Comments on: Star Wars: Daily Star Apologises To Rockstar

By: 5p.

5p. — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 15:00:47 +0000

@thebigJ_A:

My thoughts exactly. I wouldn’t even say that Rockstar has suffered at all in this case – the article is so patently ludicrous that nobody even remotely familiar with games would have accepted it as fact, so they haven’t lost any sales. The one who’s suffered most as a result of that article is the poor old lady; she deserves to be told.

By: Blue

Blue — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 19:47:38 +0000

Oh, I wouldn’t call that one an “attempt,” sir. I think he definitely succeeded with the “total prat” bit.

By: TheTingler

TheTingler — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 03:50:32 +0000

We can arrange that. Just let me get my raping stick!

By: Heligohackster

Heligohackster — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 19:19:50 +0000

@funkybadger the law has always been that way – usually most of, if not all, the people that the claimant knows about go on the writ, but the publisher/newspaper group invariably picks up the tab.

By: Stephen

Stephen — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 12:04:20 +0000

Although there’s something weird about bringing up Canadian law when talking about an English newspaper (you’d rarely see it when talking about anything else – “this is how [it] works in my country – other countries are the same as mine, right?”) this happens a lot when there’s a legal element. It’s a pet peeve of mine – Canada drives on the other side of the road so there’s a law that’s different in England already.

You get to sue whoever you like in England. If you want to sue the reporter who wrote the story you don’t like you just sue them, if you want to sue the newspaper you just sue them. Some people hedge their bets and go for both. The usual practice is to sue whoever seems likely to be able to afford to pay you something if you win. That side of it turns out not to have too much of an effect on investigative journalism because it’s better for you to sue the paper that published it and get a retraction that way (there are other things in libel law in England that are bad for investigative journalism).

Generally suing an investigative journalist doesn’t get you any money (they can’t afford to pay you a settlement) and the journalist can’t always take the story down (because the paper often owns the rights to it) and just means an investigative journalist now has a grudge against you, your company and so on because you sued them.

By: Jam

Jam — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 11:55:06 +0000

That’s one, surely?

By: PHeMoX

PHeMoX — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 11:50:49 +0000

Just for the sake of getting rid of Daily Star, sue the heck out of them for this R*.

By: humble

humble — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 11:11:49 +0000

@Zogtee

I’ve been playing Manhunt 2 on my PC for at least a year. Have you checked online stores?

By: postx

postx — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 10:26:38 +0000

:D Could be a mission about a tabloid paper.. or chasing a reporter

By: Jerricho

Jerricho — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 09:27:27 +0000

Its implied by the usage of “news”.

By: Guildenstern

Guildenstern — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 07:51:26 +0000

It’s is pretty mild compared to other stuff those “journalists” pull off. At about same time this happened every major news outlet in the US have uncritically published racist smear against government employee that cost her her job, without doing any fact checking. I’ve wasted my outrage reserves on that story. Hmm, there’s no connection to gaming in that one… Oh wait, the guy who made Neverhood and Earthworm Jim is now working on the author of the smear. Ain’t it fun to have your childhood memories ruined.

By: TheHumanBlur

TheHumanBlur — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 06:50:16 +0000

Two titans of ethics. All we need now is Laurence Olivier with ‘Im a massive wanker’ taped to his forrid