"At some point in this period, they go on, Rockstar management got hold of logins for the server, with Rockstar's vice president of information security Abid Ansari eventually signing in to download 'the contents of the Announcements and General channels'. Rockstar began firing members of the Discord at the end of the month."
The article isn't clear on if the credentials were theirs or not, or how Rockstar management obtained them. It is possible that Rockstar management simply signed up for a Discord account and went through the process to request access, which was then granted to them by the Discord server admins. Since the server admins used the company Slack to verify that folks requesting to join were employees, it seems quite plausible that is what happened. But the details aren't really there in the article.
I'm not sure it is in unionisation fights, particularly in an industry as tightly knit as gaming. You're trading a short-term kiss from management for being hated across the industry. That forecloses all kinds of career opportunities outside the majors. In game theory, this sort of repeated interaction is exactly what incentivises cooperation.
In response to a comment about "that one person who ruins the game for everyone," a reference to the mole, you said "or Rockstar is simply lying to get rid of the union." That implies there wasn't a mole, Rockstar made it up.
I asked how making up a Rockstar mole in the union would advance any of Rockstar's goals at this junction.
Its not clear whether the OP was referring to the mole, or to the person(s) who were allegedly sharing confidential company information on an external, non-company Discord server. Rockstar claims that is why they fired them, though the fired employees allege it was to disrupt union organizing. Depending on ones point of view, either or both actors could be considered despicable.
Terms of service, and more generally - contractual, violations without 'material loss' tend to have no remedies available unless otherwise agreed to. Fun lesson I learned in a project with a dubious partner.
The ToS lines up with specific laws that will very quickly make your point moot. the Computer Misuse Act of 1990 (since the place in question is in the UK) works alongside that ToS - accessing computer systems, networks, or data without permission is not only A breach of the ToS Discord has set forth but also a breach of that law.
The mole shared access credentials - forbidden by Discord's ToS and by UK's law. This is very plain and simple to anyone with half a rasher of logic about them.
This seems quite improbable. Something I looked up was whether it was illegal to share e.g. Netflix passwords in the UK since your take on the law would make this quite clearly so. And indeed the government claimed it is, but exclusively under appeals to the implications of copyright law, but with no intents to prosecute [the millions doing so] for such.
Were account sharing criminally illegal, then I think that would be the obvious first target.
"At some point in this period, they go on, Rockstar management got hold of logins for the server, with Rockstar's vice president of information security Abid Ansari eventually signing in to download 'the contents of the Announcements and General channels'. Rockstar began firing members of the Discord at the end of the month."
Is this legal in the UK?
Sounds like a crime. They took credentials that was not theirs and used them to gain unauthorized access and then stole all the content.
The article isn't clear on if the credentials were theirs or not, or how Rockstar management obtained them. It is possible that Rockstar management simply signed up for a Discord account and went through the process to request access, which was then granted to them by the Discord server admins. Since the server admins used the company Slack to verify that folks requesting to join were employees, it seems quite plausible that is what happened. But the details aren't really there in the article.
This fall, buy Ocarina of Time and not GTA 6.
Rockstar deserves no sales.
Posted couple days ago but no activity https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49670569
He was more than a hero he was a Union man.
There is always that one person who ruins the game for everyone, metaphorically speaking. Despicable behaviour.
That's classic game theory. It'd be better if everyone refuses to defect.
> classic game theory
I'm not sure it is in unionisation fights, particularly in an industry as tightly knit as gaming. You're trading a short-term kiss from management for being hated across the industry. That forecloses all kinds of career opportunities outside the majors. In game theory, this sort of repeated interaction is exactly what incentivises cooperation.
Humans have the ability to consider things beyond their immediate incentives. Most find it difficult not to.
We don't know what benefits they received from defecting anyhow
Or Rockstar is simply lying to get rid of the union, most things here seem to be alleged only.
> Rockstar is simply lying to get rid of the union
How would Rockstar being shown to have had a mole in the union advance Rockstar's interests?
Same reason why most companies don't want their workers to unionize?
In response to a comment about "that one person who ruins the game for everyone," a reference to the mole, you said "or Rockstar is simply lying to get rid of the union." That implies there wasn't a mole, Rockstar made it up.
I asked how making up a Rockstar mole in the union would advance any of Rockstar's goals at this junction.
Letting them dissolve or oppose the union?
> Letting them dissolve or oppose the union?
You're saying Rockstar would make up a mole that didn't exist, now, and that would somehow help it keep the union dissolved? What?
Yeah pretty much?
Its not clear whether the OP was referring to the mole, or to the person(s) who were allegedly sharing confidential company information on an external, non-company Discord server. Rockstar claims that is why they fired them, though the fired employees allege it was to disrupt union organizing. Depending on ones point of view, either or both actors could be considered despicable.
I was indeed referring to the mole. I find that behaviour reprehensible.
Since this is from court filings, that would be perjury if they can't back it up.
Would not be the first time a company lied.
Sounds like Discord also has a case against RockStar because their ToS expressly forbids sharing login credentials.
You wanted your IPO money, Discord? Suing the shit out of RockStar and winning is the way to go here.
Terms of service, and more generally - contractual, violations without 'material loss' tend to have no remedies available unless otherwise agreed to. Fun lesson I learned in a project with a dubious partner.
The ToS lines up with specific laws that will very quickly make your point moot. the Computer Misuse Act of 1990 (since the place in question is in the UK) works alongside that ToS - accessing computer systems, networks, or data without permission is not only A breach of the ToS Discord has set forth but also a breach of that law.
The mole shared access credentials - forbidden by Discord's ToS and by UK's law. This is very plain and simple to anyone with half a rasher of logic about them.
This seems quite improbable. Something I looked up was whether it was illegal to share e.g. Netflix passwords in the UK since your take on the law would make this quite clearly so. And indeed the government claimed it is, but exclusively under appeals to the implications of copyright law, but with no intents to prosecute [the millions doing so] for such.
Were account sharing criminally illegal, then I think that would be the obvious first target.