Submitted by mattyblog 504d ago | news

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. (Grand Theft Auto V, PS3, Rockstar Games, Xbox 360)

Lukas_Japonicus  +   504d 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.
clevernickname  +   504d 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.
Lukas_Japonicus  +   504d ago
True, but the creators of the game also have rights.
insomniacgamer  +   503d 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.
#1.1.2 (Edited 503d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report
Sarick  +   503d 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.
#1.1.3 (Edited 503d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report
insomniacgamer  +   503d 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 rides...how 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 argue...in 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.
Sarick  +   503d 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.
#1.1.5 (Edited 503d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report
insomniacgamer  +   503d 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.
Sarick  +   502d 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.
#1.1.7 (Edited 502d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report
yeahokchief  +   503d 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.
#1.2 (Edited 503d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(2) | Report | Reply
SilentNegotiator  +   503d 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.
Obamanationn  +   504d ago
they spent 265 million , i think they can spare $1million to ban everyone from spoiling it for their fans
KwietStorm  +   504d 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.
dillhole  +   504d ago
They are also banning people who talk about people being banned
Campy da Camper  +   504d ago
Dillhole? Dilhole???? Omg. You...you have been removed from existence!
mattyblog  +   504d 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.
porkChop  +   504d 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.
Cam977  +   504d 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.
Lukas_Japonicus  +   504d ago
"The leaks are Rockstar's fault. "

No, they're not.
KwietStorm  +   504d ago
Leaks are never the "fault" of the developer.
porkChop  +   504d ago
I don't think the leaks are Rockstar's fault, I just think they're going way overboard with flexing their corporate muscles.
CaptainFaisal  +   504d 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. !
#4.2 (Edited 504d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
Seafort  +   504d 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.
clevernickname  +   504d ago
You're absolutely right, although it's not "illegal" as in criminal but a violation of the NDA.
Sarick  +   503d 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.
#4.4 (Edited 503d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
Seafort  +   504d 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.
nooneknows  +   504d 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.
Hellsvacancy  +   504d 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
#5.2 (Edited 504d ago ) | Agree(5) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
Campy da Camper  +   504d ago
Hells, you've been around here forever bro. How in the heck did you not do day 1 digital man?????
Hellsvacancy  +   504d 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)
#5.2.2 (Edited 504d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report
Sarick  +   503d 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.
raresteak  +   504d ago
Sometimes I wonder if Rockstar are behind the leaks in the end (excluding piracy).

I'm guessing that the leaks have and will continue to boost publicity and sales in the end.

With the internet these days, even a couple of days of early gameplay footages and streaming is going to set alight the games industry.
nooneknows  +   504d ago
This is still bullsh*t.

These people just bought legit copies of the game, simple as that. They also posted the video on YouTube legally.

I know it would suck to see your game leaked after the years and effort you put in but, hey, thats the gaming industry. Seriously, They're were tons of games leaked before release.

Heck, some people were posting The Last Of Us vids, days before release.
SephirothX21  +   504d ago
I don't see the problem with leaked videos. If people don't want anything spoiled, don't go looking at them. Simple.
Rezka  +   504d ago
it's just sometimes people get curious what to expect from a game that has been in development for so many years that they wanna take a look at what's to be expected in it when they get their hands on it.
BlazeXXL  +   504d ago
The thing is, these people can and should hold off till video reviews start popping up. IGN, Gamespot etc. all have a certain integrity and can be trusted to post non-spoiler filled content. It also has great quality and beats most of these 240p potato cam videos on the web.
Rezka  +   504d ago
Yeah true because all I have been seeing have been spoilers and nothing else
Slysi  +   504d ago
Good luck to the ones who got it early (legit) and I say thx for sharing
#10 (Edited 504d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
maximus1985  +   504d ago
thats what ive been doing. i see a gameplay footage from youtube that "I" chose to watch and i thank them for taking the time to share
BlazeXXL  +   504d ago
It's definitely a shitty situation.. and imo, both sides can't win here. Rockstar has been working on this for over 5 years now, it's their baby and ofcourse they want to protect it in any way possible until the release date. They just don't want the game to be spoiled for anyone.

On the other hand there's the gamers who get the game early and obviously want to share some footage because everyone's excited for it. However, Rockstar can't take chances with these people, because for all they know it might have been a pirated copy of the game and/or the player has malicious intent and uploads spoilers, which could result in potential buyers losing interest.

The persons who should be punished and who are pretty much the blame to all this shite, are the retailers who sell the game early (or give it away), or companies who are involved in the logistics of the game. Perhaps tighter security in that stage of release?
#11 (Edited 504d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
darksky  +   504d ago
So is it ok to post vids once it's released? Wouldn't that spoil it for the people that may buy it a few weeks or months after launch?
I bet Rockstar would be grateful for the leaks and the exposure they would give if GTA was a new untested franchise. They are getting a bit arrogant since they know it will sell well..
#12 (Edited 504d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
Pyro2000x  +   504d ago
PC FANS are the ones that have leaked & pirated GTAV I'm so glad they are not getting the real game.
Seafort  +   503d ago
Yeah that makes alot of sense :P

It's the console gamers that are pirating the game so get your head out of your arse and think for once!

Why would PC gamers pirate the game?? It won't work on their PCs only on consoles.

And PC will be getting the game it's just a matter of time. We got the first GTA and we will be getting GTAV.
Slysi  +   504d ago
My solution is let me have it now then. : )

Add comment

You need to be registered to add comments. Register here or login
New stories

Review: Breath of Fire (Wii U eShop / Super Nintendo) | NLife

1h ago - NL: The age of the 16-bit RPG is well-remembered, and many iconic titles from the time are still... | Wii U

Hands-on with Jungle Force, where goats shoot asteroids at sloths | AppSpy

1h ago - AppSpy: Jungle Force is from the same studio behind the warmly received Dawn of the Immortals and... | iPhone

Hands-on with Exit Strategy, where it's fun playing with portals | AppSpy

1h ago - AppSpy: Here's the deal: in Exit Strategy you have no control over a constantly moving vehicle, o... | iPhone

The top 8 Japanese RPGs that are yet to make it onto mobile

2h ago - AppSpy: JRPGs make up a huge selection of my fondest gaming memories and I know I'm not the only... | iPhone

Filmwatch Contest Details

Now - Ring in the new year with gift cards. Check out details on Filmwatch. | Promoted post

Hands-on with Forgotten Memories, 2015's most terrifying horror game? | AppSpy

2h ago - AppSpy: The Silent Hill series. The Clock Tower franchise. Rule of Rose. Fatal Frame. The first t... | iPhone