Steamers decide to be jerks and break NDA by streaming Anthem; get access to Origin library revoked

Long story short. Some people were invited to try the closed alpha of Anthem. They signed an NDA in which one of the possible cause for breach of contract was losing access to their Origin libraries. They decided to be jerks and streamed the gameplay regardless of the consequences. They got punished and sure enough lost access to their Origin libraries.

Now I'm not here to deny that they deserved to be punished for breaking the NDA. What does concern me is the whole digital content ownership surrounding this whole circus. Those streamers paid for those games regardless so denying them access to something they legally own(they probably don't) seems like a move that would set a very dangerous precedent. You apparently don't really own your digital games anyway so I guess this shouldn't come off as a surprise but this thing is very concerning.

Source

HAHAHAHA, Oh well, sucks to be him but hey, not like he was warned about it so this is all on him.

And I'm hype to play Anthem and no, I didn't sign up for the Alpha, cause I have EA Origin Premier and I'll be playing Anthem with all DLC for free this February :)

I signed the NDA and it was VERY clear about sharing impressions/gameplay. Gamers losing their library is light compared to the legal action that could be taken against them.

Also, it was pointed out in the ResetEra thread that this user appeared to have 1 game in their Origin library. The Anthem Alpha... I'm not losing any sleep over their loss...

They were in the wrong, but yeah does seem a bit harsh to lose access to all their stuff.

This is why I mostly stick to physical formats.

I wanna see the leaked vids, is it any good

Well I guess there needs to be some serious repercussions for breaking an NDA and outside of a lawsuit I can’t really imagine anything else that they could have done to have punished them.

They make rhe consequences very clear so this dude is lucky if he doesn’t get sued.

Hence why I prefer physical. That said, I also have integrity and wouldn't have streamed the game as asked.

Sounds like EA actually treated them fairly lightly.

Anyway, this doesn't really worry me at all - I don't go around flagrantly breaking terms of use, so my digital library is at fairly low risk of being revoked.

What you know for once i'm with EA on this (doesn't feel right saying that)

Knowing that they did it just to gain viewers for their own selfish cause doesn't really tug on my sympathy strings. You reap what you sow.

I hate streamers. Especially ones that beg on patreon.

Sitting on there arse playing a game. That needs donation apparently. Not homeless or cancer charity, some bozo sitting in a racing chair playing shit like this.

It's rare to find yourself rooting for EA. It feels, wrong.

If they signed a NDA contract that stated they would lose access to all Origin content if they broke it, then it's not a dangerous legal precedent, they broke the terms of a contract.

Better to lose access to their game(s) than dragged through an expensive lawsuit that would likely end with an additional fine and court fees to pay. They're getting off light, I imagine EA's lawyers don't come cheap.

@uninspiredcup: I'll never understand why people watch others play games, and it further boggles my mind that those same people donate money and other gifts to these people?!?

@vfighter: they probably enjoy it, that’s why.

Of course the guy is an idiot and should face consequences but this BS about not really owning what you pay for and the company having control over its access is much worse than what the guy did. I hope someone sues EA and sets a precedent that this is not what companies can do with what people pay for.

It was one streamer and he didn't have any other games. They only take away the alpha. Either way, violation of a legally binding contract can result in legal action. Would you rather lose the library or tens of thousands of dollars?

@davillain-: it’s not really free if you are paying monthly for access.

That's why you should read before you sign the document.

yeah I'm sure you always read all user agreements when you play a game and never just scroll through them because you want to get to the actual game

That's what I came in looking for as well. lol

Touche! But I believe it was a signed document/NDA. You should always go through those.

You are right, I should have word it better on my end lol. I do play alot of EA games (never mind they are in a mixed with all bad choices) and Origin Premier to me is a sweet sub but that's just my opinion though. I rather just rent Anthem then me paying full price.

oh I wasn't aware it was physical. If it was, I'm with you :)

There has been cases where a legally binding contract has been overthrown in court because of laws that are more consumer friendly. Like when Sony had to pay back users for taking the Other OS function out from PS3 (was it only Europe?). But it depends how consumer-friendly the legislation is on each region.

Nope. You don't own your software. You never have. What you pay for is a limited use license that can be revoked at any time for pretty much any reason. This was the case even in the good ol' days when everybody used to buy their software on physical media. It's just that back then, this rule was effectively impossible to enforce, so most publishers didn't even try, but it would still happen if the infraction was significant enough, and the company had deep enough pockets. Things are different now with digital distribution and always-on internet since revoking a software license is as easy as clicking a mouse.

Yes, this sucks from a consumer standpoint, but it's perfectly legal, and there's really nothing we can do about it. This is why GoG has developed a good reputation, because any software you buy from them is yours to keep forever (at least in theory) with no possible way to revoke your license.

What I was going to say. I'd count myself lucky.

A ToS isn't a legally binding contract in the same way that an NDA is. It wouldn't thrown out. You're also not a consumer in the case of an NDA so consumer laws don't apply.

@dzimm: I put "they probably don’t" in parenthesis.

After watching a YongYea video on this topic it seems to be that EA simply cut off this users access to the Anthem alpha. It looks like he had no games on Origin and just recently created an account there for the alpha. It’s funny how quickly they shut him down as he never even got past the menu screen.

Douche move, but all he has to do is create a new account and subscribe to Origin Access and he will have his whole collection back without the cloud saves.

It was a dumb move. I enjoyed the Alpha, but didn't stream anything... Hell, it posts your username as a watermark on-screen lol.

What's this "they" business? There's only been a single reported incident of just one of these gamers granted the alpha to break the NDA, who got his Origin library revoked.

All agreed here that this guy was a douche and got his just desserts. But it doesn't reflect on the gamer/streamer community at large, or even the few in the alpha access. Everybody else respected the terms and you're misrepresenting the drama.

@AdobeArtist: Didn’t know if it was one guy or several. Different outlets mentioned it in plural. Didn’t wanna take any chance.

Also nobody is misrepresenting anything. I said exactly what happened. Simply was not sure of the number of persons involved.

Well, tough punishment, deserved though, but I think maybe a degree of leniency should be exercised for PR purposes, just say ban their currently owned content until Anthem releases.

still not interested in this game.

On one hand, they violated the contract, so it serves them right

on the other hand, one more story to keep me away from digital. Having my games deleted for w/e reason is scary. You dont own your digital games, that much I know

Well I'm not sure what the guy expected by breaking an NDA.

how is streaming it 'being jerks'? exactly.

just cuz its the rules?

All digital future is all fun and games until you lose hundreds or thousands of dollars worth of games because someone figured out you use password123 on your account and get you hemmed up.

"just cuz its the rules?"

Do you really not understand what an NDA is? ?

Are there cases of this happening?

I do.

I also understand that just because something is a rule doesnt mean an action against said rule is by default 'being a jerk'

Well in this case you can argue its pretty jerkish because its the whole point of the NDA.

no I do not think so.

Is it against the rules? yeah sure

is it legally binding? yeah yes sure

is it 'jerk' to not follow the rules? no and that of course depends on your definition of the word 'jerk'

'jerk' <> 'someone who does not follow the rules...full stop defintion'

Let's look at this in context. The NDA as contracts go, is an agreement of trust. The hosting party (EA) is providing privileged access in confidence with the understanding that the participant (streamer) keeps what they see/know confidential. Simplified; "Hey we like you, so we'll let you in on a sneak preview so long as you agree not to share this anyone." Taken beyond just a verbal agreement, there's a binding legal contract.

So the streamers action is a violation of confidentiality. Even outside the legal setting, just from an ethical basis it's a breach of trust. He was given special privilege on condition that he consented to in order to receive, then knowingly broke that trust. And I emphasize "knowingly", he can't claim ignorance when EA was clearly explicit of the terms.

So "rules" not with standing, what does his knowing dismissal say of his character? Right off the bat that he's untrustworthy. He can tell you what you want to hear to get what he wants, then it doesn't matter. Doesn't respect the goodwill granted to him for what he was given. Doesn't respect the privacy of others. Doesn't appreciate what a unique opportunity he was afforded that too few were given. Someone that can easily dismiss an agreement when it no longer suits him with complete disregard for consequence.

And can be summarized as entitlement that rules (be that legal, social, ethical... what ever constitutes mutual understanding) doesn't apply to HIM; "Fukk you and your papers! I do what ever I want and NOBODY gonna tell ME no!!!"

That just about enough to qualify as a "jerk" for you?

Just so you know, I don't blindly accept rules, I don't advocate something like "the rules are everything." I evaluate their merit, on their purpose, their justification, and most of all fairness to people on all sides of the argument, both in concept and execution. I might object to some, but protest doesn't mean exemption. If a rule/law is wrong, gotta fight to change it, not just ignore it at your convenience.

On that note, was there anything "unfair" about EA's terms, to justify this guys actions?

I never said there was anything 'unfair' never once did I even suggest that its 'unfair'

I am just stating that by default a person breaking the rule REGARDLESS of what the rule is does not by default make a person a <quote> "Jerk" </quote> whatever that word means in this context.

If I make a NDA that says you have to stand on your left foot and bark like a dog, you are not a 'jerk' if you break that NDA.

you are waaaaaaay over complicating this

That is the most absurd hypothetical example you can conjure, not just by the senseless nature of the scenario, but in how you ignore what an NDA actually means, taking this into strawman territory.

NDA's aren't just some contracts drawn around any arbitrary requirement. They deal very specifically with one matter; CONFIDENTIALITY & TRUST. Information shared on agreement that it's not to be shared with anyone else. That's it. You can't deflect that criteria by evaluating a "hypothetical" NDA based on someone required to make a fool of them self, delivering groceries, petting 1000 camels, working a soup kitchen... and failing to do such. Nothing like that is in the domain of a Non-Disclosure-Agreement, hence no such NDA could/would exist in any scenario. There could be another form of contract to cover anything else (unlikely as it may be), but by definition wouldn't be an NDA.

And as a contract of trust, I did simplify it to its contextual core, that it's an ETHICAL practice. Someone gives their word they'll keep a confidence, that trust is expected to be honored. Failing to keep their word, to honor an agreement is a failure of integrity. And if YOU don't see an absence of integrity as a striking character flaw... it really reveals a lot about you.

let me try it this way

define 'Jerk' for me please

I am not..I repeat NOT making a value statement on if the NDA is a good NDA or not.

the suggestion that a person is a jerk.....BECAUSE... (AS IN THE ROOT REASON, THE ONLY REASON, THE FULL STOP REASON)

is because he broke an NDA (any NDA in ANY form...is a false narrative)

now they might be 'jerks' because of OTHER reasons related to NDA but not just because (full stop) of violating an NDA