Grand Theft Auto V YouTube Policies Clarified by Rockstar Games

Rockstar Games have banned people on social networks over the years for illegally sharing videos, pictures and other content for their games, especially with L.A. Noire and Red Dead Redemption, but now with the imminent release of Grand Theft Auto V, the publisher are taking it to extremes and are banning anyone who leaks the slightest piece of information about the game.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
GarrusVakarian1526d ago

If i worked on something since 2008 and put my blood sweat and tears into it, i wouldn't want people leaking anything either. If people have legit copies, then good for them, by all means play the hell out of it, but suffer the consequences if you leak content.

clevernickname1526d ago

People have a First Amendment right to discuss, criticize, praise, post screen shots and video segments of, and otherwise say whatever comes to their minds about the game.

GarrusVakarian1526d ago

True, but the creators of the game also have rights.

insomniacgamer1525d ago (Edited 1525d ago )

The devs have the right to protect their game, not censor those with legitimate copies sharing visuals of them playing on the internet. Slippery slope when you condone this.

Sarick1525d ago (Edited 1525d ago )

Look up Corporate Censorship and laws.


"The constitutional and other legal protections that prohibit or limit government censorship of the Internet in some countries do not generally apply to private corporations. Corporations may voluntarily choose to limit the content they make available or allow others to make available on the Internet"

Privately owned networks servers/websites have the legal rights to self-censer their own content. If you post something on N4G the moderators and owners can remove it.

If you own a wireless home network you can legally block others from assessing your internet connection.

If you want to enter an amusement park that has rules "You aren't allowed to wear high heels" it's PRIVATE property either you accept their rules or you can be denied access.

These services that ban or remove content don't want legal actions taken against them. Although R* doesn't own the servers and web sites that allow uploaded content the servers/owner who provide the service are responsible for all content. They have the rights self-censor or limit content on them.

There is no real freedom of speech on the internet because most of the digital content resides on privately own servers.

People can disagree til they're blue in the face but the fact is the owners of these services are responsible for content users post on them. If a user post something on their private server that can cause them restitution they'll remove it first and ask questions later.

insomniacgamer1525d ago


I am saying that I could care less what law you found and cited, censorship is always a slippery and dangerous thing. Take it in context, not a general labeling because then you are treading thin ice. Mods moderating forums, you securing your router, or roller coaster is that akin to blanket censorship and intelligent conversation as a consumer to say it is a bit much maybe? Ironically not talking about it sets precedence for companies to crack the whip and scare others from posting content. Some cases may be justified but many not I would the end you should never feel comfortable about anything being censored unless it is a spoiler or something you don't want your kids to see sort of thing.

Sarick1525d ago (Edited 1525d ago )


You're response is based around a form of entitlement. Although, I agree that R* shouldn't be so strict I understand the correlation between moral and financial repercussions.

Personal opinion is subjective. In this case the reality of possible legal consequences are not. They both bind society but one has a dominating factor. That factor is govern by well written rules and laws.

Even if I disagree that I shouldn't need a helmet while riding a bike. When I get caught if the laws say Its a requirement my opinion carries little to no weight. I can obviously still be punished. It doesn't matter if I think its the stupidest law on the earth. I'm not above the law.

Sure, R* is flexing their legal muscles. They have the right to. Is favorable in the public's eyes? I would assume not because people are getting upset about it. After all, why would they want to bite the hand that feeds them?

I've already explained why Youtube is taking down content and Microsoft is banning consoles. They are doing it to protect themselves. This isn't an opinion or laughing matter in their eyes. By allowing this content and/or not voluntarily taking action it puts them at risk.

If I was in their shoes I'd do the same. I'd be like why would you want to do that to your customers! My opinion wouldn't matter. It would matter if I choose to take no action. My rear would also be placed on the hot seat.

If I thought R* had any remote legal chance to take action against me for allowing users to post unauthorized content on my private servers rather then risk a long drawn out legal battle I'd remove the user/content.

Censorship isn't always as simple as good or bad. When we're dealing with corporations that deal in big money most times the path for least resistance is taken. Since R* has the muscle to influence privately owned services, servers, and digital networks there is little we can do to fight them.

I'm sure Youtube isn't run by the same guys who owned Napster or Piratebay. They rationalized the parental risk involved and took the best course of action to protect their interest. The other guys ended up losing millions and some where even thrown in jail.

Bottom line: Sure, we can all feel entitlement but in reality that personal view can sometimes lead us astray. If we ignore the laws by choosing to gamble on our ignorant, subjective, morally or inapt entailment rights then we should understand the real consequences for non-compliance.

insomniacgamer1525d ago

tl;dr only got to some strange analogies made and stopped.

You misunderstand me on this topic. "You're response is based around a form of entitlement." Not the entitlement label, you are completely wrong. Also wrong drawing correlations between corporate censorship and things like wearing bicycle helmets. If I go further it will sound like a personal attack. All I am saying, and have been, is that censorship of speech and expression of any form should always be scrutinized closely. Agree on that and agree to disagree on the rest?

Peace and happy gaming.

Sarick1524d ago (Edited 1524d ago )


Woah, there where did you come up with those conclusions. You sound almost aggressive. I never once said anything about suppressing our rights to scrutinize what they're doing.

In fact is made it quite clear that I condemned R* acts to an extent. I don't know why or how you missed that in my comments.

I gave simple examples that exemplified fact from opinion. I basically said it stinks and is wrong morally wrong from my point of view but from the legal standpoint they ultimately have final say.

This is as simple as it gets. People can't assume it's okay to be subjective about regulations just because suits their interest. Sure, they have rights to complain to a point.

Let's be truthful, their emotional point of view is only personal opinion. It doesn't give them unlimited and/or unrestricted freedoms. If they get censored it can be for many different reasons.

The key element to censorship is the ability to maintain control in an environment that would be chaotic if left unmanaged. I think the real disagreement between you and me is because I'm defending the ligament rights of the developer not my overall message.

You don't seem to understand my full perspective. Yes, I'm defending their legal rights but *I'm also being critical of their censorship policies*. It seems you've totally ignored or lost touch of the ladder part. It's very clear what I've tried to convey is being taken out of context.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 1524d ago
yeahokchief1525d ago (Edited 1525d ago )

they are very lenient in allowing us to share footage.

they're just targeting the people who would exploit it and ruin it.

these policies support the gamers supporting gta.

SilentNegotiator1525d ago

They didn't leak a movie. Video games are meant to be PLAYED. If people want to avoid spoilers, they don't have to watch. Rockstar loses nothing.

Frankly, I think Rockstar just wanted to dodge people seeing the graphics. Not everyone is going to be understanding of all of the pop-in we saw in some of those videos.

Obamanationn1526d ago

they spent 265 million , i think they can spare $1million to ban everyone from spoiling it for their fans

KwietStorm1526d ago

All I get is a big pansy alligator on my screen when I click the link. Looks like the site itself got the banhammer.

dillhole1526d ago

They are also banning people who talk about people being banned

Campy da Camper1526d ago

Dillhole? Dilhole???? Omg. have been removed from existence!

mattyblog1526d ago

Luckily I didn't get banned by Rockstar Games, as I haven't shared any content about the game. the "big pansy alligator" you saw was a 500 error page. I've been having some internal server errors with my host provider, in which they've promised to sort out quickly.

porkChop1526d ago

"Rockstar Games have banned people on social networks over the years for *ILLEGALLY* sharing videos, pictures and other content for their games, especially with L.A. Noire and Red Dead Redemption, but now with the imminent release of Grand Theft Auto V, the publisher are taking it to extremes and are banning anyone who leaks the slightest piece of information about the game."

But that's the thing. It's NOT illegal to post the gameplay online. It's only illegal if you're breaking an NDA. However, consumers do not sign NDAs. Rockstar has no legal grounds to have this guys accounts all banned, his console banned, and all his videos taken down. I get that Rockstar isn't happy about the gameplay being posted online, that's understandable, but they took things way too far.

Cam9771526d ago

If this game disappoints it's Rockstar's fault.
The leaks are Rockstar's fault.
They stayed so tight-lipped that the game seems to be a masterpiece.

GarrusVakarian1526d ago

"The leaks are Rockstar's fault. "

No, they're not.

KwietStorm1526d ago

Leaks are never the "fault" of the developer.

porkChop1526d ago

I don't think the leaks are Rockstar's fault, I just think they're going way overboard with flexing their corporate muscles.

CaptainFaisal1526d ago (Edited 1526d ago )

So what your saying is that for example if my account and/or console gets banned because i have a legit copy of the game and showed some gameplay. That i can sue them as i have not agreed with their terms? Nice! but i wouldnt want to sue them! they worked hard and want everyone to enjoy the game on the same day withought any spoilers and explore and discover by themselves. !

Seafort1526d ago

Rockstar want everyone to enjoy the game on the same day? Maybe they should have let the retailers ship the game when they wanted then.

I'll be lucky to get the game by Wednesday as Rockstar have made the retailers in the UK sign an agreement to not ship the game till Monday.

1st class post is delivered in 1-2 days and does not guarantee next day delivery.

clevernickname1526d ago

You're absolutely right, although it's not "illegal" as in criminal but a violation of the NDA.

Sarick1525d ago (Edited 1525d ago )

"It's NOT illegal to post the gameplay online."

No, but the content owners can contact the owners of the services who have the content on their private servers remove or ban the user legally.

The private server owners don't want sued for copyrighted content being shown ESPECIALLY if the owner request its immediate removal. It's a lose lose battle and the safest solution is to protect their interest first.

It's a grey area if it's morally acceptable or not. R* owns the materials and have its release date set. They Invested a lot of time and money into that game. Someone owns the publishing rights to that content. It's their legal right to control it's redistrobution/retransmittion.

It's not like the content has $0 in value.

The gamers just want to show off the game and be enthusiastic about it. To them it's just game play that they recorded/photographed. In some cases they're doing the product a great service in other places a disservice.

Either way when they contact YouTube, Microsoft, Facebook, Imageshack, N4G etc. Those privately owned servers can voluntarily remove said content and ban/suspend the parties as they see fit. The end user laterally has very little legal footing to stand on even though they didn't sign a NDA.

If you posted something on N4G that could cause the owner restitution or fines and they removed by request tell me exactly how are you going to fight that? The owners of these private servers don't want to risk getting sued because they allow stuff like this.

DO you blame them? I'm sure if you owned the servers and people where doing dubious transactions over it you'd cover your arse just as quick. This is especially true if a company threatened or contacted you with evidence of ownership. I'm sure you won't be so righteous if it might cost you a few big-bucks out of your pocket.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1525d ago
Seafort1526d ago

Oh please don't watch the videos and streams if you don't want it spoiled.

Rockstar have no right to ban anyone for streaming. It is complete corporate abuse and Rockstar should be punished for censoring their customers choice to stream a game they bought not the customer.

If they want to punish someone, punish the retailer that sold the game early in the first place. They wouldn't be the pirated version doing the rounds now if they retailers hadn't shipped early.

It makes no difference to me I'll wait and play the game when Royal Mail delivers it to my house and not before. Which will most likely be Wednesday as Rockstar has tried to control the retailers shipping the game early in the UK.

Who loses out? The customer as usual.

nooneknows1526d ago

You are totally right. Sadly, today, a lot of people want to ride on RockStars train, so they of course will get on the attack as well.

Your right of course, I'm buying the game, I have it on pre-order as well of course. I can't wait for the game, but seriously, they didn't do anything wrong.

Hellsvacancy1526d ago (Edited 1526d ago )

I read an email from Amazon today saying I "may" not get GTA by Tuesday the 17th due to high demand

F-in BS I said out loud, I paid for DAY 1 delivery

Campy da Camper1526d ago

Hells, you've been around here forever bro. How in the heck did you not do day 1 digital man?????

Hellsvacancy1526d ago (Edited 1526d ago )

It's the price mate, I'm not paying £49.99 for a digital game, I pre-ordered on Amazon, with this so called day 1 delivery and it came to £36 in total, seemed like a no-brainer

If I don't like GTAV I could always sell it (like that'll happen though)

Sarick1525d ago

I To agree with this. It's corporate abuse. They have the rights to limit their content released to the public. The owners of the private servers also have the right to block/defend content on them but they won't.

Just look at what legal issues that happened to Napster.

It's just the owners want to restrict the content released to the pubic. It may not be at the same level as music revenue but it can be seen as an equivalent example. It's their right but still is it in their best interest to bite the hand that feeds it? I think not.

Show all comments (44)
The story is too old to be commented.