Game site pays £1 million to charities to 'apologise' for Red Dead Redemption 2 leaks

'Take-Two takes security seriously and will take legal action against people or publications who leak...'

The story is too old to be commented.
NapalmSanctuary47d ago

I don't know what the law is in the EU, but in the U.S. you can't be held liable for leaking something unless you are under contractual agreement not to. And even then, you can only be penalized in a way specified in that contract deal.

TekoIie47d ago

Doesn't mean you can't be blacklisted for it. That's the big risk for outlets.

TheGamingEffect47d ago

Maybe the documents were stolen from Take-Two. And if they were stolen then it's illegal. "Corporate Espionage" is a form of espionage conducted for commercial purposes, and I have a gut feeling this is what happened. There is no way Trusted Reviews would pay 1.3 Million to a charity and apologize if they did nothing wrong. Some times the media is just as bad as companies in corporate america, after all most media outlets are owned by big corporate companies.

windblowsagain46d ago

I could have done more with the 1million.

That money will be lost in Management.

rainslacker45d ago (Edited 45d ago )

Wow. This story is missing some vital information to put things into context.

Namely, the only way trusted reviews would be held liable for releasing classified information is if they had signed an non-disclosure agreement to not say anything about the game that they may be privy to, regardless of how they got it....or T2 actually provided them the document, which they then leaked to the public with an NDA in place.

There is potential that trusted reviews colluded to steal the information, in which case it's both criminal and civil, and T2 may have decided to go the civil route instead of seeking charges.

As this article is written, it just kind of makes T2 look like they're going after any media outlet which gets a hold of confidential information, and trying to control the media in an improper, unethical, and illegal way. But since there was money awarded, there has to be more to it.

But, 1.3 million pounds? How much does trusted reviews actually bring in in revenue, and was the leak really so substantial that it was worth that kind of penalty?