Why SCEA ordered removal?

[tankuroded]

I have noticed in the home page there was some entries saying Video removed at the request of Sony Computer Entertainment America. Why SCEA ordered removal of these videos?

Thanks before.

 

[boiltheocean]

I have a hunch that it's something to do with SCEA not wanting people to view them.

 

[daan]

Why ask us? This question needs to be directed at SCEA.

 

[DQuaN]

I'm sure that they would give a reason when they request the removal?

 

[BlacqueJacques]

Reason why SCEA ordered removal removed at the request of Sony Computer Entertainment America

 

[KobayashiFan]

Reason why SCEA ordered removal removed at the request of Sony Computer Entertainment America

SECA is Sony Computer Entertainment America. Unless you already knew that...

Also, I imagine the reason they ordered removal is because they didn't want any more details being released of the game. Considering this a hot bed for Gran Turismo fans, anything revealed here will spread like wildfire. Their efforts to keep it under wraps are all in vain however. Videos are still popping up and information is still being leaked. And the more that gets leaked, the further it spreads. It's pretty much like a contagious disease. From now on I really can't see what SECA can do. They've reacted to late really.

 

[GT_Prologue5]

No that looks like a joke, you know the "reason is censored" joke

 

[KobayashiFan]

No that looks like a joke, you know the "reason is censored" joke

Forgive me, I'm rather slow.

 

[Hun200kmh]

Why ask us? This question needs to be directed at SCEA.

Hey come on, I'm sure Jordan didn't get a simple "Take'em off" order from SCEA, so the question is valid.


(although could be better phrased, like "what reason did SCEA give for asking the removal of the videos?" ... if this is correct in English I don't know but you probably get what I'm trying to say).

Of course, if Jordan wants to answer such a question or not is an entirely different question. I guess his silence means "no".

 

[TB]

Ultimately it doesn't matter what the reason was/is. SCEA wants Jordan to take it down so either he does it or they sick the lawyers on him.

Or so I'd imagine.

 

[Hun200kmh]

Lawyers? For posting news? Those images don't belong to SCEA, and if the game-discs were bought legally (different thing from "sold legally") there's nothing you can do against the guys playing the game, much less against the videos they publish and surely NOTHING against the guys reporting that such activities are taking place.

No idea how american law works, but we have a saying here about such odd behaviours. "Don't shoot the messenger, shoot the author of the message"

 

[GT_Prologue5]

Well even if nothing would happen I'm sure out of common respect that Jordan would remove the videos. I mean I doubt he'd sit there and stand against SCEA or he'd be unwise not to listen. Glad I saw them before they disappeared.

 

[tankuroded]

Also, I imagine the reason they ordered removal is because they didn't want any more details being released of the game. Considering this a hot bed for Gran Turismo fans, anything revealed here will spread like wildfire. Their efforts to keep it under wraps are all in vain however. Videos are still popping up and information is still being leaked. And the more that gets leaked, the further it spreads. It's pretty much like a contagious disease. From now on I really can't see what SECA can do. They've reacted to late really.

So they claimed that the contents were "top secret"? Interesting.

(although could be better phrased, like "what reason did SCEA give for asking the removal of the videos?" ... if this is correct in English I don't know but you probably get what I'm trying to say).

That's the alternate phrasing that I meant to. My English is relatively bad, but not that bad.

 

[niky]

Lawyers? For posting news? Those images don't belong to SCEA, and if the game-discs were bought legally (different thing from "sold legally") there's nothing you can do against the guys playing the game, much less against the videos they publish and surely NOTHING against the guys reporting that such activities are taking place.

No idea how american law works, but we have a saying here about such odd behaviours. "Don't shoot the messenger, shoot the author of the message"

Sony is one of the worst corporations in the world when it comes to online censorship, but a video of an illegally sold video game featuring content owned by Sony is fair game for removal. You can't buy something legally if it's sold illegally, sorry. That's piracy, and Sony is within its rights to clamp down on that.

That's if these are bootlegged/pirated copies in the videos. If they aren't, then Sony doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. But since the game isn't out yet, there's fat chance of this being the case.

 

[Famine]

I'd like to point out the difference between "requested" and "ordered".

SCEA requested that we remove some items from the News section, rather than ordered us to. The information in question is published by a non-Sony controlled party (us), having been first published by a second non-Sony controlled party (Youtube/photo-hosting sites) and generated by a third non-Sony controlled party (the individual with a copy of the game). Ordering us to do anything would have little effect and has no legal basis - the most likely response would be "Spin on it"*. In any case, it still leaves the information out there and being generated daily, whether we remove it or not - and I don't see the videos/photos being removed from the intermediary sites at the request of SCEA, nor the originator being pursued (though he probably is)...

As for why... that's a matter for SCEA. I suggest you contact them (they have a Twitter, don't they?) to find out. I'd wager "marketing" though.


(and for reference, I've been away for a little while and know no more about it than anyone else)

*Or equivalent. I'm less polite towards unreasonable demands.

 

[KobayashiFan]

I don't see the videos/photos being removed from the intermediary sites at the request of SCEA, nor the originator being pursued

Actually, all those videos were removed off YouTube. Every single trace of them, gone! So in the end, it would make no difference anyway. As a video can not be embedded on another site if the original has been obliterated.

 

[Famine]

Several people captured them already - Youtube videos take no time at all to grab as flv - and the original exists on the originator's site.

I can still see loads of GT5 gameplay/menu videos on Youtube though.

 

[KobayashiFan]

Several people captured them already - Youtube videos take no time at all to grab as flv - and the original exists on the originator's site.

I can still see loads of GT5 gameplay/menu videos on Youtube though.

Oh right. Now you mention it, I've just seen the copies. I have very little doubt those will get removed as well.

 

[Famine]

Other video upload sites are also available. Vimeo springs to mind.

 

[Hun200kmh]

I really fail to understand on what grounds does Sony have any right to demand the removal of the clips. They feature images of a game being used by its buyer (until proven otherwise). A game that - incidentally - is supposed to have a YT uploader as one of its main new features.

About "sold illegally/bought illegaly", I must state this. If I buy something that was previously stolen my only problem is that I bought something that wasn't the property of the "seller". So, my buy is not illegal "per se", it is however the right of the original owner to demand the return of the stolen property, wherever that is found and even in the hands of someone that bought/paid for it in good faith.

But I don't think that is the case here. The case here (I'm speculating, of course) is that someone bought the game from Sony with the condition that he couldn't re-sell it before a given date. He did re-sell it before that date. So what? There is liability for breach of contractual obligation, no doubt. BUT ... the guy that bought the product/game to play (the consummer) is NOT in anyway part of the contract between Sony and the company that sold the game.

Of course we may be talking about stolen discs here and therefore all this could be different.

PS - I'm very sorry but my basic English doesn't allow me any kind of "technical" discussion (only casual talk), so what I tried to say, being technical, may not have resulted clear. Anyway, did my best.

 

[niky]

If you buy something that's stolen, you're in possession of stolen property and are legally liable, whether or not you had foreknowledge it was stolen. Which means if you're caught with it, you have to give it back to whomever it was stolen from. But if you buy the Hope Diamond from a street hawker... you should be prepared for when Interpol comes knocking at your door...

If these are pre-release discs that were sold, there was probably a lease-contract that was violated when the first party sold it... (leased means the first party doesn't own it)... which would make it "stolen".

However, I don't know if these copies were pre-release review discs that were stolen, beta-tests that were purloined, or actual production copies that fell of the truck... so I can't comment further. What I can say is that Sony is very thorough when going after what it perceives is foul use of its intellectual property on Youtube.

 

[Jump_Ace]

/\ Yea so if you find yourself with a disc, just enjoy the game, keep quiet and don't play online until the game is actually released. Well that's what I would do if I had the game

Jerome

 

[Hun200kmh]

If you buy something that's stolen, you're in possession of stolen property and are legally liable, whether or not you had foreknowledge it was stolen.

Ok, here is probably where our legal systems differ. If I don't know I am in possession of stolen property I'm not liable.

Of course the contract I did when I bought it can be annuled (by the rightful owner) because the item I bought wasn't a property of the seller. If it is, the item must be returned to the rightful owner.

In this case, the seller is liable both before the original owner and before me (in both cases, civil and criminal offenses have been made by this person or entity)

If I knew I was buying stolen property, what you wrote applies, of course.

 

[opelgt1969]

Ok, here is probably where our legal systems differ. If I don't know I am in possession of stolen property I'm not liable.

Of course the contract I did when I bought it can be annuled (by the rightful owner) because the item I bought wasn't a property of the seller. If it is, the item must be returned to the rightful owner.

In this case, the seller is liable both before the original owner and before me (in both cases, civil and criminal offenses have been made by this person or entity)

If I knew I was buying stolen property, what you wrote applies, of course.

So if someone would walk up to you today and try to sell you a copy of "GT5" would you think it's OK since the games not on the market yet!

 

[Hun200kmh]

So if someone would walk up to you today and try to sell you a copy of "GT5" would you think it's OK since the games not on the market yet!

I'm not saying here what I think, I'm talking about legal consequences.

What you just described can happen (and it does) without any legal problem. We all know that in some countries people are able to buy the games a few days before the official release date, because retailers there just don't care. I think I remember this happening with GT4 or Gt5P in at least one middle-eastern country.

In such a case, why wouldn't you buy it? Out of respect for Sony's worldwide preset release date you heard about in gtplanet? Fair enough, keep the money in your wallet a few more days, it's your choice but either way your buy will be absolutely normal. As I said, if the seller is the owner of the product it is indeed his problem if by selling it today he is breaching contractual obligations towards Sony.

Almost the same situation, but this time you suspect the person/entity that is selling you the exact same (genuine) product is not its owner and that the product may have been stolen from someone else ... if you buy you can of course be liable (both in civil and criminal courts).

What I was trying to say is that it depends on what you know or should reasonably (under normal circumstances) know. That's why the phrase I quoted from nikys post isn't correct in my legal system.