Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Trusted Reviews agrees to pay 1 million pounds in donations in the case of Red Dead Redemption 2 leaks

bitsandpieces
 Share

Quote

A video game website owned by British magazine and digital publisher TI Media, issued an apology to Take-Two Interactive for running a story based on a “Red Dead Redemption 2” leak, and donated “over £1 million to charities chosen by Take-Two Games.”

 

“On February 6, 2018, we published an article that was sourced from a confidential corporate document,” according to the post that hit the site Thursday afternoon. “We should have known this information was confidential and should not have published it. We unreservedly apologise to Take-Two Games and we have undertaken not to repeat such actions again.”

 

The article, which detailed a number of aspects of the game including a battle royale mode, has since been replaced by the apology.

 

Begs the question, when does journalism ends and the fear of lawsuit begins

If the said document was not obtained by illicit ways, where's the problem?

 

https://variety.com/2018/gaming/news/video-game-journalism-and-leaks-1203017032/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote

“We should have known this information was confidential and should not have published it. 

We knew this information was confidential but didn't think anyone would give a shit.

DISCLAIMER 

Everything i say is my own opinion. So if you disagree with what I post, you are wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

And this is why you leak anonymously

Specs: Motherboard: Asus X470-PLUS TUF gaming (Yes I know it's poor but I wasn't informed) RAM: Corsair VENGEANCE® LPX DDR4 3200Mhz CL16-18-18-36 2x8GB

            CPU: Ryzen 9 5900X          Case: Antec P8     PSU: Corsair RM850x                        Cooler: Antec K240 with two Noctura Industrial PPC 3000 PWM

            Drives: Samsung 970 EVO plus 250GB, Micron 1100 2TB, Seagate ST4000DM000/1F2168 GPU: EVGA RTX 2080 ti Black edition

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, bitsandpieces said:

If the said document was not obtained by illicit ways, where's the problem?

I wonder what the laws surrounding this is. Is it legal to willfully obtain information you should not have access to, and then make that public? Is it like the laws regarding stolen goods, where it is illegal to knowingly buy a stolen item but legal if you don't know it is stolen?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, williamcll said:

And this is why you leak anonymously

Yeah. I don't think journalism or leaks are the problem here... it's the media company profiting of them, and Take 2 loosing off them, (or visa versa). An anonymous "leak" to all publishers/media does not grant a profit/benefit to them personally.

 

AFAIK there are legal requirements for personal data, "sensitive/governmental" data, and sometimes trading/accounting data. Not sure about a companies internal workings, product or even ip (if not being copied, like a movie, but instead being reported on, like who is in the movie).

 

You could file a civil suit I guess. But the data about a company/product itself may not be illegal to share.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I wonder what the laws surrounding this is. Is it legal to willfully obtain information you should not have access to, and then make that public? Is it like the laws regarding stolen goods, where it is illegal to knowingly buy a stolen item but legal if you don't know it is stolen?

Considering the size of the donation, I'm going to take a guess there was a few "you should have known better" moments for how they got the documents.

 

As to a question from the OP, this was an action in the UK, which has maybe a little too few Press protections, but if it was a significant leak of "trade secret" documents, there can easily be a case for liability against Trusted Reviews.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is totally appalling, should never have happened. There's no legal basis for Rockstar to have done anything over this, the journalist was doing his job and the website was under no NDA. The person who leaked the documents was in the wrong, not the website.

 

Imo Take Two threatened to blacklist them from all future TT products unless they pulled the story and made the donation, that's the only leverage they had.

 

This sets a very dangerous precedent where the publishers can use blackmail to silence the gaming journalists every time something happens they don't agree with. It might not have been a public interest story but the website had every right to publish it if they wanted too.

 

Let's be very clear here, what R*/TT did was beyond reprehensible however the website is just as much to blame for backing down and agreeing to the terms. They've basically thrown gaming journalism under the bus in order to maintain there own presense.

Main Rig:-

Ryzen 7 3800X | Asus ROG Strix X570-F Gaming | 16GB Team Group Dark Pro 3600Mhz | Corsair MP600 1TB PCIe Gen 4 | Sapphire 5700 XT Pulse | Corsair H115i Platinum | WD Black 1TB | WD Green 4TB | EVGA SuperNOVA G3 650W | Asus TUF GT501 | Samsung C27HG70 1440p 144hz HDR FreeSync 2 | Ubuntu 20.04.2 LTS |

 

Server:-

Intel NUC running Server 2019 + Synology DSM218+ with 2 x 4TB Toshiba NAS Ready HDDs (RAID0)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I wonder what the laws surrounding this is. Is it legal to willfully obtain information you should not have access to, and then make that public? Is it like the laws regarding stolen goods, where it is illegal to knowingly buy a stolen item but legal if you don't know it is stolen?

 

13 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

Considering the size of the donation, I'm going to take a guess there was a few "you should have known better" moments for how they got the documents.

 

As to a question from the OP, this was an action in the UK, which has maybe a little too few Press protections, but if it was a significant leak of "trade secret" documents, there can easily be a case for liability against Trusted Reviews.

The UK has very strict freedom of the press laws and absolutely nothing about publishing this story was in breach of any laws. They didn't buy stolen documents, they were given (this fact was included in the original article) and were under no NDA (again they stated they weren't sure the documents were real at first) so they had NO legal cause the pull this story at all.

 

It's about maintaining relevance and presence. Take Two will have sent them a friendly letter informing them that should they not pull the story and donate to charity they will be blacklisted from all future Take Two press events and won't be included in the press review programme because thats all TT had against them. Journalists are supposed to be serving the public interest, not the business interest.

Main Rig:-

Ryzen 7 3800X | Asus ROG Strix X570-F Gaming | 16GB Team Group Dark Pro 3600Mhz | Corsair MP600 1TB PCIe Gen 4 | Sapphire 5700 XT Pulse | Corsair H115i Platinum | WD Black 1TB | WD Green 4TB | EVGA SuperNOVA G3 650W | Asus TUF GT501 | Samsung C27HG70 1440p 144hz HDR FreeSync 2 | Ubuntu 20.04.2 LTS |

 

Server:-

Intel NUC running Server 2019 + Synology DSM218+ with 2 x 4TB Toshiba NAS Ready HDDs (RAID0)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

This is totally appalling, should never have happened. There's no legal basis for Rockstar to have done anything over this, the journalist was doing his job and the website was under no NDA. The person who leaked the documents was in the wrong, not the website.

 

Imo Take Two threatened to blacklist them from all future TT products unless they pulled the story and made the donation, that's the only leverage they had.

 

This sets a very dangerous precedent where the publishers can use blackmail to silence the gaming journalists every time something happens they don't agree with. It might not have been a public interest story but the website had every right to publish it if they wanted too.

 

Let's be very clear here, what R*/TT did was beyond reprehensible however the website is just as much to blame for backing down and agreeing to the terms. They've basically thrown gaming journalism under the bus in order to maintain there own presense.

In the UK, it's not been unknown for media to use illegal activity to get hold of documents/recordings/news. Just saying... not related to this event, but...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

I wonder what the laws surrounding this is. Is it legal to willfully obtain information you should not have access to, and then make that public? Is it like the laws regarding stolen goods, where it is illegal to knowingly buy a stolen item but legal if you don't know it is stolen?

Then you would not have whistleblower protection laws

 

If I'd to guess, it's more close to trade secrets

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

The price of stupidity.

 Motherboard  ROG Strix B350-F Gaming | CPU Ryzen 5 1600 | GPU Sapphire Radeon RX 480 Nitro+ OC  | RAM Corsair Vengeance DDR4 3000MHz 2x8Gb | OS Drive  Crucial MX300 525Gb M.2 | WiFi Card  ASUS PCE-AC68 | Case Switch 810 Gunmetal Grey SE | Storage WD 1.5tb, SanDisk Ultra 3D 500Gb, Samsung 840 EVO 120Gb | NAS Solution Synology 413j 8TB (6TB with 2TB redundancy using Synology Hybrid RAID) | Keyboard SteelSeries APEX | Mouse Razer Naga MMO Edition Green | Fan Controller Sentry LXE | Screens Sony 43" TV | Sound Logitech 5.1 X530

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, TechyBen said:

In the UK, it's not been unknown for media to use illegal activity to get hold of documents/recordings/news. Just saying... not related to this event, but...

Irrelevant. if a media company breaks the law, they should be called out, and held legally accountable.

 

However, since Trusted Reviews didn't, why even bring that up? If someone wants to accuse Trusted Reviews of illegal actions, do so. But I agree with @Master Disaster here 100%. Unless Take Two wants to take Trusted Reviews to court, they should not coerce a media company into retracting an article that is neither inaccurate, nor illegal.

 

Freedom of the Press is an important right in a free and democratic society. The fact that we see the press being attacked so much lately is very worrisome, and this only makes that situation worse.

 

Trusted Reviews shouldn't have backed down, in my opinion.

For Sale: Meraki Bundle

 

iPhone Xr 128 GB Product Red - HP Spectre x360 13" (i5 - 8 GB RAM - 256 GB SSD) - HP ZBook 15v G5 15" (i7-8850H - 16 GB RAM - 512 GB SSD - NVIDIA Quadro P600)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, bitsandpieces said:

Begs the question, when does journalism ends and the fear of lawsuit begins

It's perfectly legal to publish leaks like this. The only risk here is to compromise their relationship with Rockstar, which may stop sending them preview copies and inviting them to events.

Don't ask to ask, just ask... please 🤨

sudo chmod -R 000 /*

What is scaling and how does it work? Asus PB287Q unboxing! Console alternatives :D Watch Netflix with Kodi on Arch Linux Sharing folders over the internet using SSH Beginner's Guide To LTT (by iamdarkyoshi)

Sauron'stm Product Scores:

Spoiler

Just a list of my personal scores for some products, in no particular order, with brief comments. I just got the idea to do them so they aren't many for now :)

Don't take these as complete reviews or final truths - they are just my personal impressions on products I may or may not have used, summed up in a couple of sentences and a rough score. All scores take into account the unit's price and time of release, heavily so, therefore don't expect absolute performance to be reflected here.

 

-Lenovo Thinkpad X220 - [8/10]

Spoiler

A durable and reliable machine that is relatively lightweight, has all the hardware it needs to never feel sluggish and has a great IPS matte screen. Downsides are mostly due to its age, most notably the screen resolution of 1366x768 and usb 2.0 ports.

 

-Apple Macbook (2015) - [Garbage -/10]

Spoiler

From my perspective, this product has no redeeming factors given its price and the competition. It is underpowered, overpriced, impractical due to its single port and is made redundant even by Apple's own iPad pro line.

 

-OnePlus X - [7/10]

Spoiler

A good phone for the price. It does everything I (and most people) need without being sluggish and has no particularly bad flaws. The lack of recent software updates and relatively barebones feature kit (most notably the lack of 5GHz wifi, biometric sensors and backlight for the capacitive buttons) prevent it from being exceptional.

 

-Microsoft Surface Book 2 - [Garbage - -/10]

Spoiler

Overpriced and rushed, offers nothing notable compared to the competition, doesn't come with an adequate charger despite the premium price. Worse than the Macbook for not even offering the small plus sides of having macOS. Buy a Razer Blade if you want high performance in a (relatively) light package.

 

-Intel Core i7 2600/k - [9/10]

Spoiler

Quite possibly Intel's best product launch ever. It had all the bleeding edge features of the time, it came with a very significant performance improvement over its predecessor and it had a soldered heatspreader, allowing for efficient cooling and great overclocking. Even the "locked" version could be overclocked through the multiplier within (quite reasonable) limits.

 

-Apple iPad Pro - [5/10]

Spoiler

A pretty good product, sunk by its price (plus the extra cost of the physical keyboard and the pencil). Buy it if you don't mind the Apple tax and are looking for a very light office machine with an excellent digitizer. Particularly good for rich students. Bad for cheap tinkerers like myself.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I wonder what the laws surrounding this is. Is it legal to willfully obtain information you should not have access to, and then make that public? Is it like the laws regarding stolen goods, where it is illegal to knowingly buy a stolen item but legal if you don't know it is stolen?

I don't think in most places the laws would apply to anyone except the person who leaked the information initially. This action was likely to save face and to ensure they had access to early reviewers copies of future TT games or even games from other publishers.

Whether they were "bullied" into it is up in the air to me. 
Tagging @dalekphalm here too. 

muh specs 

Gaming and HTPC (reparations)- ASUS 1080, MSI X99A SLI Plus, 5820k- 4.5GHz @ 1.25v, asetek based 360mm AIO, RM 1000x, 16GB memory, 750D with front USB 2.0 replaced with 3.0  ports, 2 250GB 850 EVOs in Raid 0 (why not, only has games on it), some hard drives

Screens- Acer preditor XB241H (1080p, 144Hz Gsync), LG 1080p ultrawide, (all mounted) directly wired to TV in other room

Stuff- k70 with reds, steel series rival, g13, full desk covering mouse mat

All parts black

Workstation(desk)- 3770k, 970 reference, 16GB of some crucial memory, a motherboard of some kind I don't remember, Micomsoft SC-512N1-L/DVI, CM Storm Trooper (It's got a handle, can you handle that?), 240mm Asetek based AIO, Crucial M550 256GB (upgrade soon), some hard drives, disc drives, and hot swap bays

Screens- 3  ASUS VN248H-P IPS 1080p screens mounted on a stand, some old tv on the wall above it. 

Stuff- Epicgear defiant (solderless swappable switches), g600, moutned mic and other stuff. 

Laptop docking area- 2 1440p korean monitors mounted, one AHVA matte, one samsung PLS gloss (very annoying, yes). Trashy Razer blackwidow chroma...I mean like the J key doesn't click anymore. I got a model M i use on it to, but its time for a new keyboard. Some edgy Utechsmart mouse similar to g600. Hooked to laptop dock for both of my dell precision laptops. (not only docking area)

Shelf- i7-2600 non-k (has vt-d), 380t, some ASUS sandy itx board, intel quad nic. Currently hosts shared files, setting up as pfsense box in VM. Also acts as spare gaming PC with a 580 or whatever someone brings. Hooked into laptop dock area via usb switch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I wonder what the laws surrounding this is. Is it legal to willfully obtain information you should not have access to, and then make that public? Is it like the laws regarding stolen goods, where it is illegal to knowingly buy a stolen item but legal if you don't know it is stolen?

I would imagine this to be the case. I dare say either the case becoming public would have highlighted unethical journalism or some other form of illegal activity. so a settlement was the better option.

 

9 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

 

The UK has very strict freedom of the press laws and absolutely nothing about publishing this story was in breach of any laws. They didn't buy stolen documents, they were given (this fact was included in the original article) and were under no NDA (again they stated they weren't sure the documents were real at first) so they had NO legal cause the pull this story at all.

 

It's about maintaining relevance and presence. Take Two will have sent them a friendly letter informing them that should they not pull the story and donate to charity they will be blacklisted from all future Take Two press events and won't be included in the press review programme because thats all TT had against them. Journalists are supposed to be serving the public interest, not the business interest.

 

3 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

Irrelevant. if a media company breaks the law, they should be called out, and held legally accountable.

 

However, since Trusted Reviews didn't, why even bring that up? If someone wants to accuse Trusted Reviews of illegal actions, do so. But I agree with @Master Disaster here 100%. Unless Take Two wants to take Trusted Reviews to court, they should not coerce a media company into retracting an article that is neither inaccurate, nor illegal.

 

Freedom of the Press is an important right in a free and democratic society. The fact that we see the press being attacked so much lately is very worrisome, and this only makes that situation worse.

 

Trusted Reviews shouldn't have backed down, in my opinion.

We don't know if they broke the law or not, And likely we never will. Seeing as this article doesn't outline a court case and judges decision I am going to assume it was settled out of court.  In that event,  large organisations don't just settle like this and pay 1M when they are innocent.  as I said above, I dare say they knew they had done sufficiently illegal or unethical for this to be a problem requiring a settlement and no further public scrutiny.  

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I would imagine this to be the case. I dare say either the case becoming public would have highlighted unethical journalism or some other form of illegal activity. so a settlement was the better option.

 

 

We don't know if they broke the law or not, And likely we never will. Seeing as this article doesn't outline a court case and judges decision I am going to assume it was settled out of court.  In that event,  large organisations don't just settle like this and pay 1M when they are innocent.  as I said above, I dare say they knew they had done sufficiently illegal or unethical for this to be a problem requiring a settlement and no further public scrutiny.  

As I pointed out earlier, Trusted Reviews said in the article they were given the information via an anonymous source which means they didn't steal or buy it and they also stated they didn't know if it was real or not at first which implies they didn't receive it under NDA. What other legal basis for removal is there?

 

Once you ignore legality you're left with ethics and silencing the press over ethics is very dangerous.

Main Rig:-

Ryzen 7 3800X | Asus ROG Strix X570-F Gaming | 16GB Team Group Dark Pro 3600Mhz | Corsair MP600 1TB PCIe Gen 4 | Sapphire 5700 XT Pulse | Corsair H115i Platinum | WD Black 1TB | WD Green 4TB | EVGA SuperNOVA G3 650W | Asus TUF GT501 | Samsung C27HG70 1440p 144hz HDR FreeSync 2 | Ubuntu 20.04.2 LTS |

 

Server:-

Intel NUC running Server 2019 + Synology DSM218+ with 2 x 4TB Toshiba NAS Ready HDDs (RAID0)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I would imagine this to be the case. I dare say either the case becoming public would have highlighted unethical journalism or some other form of illegal activity. so a settlement was the better option.

 

 

We don't know if they broke the law or not, And likely we never will. Seeing as this article doesn't outline a court case and judges decision I am going to assume it was settled out of court.  In that event,  large organisations don't just settle like this and pay 1M when they are innocent.  as I said above, I dare say they knew they had done sufficiently illegal or unethical for this to be a problem requiring a settlement and no further public scrutiny.  

In Addition to @Master Disaster's response, I'll also say this - even though you say we don't know if they broke the law, it's clear that you assume they did.

 

Sure, companies don't retract articles and donate $1m to Charity for no reason - but the reason doesn't have to be because they broke the law. I think there's at least as likely a chance that they were threatened with a Media Blacklist (which can be very damaging for review sites, since it leaves them out of industry invite-only events, early releases, review copies, etc).

 

The donation to charity thing was just a PR stunt - regardless of which side pushed for it.

 

I highly doubt Trusted Reviews acted unethically, let alone anything that might actually be considered illegal. If someone gives them the documentation anonymously, they have full legal rights to post that information. Trusted Reviews is under no contract (that we're aware of) or NDA that would specifically prohibit this information.

17 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

As I pointed out earlier, Trusted Reviews said in the article they were given the information via an anonymous source which means they didn't steal or buy it and they also stated they didn't know if it was real or not at first which implies they didn't receive it under NDA. What other legal basis for removal is there?

 

Once you ignore legality you're left with ethics and silencing the press over ethics is very dangerous.

Agreed.

For Sale: Meraki Bundle

 

iPhone Xr 128 GB Product Red - HP Spectre x360 13" (i5 - 8 GB RAM - 256 GB SSD) - HP ZBook 15v G5 15" (i7-8850H - 16 GB RAM - 512 GB SSD - NVIDIA Quadro P600)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Master Disaster said:

As I pointed out earlier, Trusted Reviews said in the article they were given the information via an anonymous source which means they didn't steal or buy it and they also stated they didn't know if it was real or not at first which implies they didn't receive it under NDA. What other legal basis for removal is there?

 

Once you ignore legality you're left with ethics and silencing the press over ethics is very dangerous.

Just because they say that doesn't mean it's true.   This is just going to be one of those cases where neither party will be allowed to talk about it further and the rest will be speculation on our part.

58 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

In Addition to @Master Disaster's response, I'll also say this - even though you say we don't know if they broke the law, it's clear that you assume they did.

I don't assume that at all, I said we don't know if they did,  what we do know is they settled, therefore they decided that was in their best interests. 

 

58 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Sure, companies don't retract articles and donate $1m to Charity for no reason - but the reason doesn't have to be because they broke the law.

It could be just as much that they were just plain unethical or some other reason absolutely, My point wasn't that unlawful activity was the only viable option, but that t is just as likely a cause for this as blackmail.

 

 

58 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

I think there's at least as likely a chance that they were threatened with a Media Blacklist (which can be very damaging for review sites, since it leaves them out of industry invite-only events, early releases, review copies, etc).

You could just as rationally claim there's at least a likely chance they acted knowing the information they got was illegally obtained.  That under UK may well be enough for a court case to stick.

58 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

The donation to charity thing was just a PR stunt - regardless of which side pushed for it.

It usually is.  I certainly agree there.

58 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

I highly doubt Trusted Reviews acted unethically, let alone anything that might actually be considered illegal. If someone gives them the documentation anonymously, they have full legal rights to post that information. Trusted Reviews is under no contract (that we're aware of) or NDA that would specifically prohibit this information.

Agreed.

An anonymous source doesn't mean they didn't have other knowledge about it's legality,  Being that they are in the trade of understanding the game industry and writing articles on it every day, it would be hard for them to argue they didn't know pre-release documents on a game was not under some form of Corporate privacy laws.  

 

This is akin to the argument regarding HardOCP obtaining a pre-release 2080.  He can't argue the card he got was not supposed to be sold, nor can he argue that he didn't know it wasn't supposed to be given to him under contract law.

 

 

For the record I hate everyone equally,  game devs, industry people, spin doctors etc.  But just because they are called trusted reviews doesn't mean they deserve any trust.

 

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, bitsandpieces said:

a confidential corporate document,” according to the post that hit the site Thursday afternoon. “We should have known this information was confidential and should not have published it.

yeah I wouldnt trust them again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

 

Sure, companies don't retract articles and donate $1m to Charity for no reason - but the reason doesn't have to be because they broke the law. I think there's at least as likely a chance that they were threatened with a Media Blacklist (which can be very damaging for review sites, since it leaves them out of industry invite-only events, early releases, review copies, etc).

 

 

After a little digging I discovered a part of English common Law which dictates the right to confidentiality is not something that has to be expressly written in a contract (like an NDA for example).  It can be argued in court that trusted reviews knew what they published was confidential corporate information. In fact if the documents hand confidential labels stating they were only for the use of authorised personnel, then regardless how TR got hold of them, it would appear they had very little argument to defend against civil action.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breach_of_confidence_in_English_law

 

In both the examples used in the wikipedia article the content in question was obtained legally and outside of a confidentially contract.

 

In fact the case A-G V Observer is almost a carbon copy of this case.   Which indicates TR has no defense at all as precedence under common law has already made.

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Canada EH said:

yeah I wouldnt trust them again.

as a consumer you should, as a game developer you shouldn't, i mean it's not like they released fake information. same reason i take kotaku's leaks about AC games very seriously as they tend to leak things that come true more often than not. 

 

Spoiler
Spoiler

AMD 5000 Series Ryzen 7 5800X| MSI MAG X570 Tomahawk WiFi | G.SKILL Trident Z RGB 32GB (2 * 16GB) DDR4 3200MHz CL16-18-18-38 | Asus GeForce GTX 3080Ti STRIX | SAMSUNG 980 PRO 500GB PCIe NVMe Gen4 SSD M.2 + Samsung 970 EVO Plus 1TB PCIe NVMe M.2 (2280) Gen3 | Cooler Master V850 Gold V2 Modular | Corsair iCUE H115i RGB Pro XT | Cooler Master Box MB511 | ASUS TUF Gaming VG259Q Gaming Monitor 144Hz, 1ms, IPS, G-Sync | Logitech G 304 Lightspeed | Logitech G213 Gaming Keyboard |

PCPartPicker 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 11/2/2018 at 8:00 AM, LAwLz said:

I wonder what the laws surrounding this is. Is it legal to willfully obtain information you should not have access to, and then make that public? Is it like the laws regarding stolen goods, where it is illegal to knowingly buy a stolen item but legal if you don't know it is stolen?

If you ask CNN, they would tell you that only journalists can look at top secret documents that were illegally obtained and leaked by others.

 

Spoiler

 

AFAIK in the US, if someone else already leaked a document, anyone else can do just about anything they want with it.

 

 

It sounds to me like this website had confidential information directly from Take Two Interactive, and leaked it "accidentally". It would be different if they obtained it directly from someone else who had it legitimately and was not supposed to give it out. I wouldn't think the publisher would have any way to go after the media website for reporting on something given to them anonymously.

Ketchup is better than mustard.

GUI is better than Command Line Interface.

Dubs are better than subs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 11/2/2018 at 6:32 PM, dalekphalm said:

Irrelevant. if a media company breaks the law, they should be called out, and held legally accountable.

 

However, since Trusted Reviews didn't, why even bring that up? If someone wants to accuse Trusted Reviews of illegal actions, do so. But I agree with @Master Disaster here 100%. Unless Take Two wants to take Trusted Reviews to court, they should not coerce a media company into retracting an article that is neither inaccurate, nor illegal.

 

Freedom of the Press is an important right in a free and democratic society. The fact that we see the press being attacked so much lately is very worrisome, and this only makes that situation worse.

 

Trusted Reviews shouldn't have backed down, in my opinion.

Yeah, seems more an advertising thing. Say Take 2 pays 1 million for adverts over the year (including RDR2) and now does this to them... it may be like "um, that 1 million we gave you... what you now doing with it? Or next years budget!?!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:
  Reveal hidden contents

 

I wouldn't think the publisher would have any way to go after the media website for reporting on something given to them anonymously.

Under UK common law,  if those documents had a header stating the contents of the documents were confidential and for authorised use only, then the media can be held liable for publishing that data,  They (especially as industry specialists) cannot argue ignorance because it passes the three tests for breach of confidence.

 

It doesn't matter if they obtained the documents legally, they knew publishing what they had contravened these laws.  Which is why they admitted they "should have know the information was confidential and should not have been published".

 

 

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×