Take-Two Loses Another Round in Court 88
IntelliAdmin writes "A federal judge refused a request from Take-Two Interactive Software to immediately dismiss some claims in a lawsuit accusing it of selling Grand Theft Auto videogames containing sexually explicit images under the wrong content label." From the article: "Take-Two and its subsidiary, Rockstar Games, had argued in the motion to dismiss parts of the lawsuit that the plaintiffs could only file claims in the states where they resided, not in all 50 states. But U.S. District Judge Shirley Wohl Kram denied Take-Two's motion and said she would reconsider if class-action status were granted in the case."
Dear Government, (Score:4, Insightful)
Sincerely,
Crying For Society....
For the love! (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is NOT that Rockstar included sexually explicit content in their game. The problem is that they released it under a rating that did not include knowledge of the sexually explicit material. Saying something like: "if children seeing polyboobies is a problem then blah blah blah" is a completely misleading statement.
This has absolutely NOTHING to do with children seeing boobies. It's the fact that Rockstar didn't DECLARE there were boobies to the ESRB. If a parent doesn't care about their child seeing digital boobs, then let the parent make an informed decision about the product up front. But stop saying that there's a problem with society because children seeing digital boobs is causing such a commotion. It's not.
Still don't get this... (Score:3, Insightful)
Why hasn't Rockstar/Take Two launched counter-suits against people who have used the Hot Coffee hack and are outraged by it?
Re:Granted the whole thing was an easter egg but . (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know what the ESRB was supposed to do. They could've played the entire game, found all the hidden packages, completed every mission, achieved 100% completion of the game, and they'd still not have found the inaccessible digital boobs.
Re:For the love! (Score:5, Insightful)
That distinction will be hard to explain to the laypeople that will make up the jury in the case, but someone who's posting on "News for Nerds" should be able to grasp it.
Re:Dear Government, (Score:3, Insightful)
If seeing polyboobies is REALLY a significant problem for our children...
Polyboobies were never really the issue. It has always been about political opportunism and legal extortion (otherwise know as frivolous lawsuits). Look at anyone who stands to benefit from this lawsuit and one sees this is the case.
There are reasons to be distressed about this issue, but the issue of concern is a justice system that is driven by, or at least manipulated by, ambition and avarice. The issues surrounding this game are only excuses.
I am not really disagreeing with you, I just think the problem is much deeper than simple sexual provincialism. Regrettably, I don't have a solution.
Re:For the love! (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree in the sense that my values are similar to yours. I disagree that you or I should enforce our sensitibilities on other people. If a parent doesn't want his/her kid seeing said polyboobies, who am I to tell that person they are wrong? Who am I to tell you what your kids can or cannot see? In this case, it's simply a matter of making the information available on the box. (as opposed to being about whether or not an 18 year old can buy the game.) The games should be advertised properly.
Re:For the love! (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe that according to Fair Use rights in the USA, the entity that purchased your piece of furniture has the right to use it in any way they see fit, including dismantling it. You have no say in usage. If the erotic depictions fall under the accepted definition of pornography, then yeah, you might be selling porn. (Although intent might play a role.)
The difference may be in the fact that when you buy Software (according to the EULA), you are purchasing a license to use the software, and are granted certain rights to the Software. If the EULAs are to be believed (and enforceable), your rights still apply, but not directly to the Software. The Software has now become a separate entity from the transaction. You may do whatever you like with your usage, but from the definitions, it means either using the software according to how the manufacturer decides, or not using it at all. We don't get to deconstruct and re-define what "usage" means, because if we do, we are (in theory) restricted from usage of the Software at all, since we in no way have purchased it.
Video games have no standard "click OK to agree" EULA, though I imagine it is implied. The consoles themselves contain software which the manufacturers may try to argue falls under the same sort of thing when people try to mod them. So in the case of GTA:San Andreas, if Take-Two has only sold the usage of the product, the application of a mod goes beyond the scope of their intended usage. But seeing as EULAs are in a grey area, they probably won't want to use it as a defense. But if the person that bought it was just exercising Fair Use rights, then Take-Two may very well be at fault.
Comparing physical and intangible objects is pretty silly anyway. We could try to reverse the argument to a Chair. A person could only sit in the Chair upright, with both feet flat on the floor, could not in any way modify the Chair, does not actually own the chair, and especially could not have two or more people in the chair at one time. The person would have the ability to easily make one copy of the Chair, but only to put in the basement for storage, and may not be used. It becomes absurd.
No doubt I've got a bunch of holes in my crazy logic, but maybe copyright law is crazy.