General Games News - The Bear and Badger

[Deleted User]

Diluted Dante wrote:

I'm still trying to work out what Trusted Reviews did wrong.

Breached confidentiality. It’s not difficult.

Bob

If they didn’t leak the information in what way did they breach it? The confidentiality wasn’t with them.

Seems that they just don’t want to fight rockstar and with their funds who would!?

[Deleted User]

They published it. That’s a breach of confidentiality. And it’s not in the public interest, so it’s indefensible.

Maybe you two can go and tell the lawyers how they got it wrong.

Bob

Where the law been broken Andy ? Unless there’s an nda in place ? And if breaking confidentiality is a law why do we need nda?

Plus unless I’m very much mistaken plots of films games and media leak all the time and are reported on without millions going to charity

hylian_elf

RamSteelwood wrote:

As someone who will often lament that they 'don't have time for games these days', this article spoke to me: https://kotaku.com/how-to-play-long-video-games-when-you-have-no-time-1830099478

The article... spoke to you?

[Deleted User]

Certain business records are protected by confidentiality, because them being public would be harmful to the business. In the case of a videogame, gameplay elements could be deemed to be crucial to commercial success (if, for example, you don’t want competitors getting in on the act before you release).

Non-disclosure agreements come into place when a business is disclosing certain confidential/privileged information and making it clear to the other party that the information is not for further dissemination. Otherwise people have claimed they didn’t know they were being given the information in confidence.

Yes, whoever leaked the information (if that’s how it was obtained) breached confidence and, if traced, would no doubt find Rockstar taking action against them. But that leak is meaningless if journalists ignore it. Trusted Reviews published. That was not a clever idea. They can’t claim that it’s a public interest story, because it isn’t. It’s just them, publishing confidential information for their own gain.

Which is why their lawyers told them to settle.

Diluted Dante

I dont get how its the problem of the people publishing it. The leaker, fine, but I cant see why Trusted Reviews should give a shit that Rockstar have shitty security.

It might well be against the law, but if so thats a dumb law.

Yossarian

The power of corporate lobbying.

[Deleted User]

Diluted Dante wrote:

I dont get how its the problem of the people publishing it. The leaker, fine, but I cant see why Trusted Reviews should give a shit that Rockstar have shitty security.

It might well be against the law, but if so thats a dumb law.

Let’s say you told someone something very personal, in confidence. And they decide to tell a journalist. Do you think it’s fair play for the journalist to say, “Well, I know about it, so it’s fine for the whole world to know”? There’s a difference between it being TR’s problem that R* have a leak, and TR turning that leak into a bigger problem by publishing something that is nobody’s right to know. ‘Rockstar have a leak, we’ve returned their document to them’ is an ethically sound story, if they absolutely must publish a story.

There’s nothing dumb about basic protection of business interests.

mistercrayon

Diluted Dante wrote:

I dont get how its the problem of the people publishing it. The leaker, fine, but I cant see why Trusted Reviews should give a shit that Rockstar have shitty security.

It might well be against the law, but if so thats a dumb law.

The way this thing works is who is causing the harm and how much would a company have to pay to repair that damage.

There’s obviously a lot going on here we don’t know but if TR are shelling out a million bucks they probably think that the costs in court would be worse for them and there’s a large chance they’d lose. If they have insurance or lawyers they would also bet this is true and told them their best bet is to stump up the mil.

I mean when you think about it does such a leak actually cause a million of damage? Rockstar would have to prove this right? And it’s hard to do so when the game makes fuckloads.

Diluted Dante

Andy wrote:

Diluted Dante wrote:

I dont get how its the problem of the people publishing it. The leaker, fine, but I cant see why Trusted Reviews should give a shit that Rockstar have shitty security. It might well be against the law, but if so thats a dumb law.

Let’s say you told someone something very personal, in confidence. And they decide to tell a journalist. Do you think it’s fair play for the journalist to say, “Well, I know about it, so it’s fine for the whole world to know”? There’s a difference between it being TR’s problem that R* have a leak, and TR turning that leak into a bigger problem by publishing something that is nobody’s right to know. ‘Rockstar have a leak, we’ve returned their document to them’ is an ethically sound story, if they absolutely must publish a story. There’s nothing dumb about basic protection of business interests.

For people I agree. For companies I don't.

[Deleted User]

And it’s the law that’s dumb. Righty ho.

Diluted Dante

Human beings have feelings. Corporations don't.

acemuzzy

I think there's a valid distinction between TR signing and breeching and NDA, and somebody else signing and breeching an NDA & TR then reporting on that.

Did anyone actually know which of those (if either) happened here?

acemuzzy

More importantly, should that be "breaching"? :-/

Yossarian

It should.

AJ

It's kinda like handling stolen goods, yeah?

Diluted Dante

Someone else breached it, TR reported on it.

JonB

It's the public interest thing that matters though. If it's (potentially) damaging, it should be in the public interest to reveal it.

acemuzzy

Diluted Dante wrote:

Someone else breached it, TR reported on it.

Ta. That definitely makes me feel it's less egregious. Not sure where the law stands.

JonB wrote:

If it's (potentially) damaging, it should be in the public interest to reveal it.

I don't understand this.

[Deleted User]

acemuzzy wrote:

I think there's a valid distinction between TR signing and breeching and NDA, and somebody else signing and breeching an NDA & TR then reporting on that.

See my earlier post. There’s a difference between reporting that a company has a leak (or sloppy confidential waste disposal) and reporting what was leaked, particularly where the content of the leaked information is categorically not public interest.

[Deleted User]

acemuzzy wrote:

Not sure where the law stands..

The lawyers do. Still, let’s not let that get in the way of hobbyists telling us what they reckon.

Wookienopants

I’m sorry but I’m with Andy here, they broke the law, the leaked information that was potentially damaging to the business model and they knew that they did wrong.
They’re paying the fee to charity as a settlement.
I don’t see how it’s complicated

JonB

Andy wrote:

Breached confidentiality. It’s not difficult.

Andy wrote:

Maybe you two can go and tell the lawyers how they got it wrong.

Andy wrote:

The lawyers do. Still, let’s not let that get in the way of hobbyists telling us what they reckon.

Do you really have to do the constant passive-aggressive stuff? Just have a conversation FFS.

mistercrayon

I don’t think it’s necessarily the case they think they did something inherently bad. Don’t forget you effectively get sued if you crash your car into something. You still “pay out” for the harm caused even though there was no intent for a bad thing to happen.

They could have merely gone into this with ott enthusiasm.

Edit:

Additionally it seems like they know they were in possession of confidential documents (you know when you send a corporate email where it says “this is sent in confidence ... if you accidentally get it please delete) you are generally bound by such things even if you haven’t signed a document.

Bob

Besides if there’s one thing everyone knows you can’t trust lawyers

Diluted Dante

Wookienopants wrote:

I’m sorry but I’m with Andy here, they broke the law, the leaked information that was potentially damaging to the business model and they knew that they did wrong.
They’re paying the fee to charity as a settlement.
I don’t see how it’s complicated

What Im saying is I don't see why there is a law about this in the first place.

Cos

If you don't agree with the law, that's one thing but it seems a bit naïve to say you don't know why it exists. Any creator has a right to protect their intellectual property.

Diluted Dante

Take it up with whoever leaked it.

AJ

Because people. You know that in the US it's essentially illegal to prevent a company from making money?

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories