Legal Ramifications Regarding "Leaked" PTS Notes and July 3rd ESO Live Statements

GrumpyDuckling

The top of the PTS Notes v5.1.0 read:

"In order to squash the ongoing rumors surrounding certain “leaked” patch notes and what might be real or fake, we’ve decided to publish the real patch notes the Saturday evening before the PTS update for Scalebreaker and Update 23. The responsible party associated with these leaks is no longer a part of our programs or community, and has been introduced to our friends in the Legal department. All associated PTS feedback and bug threads will be published on Monday during maintenance. Enjoy the rest of your weekend."

The written part about the legal team has me curious. On the latest ESO Live I remember hearing a statement about no NDA for this PTS (6:05 mark):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yCXqkR5p1M&t=756s

At the 6:05 mark, in reference to PTS coming Monday, the speaker in the video stated, "...PTS is on Monday, there's no NDA or anything. You're free to jump in and play and stream about whatever you want, talk about whatever you want. It's all fair game."

So I wonder if this situation comes down to how that information is interpreted. Technically there exists lines that say, "...there's no NDA or anything..." and "..it's all fair game..." although those lines are likely in reference to July 8th.

Is it possible that the person who leaked information interpreted the words (specifically "no NDA") from that video as freedom to share information? This possibility is curious, legally, because although the speaker in the video is likely suggesting or implying that there is no NDA beginning on Monday July 8th, there is no information from the segment in the video that states the time frame of the NDA in absolute, which leaves that state of NDA potentially open to interpretation following the live stream of that video on July 3rd.

Of course this curiosity is irrelevant if the person who leaked the information violated any agreed upon terms outside of the NDA, or specific language in the NDA that is not applicable to this situation.

ManwithBeard9

No, the NDA during the stream would be for the general community streaming story content. The NDA in regards to patch notes is something entirely different and is targeted at a very specific audience (class reps, people within ZOS, media) to keep them from doing something exactly like what happened.

GrumpyDuckling

ManwithBeard9 wrote: »

No, the NDA during the stream would be for the general community streaming story content. The NDA in regards to patch notes is something entirely different and is targeted at a very specific audience (class reps, people within ZOS, media) to keep them from doing something exactly like what happened.

Legally you can't assume that the NDA during the stream is for the general community. Assumptions don't hold up.

SirAndy

The leak was from somewhere else *before* this PTS cycle was supposed to start. Whatever that location was, it was obviously under a NDA.

All that was stated during ESO live was that the upcoming PTS is not under NDA.

Two completely different things ...

GrumpyDuckling

SirAndy wrote: »

The leak was from somewhere else *before* this PTS cycle was supposed to start. Whatever that location was, it was obviously under a NDA.

All that was stated during ESO live was that the upcoming PTS is not under NDA.

Two completely different things ...

Depends on the language within the NDA and which specific NDA is being referred to in the video. One could argue that the individual interpreted the NDA being referred to in the video as a lift of the one, as you stated, from "before."

ManwithBeard9

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

ManwithBeard9 wrote: »

No, the NDA during the stream would be for the general community streaming story content. The NDA in regards to patch notes is something entirely different and is targeted at a very specific audience (class reps, people within ZOS, media) to keep them from doing something exactly like what happened.

Legally you can't assume that the NDA during the stream is for the general community. Assumptions don't hold up.

Not assuming anything. There was a NDA for ALL the community for the PTS regarding Morrowind content. Summerset and Elsweyr chapters had a NDA in regards to the main story past the first quest. These were all agreed upon when logging into the PTS. The patch notes versus PTS would be entirely different applications of wholly different NDAs, The people that would have access to the patch notes prior to PTS would have been told well in advance of a date, if there was one, of when they could release information about what they know/knew.

GrumpyDuckling

ManwithBeard9 wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

ManwithBeard9 wrote: »

No, the NDA during the stream would be for the general community streaming story content. The NDA in regards to patch notes is something entirely different and is targeted at a very specific audience (class reps, people within ZOS, media) to keep them from doing something exactly like what happened.

Legally you can't assume that the NDA during the stream is for the general community. Assumptions don't hold up.

Not assuming anything. There was a NDA for ALL the community for the PTS regarding Morrowind content. Summerset and Elsweyr chapters had a NDA in regards to the main story past the first quest. These were all agreed upon when logging into the PTS. The patch notes versus PTS would be entirely different applications of wholly different NDAs, The people that would have access to the patch notes prior to PTS would have been told well in advance of a date, if there was one, of when they could release information about what they know/knew.

You can try to establish precedent with past PTS examples, but a lawyer would likely 1) punch holes in the consistency of those examples (citing differences in previous PTS NDAs to discredit precedent) or more likely 2) simply argue that it is not absolutely clear as to which NDA is being discussed in the video.

ManwithBeard9

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

ManwithBeard9 wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

ManwithBeard9 wrote: »

No, the NDA during the stream would be for the general community streaming story content. The NDA in regards to patch notes is something entirely different and is targeted at a very specific audience (class reps, people within ZOS, media) to keep them from doing something exactly like what happened.

Legally you can't assume that the NDA during the stream is for the general community. Assumptions don't hold up.

Not assuming anything. There was a NDA for ALL the community for the PTS regarding Morrowind content. Summerset and Elsweyr chapters had a NDA in regards to the main story past the first quest. These were all agreed upon when logging into the PTS. The patch notes versus PTS would be entirely different applications of wholly different NDAs, The people that would have access to the patch notes prior to PTS would have been told well in advance of a date, if there was one, of when they could release information about what they know/knew.

You can try to establish precedent with past PTS examples, but a lawyer would likely 1) punch holes in the consistency of those examples (citing differences in previous PTS NDAs to discredit precedent) or more likely 2) simply argue that it is not absolutely clear as to which NDA is being discussed in the video.

You don't get it. The people with direct access to the patch notes would have signed a NDA specifying if and or when they could talk about the things discussed with them. Nothing Gina, Rich, Jess, Finn, Wheeler, or Matt effing Firor says would override the legally binding document they signed.

SirAndy

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

Depends on the language within the NDA and which specific NDA is being referred to in the video. One could argue that the individual interpreted the NDA being referred to in the video as a lift of the one, as you stated, from "before."

No, what i meant is that the "leaked" version of the patch notes came from a locked down section of this very forum.

Whoever leaked them had access to that locked down section and must have been under a NDA for that forum section that clearly had nothing to do with the upcoming PTS cycle NDA (or better lack thereof) mentioned in ESO live.

GrumpyDuckling

ManwithBeard9 wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

ManwithBeard9 wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

ManwithBeard9 wrote: »

No, the NDA during the stream would be for the general community streaming story content. The NDA in regards to patch notes is something entirely different and is targeted at a very specific audience (class reps, people within ZOS, media) to keep them from doing something exactly like what happened.

Legally you can't assume that the NDA during the stream is for the general community. Assumptions don't hold up.

Not assuming anything. There was a NDA for ALL the community for the PTS regarding Morrowind content. Summerset and Elsweyr chapters had a NDA in regards to the main story past the first quest. These were all agreed upon when logging into the PTS. The patch notes versus PTS would be entirely different applications of wholly different NDAs, The people that would have access to the patch notes prior to PTS would have been told well in advance of a date, if there was one, of when they could release information about what they know/knew.

You can try to establish precedent with past PTS examples, but a lawyer would likely 1) punch holes in the consistency of those examples (citing differences in previous PTS NDAs to discredit precedent) or more likely 2) simply argue that it is not absolutely clear as to which NDA is being discussed in the video.

You don't get it. The people with direct access to the patch notes would have signed a NDA specifying if and or when they could talk about the things discussed with them. Nothing Gina, Rich, Jess, Finn, Wheeler, or Matt effing Firor says would override the legally binding document they signed.

That could very well be true, hence the last line of the original post, but I don't know that for certain.

GrumpyDuckling

SirAndy wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

Depends on the language within the NDA and which specific NDA is being referred to in the video. One could argue that the individual interpreted the NDA being referred to in the video as a lift of the one, as you stated, from "before."

No, what i meant is that the "leaked" version of the patch notes came from a locked down section of this very forum.

Whoever leaked them had access to that locked down section and must have been under a NDA for that forum section that clearly had nothing to do with the upcoming PTS cycle NDA (or better lack thereof) mentioned in ESO live.

You're assuming an NDA for that forum section. Could be possible, and would fall under last line of the original post.

ManwithBeard9

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

SirAndy wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

Depends on the language within the NDA and which specific NDA is being referred to in the video. One could argue that the individual interpreted the NDA being referred to in the video as a lift of the one, as you stated, from "before."

No, what i meant is that the "leaked" version of the patch notes came from a locked down section of this very forum.

Whoever leaked them had access to that locked down section and must have been under a NDA for that forum section that clearly had nothing to do with the upcoming PTS cycle NDA (or better lack thereof) mentioned in ESO live.

You're assuming an NDA for that forum section. Could be possible, and would fall under last line of the original post.

It's been stated that there are NDAs for class reps. There are NDAs for every employee at ZOS, there are NDAs for every media member ZOS talks to on the record. Not every NDA has an end date or time, some NDAs are in place for decades. There have been NDAs for specific parts of the forum for PTS feedback before. There's no "assuming" when it comes to a NDA. The terms are spelled out so there can be no mistake what you can talk about, who you can talk about it with, and when you can talk about it.

GrumpyDuckling

ManwithBeard9 wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

SirAndy wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

Depends on the language within the NDA and which specific NDA is being referred to in the video. One could argue that the individual interpreted the NDA being referred to in the video as a lift of the one, as you stated, from "before."

No, what i meant is that the "leaked" version of the patch notes came from a locked down section of this very forum.

Whoever leaked them had access to that locked down section and must have been under a NDA for that forum section that clearly had nothing to do with the upcoming PTS cycle NDA (or better lack thereof) mentioned in ESO live.

You're assuming an NDA for that forum section. Could be possible, and would fall under last line of the original post.

It's been stated that there are NDAs for class reps. There are NDAs for every employee at ZOS, there are NDAs for every media member ZOS talks to on the record. Not every NDA has an end date or time, some NDAs are in place for decades. There have been NDAs for specific parts of the forum for PTS feedback before. There's no "assuming" when it comes to a NDA. The terms are spelled out so there can be no mistake what you can talk about, who you can talk about it with, and when you can talk about it.

From original post:

"Of course this curiosity is irrelevant if the person who leaked the information violated any agreed upon terms outside of the NDA, or specific language in the NDA that is not applicable to this situation."

Jhalin

You know what, good on the leaker for getting this info to the players sooner, rather than see everyone blindsided on Monday by all these trash-tier changes

Healers getting shelved because their main tools got nerfs

ManwithBeard9

Jhalin wrote: »

You know what, good on the leaker for getting this info to the players sooner, rather than see everyone blindsided on Monday by all these trash-tier changes

Healers getting shelved because their main tools got nerfs

Yes, all that legal trouble for a drop of clout. Getting bent over the defendants bench for what?

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

NDA on any combat and patchnote related stuff outside of specific DLC / Expansion content is a bit pointless anyway. why are combat changes even behind a NDA. they should just be freely discussed amongst the community with dialog on changes. Currently it feels like all the changes are just held back until the last min because they know the community will hate them and don't want to hear any criticism.

Jhalin

ManwithBeard9 wrote: »

Jhalin wrote: »

You know what, good on the leaker for getting this info to the players sooner, rather than see everyone blindsided on Monday by all these trash-tier changes

Healers getting shelved because their main tools got nerfs

Yes, all that legal trouble for a drop of clout. Getting bent over the defendants bench for what?

As if ZOS isn’t always looking for someone to sue. You know they’ve file suits against people that use “Scroll” in their fantasy game titles?

I hope a judge has enough sense to see the stupidity for what it is. It didn’t cost them money, nor any reputation they wouldn’t have lost themselves on Monday anyway, nor was that person an employee or legally bound to them in any way anymore.

SirAndy

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

From original post:
"Of course this curiosity is irrelevant if the person who leaked the information violated any agreed upon terms outside of the NDA, or specific language in the NDA that is not applicable to this situation."

There's more than just one NDA. I know because i too have been bound by ZOS NDAs in the past. Yes, that's plural.

And yes, there are forum sections that are only accessible to selected groups of members. I know because i have been part of those as well. In fact, i still belong to one as we speak.

Pevey

If course zos lawyers will send scary sounding letters. That is what lawyers do.

Whether or not there is anything for the leaker to be concerned about depends on one thing in the nda.

Damages.

Does the nda specify a certain amount of liquidated damages that the signer must pay for any breach?

If the answer is yes, the person could obviously be sued or dragged into arbitration to pay that amount.

If not, good luck to zos in showing that, legally, there were any damages to recover as a result of the breach. To show that, they would have to come up with an argument that basically the contents of the patch notes are so shockingly bad that their release even 2 days early resulted in an unavoidable expense or loss of revenue to them.

Not likely. But of course they will send the scary sounding letter, because why not.

Wolfpaw

@ZOS_GinaBruno

"In order to squash the ongoing rumors surrounding certain “leaked” patch notes and what might be real or fake, we’ve decided to publish the real patch notes the Saturday evening before the PTS update for Scalebreaker and Update 23. The responsible party associated with these leaks is no longer a part of our programs or community, and has been introduced to our friends in the Legal department. All associated PTS feedback and bug threads will be published on Monday during maintenance. Enjoy the rest of your weekend."

To share your legal positioning to your clients as some veiled threat, or not, is unprofessional at the very least.

Thraben

Particularly when those have been doing the work of unpaid interns.

A firm that reacts with threats against volunteer helpers because of something as trivial as patch notes (which will be changed anyway) has totally lost its grip on reality, or basic human decency. I would expect such a sentence from a sect, but not from an entertainment firm.

ManwithBeard9

Thraben wrote: »

Particularly when those have been doing the work of unpaid interns.

A firm that reacts with threats against volunteer helpers because of something as trivial as patch notes (which will be changed anyway) has totally lost its grip on reality, or basic human decency. I would expect such a sentence from a sect, but not from an entertainment firm.

Any company that takes itself seriously follows through on any breach of NDA, no matter how minor or who did it. Whether it's a sternly worded letter from the legal team or a court filing, any business that wants to be a real business follows through on contracts.

Thraben

ManwithBeard9 wrote: »

Any company that takes itself seriously follows through on any breach of NDA, no matter how minor or who did it. Whether it's a sternly worded letter from the legal team or a court filing, any business that wants to be a real business follows through on contracts.

Well, maybe it's an american thing, but at least in Germany/ Switzerland there is no such thing as a "sternly worded letter". It would be automatically a legal document with far more serious implications than the case here justifies it.

There have been consequences already.

I would not do any business contracts at all with a firm that communicates its enthusiasm to legally threaten clients in a sarcastic manner. A serious firm does what has to be done, but does it quitely, and efficiently.

Rex-Umbra

Best of luck to the leaker we did not need to wait for notes