 10, 2018

Hahahaha, what did this guy think was going to happen? Don't sign an NDA if you can't hold up your end of the bargain.

Leviathan · Dec 11, 2018

saenima said:
Ok. Stepping aside the obvious fact that there are indeed contracts that are illegal, immoral or otherwise subject to criticism, so the platitudes you wrote will always be under scrutiny from society on a case by case basis, i really suggest you read my posts in this thread. What you say has nothing to do with what i'm arguing.

If the contract isn't legal then you're not actually bound into it. Here, we haven't seen anything to suggest that the NDA wasn't invalid. If it's valid, then by definition it's also not unconscionable. "Legally binding" technically comes packaged with that "morality" you mentioned.

disparate · Dec 11, 2018

NDAs aren't EULAs or TOSs, it's not something to dick with. Assuming he had any other games to start, better losing that than a massive lawsuit he's assuredly lose.

Storm · Dec 11, 2018

Honestly disabling access to his paid games is taking it lightly.

It's also industry standard. If you break an NDA with a platform holder. They don't want you on their platform anymore.

Alvis · Dec 11, 2018

Trace said:
You're incorrect in your assumption that you "own" a physical console game. You own the disc, the data itself is licensed to you.

Sure, in theory. In practice I can do whatever I want with the disc and therefore with the data and nobody can stop me. So there's nothing wrong with purchasing physical in order to own the game, because in practice you do.

The cartridge of the licensing mess that is Goldeneye 64 might be a "license", but nobody can stop me from playing, selling or buying it second hand, even though nobody can figure out how the fuck to sell it digitally.

Scuffed · Dec 11, 2018

He broke the nda in the most extreme way possible by streaming it. I have no sympathy for him. If this was done over maybe a comment he made on the game I would say it was an overreaction but streaming it? Ya he's an idiot.

saenima · Dec 11, 2018

Leviathan said:
If it's valid, then by definition it's also not unconscionable. "Legally binding" technically comes packaged with that "morality" you mentioned.

Bullshit. Legality and morality are completely different things. By your logic slavery was a moral thing to do until it was made illegal.

Leviathan · Dec 11, 2018

saenima said:
Bullshit. Legality and morality are completely different things. By your logic slavery was a moral thing to do until it was made illegal.

Absolutely not, and for personal reasons I'll ask you not to so cheaply toss slavery into this. It is not similar to a simple NDA in either structure or severity. Very inappropriate.

You're not understanding my post. I'm not saying that legality creates morality. I'm saying that under the letter of the law, an abusive, unconscionable, or otherwise immoral contract is not actually valid or binding. Unlike slavery, which I'll remind you not to touch here, contracts look at fairness to both parties and are technically always balanced. The theory in any contract is that both parties value what they're getting more than what they're giving up. If they don't and one party couldn't have known that or was otherwise disadvantaged then it can be invalid. A moral contract might not be legal, but a legal contract is always "moral," as you're using it. Note, this is a gross oversimplification, but just take from it that validity does look at fairness.

There is an obvious issue of bias in enforcement here, but in this case we're talking about an NDA where there's no real ambiguity or oppression with which to take issue. In exchange for agreeing not to disclose, you get to try the game. There's no claim that he was tricked into it, that his life was in danger, or that playing Anthem wasn't worth giving up the right to reveal the details of that experience. It's all right there in the title.

Edit:

The actual agreement is very short and very clear. EA did the least they probably could have done. Here are two points from it.

5. Termination
This Agreement is effective until terminated by you or EA. EA may terminate your EA Account as well as your access to the Alpha Program and Alpha Materials if you violate this Agreement or any of the Alpha Agreement Terms. Sections 1-10 of this Agreement survive termination of this Agreement.
6. Relief and Indemnity
You agree that a breach or threatened breach of this Agreement will cause EA irreparable injury, that money damages would be an inadequate remedy, and that EA shall be entitled to ex parte injunctive relief without bond to stop a breach or threatened breach.

daveo42 · Dec 11, 2018

Don't agree to an NDA if you plan on immediately breaking it. Jfc what did the guy thing would happen?

saenima · Dec 11, 2018

Leviathan said:
Absolutely not, and for personal reasons I'll ask you not to so cheaply toss slavery into this. It is not similar to a simple NDA in either structure or severity. Very inappropriate.

You're not understanding my post. I'm not saying that legality creates morality. I'm saying that under the letter of the law, an abusive, unconscionable, or otherwise immoral contract is not actually valid or binding. Unlike slavery, which I'll remind you not to touch here, contracts look at fairness to both parties and are technically always balanced. The theory in any contract is that both parties value what they're getting more than what they're giving up. If they don't and one party couldn't have known that or was otherwise disadvantaged then it can be invalid. A moral contract might not be legal, but a legal contract is always "moral," as you're using it. Note, this is a gross oversimplification, but just take from it that validity does look at fairness.

This is a whole load of nonsense that i'm not gonna entertain any further.

Fuhgeddit · Dec 11, 2018

What do people expect from NDA? Seriously, this streamer should have known better.

Wrellie · Dec 11, 2018

Just so people are aware. On the off-chance Valve releases another game with an alpha or beta that has an NDA, your Steam account will be shut down if you break NDA.

https://store.steampowered.com/subscriber_agreement/#9

Leviathan · Dec 11, 2018

saenima said:
This is a whole load of nonsense that i'm not gonna entertain any further.

That was quite a cop-out. If you don't have a reply you may want to come up with a more discrete way of getting out of a conversation.

I was civil with you the whole way, on topic, and delivered my points clearly. Which part was nonsense and what justified the rude response?

xrnzaaas · Dec 11, 2018

Breaking the NDA is a huge thing, he's extremely lucky that he's not getting sued instead and going broke.

AntiMacro · Dec 11, 2018

saenima said:
I don't need to look it up because a) i doubt it has anything to do with my point, and b) if it has indeed anything to do with my point then i'm against them doing it as well.

I've made my point clear. Don't really care if we're talking about games, tractors or strawberries. If you buy Product X, then company has no business taking Product X away from you because of issues with Product Y or Issue Z. I know it happens. I'm saying it's wrong and it shouldn't be allowed to happen legally.

Why is anyone bothering to debate this with saenima anymore? Look at point B - they've clearly got no interest in hearing any counter argument. There's no point talking to someone that has their fingers in their ears going NAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH to any of your points.

NameUser · Dec 11, 2018

Magicraft said:
Digital is the future they said

I'm terrified that all of these services will be offline in 20 years and I'll lose tons of games. Which is why I rarely buy digital or online only games. That's a long time away, but I'd like to have the option to replay stuff in the future without jumping through hoops.

Cpt-GargameL · Dec 11, 2018

Shadow of the Void said:
Yet another example of a copyright holder demonstrating quite clearly to everyone a simple truth: "You don't own your digital copies."

Yes, this guy brought on itself, but if we could simply move past our desire to be all "the rules are the rules #LawfulNeutral" for a second, we should be asking ourselves if it's okay for copyright holders and content distributors to be able to delete individual digital copies or even entire libraries of content. This isn't the first time a similar scenario has occurred, either. I've seen stories about how entire Steam, Origin, and Kindle libraries were nuked in the past "for reasons," even though there was often no clear-cut case of wrongdoing on the part of the consumer.

Now, I can't speak for other countries, but under current U.S. jurisprudence physical copies of books, movies, music, and console games are treated as "sold, not licensed." Your books, Blu-rays, CDs/records, and game discs/cartridges are your property, and as such are covered by the First-sale Doctrine, meaning you can sell, lend, trade, or gift them at your own discretion without requiring the permission of the publisher or distributor. The only thing you're prohibited from doing is creating new copies for any commercial purpose, along with maybe a couple of other narrowly-defined restrictions. But in any case, all those physical copies on your shelf are yours, and the publisher or seller cannot take them away from you.

This is not the case with digital, which is treated as "licensed, not sold." Any digital copy you have is not yours. The First-sale Doctrine does not apply. The publisher or distributor can rescind your possession of a digital copy at any time for any reason or no reason at all, and can make said possession contingent on you adhering to whatever set of rules they demand you agree to.

We wouldn't tolerate any of that with any kind of physical good. Nobody would agree to such a system. Yet we tolerate and even expect it with digital. Why is that? Why shouldn't digital downloads be treated at "sold, not licensed"? Why should we think the current status quo regarding digital is acceptable? Why should publishers and distributors be allowed to delete your legitimately purchased copies for any reason at all? The fact that it's even possible and legal for them to do so in the first place makes me wary of digital distribution.

That's hardly the only problem I have with digital, but I won't get into those reasons right now. But needless to say, until such time as there is some meaningful reforms to IP law here in the U.S., I refuse to invest any considerable sum of money into digital. While I have purchased a small handful of Virtual Console titles this decade (and they were all titles I have physical copies of anyway), I haven't purchased any digital games from Xbox Live since 2010, and I've never once bought a digital copy of a new $60 game. And it's going to stay that way for a good long time.

Preach!

I agree with this.

Leviathan · Dec 11, 2018

Shadow of the Void said:
Yet another example of a copyright holder demonstrating quite clearly to everyone a simple truth: "You don't own your digital copies."

Yes, this guy brought on itself, but if we could simply move past our desire to be all "the rules are the rules #LawfulNeutral" for a second, we should be asking ourselves if it's okay for copyright holders and content distributors to be able to delete individual digital copies or even entire libraries of content. This isn't the first time a similar scenario has occurred, either. I've seen stories about how entire Steam, Origin, and Kindle libraries were nuked in the past "for reasons," even though there was often no clear-cut case of wrongdoing on the part of the consumer.

Now, I can't speak for other countries, but under current U.S. jurisprudence physical copies of books, movies, music, and console games are treated as "sold, not licensed." Your books, Blu-rays, CDs/records, and game discs/cartridges are your property, and as such are covered by the First-sale Doctrine, meaning you can sell, lend, trade, or gift them at your own discretion without requiring the permission of the publisher or distributor. The only thing you're prohibited from doing is creating new copies for any commercial purpose, along with maybe a couple of other narrowly-defined restrictions. But in any case, all those physical copies on your shelf are yours, and the publisher or seller cannot take them away from you.

This is not the case with digital, which is treated as "licensed, not sold." Any digital copy you have is not yours. The First-sale Doctrine does not apply. The publisher or distributor can rescind your possession of a digital copy at any time for any reason or no reason at all, and can make said possession contingent on you adhering to whatever set of rules they demand you agree to.

We wouldn't tolerate any of that with any kind of physical good. Nobody would agree to such a system. Yet we tolerate and even expect it with digital. Why is that? Why shouldn't digital downloads be treated at "sold, not licensed"? Why should we think the current status quo regarding digital is acceptable? Why should publishers and distributors be allowed to delete your legitimately purchased copies for any reason at all? The fact that it's even possible and legal for them to do so in the first place makes me wary of digital distribution.

That's hardly the only problem I have with digital, but I won't get into those reasons right now. But needless to say, until such time as there is some meaningful reforms to IP law here in the U.S., I refuse to invest any considerable sum of money into digital. While I have purchased a small handful of Virtual Console titles this decade (and they were all titles I have physical copies of anyway), I haven't purchased any digital games from Xbox Live since 2010, and I've never once bought a digital copy of a new $60 game. And it's going to stay that way for a good long time.

In this case, he entered into a contract separate from those by which he originally purchased those games. EA had the control to secure its own relief (and it did), but you can think of it as if he had negotiated a contract with his buddy to give up ownership of his account if he ever breached the NDA. It's the same thing even though EA is the other party here. If the contract had granted them the right to repossess all of his physical games in case of breach, that'd be valid too.

They didn't just go and steal back his digital property because it was in Origin and they could. They acted on a separate contract that allowed them to interfere with his EA account like this. He agreed to this risk when he contracted to play the Alpha.

Here are two relevant parts I posted above:

5. Termination
This Agreement is effective until terminated by you or EA. EA may terminate your EA Account as well as your access to the Alpha Program and Alpha Materials if you violate this Agreement or any of the Alpha Agreement Terms. Sections 1-10 of this Agreement survive termination of this Agreement.
6. Relief and Indemnity
You agree that a breach or threatened breach of this Agreement will cause EA irreparable injury, that money damages would be an inadequate remedy, and that EA shall be entitled to ex parte injunctive relief without bond to stop a breach or threatened breach.

I'm not necessarily pushing back against your criticism of digital libraries, but this isn't about the risk of digital libraries. It's a simple case of the consequences of contract breach being triggered.

headspawn · Dec 11, 2018

So we're at 8 pages... is this even confirmed that he lost his library?

saenima · Dec 11, 2018

Leviathan said:
If you don't have a reply you may want to come up with a more discrete way of getting out of a conversation.

I'm not interested in pursuing this conversation any further because you and other people in here keep replying to me with shit that has nothing to do with what i said in this thread. It's really fucking tiring having to repeat myself over and over just to have it ignored. I've made my point several times now.

Leviathan said:
I was civil with you the whole way, on topic, and delivered my points clearly. Which part was nonsense and what justified the rude response

All of it is nonsense. A contract is not moral by virtue of being legal. Period. Not that it matters, it has nothing to do with what i've been saying either.

And you can miss me with the tone policing as well btw.

AntiMacro said:
Why is anyone bothering to debate this with saenima anymore? Look at point B - they've clearly got no interest in hearing any counter argument. There's no point talking to someone that has their fingers in their ears going NAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH to any of your points.

I have as much interest in hearing counter arguments to arguments i didn't make as the people 'debating' me have in hearing my sole argument, which is not much. I'm not gonna change my mind on the only point i have made in this thread, no matter how many whataboutisms are thrown my way.

Before you or anyone else @ me again, here is my point:

'Don't really care if we're talking about games, tractors or strawberries. If you buy Product X, then company has no business taking Product X away from you because of issues with Product Y or Issue Z. I know it happens. I'm saying it's wrong and it shouldn't be allowed to happen legally.'

This is all there is to it. There isn't really a discussion to be had here because it's just my personal opinion based on my own values, and anyone that thinks differently probably comes from a completely different mindset regarding what limitations companies should have in the contracts they come up with and in what liberties they take regarding ownership of sold goods, and we won't see eye to eye on this. You say i have no interest in hearing other people out. Funny how that works both ways. I could say the same thing about anyone who has tried to 'debate' me.

Leviathan · Dec 11, 2018

saenima said:
I'm not interested in pursuing this conversation any further because you and other people in here keep replying to me with shit that has nothing to do with what i said in this thread. It's really fucking tiring having to repeat myself over and over just to have it ignored. I've made my point several times now.

All of it is nonsense. A contract is not moral by virtue of being legal. Period. Not that it matters, it has nothing to do with what i've been saying either.

And you can miss me with the tone policing as well btw.

I have as much interest in hearing counter arguments to arguments i didn't make as the people 'debating' me have in hearing my sole argument, which is not much. I'm not gonna change my mind on the only point i have made in this thread, no matter how many whataboutisms are thrown my way.

Before you or anyone else @ me again, here is my point:

'Don't really care if we're talking about games, tractors or strawberries. If you buy Product X, then company has no business taking Product X away from you because of issues with Product Y or Issue Z. I know it happens. I'm saying it's wrong and it shouldn't be allowed to happen legally.'

This is all there is to it. There isn't really a discussion to be had here because it's just my personal opinion based on my own values, and anyone that thinks differently probably comes from a completely different mindset regarding what limitations companies should have in the contracts they come up with and in what liberties they take regarding ownership of sold goods, and we won't see eye to eye on this. You say i have no interest in hearing other people out. Funny how that works both ways. I could say the same thing about anyone who has tried to 'debate' me.

That's not at all responsive to what I wrote and I think even you know it at this point. What you reframed my point as (twice) is almost word-for-word what I told you I wasn't saying. I don't know if you misunderstood what I took the time to lay out clearly for you or if you decided to take some notes from the Right and just interpret what I said in a way you found easier to dismiss, but I'm going to take you up on your earlier offer to stop wasting my time. I'm moving on from this.

And as long as you insist on hurling insults unprovoked and making abusive references to something as horrific as slavery in order to save face in a disagreement you don't want to understand, your tone and behavior will probably be getting policed here.

AntiMacro had it right.

saenima · Dec 11, 2018

Leviathan said:
decided to take some notes from the Right

Leviathan said:
making abusive references to something as horrific as slavery in order to save face in a disagreement you don't want to understand

This is some of the most disingenuous bullshit i've seen in some time.

Ignored and good riddance.

Leviathan · Dec 11, 2018

saenima said:
This is some of the most disingenuous bullshit i've seen in some time.

Ignored and good riddance.

That's mutual, but I appreciate the feigned outrage. I don't appreciate how you've steadfastly refused to acknowledge or reply to anything of substance here though.

Still, I hope you actually did read what people said to you.

EloquentM · Dec 11, 2018

saenima said:
This is some of the most disingenuous bullshit i've seen in some time.

Ignored and good riddance.

Disingenuous lmao. Dude you came in here trying to equate the "morality" of a company enforcing a valid legally binding contract (to protect its own IP, and all the people spending countless hours to work on it and ensure its success) the other party agreed to with the morality of legal slavery in the early US.

You're a clown, and no one should be giving you the time of day lol.

Shadow of the Void · Dec 12, 2018

Trace said:
You're incorrect in your assumption that you "own" a physical console game. You own the disc, the data itself is licensed to you.

U.S. federal law says otherwise. Title 17, Chapter 1 § 109 of U.S. code refers to the purchaser/end-user as the "owner of a particular copy" on multiple occasions. Even the 9th Circuit Court, in the appeal case for Vernor v. Autodesk, specifically and explicitly said that "Tangible copies of books and music CDs are sold—not licensed," which necessarily also covers music cassettes and vinyl records as well as physical copies of movies, TV shows, & video games, which are similarly covered under Title 17, Ch. 1 § 109. Under current U.S. jurisprudence, physical copies of copyrighted works (with the narrow exception of PC software) are treated as "sold, not licensed" and the property of the purchaser of the copy. The only thing the owner of the copy cannot do with their copy is to create new copies of it to distribute.

Kyser73 said:
Look up John Deer tractors and what happens to you if you're found to have modded their control software.

They tried. And it appears they, along with others who tried to similar restrictions on the "right to repair," failed according to a recent Copyright Office ruling. Companies want to be able to control everything about anything they sell that might have software, and there will likely be continuing legal battles, but as of now the law has sided with the consumer on this issue.

Source: https://ifixit.org/blog/11951/1201-copyright-final-rule/

Leviathan said:
In this case, he entered into a contract separate from those by which he originally purchased those games. EA had the control to secure its own relief (and it did), but you can think of it as if he had negotiated a contract with his buddy to give up ownership of his account if he ever breached the NDA. It's the same thing even though EA is the other party here. If the contract had granted them the right to repossess all of his physical games in case of breach, that'd be valid too.

They didn't just go and steal back his digital property because it was in Origin and they could. They acted on a separate contract that allowed them to interfere with his EA account like this. He agreed to this risk when he contracted to play the Alpha.

Here are two relevant parts I posted above:

5. Termination
This Agreement is effective until terminated by you or EA. EA may terminate your EA Account as well as your access to the Alpha Program and Alpha Materials if you violate this Agreement or any of the Alpha Agreement Terms. Sections 1-10 of this Agreement survive termination of this Agreement.
6. Relief and Indemnity
You agree that a breach or threatened breach of this Agreement will cause EA irreparable injury, that money damages would be an inadequate remedy, and that EA shall be entitled to ex parte injunctive relief without bond to stop a breach or threatened breach.

I'm not necessarily pushing back against your criticism of digital libraries, but this isn't about the risk of digital libraries. It's a simple case of the consequences of contract breach being triggered.

I understand that he broke a contract. And I'd be fully in favor of them suspending, even indefinitely, his ability to play online over the Origin servers, or even his ability to make further purchases from their digital storefront (because even B&M stores can refuse service to a customer that cause them problems). But taking away his games? Yes, EA was well within their legal rights to do this, because EA is still the owner of any digital copies of their games under current jurisprudence.

But does that mean that it's okay for them to have the ability to do so? What I question is the right of a company to be able to confiscate a legitimately purchased good for any reason, and to be able to place legally enforceable clauses into contracts that allow them to do as such. Yes, the law is what it is now, but that doesn't necessarily mean that's what the law should be. "Is" does not necessarily imply "ought," after all. And again, we'd find it intolerable if it was a library of physical copies in question as opposed to a library of digital content. That's one of the big things that worries me about digital: the erosion of concepts of ownership as they pertain to purchased goods.

Mandikiri · Dec 12, 2018

Did he had any other games he bought?

Leviathan · Dec 12, 2018

Shadow of the Void said:
U.S. federal law says otherwise. Title 17, Chapter 1 § 109 of U.S. code refers to the purchaser/end-user as the "owner of a particular copy" on multiple occasions. Even the 9th Circuit Court, in the appeal case for Vernor v. Autodesk, specifically and explicitly said that "Tangible copies of books and music CDs are sold—not licensed," which necessarily also covers music cassettes and vinyl records as well as physical copies of movies, TV shows, & video games, which are similarly covered under Title 17, Ch. 1 § 109. Under current U.S. jurisprudence, physical copies of copyrighted works (with the narrow exception of PC software) are treated as "sold, not licensed" and the property of the purchaser of the copy. The only thing the owner of the copy cannot do with their copy is to create new copies of it to distribute.

They tried. And it appears they, along with others who tried to similar restrictions on the "right to repair," failed according to a recent Copyright Office ruling. Companies want to be able to control everything about anything they sell that might have software, and there will likely be continuing legal battles, but as of now the law has sided with the consumer on this issue.

Source: https://ifixit.org/blog/11951/1201-copyright-final-rule/

I understand that he broke a contract. And I'd be fully in favor of them suspending, even indefinitely, his ability to play online over the Origin servers, or even his ability to make further purchases from their digital storefront (because even B&M stores can refuse service to a customer that cause them problems). But taking away his games? Yes, EA was well within their legal rights to do this, because EA is still the owner of any digital copies of their games under current jurisprudence.

But does that mean that it's okay for them to have the ability to do so? What I question is the right of a company to be able to confiscate a legitimately purchased good for any reason, and to be able to place legally enforceable clauses into contracts that allow them to do as such. Yes, the law is what it is now, but that doesn't necessarily mean that's what the law should be. "Is" does not necessarily imply "ought," after all. And again, we'd find it intolerable if it was a library of physical copies in question as opposed to a library of digital content. That's one of the big things that worries me about digital: the erosion of concepts of ownership as they pertain to purchased goods.

I greatly appreciate your distinguishing between what the law is and what you'd like it to be. Very few are doing that here and it has left this thread something of a Trainwreck of both sides talking across each other.

For me, this is best when broken down into (1) a handful of sale of goods contracts for the games and (2) a contract to access the Alpha. There is a bold line between 1 and 2 such that I don't think it's actually relevant what licenses EA retains or by what means they repossessed the titles. I'm not bothered by the idea of "collateral," of the security of responsible Alpha access usage with unrelated property. It's not the same as a mortgage since Alpha access is not a loan, but the concept is the same. Repayment is confidentiality.

I think that it'd actually be simpler if the property were physical and they'd claimed physical copies. This is EA saying, "You can have A, but if you do B then I get C." They didn't say, "You can have A, but if you do B then I get C because I sold you C originally and it's technically still mine for licensing reasons."

It's not that EA is eroding ownership through confiscation, but that the Alpha player has provided their game library as compensation in the event of a breach.

I think they could have pulled a licensing move and gone that route, but if you look at the Alpha access contract, it doesn't seem like they had to here.

I apologize if I've misunderstood and I hope you'll correct me if I have, but my sense is that the larger debate about digital ownership is important but not at issue here.

Edit: I think this conversation would fit better here if EA had a clause in every game purchase contract that said they could reclaim the games at any time and had used it here. They may have that, but that doesn't seem to be what lost him his library.

Streamer Breaks Anthem NDA, loses entire Origin library while recording (UP: Anthem may have been only game in library)

▲ Legend ▲

Saw the truth behind the copied door

#TeamThierry