what gives E.A the right to take down the website Leakerz.  This is the Internet and it should have freedom. 

When somebody gets a leaked papparazi picture of some celebrity that you dont see them take down the site right away.

So they broke the NDA its not like they murdered someone, you shouldn't have the right to take their website down....

its not their fault that your BETA got leaked!

Originally posted by Genleo

what gives E.A the right to take down the website Leakerz.  This is the Internet and it should have freedom. 

 

When somebody gets a leaked papparazi picture of some celebrity that you dont see them take down the site right away.

 

So they broke the NDA its not like they murdered someone, you shouldn't have the right to take their website down....

 

its not their fault that your BETA got leaked!

This is really a poor analogy and thread. The NDA is an agreement, a contract. A photograph is different, often taken in public, and the only way that is going to be stopped is with proof that a restraining order is needed. The NDA is always a legal thing, photographs are only under certain circumstances.

WIth that said, the NDA is the NDA and if players/testers cannot respect that they shouldn't be part of the testing team.

Actually, I'm pretty sure the NDA specifically does give them the right to censure their information.

Every beta tester has to agree to the NDA before they can even log in and are bound to a legally binding contract. Those videos on leakerz.com were there for days before the site was taken down and honestly leakerz should have had the common sense to take them off knowing they werent supposed to be there in the first place. EA is enforcing its contract, they can do what they please.

Also photographs taken in public have nothing to do with legally binding contracts. If someone is found snooping around taking pictures of you, you can get them on legal grounds of harrasment and get a restraining order, but they are two completely different situations.

It's not EA's fault leakerz decided to post those videos.

Contract violation gives them the right. Knowingly continuing the illegal action (Leakerz posting material covered by an NDA) allows them to follow through with shutting down the website.

Originally posted by The_Grump

Originally posted by Genleo

what gives E.A the right to take down the website Leakerz.  This is the Internet and it should have freedom. 

 

When somebody gets a leaked papparazi picture of some celebrity that you dont see them take down the site right away.

 

So they broke the NDA its not like they murdered someone, you shouldn't have the right to take their website down....

 

its not their fault that your BETA got leaked!

This is really a poor analogy and thread. The NDA is an agreement, a contract. A photograph is different, often taken in public, and the only way that is going to be stopped is with proof that a restraining order is needed. The NDA is always a legal thing, photographs are only under certain circumstances.

WIth that said, the NDA is the NDA and if players/testers cannot respect that they shouldn't be part of the testing team.

From my knowledge leakers.com wasn't tied to the NDA as they weren't involved in the beta, only divulged the leaked data that was provided to them. Might be a subtle difference but it is an important one nonetheless.

From a legal point of view it would be interesting to have expert opinions about how far goes the ownership of LA / BioWAre over the leaked videos and pics and so their right to claim them or have the web site shut down.

Do not read that I approve publishing leaked video, still my curiosity about the legal part holds firm.

"He only stabbed him"

"But it's not like he murdered someone!"

The law is the law.

yes the last guy gets my point...

leakerz wasn't part of the NDA, they just posted the videos... they shouldn't be held accountable.

I guess youve got to sort of look at it in a similar fashion to copyright and piracy laws. Websites hosting pirated videos, music, etc are held responsible for what is on their site. It doesnt matter that they werent the guy in the theatre taping the movie, they are still putting up the videos which were gained through illegal means.

Originally posted by Genleo

yes the last guy gets my point...

 

leakerz wasn't part of the NDA, they just posted the videos... they shouldn't be held accountable.

Well, they can take it down, or they can be forced to take it down...

Are we sure this is related to the SWTOR beta leak, or just a coincidence? Leakerz.com is under no NDA obligation.

The only thing I could imagine is that there is some weird copyright law, but even that wouldn't get a site shutdown immediately. There would be a cease and desist order first, or so I would think. I suppose they could've gotten a temporary injuction.

Originally posted by Genleo

yes the last guy gets my point...

 

leakerz wasn't part of the NDA, they just posted the videos... they shouldn't be held accountable.

 That's just like saying Oswald just pulled the trigger someone else gave him the rifle....

It's still an infringement on EA and they're gonna win any legal battle hands down.

Originally posted by Genleo

yes the last guy gets my point...

 

leakerz wasn't part of the NDA, they just posted the videos... they shouldn't be held accountable.

Genleo, there are laws against the reciept of stolen goods. It's not terribly nuanced either from what I recall. I can't see how you are missing all of this.

Originally posted by The_Grump

Originally posted by Genleo

yes the last guy gets my point...

 

leakerz wasn't part of the NDA, they just posted the videos... they shouldn't be held accountable.

Genleo, there are laws against the reciept of stolen goods. It's not terribly nuanced either from what I recall. I can't see how you are missing all of this.

 its not stolen. whoever leaked it is wrong for violating the nda, and depending on the contract can be held liable for any damages.

The website however is under non such agreement, therefore EA must file a cease and desist order with whatever court has jurisdiction. Then the site either complies or goes to court. In court if it is found that said site is guilty of breaking any actual laws, then and only then could they be forced to nullify whatever damages were caused. Also they could be forced to give up their source..but that where things get grey.

Is said website protected by the constitution under the first amendment. Meaning are they defined as "press", because technically the court has stated that "blogs" are not  "press" and therefore their sources are not protected.

Its not cut and dry as some would make it, but hey look at the state of the country, not much education going on now a days.

Any who, I imagine the website would choose to just take it down since EA is like a billion dollar corp. with billion dollar lawyers who could probably bankrupt the site in court filing fees alone.

Originally posted by The_Grump

Originally posted by Genleo

yes the last guy gets my point...

 

leakerz wasn't part of the NDA, they just posted the videos... they shouldn't be held accountable.

Genleo, there are laws against the reciept of stolen goods. It's not terribly nuanced either from what I recall. I can't see how you are missing all of this.

Exactly Pawn hops get fined for receiving and trying to sell stolen goods...if they do it enough times they are closed down.Receiving stolen private/protected  Intellectual property is also against the law .I doubt Leakerz.com didn't know the information they received and put up on their site was under an NDA agreement and not avaialble to the general public.Even if such was the case I knwo of know law system anywhere where Ignorance of the law is an excuse.

Originally posted by Drakynn

Originally posted by The_Grump

Originally posted by Genleo

yes the last guy gets my point...

 

leakerz wasn't part of the NDA, they just posted the videos... they shouldn't be held accountable.

Genleo, there are laws against the reciept of stolen goods. It's not terribly nuanced either from what I recall. I can't see how you are missing all of this.

Exactly Pawn hops get fined for receiving and trying to sell stolen goods...if they do it enough times they are closed down.Receiving stolen private/protected  Intellectual property is also against the law .I doubt Leakerz.com didn't know the information they received and put up on their site was under an NDA agreement and not avaialble to the general public.Even if such was the case I knwo of know law system anywhere where Ignorance of the law is an excuse.

 A NDA is a contractual agreement between two parties. The only violator is who leaked it.

Your right the IP is the property of EA, but technically they have to prove there was an attempt to make a  monetary gain of such property.

Originally posted by lectrocuda

Originally posted by Drakynn

Originally posted by The_Grump

Originally posted by Genleo

yes the last guy gets my point...

 

leakerz wasn't part of the NDA, they just posted the videos... they shouldn't be held accountable.

Genleo, there are laws against the reciept of stolen goods. It's not terribly nuanced either from what I recall. I can't see how you are missing all of this.

Exactly Pawn hops get fined for receiving and trying to sell stolen goods...if they do it enough times they are closed down.Receiving stolen private/protected  Intellectual property is also against the law .I doubt Leakerz.com didn't know the information they received and put up on their site was under an NDA agreement and not avaialble to the general public.Even if such was the case I knwo of know law system anywhere where Ignorance of the law is an excuse.

 A NDA is a contractual agreement between two parties. The only violator is who leaked it.

Your right the IP is the property of EA, but technically they have to prove there was an attempt to make a  monetary gain of such property.

 

It seems that you are not getting it either, lectrocuda.

There does not have to be some sort of monetary gain in the case of dispersing intellectual property and this is because the presence of the leaked information can lead to said gain in innumerable ways. With the leaked information it is very possible for someone to gain insight they would not have otherwise, before the company who may or many not use it and has the right to first use, thereby putting out a product that is appreciably based of something that they did not have the right to use in the first place.

NDAs exist for a reason and they protect intellectual rather than physical property. The person holding information in violation of a NDA, even if they did not obtain it personally and are merely receivers, are not only receiving stolen property but aidding and abedding those who stole the intellectual property if they do not make this known to the rightful owners of said property.

One does not have to steal or hold something in order to make a profit, they may merely want it for themselves, and this is still unlawful because they had no appreciable right to acquire said thing. Why is this so difficult to understand?

"Your right the IP is the property of EA, but technically they have to prove there was an attempt to make a  monetary gain of such property."

In this case this should be pretty easy to prove:

SW:TOR leak generates traffic > better traffic gets higher advertising revenues.

Originally posted by Kuatosune

Originally posted by Genleo

yes the last guy gets my point...

 

leakerz wasn't part of the NDA, they just posted the videos... they shouldn't be held accountable.

 That's just like saying Oswald just pulled the trigger someone else gave him the rifle....

It's still an infringement on EA and they're gonna win any legal battle hands down.

No no its like saying Oswald pulled the trigger but used a "Magic Bullet"...  wait.. what?

The website may not have broke the original contract, but they are in receivership of known "illegal" materials. Anyone remember the lost iphone 4 bit with Gizmo? They weren't the ones' who found the iphone but they still were held liable and accountable -- think of it as an accomplice*. 

Definition: ac·com·plice   (?-k?m'pl?s)   
n. An associate in wrongdoing, especially one who aids or abets another in a criminal act, either as a principal or an accessory.

PS: Yes, the internet has laws. It's not some digital wild-wild-west of a law-less void.