What this guy did was completely stupid and he deserves to be punish for violating an NDA, this we all agree on.

Some people on here are saying it is wrong to take away games he has purchase. I see their point and my opinion is they are right. EA shouldn't have the right to do this on their own. It should only be a court of law that can make a decision to confiscate someone's paid property. Especially property that does not pertain to the NDA violation unless a court of law so deems. No company should ever have the right to take away someone's property with out a court of law making that judgement. Do we really want to give our rights away that easily to some corporation? Violate a TOS for one game they take away all games you've purchased from them?

Yes I would rather have my games taken away than sued and possibly loose a lot more but it should be decided in a COURT of LAW not by that company. They are not the enforcers of the LAW. NDA is a contract that gives them rights but they still have to follow LAWs like the rest of us. Do you really want to keep giving big corporations more power over your lives?

You think if someone breaks a rental agreement with you, you could immediately kick them to the street. Nope won't happen, if the person won't move out you have to get the courts involved and sometimes it takes months. You can't just force someone out. We have laws. EA has a contract and rights but so does the guy who broke the NDA. He should have at the most for now gotten removed from the BETA immediately and all future BETA's with EA then let the courts decide the rest. Only a court of law has the right to order property taken from you not an individual or company. They need to go through the courts first.

At least Epic is following the laws and going to court. EA is acting like they are the law.Stop giving your rights away to these corporations and supporting this kind of BS.

Judging from the tread on here I'll have a majority of disagrees for my opinion. I accept that and that is my right.

@DaCajun

Just look at it like EA settling the issue by banning hos EA Origins account instead of taking him to court and possibly taking way more and ruining him and his families lives.

NDA's aren't like cutting the tags off your pillows. They are legally binding contracts that involves a multi million dollar product... voilating it is not just a slap on the wrist. So this dude is lucky they just shut down his Origins account.

@DaCajun

They didn't confiscate his property. In digital, you don't own anything. You purchase the right to a license which can be revoked at any time, really for any reason. They blocked his access to his account to get to the content he paid for, but ultimately, that property actually belongs to EA.

I don't know what the NDA states, but I do think this is excessive. Take away his access to the beta, that'd be typical. But blocking his whole account is really an extreme. Maybe its temporary though. A quick ban which can be appealed. Quick bans are not uncommon, and often can be remedied.

No that’s what you get for going digital. They want control over everything you do. If you do something they don’t like they want to strip it all from you.

Welcome to the future!

@fr0sty that's correct but it is grounds to have your account taken from you which results in losing access to all online access which still takes majority of the games away from you. Either way, which would you rather have? Court or just lost access to the account? This guy got off easy.

@daCajun

People want a digital future, well here you go. Those that are for it don't seem to think about things like this happening. People don't have control over their "stuff" that they buy digitally. I personally don't think this was excessive because NDAs aren't a laughing matter. Sometimes people need to be made examples of so they don't happen in the future. I mean, especially when these are deliberate actions

Yes but this is also what you get when going fully digital. Absolutely no control nor ownership of what you pay for.

fr0sty,

That depends: if the terms of service for the NDA explicitly state that they will lose their content if they violate the agreement, then he totally deserves to have his purchases jacked. I get that "no one reads the terms of service" (I'm a bit of an anomaly since I make an active effort to review things from companies I trust less but like their offering more clearly (e.g., Google)), but I have no sympathy for him.

If something is CLEARLY an NDA, you are under obligation to not violate it. What did he think might happen? He agreed to a NON. DISCLOSURE. AGREEMENT. Him playing it means he agreed. To violate that is justifiably punishable by removal from the service in my opinion. He really should have read it and he really should not have done something so stupid.

While I generally agree with you that EA is within their rights, this is excessive retribution on EA's part.

Its a closed trial, and realistically, EA should have expected some of this kind of stuff to happen. These people are probably the bigger fans of the game, and the ones you don't want to make upset, so seems that removing his access to the trial is more appropriate. That is normal for things like this.

@Cobra

Technically, they aren't his. That's what people have been saying about digital purchases for years. Nothing is yours. Even your account isn't yours. You're access to it is at the discretion of the owner of the service. The TOS of if you have any rights to this content should you break any rule, whether specified of vaguely defined under the "our discretion" policies of these companies, has yet to be tested in a court of law, and these companies do not want it to be tested in a court of law, because it means they will start losing control.

I 100% that this is excessive recourse on the part of EA, but don't confuse that with what you or he believes he actually "owns".

This isn't a criminal activity on EA's part either. They took no property of his. Breaking an NDA is a civil matter, except in some rare instances where it can be turned into a criminal matter....which wouldn't be the case here. EA has broken no civil or criminal law here.

Again....what is ethically and morally right on EA's part does not always line up with what is legally right for EA to do.

@cobra

Umm... yes you actually can... it’s called a search warrant but I guess you would rather get sued, maybe you don’t own much out side of video game?... lol you must be young

@XB1ps4

No one said digital is the problem. but people have been saying for years that this could happen to anyone. Sometimes it even happens to people who don't break the rules. When saying such things, all we get is, "Well, you don't own physical either".

More cases like this are popping up the past couple years, and it should be taken as evidence that with digital, you don't own anything.

Some people are OK with that, and that's fine, but this is a problem with digital.

The problem with digital itself is not directly related to the topic of if it was right for EA to go to such an extreme for the breaking of an NDA. But I guess they felt it justified.

I don't know if this is a perma-ban, or if it's just the default ban that happens when an investigation is being done. But I'd wager that somewhere in the NDA, it says that EA has the right to do this. This doesn't mean they are required to....but I've noticed some companies taking a harsher stance on the breaking of NDA's in the public space. They've always been pretty harsh when it involved their employees or partners they may work with, but that is usually private, and I think in today's internet society, many people don't believe there are consequences for their actions. But the industry takes NDA's very seriously, and they may feel its time to start making examples of people so the community which participates in these NDA things realize how serious it may be for them.

The problem with digital that ppl seem to fail to grasp. It is not an alternative to buying a physical product; governments have failed to make sure you have the same legal rights even after all this time.

I'd imagine the NDA he signed wouldn't actually allow them to sue him to such a great extent. But I would wager that it did stipulate that his account could be banned, and the TOS of the account would stipulate that you lose access to your paid licenses should that happen.

"What is the point of an NDA if you don't enforce it?"

And that's something I think a lot of companies are starting to feel because breaking of NDA"s for beta or alpha trials are becoming much more common. It's too easy, and people haven't been facing serious consequences. If these things start happening more, it means the people who participate will start taking them seriously. One thing you get when working in the industry is that breaking NDA's is pretty much a death sentence to your career....and depending on what you do, losing your career is getting off easy.

When it comes to cars, if it's a repo, then you don't legally own the car. The title is going to be with the lien holder, so they aren't taking away your property.

When it comes to taking your car by the police, they can only do that in the commission of a criminal activity. Breaking an NDA is a civil matter, and in civil matters, the court has to decide what exchange of property may take place through due process.

The reason this particular instance doesn't fall into either of those categories is because with digital purchases, you don't actually own the property itself. All EA is doing is restricting or removing his access to the licenses which they still own. EA is the sole proprietor of who they give access to, hence, no property changing hands. In this case, EA can not come into your home and take away your physical games...as that would be theft. They could block your access to those games through the TOS, but to my knowledge, the systems to do that aren't in place on any platform. Maybe with the MP, but in that case, they're once again restricting access to a service that they own, while you retain your original property. Property that may become useless, but yours nonetheless.