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

Trik'Stari · November 5, 2018

30 minutes ago, mr moose said:

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".

What if someone not with the company obtained them, and then mailed them to the journalists? Does that still apply?

I ask because I do not know. If a family member or friend of someone who works/worked for Take Two found this information, copied it, and send it to a journalist and that journalist released it, are they (the journalist) liable?

mr moose · November 5, 2018

44 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

What if someone not with the company obtained them, and then mailed them to the journalists? Does that still apply?

As far as I understand it yes.

44 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

I ask because I do not know. If a family member or friend of someone who works/worked for Take Two found this information, copied it, and send it to a journalist and that journalist released it, are they (the journalist) liable?

That is how I understand it. If it was released to the public by someone not in the trade and with no links to the industry then maybe an argument of genuine ignorance as to the nature of confidentiality of the papers can be made (because on of the three tests is that releasing of the information . But as I read it, the whole point of the law is to stop people (who actually know better) from releasing private information that is: " an unauthorised use of that information to the detriment of the party communicating it ".

The example used by wikipedia, the court held a newspaper liable for publishing information beecause:

Quote

" A duty of confidence precludes disclosure to others, and a third party (like a newspaper) with confidential information is similarly bound by a duty if they know it is confidential. "

Which means if the news paper knows it is confidential (TR knew it was confidential), then they can be held liable for the damages occurred by making it public.

The law seems to stop people from making money out of information that is at the expense of another business. It also stops some of the more smug "I got the info legally therefore I can do what I want with it" defenses that some people seem to think are appropriate.

Trik'Stari · November 5, 2018

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

As far as I understand it yes.

That is how I understand it. If it was released to the public by someone not in the trade and with no links to the industry then maybe an argument of genuine ignorance as to the nature of confidentiality of the papers can be made (because on of the three tests is that releasing of the information . But as I read it, the whole point of the law is to stop people (who actually know better) from releasing private information that is: " an unauthorised use of that information to the detriment of the party communicating it ".

The example used by wikipedia, the court held a newspaper liable for publishing information beecause:

Which means if the news paper knows it is confidential (TR knew it was confidential), then they can be held liable for the damages occurred by making it public.

The law seems to stop people from making money out of information that is at the expense of another business. It also stops some of the more smug "I got the info legally therefore I can do what I want with it" defenses that some people seem to think are appropriate.

What if the release of said information could be demonstrably proven to not cause detriment or damage?

If it has no damage or even benefits the party, has the law been violated?

I ask because I don't know, and because the gaming industry has this weird, pointless habit of keeping everything they do secret.

Although I guess if the leak was beneficial there wouldn't be a lawsuit or anything.... I hope? Although I can see someone like Nintendo suing anyways because Nintendo Logic.

mr moose · November 5, 2018

1 hour ago, Trik'Stari said:

What if the release of said information could be demonstrably proven to not cause detriment or damage?

If it has no damage or even benefits the party, has the law been violated?

One of the conditions is that it has to do damage, in that regard it is just like any other civil case where a company is seeking damages (like a libel or defamation case), they have to prove that said publication caused damages.

1 hour ago, Trik'Stari said:

I ask because I don't know, and because the gaming industry has this weird, pointless habit of keeping everything they do secret.

Although I guess if the leak was beneficial there wouldn't be a lawsuit or anything.... I hope? Although I can see someone like Nintendo suing anyways because Nintendo Logic.

pretty much. Whilst I am sure there is a certain amount of prejudice in these cases, it's hard to imagine TR didn't benefit from the publication, didn't know the documents where confidential and it's also hard to imagine T2 didn't lose potential revenue from said publication.

Again most of this is speculation just going on this law and what information I can gather from past cases. However the more I read the more I like it. Journalists not being able to use technical loopholes to get away with unethical journalism pleases me. I wish we could hold politicians to the same standards.

Master Disaster · November 7, 2018

We may finally have some information on what actually happened here...

Coming from Kotaku via LegacyKillaHD it turns out that in the UK media outlets have to verify that any source material was obtained legally, even if they didn't steal it by publishing it they become complicit in the theft and are liable for prosecution under UK law and as the document was of such a sensitive nature i don't think anybody would argue it wasn't stolen from Rockstar (or at best leaked by someone under contract to keep it a secret).