UbiSoft Goof Lets Porn URL Into Rainbow Six

Thanks to CNN Money for their article revealing that an enterprising webmaster has purchased a URL featured in UbiSoft's tactical action Xbox title Rainbow Six 3, and constructed a pornographic website hub around it. According to the story, a "level set in a garage with posters adorning the wall" features a specific website address, and "Texan Tony Ashcraft was one of the early buyers of the game and noted the URL as he played. Thinking the link might feature ancillary information on the game, he told me he typed it into his browser, only to find no one owned the domain. On Nov. 22, he bought it and immediately filled it with porn links." Ashcraft, interviewed for the piece, says: "My intentions were to try to build up traffic and then sell the domain... If they ask me just to change it... they would have to have a pretty compelling reason. If they were interested in buying the domain, then we could talk."

Comments

Utterly misleading

[Anonymous Coward]

They didn't let an existing porn URL into the game, which is what I inferred from the article title; they just made the mistake of including an unclaimed viable URL address.

Cybersquatting?

[Mighty Eris]

Would this count as squatting? Obviously, Ubi Soft wasn't planning on doing anything with this, but they'll probably want to not advertise porn in their games. Seems like a slightly less sleazy variant on the usual squatting extortion scheme.

Re:Cybersquatting?

[\\]

Why would it be cybersquatting? He's obviously doing something with the domain, and he's willing to sell it to whoever will pay his price.

UbiSoft was stupid for not registering and controlling the domain in the first place, in this day and age they should've known better.

I find it really sad that anyone can accuse this guy of cybersquatting when he's just being an entrepreneur, no matter how sleazy.

Re:Cybersquatting?

[Ieshan]

The reason UbiSoft has a good argument is pretty clear. Suppose JK Rowling's book became an overnight success and one of the first readers went out and bought hogwarts.com.

Then, being an "entrepeneur", he turned it into a porn site.

It's no different. The only reason why the URL was purchased is because of someone making cash off of someone else's work.

Re:Cybersquatting?

[El]

If UbiSoft can yank this domain away from the registered owner just because it was published in one of their games, then what's to stop them from publishing 10,000 URLs in their next game and claiming ownership of any of those that somebody tries to register? There is only one way to reserve a domain name: register it! Register it before anybody else does!

All right boys and girls ...

[Kleedrac2]

... the word of the article is ... Capitolism. There is nothing wrong with this. I'm not saying I condone this guy's right to make a high-traffic pr0n portal, but I would say the fault lies with Ubisoft. And the moral of the story, always check your links before you release them to the general public!
Kleedrac

And that's why...

[lightspawn]

if you're going to post a URL in your game/movie/etc, make sure it exists (like CSI did with http://ladyheather.com/ ) or that it can't exist (nonexistant TLD, illegal characters etc).

It's like making sure your characters' phone numbers start with 555.

GTA

[tprime]

In the Grand Theft Auto III and VC games, many "fictional" web sites are advertised on the radio stations (pogo the monkey, etc.) All of these URLs were purchased, by TakeTwo, prior to the games being released and were realistically filled with content that corresponded to the in game advertisements. It kind of added another aspect of realism to the game, while at the same time kept anyone else from registering the web sites and using them for their own agenda.

The Ubisoft was simply careless in their production of the game and the gamer had every right to take advantage of that mistake. This is not cybersqatting because it does not infringe upon the copyright of Ubisoft nor does it violate any fair-use guidelines.

Re:Ubi soft should....

[Anonymous Coward]

I would guess it would work fine for the pc version. Not everyone would keep up with the latest patches, but certainly the people who are into the game enough to notice the url and actually point their browsers to it would be the type of person to patch their games.

Is it really that horrible?

[maihadi]

I haven't seen the site but I have to wonder why it would be so bad. We have so many games that showcase extreme violence that even a kid's parents will let them play but oh no...not nudity or sex! Not that violence and sex should be associated with each other. We can see someone getting blown to pieces in a game but any nudity would be horrific. Is sex worse than violence? Oh, and I'm not trying to denounce gaming or anything because I do play them.

Who is liable for children seeing this URL?

[FauxReal]

I'm just wondering... is it the parents' fault for allowing children to play a ESRB mature rated game? Is it UbiSoft's faulf for being asleep at the wheel? Or is it the guy who set up the porno portal? He did knowingly buy a domain that minors will see a reference to in a video game and then set it up with porn links.

I suppose it doesn't matter since it is rated mature by the ESRB and any responsible *cough* game retailer wouldn't sell it to a kid anyway.

Hmmmm... naybe when it comes down to it, the issue is between this guy and UbiSoft's pocketbooks.

Possibly not UbiSoft's fault

[zero_offset]

All but the largest interactive multimedia companies get their artwork done by external graphic arts companies on a contractual basis. Granted, someone at UbiSoft is probably responsible for reviewing those assets, but even then it isn't too surprising -- I've been in that environment and I know how things can slip through when the deadline is looming.

It's legal

[spotteddog]

Just look at WARNING PORNO SITE http://www.whitehouse.com vs WARNING US GOVT SITE http://www.whitehouse.gov

If Billy and Dubya couldn't get this changed, UbiSoft shouldn't be able to either.