It seems likely the information was obtained illegally which is why they will have settled in the first place. Without knowing the details of the case it's hard to say but I don't think there's a major problem here.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Trusted Reviews pays £1 million over RDR 2 leak
- Thread starter ASleepingMonkey
- Start date
It seems likely the information was obtained illegally which is why they will have settled in the first place. Without knowing the details of the case it's hard to say but I don't think there's a major problem here.
Good. FUCK all leakers. They just ruin things for people for attention and clicks.
Unless you're reporting on serious matters you can go fuck yourself if you leak something legit.
Unless you're reporting on serious matters you can go fuck yourself if you leak something legit.
Presumably someone within Rockstar Studios that has access to development notes.
Don't think anyone at Trusted would have signed an NDA for this back in Feb, though?
Is it even ethical that a news outlet would sign an NDA for a company they're supposed to be critiquing impartially?
They leaked a document that didn't belong to them, they weren't under NDA lmao. Leaking confidential information is a big no-no.
Is it breaking the law to post something marked confidential!?! They didn't sign anything, it was the fault of whoever leaked the document.
This is bullshit. Fuck Take Two.
This is bullshit. Fuck Take Two.
I'm not sure where people are getting this NDA thing from? Reading through the articles it looks to me like they were given confidential/internal information about the game from a 3rd party, presumably someone working for or associated with R*.
It all depends on how they acquired the information. It sounds like whatever that method was, they felt they would unable to defend it in court.
There are laws in most European and North American countries limiting media outlets from publishing confidential information, like trade secrets or confidential material obtained in an unscrupulous way. For instance, if you -- writing for a newspaper -- published the secret recipe for coca cola obtained through some unscrupulous means, then you definitely be liable for a lawsuit. Likewise, if you published confidential financial information for an insider trading network, you could also be breaking the law. Alternatively, I work for a software company, I could leak you the confidential source code for our software, and if you were a media company and published that confidential source code online, you'd be likely breaking a variety of laws and could be liable for damages. Sure, the secret recipe for coke, the confidential insider financial information, and the protected source code for our software are true but there are legal restrictions on how you can distribute them.
There is a major difference between reporting on "What companies want" and reporting something that is legally protected as confidential. In a lot of circumstances, companies just don't care about going after someone, the legal fees are typically higher than any reward they could reasonably get.
Last edited:
*rolls eyes* soooo original.
Good on T2. I knew the leaks were true because they showed 2 original screenshots. Seems like RDO will have a BR mode then
OP
OP
Meant to say pounds, updated OP to reflect.
For the review process of the game, Rockstar sent us new screenshots through a service I had never used before. Seemed pretty secure so I imagine they're not using Dropbox for their internal stuff given how notorious they are for secrecy.
lol
So, they was forced to apologies, and paid a lot of money, because they did their job? Really?
Since the print was invented a newspaper (and everything what arrived after) is supposed to find and write scoops and news, Take Two and Rockstar need to investigate HOW the details were diffused instead of accuse and persecute the website.
So, they was forced to apologies, and paid a lot of money, because they did their job? Really?
Since the print was invented a newspaper (and everything what arrived after) is supposed to find and write scoops and news, Take Two and Rockstar need to investigate HOW the details were diffused instead of accuse and persecute the website.
I'd say more but I dont want more trouble as it is lol. Their employees aren't 100% secure with everything.
Anyways don't use dropbox thinking it's always secure folks.
Guess they won't be so trusted after all.
Not if you're under NDA, besides, people who leaks shit are the worst.
Not if you're under NDA, besides, people who leaks shit are the worst.
I will never be convinced that leaking information about games in development is legitimate journalism. In absolutely no way does it serve the public good to pull back the curtain on a piece of art against the creators' will before that art is ready for prime time.
If they were given the document anonymously, then the evidence can't be used in court I presume.
I don't think it's that simple. This particular case might not offer much in the way of public value, but there are some that certainly do. For example, when Bethesda announces a Fallout game with a teaser that makes the world think that it's a standard Fallout RPG, then opens it up for pre-orders, I sure do think it's a public good to tell the world that it's actually an online survival game.
Honestly I wonder if they stole this somehow. It's almost crazy to think that a website paying this much for a leak. Something doesn't add up
I mean, you certainly would feel that way. I might be inclined to agree if Bethesda maintained a complete information blackout all the way up to the day of release, but that doesn't happen.
What good came of exposing the Fallout before that one, years before it was ready?
Edit: Hell, you yourself do tremendous reporting of great value on behind-the-scenes labor conditions. What's the appeal of burning bridges over stuff that has no value to anyone but your publication if it hinders your ability to report on things that are actually meaningful? Is the revenue from an exposé like Fallout 4 really that good? I'm legitimately curious what the thought process in the newsroom is.
Last edited:
Well if you go back and read the post, you'll see that the context surrounding it was that a huge hoax had just tricked the entire Fallout community and left them reeling: https://kotaku.com/leaked-documents-reveal-that-fallout-4-is-real-set-in-1481322956
There was certainly news value and public service in informing our readers that even though this hoax was fake, there was a real Fallout 4 coming.
Last edited:
I'm really surprised that website have that amount of money.
Yeah, sounds strange, if you don't signed a NDA, and someone give you that info anonymously, can you be prosecuted for leaking it?
Yeah, sounds strange, if you don't signed a NDA, and someone give you that info anonymously, can you be prosecuted for leaking it?
Indeed, Gizmodo got into very hot water when they paid for an iPhone 4 prototype. At the time, it was noted that larger news organisations are a lot more careful about how they handle such things, making sure that they are arranging to see the information rather than to take possession of it.
Suspect there is something more going on here than just simple leaking under NDA - the Public Interest Defence alone should have been enough, and if TI Media has enough money to chuck a £1 Million quid fine out, they have enough money to fight Rockstar through the courts for the right to do Journalism if they knew the article was completely Kosher.
This smacks of Rockstar chucking their weight around again, and a very bad move for Journalism.
This smacks of Rockstar chucking their weight around again, and a very bad move for Journalism.
I think you misread my post. That's my point. It sounds like something unusual went down with how these docs were obtained if this was the outcome.
Well, not prosecuted. The relevant law in the UK is breach of confidence, which is a common law tort (I.e. a civil wrong). So the injured party would need to sue (including, often, asking for an injunction).
The law is quite complex, being comprised of case law (rather than legislation). However, you don't see loads of high profile actions against newspapers and websites because such claims are expensive and it's usually not worth the injured party's time and resources. They usually just say "no comment", whether true or not, and only step in to clarify if the material is false and damaging. Also, constantly suing outlets you depend on for coverage is counterproductive, for obvious reasons.
Also, it would be hard to quantify damages for many of these minor leaks.
That the website is (on the face of it) going to pay £1m suggests that there is more at play here. Pure speculation: it's likely that the website were put on unequivocal notice that the information was confidential - perhaps directly from Rockstar itself - and published it anyway. Things also get more serious if the publisher was in any way involved with, or even encouraged, the procurement of the confidential material.
For anyone saying "public interest": this sort of thing is never in the public interest. Exposing government corruption? Sure. Details of a videogame? Never.
Totally. Pretty big amount for a website.Ofc they will think 10x now the next time they are leaking something they shouldnt'
But daaamn
...they..didn't leak any major plot points or anything. Just locations and online activities and modes. Don't get so emotional