Slashdot Mirror


Nintendo Threatens Suicidegirls Over IP Use

An anonymous reader writes "Suicidegirls (a not safe for work adult community) posted a nasty letter they received from Nintendo demanding they remove a member's page on their site because the member listed Metroid and Zelda as their favorite video games." Update: 10/28 02:49 GMT by Z : BoingBoing has an update to the story (probably where the reader saw it in the first place), saying the law firm that represents Nintendo Seattle is looking into it.

845 comments

  1. Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    And that made sort of mis... wait, girls? BOOBIES!!!! This may be the first Slashdot article I ever follow the links on.

    1. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by ArbitraryConstant · · Score: 5, Funny

      No chance of intelligent conversation in this thread. At all.

      --
      I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
    2. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      So basically you're talking about Fark...

    3. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by Hatta · · Score: 5, Funny
      Coincidentally, they advertise on the front page of /. In "MarketPlace Links" on the right.
      SuicideGirls
      The online Men's Magazine for Geeks.

      What suicide has to do with geeks, I don't know. Perhaps it's what the girls do after dating one?
      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    4. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by sgant · · Score: 1, Troll

      hehe, that's classic!

      Mod this up as funny!

      --

      "Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
    5. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by the+arbiter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're a prude. Feel better?

      What you really wanted was for one of us liberal "First Amendment" ACLU-types to get offended by your flamebait post and respond in insulting, hostile and/or crass terms, proving your moral superiority. I'm not going to give you the satisfaction.

      There is a line. It's called the First Amendment. And Slashdot's been quite responsible enough in this matter, by bringing to light yet another attempt by a mega-corporation to cram our rights into the wastebasket.

      If you're not into porn, good for you. Don't look at it. Post volumes, should you wish, anywhere that you're allowed to, on how evil and horrible and destructive you consider porn to be. But don't you dare interfere with my right to look at and enjoy it, for I do have that right. That's my business...it is surely none of yours.

      --
      Boycott everything - they're all trying to fuck you one way or another
    6. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by sgant · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Lol, this is even funnier than the parent!

      What you really wanted was for one of us liberal "First Amendment" ACLU-types to get offended by your flamebait post and respond in insulting, hostile and/or crass terms, proving your moral superiority. I'm not going to give you the satisfaction.

      Then you go ahead and DO respond as a "First Amendment" ACLU-type! Don't you see the irony in that?

      Irony, the most sublime of the humors.

      --

      "Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
    7. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Geek guys tend to like goth women. Don't know why.

    8. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh, then you would love this site

      www.bellavendetta.com

      a site run by a female might i add.

    9. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by orangesquid · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I sort of agree. I have talked to a few people who do nude or adult modelling who have reached a point of maturity about the issue to where they are happy with what they do and are not bothered by the fact that a significant portion of their audience is, well, lusting after them.

      They are very appreciative of the portion of their audience that appreciates them as human beings and not objects; that's the same portion of the audience that gets off by enjoying the pornographic atmosphere in a deep way, rather than just ogling over eyecandy. SG actually tries to cater more to that type of person than the pr0n-hoarding AOL'er.

      But, I don't think a link belongs on slashdot, given that MANY people read /. from work (for better or worse).

      I also think it's unfortunate that a fair bit of the amateur porn out there is a bunch of desperate girls in college who can't afford their tuition, but, I'm not really sure what to do about that social issue, and I don't thing censuring porn (and thus pushing it farther underground, which some claim is a factor in the harm of voyeuristic child abuse (kiddie porn) and teenage drug use.. err... somehow that didn't come out right (legalizing those things doesn't make them harmless, obviously), but I hope you know what I'm trying to say) is going to fix the problem, though...

      --
      --TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive
    10. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The thing is, while they are posting links to it, it's not an ad. The links are being posted because the "megacorp" has decided that for one of their members to say "I like Metroid" is not right.

      I remember when one of my friends (in grade school) called Mother Brain (of Metroid fame) Mother Hemorroid. (Yes I know I misspelled that. I'm too lazy to look up how to really spell it.) Do you think Nintendo will sue me now for saying that?

    11. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Uhm, I happen to like SG, it's probably the closest thing to a "porn site" that I'd ever visit. Most porn is garbage, but I love the look of those beautiful girls!

      Aside: how come whenever one or two people are "offended" by something, they make noise and it's taken down/removed/banned, but the thousands or millions of people that AREN'T offended just sit there?

      That's always bugged me. Maybe it's just the way I think, but letting people *choose* seems to make more sense. Because the people that don't like it can choose to avoid it, and the people that do like can, well, choose it!

      So I'm gonna have to stick up for SG and say that I want to see it on slashdot's front page, EVERY DAY!!!!

    12. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by Izago909 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I find the site offensive as an objectification of women, and think it is socially detrimental as it fosters a focus on prurient interests.
      Just because you don't like bondage and S&M doesn't mean that your opinion should be forced on others. Your protest should begin and end with you refusing to view said site and making no payments. Otherwise... well... opinions are like assholes, everybody has one.

      I'm sure there are those who will argue about freedoms and consenting adults and such, but I always wonder where one should begin to draw the line on such things.
      You think there should be a "line" for what consenting adults do in their own privacy? Are we a fan of small government... so small it fits into the bedroom?

      Clearly many would object to advertisement to sites that promote bestiality or child pornography.
      People are sheep, they will protest whatever a stronger, more influental person tells them too. Hence religion.

      So call me a prude and mod me as flamebait, but I vainly hope that Slashdot will show a little bit of social responsibility.
      So is that subversive for religous responsibility? Morality is a highly subjective topic. I'm sure there are people out there that find women with more than 2^2 inches of exposed skin a threat to society. I'm also sure there are people out there that find all clothing a threat to society. How about we let /. post whatever the hell the editors want, and as mature, responsible adults we decide for ourselves what to look at instead of relying on a higher censoring authority to make that decision for us. The internet is not a babysitter.

      I submit that if a site is not suitable for work, there should not be a damn hot link to it on Slashdot's front page.
      I submit you are smoking crack.
    13. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by ArbitraryConstant · · Score: 1

      No, I'm not. Fark is completely different.

      For one thing, on Fark people would be posting barely SFW pictures.

      --
      I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
    14. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by spacefrog · · Score: 3, Funny

      Grunt

      Moan

      YEEEEEEEES

      What was that, again?

    15. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by farmhick · · Score: 1

      Many of us here are very happy you have a job at which you can be offended about the ads or articles that appear on Slashdot's "front page".

      For those of us sitting in our own home, hoping that job we applied to on Monster yesterday comes through, the argument seems rather idiotic. If you don't want your boss seeing you wasting time at work with a site that mentions adult sites, stop reading Slashdot at work.

      As for your argument (which I am sure you want to use in a reply) that you are doing 'research' that is vitally important to your job, yeah right. I used that rationalization at my last job too. It wasn't the reason I lost my job, but it was one reason that kept me from doing my job better so that I could keep my job.

      --
      I have to stop wasting so much time reading Slashdot. It's interfering with my crystal meth addiction.
    16. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SG just wants to be playboy, except it's already been done. So they had to find a gimmick. And goth chicks is it. But if you go out and figure out a little about the "culture" of the site, you'll find it's ten times more corporate and whorish than pretty much any other porn site on the net.

    17. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by empaler · · Score: 2, Informative

      The link itself is to an unobjectionable page.

    18. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by Gentlewhisper · · Score: 3, Insightful

      " Geek guys tend to like goth women. Don't know why."

      Maybe it is this "opposites attract" theory. Geek men want DIFFERENT women

    19. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by KarmaMB84 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I submit that the grandparent shouldn't be looking at Slashdot at work to begin with.

    20. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by Lonath · · Score: 4, Funny

      Irony, the most sublime of the humors.

      Almost like a black fly in your Chardonnay...

    21. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by bnenning · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But, I don't think a link belongs on slashdot, given that MANY people read /. from work (for better or worse).

      So what? If your workplace is so anal that you can get in trouble for bringing up a page with a *link* to an adult site, then they're probably also not happy with you reading Slashdot in the first place.

      --
      How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
    22. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many of use here are very happy you lost you're job reading the ads or articles that appear on Slashdot's "front page".

      For those of us sitting at our desk, managing our Slashdot addiction so that is does affect our productivity too much, the argument seems pretty idiotic... If everyone who didnt want their boss to see them at work wasting time on adult sites stopped reading Slashdot, the site would lose many of its dearest members.

      As for your argument... (Which you just used in the original message) that you used that rationalization at your last job, yeah right. It wasn't the reason you lost your job, but it was a symptom of the stupidity that kept you from doing your job so you could keep your job.

    23. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by orangesquid · · Score: 1

      Hah, true...

      --
      --TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive
    24. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by Wes+Janson · · Score: 1

      Bravo. My thoughts precisely..with slightly less anger than I would have likely used.

    25. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone find it strange that every post in this thread saying something negative about SG is modded down? And anyone who talks about how great SG is (many of them AC) gets modded up?

      It is dissapointing that Slashdot has sunk to the level of porn advertising.

    26. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by jcr · · Score: 1

      I find the site offensive as an objectification of women, and think it is socially detrimental as it fosters a focus on prurient interests.

      Well, it's your prerogative to be offended! Are you enjoying it?

      I always wonder where one should begin to draw the line on such things.

      Depends on what line you're talking about. If you're talking about what you choose to view, then draw the line at chadors versus burkas if you like. If you're talking about choosing what anyone else is allowed to view, then let me just point out that your approval is neither sought nor required. If your tastes don't coincide with the editors of slashdot, but you still want to read this site, then I guess it sucks to be you.

      I vainly hope that Slashdot will show a little bit of social responsibility.

      Slashdot consistently shows social responsibility by standing up for our right to free expression. Got a problem with that?

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    27. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by farmhick · · Score: 1

      Mr Freud, you slipped on something.

      And thanks for the laugh.

      --
      I have to stop wasting so much time reading Slashdot. It's interfering with my crystal meth addiction.
    28. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by jb.hl.com · · Score: 1

      That post just made me laugh my fucking ass off. I have no idea why :)

      --
      By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
    29. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by HangingChad · · Score: 5, Funny
      No chance of intelligent conversation in this thread. At all.

      You say that like it's a bad thing.

      --
      That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    30. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look, I have no beef with your right to porn. I have even argued the benefits of porn to others more prudish than myself. I simply find it disturbing and disappointing that advertisements for it appear on a site that I depend on for technical "news".

      And the fact that porn does not lack redeeming qualities does not alter the fact that it promotes the objectification of women and appeals to one's prurient interests. Let everyone decide for themselves how positive or negative such an influence may be. I merely expressed a heart-felt objection to it in this venue.

    31. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by milkman_matt · · Score: 5, Funny

      No chance of intelligent conversation in this thread. At all.

      You say that like it's a bad thing.


      Or uncommon :)

      -matt

    32. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by hiryuu · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Humans by nature want to make the world a grey situation but it could be very easily black and white if we [wanted] it to be.

      So who gets to define that black and white you mention so easily? You? Your religious leaders or inspiration? Your political party of choice? What gives any of them a greater right to define those absolutes than anyone else?

      You can argue that moral relativism sucks, and in practical application I might sometimes agree, but the absolutes it would seem often get proposed are based on belief, and belief is subjective and quite individual.

      --
      Karma: Excellent, but still won't get you laid.
    33. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry to hear that you lost your job, and I hope that your search is successful and rewarding.

      As for me, the code is checked in, the junit tests are good, the javadoc is done, and the inspections have passed. We are currently between architecture meetings, and awaiting specs from some government agency that may not respond for weeks. Reading Slashdot will probably never get me into serious trouble. Unwittingly clicking a porn link could be a disaster.

    34. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Otherwise... well... opinions are like assholes, everybody has one."

      i don't have one you insensitive ass!

    35. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clearly the inmates are running the asylum.

    36. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by maddskillz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And Fark would be a bunch of guys says "I'd hit that" or being pissed off that she has fake boobs

    37. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 3, Funny

      Then they'd kick it in the box and shove it because your dog wants steak and hilarity would ensue.

    38. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sorry, had to get this in at the top...

      how do we know if this email is even valid? how do we know it actually came from a nintendo rep?

      it could be a fake.
      it could be a fake manufactured by SG to get a slashdot topic created for them.

      can anybody prove that nintendo actually was the source of this email?

    39. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ...doesn't mean that your opinion should be forced on others. Your protest should begin and end with you refusing to view said site and making no payments...

      Help! You're forcing your opinion on me, and it isn't by withholding payments from my website!

    40. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by mollymoo · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Geek men want DIFFERENT women

      If they want DIFFERENT women they shouldn't go for a goth.

      Being a goth is not different. You can spot a goth, right? How can they be different when they are so, well, similar? I'm not saying all goths are goths because they want to be different, just the stupid "teenage rebellion" ones.

      Clue: If you want to be different, don't try to be different in exactly the same fucking way as a whole bunch of other people.

      --
      Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
    41. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by Bachus9000 · · Score: 3, Funny

      ..and here comes the science!

      Oh, and at some point France would surrender.

    42. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by Eric119 · · Score: 1

      So who gets to define that black and white you mention so easily? You? Your religious leaders or inspiration? Your political party of choice? What gives any of them a greater right to define those absolutes than anyone else?

      1. Everybody has an equal right to define things. They may be wrong of course.

      2. Actually, nobody defines them. It's just what they are.

      3. Logically, some things must necessarily be black and white.

      You can argue that moral relativism sucks, and in practical application I might sometimes agree, but the absolutes it would seem often get proposed are based on belief, and belief is subjective and quite individual.

      You're using relativism to support relativism. You're begging the question. What one believes does not affect the actual truth (unless possibly if the truth is a statement about a belief).

    43. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by Genda · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I find the site offensive as an objectification of women, and think it is socially detrimental as it fosters a focus on prurient interests.

      You should at least go to the trouble of reading a little about that which you criticize. Did you even bother to read what SG is, who run's it, where and why it was created, or what the whole point to the page is? Clearly not, by your comment.

      It doesn't take a webpage to objectify women, that happens everyday while we're breathing... it does take brave, smart, woman/women with attitude to turn objectification into a platform for self expression. The fact that these women are sexy is precisely because these women are sexually powerful, proud, and are absolutely clear at the inside out, upside down insanity of this culture. Putting a page out, to turn objectification against itself, is genius.

      Intelligent, artistic men, have always been intrigued by women who are smart, beautiful, iconoclastic, and have attitude. That however, is a byproduct of the site, not it's primary purpose. It allows this site to get empowerment, and subvert the dominant paradigm.

      I applaud these women, and as far as I can see, it's all upside.

      I'm sure there are those who will argue about freedoms and consenting adults and such, but I always wonder where one should begin to draw the line on such things. Clearly many would object to advertisement to sites that promote bestiality or child pornography. I submit that if a site is not suitable for work, there should not be a damn hot link to it on Slashdot's front page.

      So should we hide Michelangello's David, because certain gay men might find it purient? How about "Venus rising from the foam", a tremendous amount of classical art was the pornography of it's day. What about differing standards and cultures? To a Mullah, any woman with any hair or skin showing is obscene. To an Amazonian tribesman, nudity is the norm, and there is no meaning to the word "objectification". Even inside of our own culture... During Elizabethan times, bare breasts were perfectly acceptable, but a bare ankle or uncovered head was absolutely scandalous.

      Who would you have secure the air waves, webspace, or any other venue for human interaction. Would you use the lowest common denominator for all human culture. That would certainly leave a pretty barren space with which to share and trade ideas.

      Our Puritan heritage has left us with terrible discomfort and dis-ease with regards to sex and sexuallity. One must be concerned about bestiality and child pornography, not because sex is involved, but because it's a violent act committed against a helpless being that hasn't the capacity to protect or defend itself. The sexualization of these act, like the sexualization of rape, actually get's in the way of properly responding to these heinous acts. Sex is not evil. Women who are proudly sexual are not evil. Human skin is not evil. In fact, the very idea of making these things evil perpetuates the sad behaviors of objectification, prejudice, abuse, fear, violence, and addiction. One doesn't make these problems go away, by avoiding the subject of sex. One makes them go away, by addressing the fear and ignorance surrounding the subject, and in this case the Suicide Girls are providing a wonderful service to those with the intelligence, and human dignity, to step beyond their own phobic behavior.

      If I were interested in porn, it is easy enough to find.

      But how many sites can you find, that have real women, no artificial colorings, or flavors added? Where can you find artists, and scholars, strutting their stuff because they are proud of who they are? Where can you go to find a site that shows skin because the women want it that way, more than the men who pander to it? Where can you go to read a woman's thoughts... and trust me, that's way sexier than her skin. Tell me of a site where women display their beauty, and find there isn't a "Stepford Wife" in the bunch. That's why this sit

    44. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by mollymoo · · Score: 1
      Irony, the most sublime of the humors.

      Almost like a black fly in your Chardonnay...

      But that's not ironic!

      Oh, wait...

      --
      Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
    45. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by ZB+Mowrey · · Score: 2, Interesting
      You only think it's strange because of your own preconceived notions about how other people should think. ;)

      Given that moderator points are (supposedly) distributed at random, and that hundreds, if not thousands, of mod points are spent in the making of post ranks... I would say this is likely a good indicator that there are a bunch of porn lovers out there, and not as many porn haters. ;) ;)

      You could consider this a clue, but it is not mandatory.

      --

      Self-referential sigs are rarely entertaining.

    46. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ...Are you enjoying it?...

      Let see, so far my post has been modded: Flamebait, Off-topic, Interesting, Insightful, Under-rated and Funny. (Yes, I have far too much time on my hands today).

      So am I enjoying it? ...Sure.

      I'm regretting the karma hit, though, so I guess I won't sincerely speak my mind from now on.

      ...standing up for our right to free expression...

      Is that where Slashdot's social responsibility begins and ends?

    47. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good luck on the job search. Seriously.

      And if we're going to bring up freud. . . chances are, if you were reading slashdot at work, you really didn't like your job. And if you really don't like your job, chances are you won't be there long, either through your own decision or the decision of others. (Hint: it's usually better when you make the decision.)

      OTOH, if you had a great job and loved it, you might have other problems that we're not going to solve on slashdot (no, not even on ask slashdot!). You might be self sabotaging.

      Either way, best of lock on getting a really good job that you'll love and do well at.

      (posting anonymously so as not to lose my troll cred)

    48. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by zoeith · · Score: 1

      ... or both.

      --
      Zoeith
    49. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, it's your prerogative to be offended! Are you enjoying it?

      Heh heh. A standout line in an outstanding post.

    50. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have to say this.. IT IS. It's in the marketplace links on the right hand side of the page, claiming to be a gentleman's magazine or something.

    51. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by jcr · · Score: 1

      ..standing up for our right to free expression...

      Is that where Slashdot's social responsibility begins and ends?


      Your question makes no sense. What obligations do you propose /. should have?

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    52. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by necrognome · · Score: 1

      Whatever. b00bies rock. :)

      --


      Let's get drunk and delete production data!
    53. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by jcr · · Score: 1

      But how many sites can you find, that have real women, no artificial colorings, or flavors added?

      Plenty, but SG sure isn't one of them... "Oh, my GOD! You're so UNIQUE! Tatoos and mutilation? That's so completely non-conformist, I think I'm going to have a seizure!"

      The whole S&M/punk thing has gotten so freakin' standardized and clichéd, I just have to laugh at the idea that SG "subverts" anything.

      SG: for all the people who are try like hell to be unique, and only succeed in being peculiar.

      All that being said, I don't see any reason for /. to refuse to sell ad space to SG, unless they want to avoid boring their readers to tears.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    54. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by Mitchell+Mebane · · Score: 1

      Well, actually, if you have any contact at all with the outside world, I have a right to care. Everything we do affects hwo we live, whether we know it or not.

      --

      The roots of education are bitter, but the fruit is sweet.
      --Aristotle
    55. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by Foktip · · Score: 0

      By the look of things, Yes.

    56. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      I think you're on to something there, I'm dating an athlete.

      Jaysyn

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    57. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by Valiss · · Score: 1

      You call that irony? Is your name Alanis?

      --

      -Valiss
    58. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So let me guess. You're applying for a job with Nintendo. Or their law firm.

    59. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not good PR.

      Check out this posting in response. Funny as hell.

      http://www.inkslut.net

    60. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by feed_me_cereal · · Score: 2, Informative

      uh, he never implied he wasn't a "First Amendment" ACLU-type. It would only be ironic if he would "respond in insulting, hostile and/or crass terms, proving [their] moral superiority." In fact, that statement implied he was an ACLU-type, and that contrary to the original poster's expectations, he was not going to lose his nerve.

      --
      "Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson
    61. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by myth_of_sisyphus · · Score: 1

      In the goth scene here in San Francisco I've known a couple suicide girls (not in the biblical sense) and been to their burlesque show.

      I think I can safely say that they would be the first to object to their "objectification." In fact, you'd get a few red whelts for even implying that they are being objectified.

      They're sexy and if they can make a few bucks taking artful pictures and cavorting onstage making out with each other then all the better for them. Why hide all those lovely tattoos and piercings under clothes for god's sakes???

    62. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      someone could've given out a warning about the content on the site, I for one did NOT wanna see those messed up ... girls... And why are they even alive? Nothing made sence on that site.

    63. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by freakmn · · Score: 3, Funny

      I know my grandparents don't, they couldn't probably find it with a search engine. They are good people and all, but the computer is not their forte, much as using french words is not mine.

      --
      warning: This post is likely to contain gobs of dripping sarcasm. Consume at your own risk.
    64. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "as mature, responsible adults..."

      You must be new here. Welcome to Slashdot. You'll find that the rest of your post fits right in, but you'll want to watch that last part.

      Have fun! :-)

    65. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by forgetful_ca · · Score: 1

      "Slashdot" (in the way that you mean it) doesn't moderate, you do. And I do. And the 'clueless fuckwit' does. Drop the paranoia, not everything is subtly controlled by shadowy background figures.

    66. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by hiryuu · · Score: 4, Insightful

      1. Everybody has an equal right to define things. They may be wrong of course.

      And far be it from me to deny someone the right to their definitions, though I would necessarily deny them the right to dictate mine. (Barring points of obvious exception, such as gun-to-the-head, etc.)

      2. Actually, nobody defines them. It's just what they are.

      Oh, come now - we're not discussing HTML color codes, or even portions of the visible spectrum. We're talking about moral absolutes versus moral relativism. If you want to discuss how relativism in its purest form advocates anarchy, and how to best mediate this in societal function to prevent collapse of the human community, that's one thing. But to indicate that there are actual moral absolutes when we can't even quantify the "best" text editor is kind of silly, in my thoughts.

      Often, those who advocate a specific morality base such upon their religious beliefs. I'm not saying that makes them inherently wrong, but at their core, religious beliefs are items of faith, not fact. They are not quantifiable or scientifically provable or dis-provable. They are neither correct nor incorrect, and they are as varied and variable as the day is long.

      Do they make a good starting point for a discussion on agreed-upon moral standards? Sure. History shows it's far from an easy discussion, and someone claiming their side is in the "right" simply because their faith says it to be true doesn't lend credibility to their argument. Show me, for example, that it's not in the community's best interest to presume guilt first, and illustrate the benefits of erring on the side of caution, thinking things through, etc., and we're having a viable discussion about agreed-upon standards of moral conduct. Tell me, however, that your religious beliefs dictate that you know what's best for me and that your decision about it supercedes mine, that your choice in my life is more important than mine - and it's no longer a discussion.

      3. Logically, some things must necessarily be black and white.

      Again, by whose standards? The logic follows only if the assumed premise (morality is physical fact, immutable truth) is correct. I'll agree that standards are necessary, but someone claiming a moral high-ground based on their beliefs and opinions is not contributing to the facts. It sounds as silly as Manifest Destiny.

      Morality is necessary, but realize it is not immutable fact or truth. It is an agreement that is generally (to greater or lesser degree, varying from topic-to-topic) accepted by a populace. "Thou shalt not kill," for example - I think we can (mostly) agree on that. There are plenty of others (many related to sexuality, since so many people are so messed up about that) where there's not a whole lot of consensus going on. Should one wish to bring their religious beliefs or personal opinions to a discussion of morality, fine - but let's keep it a discussion, and not a dictated demand.

      --
      Karma: Excellent, but still won't get you laid.
    67. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you need to visit this page if you want to gather more info about this so called it's not porn, but art(women expressing themselves) website.

      http://www.livejournal.com/community/sgirls/

    68. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by Babbster · · Score: 5, Insightful
      "They [nude/adult models] are very appreciative of the portion of their audience that appreciates them as human beings and not objects..."

      Excuse me? You mean the portion of their audience that sends, for example, Christy Canyon letters talking about how the first beautiful thing about her they noticed was the intelligent look in her eyes and the appreciation they have for her non-sex acting ability? Give me a break. I don't even appreciate MAINSTREAM actors - the ones I like - as "human beings"; instead, I appreciate their skill at their job. When I watch porn, what bloody interest should I have in the naked women I see on the internet, in magazines and in videos APART from how hot they are?

      Your post seems typical of the kind of drivel people spout in an effort to make themselves feel better about their guilty pleasures.

    69. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by forgetful_ca · · Score: 1

      Outstanding post, especially since it's got nothing to do with the "you are trying to intrude on my freedom and free speech" background noise. More so, since the freedom that everyone seems most worried about is the freedom to find more porn on the net.

      To the grandparent, I have to echo someone else's question: Just what 'social responisibilty' WOULD you hope for from /.? Free speech means the burden of responsibility rests on you, I'm afraid. It's not up to anyone else to net-nanny for you.

    70. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and even less conversation due to the readers whose web filters just knocked /. away due to this article.

    71. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by MayonakaHa · · Score: 1

      But still no cure for cancer

    72. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by Kevin108 · · Score: 0

      That's not ironic, that's just unfortunate.
      Ironic would be like us having to work together to hurt each other. :-D

      --

      It's a perfect time for being wasted.
      A perfect time to watch the stars.
      - Burden Brothers, "Beautiful Night"
    73. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by Scrameustache · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So call me a prude and mod me as flamebait, but I vainly hope that Slashdot will show a little bit of social responsibility

      Done, done, and the last part got you a "funny" mod : )

      I submit that if a site is not suitable for work, there should not be a damn hot link to it on Slashdot's front page.

      They say its porn, if you follow the link, you're obviously looking for porn.
      What's your problem? That there's porn out there, or that you can't resist looking at it?

      I find the site offensive as an objectification of women

      Yup, you went and looked.
      I wasn't gonna RTFA, but now, I just have to see what got your panties up in a notch...
      Ok, so the link up there points to a page devoid of porn, you'd have to keep on looking, in a site you know has porn, knowing you hate porn, to see the porn that so disturbs you.

      You need counseling. You have some unhealthy impulse to go view pornographic images and then post message about how it offends you to be given the opportunity to view pornographic images. Go see a shrink, or a priest, someone that can help you being less of a troll. Don't wanna see porn? Don't dig in the site untill you get to the porn. Simple, easy.
      Its not like they lured you to goatse under false pretense. They say its a porn site, you clicked the link, then had to dig deeper. Slashdot is a site for nerds, not puritains. Go read "bibles and angels and resisting our urges dot com" or something, if this bothers you so much.

      freedoms and consenting adults and such, I always wonder where one should begin to draw the line on such things.

      Stop wondering, its straight forward: Your freedom ends where mine begins. And vice-versa.

      Is anyone forcing to RTFA? Having read the FA, seing that it was devoid of pornographic imagery yet hosted on a pornographic site, was anyone forcing you to look deeper into the site to get to the naughty bits? Your freedom to not seing porn isn't infringed by the existance of porn sites. And when that sote makes the news, don't go see it and then complain about it. Just -don't clink the link-.

      Clearly many would object to advertisement to sites that promote bestiality or child pornography.

      Those are illegal. Clearly, the jusdicial system has drawn that line.
      And BTW, there'a absolutly no reason for you to mention these, you have horse-dick-into-preteen-virgins on the brain buddy. You're kinda sick if you ask me. I wasn't picturing any of those things until you mentioned them. Its like saying to someone "don't think about elephants". Why are you thinking about bestiality? Why do you feel the need to talk about bestiality?

      I reiterate the suggestion to go get some form of counseling to help you deal with these issues, you aren't supressing them well.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    74. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree about the SG site.

      But I'm interested to know... what's unique for you? And don't tell me that it's none of my business and you only share that with your wife. I'm not that stupid. I bet you don't even have any sexual interests right? Just wondering... cause if you can see thru SG so easily, what does it for you?

    75. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the beginning, God created the server and the internet. And the internet was without form and void, and porn was on the face of the land. And the Lord said, "Let there be hentai!" And there was hentai. And the Lord saw the hentai, that it was good. And it was evening, and it was morning, Day One.

    76. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by Scrameustache · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But, I don't think a link belongs on slashdot, given that MANY people read /. from work (for better or worse).

      So. Do what people usually do: DRTFA.
      Simple, easy, no one gets hurt.

      Its a link about internet censorship! It belongs on slashdot more than most of the crap that gets posted (and then reposted a couple more times, for luck).

      I also think it's unfortunate that a fair bit of the amateur porn out there is a bunch of desperate girls in college who can't afford their tuition

      You're right, desperate girls should not have ways to make money. They should stay poor and fully clothed and uneducated... Sheesh. If you have no money, but a nice body, and people are willing to give you money to look at it: Its a way to make ends meet. Its not the ideal way, but its either that or no money, then I'm happy they have that option. It beats having no option.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    77. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 1

      Since when is your oppinion part of our social responsibility? It's a link. You have to manualy click it before ending up on that site. It's your own and no one elses decision to click that link.
      If you don't like to see that content, you don't click the link. Simple. If you want others to believe you don't like to see such content, but can't resist to watch it, well, that's your problem.

    78. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I submit that if a site is not suitable for work, there should not be a damn hot link to it on Slashdot's front page.

      Yeah, because Slashdot is such a professional site that many people need access to as part of their work.
    79. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For those who don't have time to follow the links I posted in my last comment, or another two which I seriously urge anyone to read, here's the summary:

      Nearly ten percent of Moderation is accomplished manually by the Editorial staff, and the rest of User Moderation is accomplished by users that have not disagreed with the Editors about how to Moderate.

      5 to 18 percent of Slashdot Moderators are banned from participating in Moderation. They are also banned from participating in MetaModeration. The purpose of MetaModeration, therefore, is that of reinforcing agreement. Those who have agreed with the Editors in the past are allowed to vote on whether the Editors moderate fairly. Not surprisingly, this subset of potential MetaModerators often agrees with the Editors.

      If you really think that Slashdot is some kind of a democratic utopian free speech wet dream, you are really fooling yourself, kid. I wouldn't have even answered your post, but you are spreading your naïvete misinforming others.

    80. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by pagal_paanda · · Score: 3, Funny

      If Nintendo is able to find that tiny little mentioning of it's characters on a "gentlemen's" site, we should have them search for the Missing WMDs which I'm sure, due to physical constrains of the country, would be much easier to find for them.

    81. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by jcr · · Score: 1

      what's unique for you?

      It's a well-defined word, isn't it?

      don't tell me that it's none of my business

      Unless you're propositioning me, then it *isn't* any of your business.

      I bet you don't even have any sexual interests right?

      Of course I do. I may be 40 years old, but I'm not dead!

      what does it for you?

      Probably the same as 90+% of the men I know...

      Turn ons: intelligence, sense of humor, curiosity, friendliness, a good singing voice, to name a few.

      Turn offs: smokers, drunks, druggies, pretense, pomposity, puritanism, proselytising, guilt, misanthropy, etc.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    82. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are only demonstrating your ignorance. Try looking at the site with an impartial eye. It's a social gathering. The women there do it for pride (and perhaps for a few bucks). There are numerous female members who aspire to be Suicide Girls. The male/female ratio has to be near 1:1, which is certainly more than you would say about /. (no offense /.ers)

    83. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by zoeblade · · Score: 1

      I find the site offensive as an objectification of women

      Well yeah, that's what almsot all porn sites do at the moment. Ideally, this should change so that they won't objectify women, but how can you bring this about? It doesn't appear to be what the consumers want, unfortunately, and all companies are only interested in profits.

      Clearly many would object to advertisement to sites that promote bestiality or child pornography.

      If you're referring to the BDSM nature of the site, then I think it's about consent: adults are generally thought to be able to consent to what they get up to, whereas children and animals aren't.

      I submit that if a site is not suitable for work, there should not be a damn hot link to it on Slashdot's front page.

      If you're referring to pornography in general, then yes, it should at least have a warning (which I believe Slashdot did indeed have) if it's a relevant link, or not at all if it's unnecessary to link to it. In this case, an individual was threatened for saying they liked games by a certain company, so linking to them saying it seems pretty relevant.

    84. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by slaida1 · · Score: 1
      My point is, looking at violence could very well be damaging to society. We just tend to quietly kill the messenger whenever we hear this, because we know that the folks telling us that violence is wrong have just as many problems "upstairs" as the rest of us.

      There. More sane, don't you think?

      I really wish I could both appreciate the natural beauty of women and also keep my dirty mind off of them.

      What dirty, dirty person you are! ;) 10 ave marias at once and no dessert for one week for you, naughty boy! Hahhah.

      --
      Preserve old classics: copy your collection onto all hard drives.
    85. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by BlackHawk-666 · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's because they're so damned sexy....woof woof! But more likely it's because they are often intelligent, can hold a decent coversation, are into computers and games, and sexually confident. What's not to like about that?

      --
      All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
    86. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by sgant · · Score: 2, Funny

      Christy Canyon does have a nice set of eyes though.

      --

      "Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
    87. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by Yer+Mom · · Score: 2, Funny
      Weapons of Mario Destruction?

      Yeah, a grinning bullet eight times the height of a man should be pretty easy to spot.

      --
      Never mind Spamassassin. When's Spammerassassin coming out?
    88. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You think there should be a "line" for what consenting adults do in their own privacy? Are we a fan of small government... so small it fits into the bedroom?

      I'm pretty sure we need a line. I don't think it has much to do with S&M, but what happens when wackjob 1 convinces wackjob 2 that he should consent to having his arm cut off. It has happened, and if that doesn't cross your line then we're all in big touble.

    89. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some people prefer porn "actresses" they can relate to and have somewhat remotely plausible fantasies about, rather than models they could never imagine themselves actually sleeping with.

      Interestingly, that line of thought is usually considered "gay" among men and "normal and healthy" among women.

    90. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's right. How many of the men around here would pose naked on the internet if there were millions of women that not only wanted to see it, but would pay money to? I think the vast majority would do it. and brag about it.

    91. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by WoodenRobot · · Score: 2, Funny
      or being pissed off that she has fake boobs

      Meh. Just look at those sharp knees - she's well below my standards.

      /would so not hit it //kittens are safe ///for now

      --
      ---
      "I did nothing. I did absolutely nothing and it was everything that I thought it could be."
    92. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's nowt wrong with bestiality. I'm a beast you insensitive clod.

    93. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a trap!

    94. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by ThurstonMoore · · Score: 1
      I'm sure there are those who will argue about freedoms and consenting adults and such, but I always wonder where one should begin to draw the line on such things. Clearly many would object to advertisement to sites that promote bestiality or child pornography.

      Clearly those sites are illegal and that is where the line should be drawn.

    95. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by Babbster · · Score: 1

      I get that completely. I have several criteria for judging porn actresses (what can I say, but I'm a fan of the genre) "hot or not" and being pleasing to the eye (not necessarily "perfect," whatever that means) is but one of them. But, as you yourself point out, it's fantasy. When I decide that a particular actress/model seems smart and sexy (as well as being nice to look at - criterium number one), it has nothing to do with reality since, well, I don't really know them. I can't appreciate them as a human being (which was the lofty sentiment of grandparent post) because I don't know them.

    96. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by Babbster · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but unless she's peeking over a wall like Kilroy, that ain't gonna be the first set of hers you're going to notice.

    97. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a quote from the song by alanis morissette called "Ironic", which (ironically) is filled with a bunch of examples that are unfortunate but not ironic.

    98. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by sgant · · Score: 1

      You mean there's more than that nice set of eyes to her? Oh man, I must never have noticed that before!

      --

      "Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
    99. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guys who visit strip clubs, tend to say the SAME thing about strippers. They're no different!

    100. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by solarlux · · Score: 1

      Well-said.

    101. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by littlejess · · Score: 2, Interesting

      the name suicidegirls actually comes from the Chuck Palahniuk book "Survivor", nothing in particular to do with the act itself. I can't remember the exact quote right now though, unfortunately.

    102. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how doest that affect me?

      its pretty gross, but honestly, why should I care what two people do. CONSENT is the keyword.

      if they consent to be killed i could honestly care less.

      im not in the mood to tell other groups of individuals how to live as long as it doesnt harm others that dont want to be involved.

      most things in the bedroom besides straight missionary are already illegal in many many states .

    103. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by Mac_D83 · · Score: 1

      No Nintendo isn't, the letter is FAKE!

      Suicidegirls have been on slashdot more than
      once time claiming to be "sued" by someone. The say that they have been sued to generate traffic and profit. See here: http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/11/26/17 58210&tid=95&tid=4
      and http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/11/27/10 6259&tid=155&tid=4
      Somebody ougth to tell the original story poster....

      Please mod up!

    104. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by forgetful_ca · · Score: 1
      And at the same time, the discussions about this pogrom are still available for people to view. Not very tidy control by shadowy background figures. They (the threads you listed) are not much more than a group of strangers speculation. Half of them by anonymous cowards. Doesn't convince me of anything.

      No one said anything about free utopia, and I continue to disagree with you.

    105. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by reeve · · Score: 1

      You've missed the point. The site is owned by a scumbag that's exploiting people, and lying about various people suing them to generate publicity. As for the First Amendment, yes, they have the right to show off for personal gratification all they want. I personally think the U.S. would be a better place if we just threw away all the bullshit laws and stuck to the Constitution, but that doesn't mean you have to *like* everything. He voiced his opinion, which is his right, deal with it.

      --
      Reeve the cat
    106. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you, Captain Obvious.

    107. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And, I'll submit that if anyone goes off on some moral soapbox, they have skeletons, of some sort, hidden in the closet.

      Then again, the above is an over generalization, and like most over generalizations (including the parent post), it is generally wrong.

    108. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, and your post seems typical of the kind of drivel people spout in an effort to make themselves feel better about being an elitest asshole.

    109. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She has eyes? Never noticed.

    110. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by avgjoe62 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      And the fact that porn does not lack redeeming qualities does not alter the fact that it promotes the objectification of women and appeals to one's prurient interests.

      And somehow, I can hear this conversation 2500 years ago:

      And the fact that erotic pottery does not lack redeeming qualities does not alter the fact that it promotes the objectification of women and appeals to one's prurient interests.

      People are people are people and they have been since we have had a culture to define us. It's not "Objectifying" women. It's answering a need that comes right after food and shelter.

      --

      How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?

    111. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by elemental23 · · Score: 1

      Being different from the mainstream does not require being different from every single other person out there. Look at any "alternative" scene for examples: goths, punks, etc.

      I think in a lot of cases, people aren't drawn to these scenes because they want to be different, but rather that they alraedy have non-mainstream tastes/interests that happen to be shared by others involved in the aforementioned scenes (although the opposite is certainly true in a lot of cases, it isn't universally true).

      --
      I like my women like my coffee... pale and bitter.
    112. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by Izago909 · · Score: 1

      You speak of religion bashing as if religious people were the minority; as if your way of life was being threatened. You are still free to move to a dry county where dancing is illegal, to raise your children to with your beliefs, and to allow them to pray in school as long as you don't force everyone to look at the Ten Commandments. What bothers me is how people wear their religion as a badge of honor reminiscent of a baby boomer jetting around town in a red convertible. Prayer must be done in public as to flaunt personal beliefs. It was my understanding that spiritual beliefs are a deeply personal subject, and shouldn't be used to draw attention of a crowd. I thought Jesus never once prayed in public.

      But I digress, America is a land founded by people so prudish that the British wanted them gone. Those roots still exist in society today. We can see all the deprived acts of violence we want in our TV, movies, and news; yet the high moral community was all in uproar over Janet Jackson despite the fact the news afterwards had no trouble airing violence and death from elsewhere in the world.

      Religious motives create moral ambiguity as interpretations of religious texts change over time. A perfect example is how all major religions have been used to justify immoral actions from slavery to war within a religous context. It limits personal actions by individuals that can affect only the them yet does little to address the mob mentality that lies beneath the surface. It is still very common to walk into a Sunday service and hear the pastor or preacher railing about how a good woman must be subservient to her man; that their husband is their master. These are to be the same people who influence marriages, children, and the community at large.

      The peace of mind it offers to those who can't live with unanswerable philosophical questions is paid in the high toll of death, bloodshed, and the suffering of those forced to live under its rule. We've witnessed our society impose a wave of new policy over the last four year, based on interpretation of ambiguous religious text under the assumption that the bible holds and answer to everyone's question. Even more frightening is that it is impossible for a political representative to win the support of the masses without first whoring his spiritual beliefs to the community. There are even citizens that base their votes strictly on the perceived faith of a candidate; despite the fact that the historical records show that religious beliefs have little reflection of the moral actions and sound decision making of a leader.

      The fact is that untold scores of people benefit from the release of tension. Using the law and social or economic coercion to limit the behavior of individuals in their own privacy is not doing them any favors. This tension will just lie in wait for a long time before it snaps in public. You argue that lust corrupts minds. Lust is human nature. It existed before porn, and will continue on long after. One thing religion has never been able to do is cure the human condition. Keep your religion out of my government, and I will my government out of your religion.

    113. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What bothers me is how people wear their religion as a badge of honor reminiscent of a baby boomer jetting around town in a red convertible.

      Yes, there were people like this in the time of Christ and he spoke of their hypocrasy on more than one occasion.

      I thought Jesus never once prayed in public.

      The four accounts of his life and ministry don't make note of any public prayer.

      A perfect example is how all major religions have been used to justify immoral actions from slavery to war within a religous context.

      This has nothing to do with the validity of religious claims, but I agree. Of course, the Bible itself is very clear on these issues. I know it may seem like people derive very different interpretations, but I think the varying factor in all of them is how true to the texts they all are. They're not all 'equally valid.' If I watch a movie like Fight Club and come out thinking that Tyler Durden is a real person, I've misunderstood the movie, not come up with my own 'interpretation.'

      It is still very common to walk into a Sunday service and hear the pastor or preacher railing about how a good woman must be subservient to her man; that their husband is their master.

      Today I went down and helped out my local Democratic candidate for state rep with some computer problems. I was serving her. There is nothing wrong with women choosing to submit to their husbands. I don't think anyone thinks it's OK to be forced into submission. By the way, I'd like to know what moral absolute you'we derived your conclusion that women submitting to husbands comes from.

      The peace of mind it offers to those who can't live with unanswerable philosophical questions is paid in the high toll of death, bloodshed, and the suffering of those forced to live under its rule.

      Nobody believes in any religion because it answers tough questions. "Oh, I can't explain why matter floats around the univers according to predictable laws and order. God must exist."

      Blaming Christianity for things like the crusades is as illogical as blaming Atheism for Tibet.

      Lust is human nature. It existed before porn, and will continue on long after. One thing religion has never been able to do is cure the human condition.

      That's precisely the aim of Christianity--that human nature is a consequence of sin, and through the sacrifice of the cross the burden of sin is lifted through Christ, who never sinned his whole life, living inside of those who accept him. It doesn't instantly cure the human condition, but it definately is a start. I'm not going to argue that Christians are perfect, because Christian theology states that Christians cannot by nature be perfect, nor do they have to.

      This tension will just lie in wait for a long time before it snaps in public.

      Sex is not a physiological need--you don't die if you don't do it. You don't stop wanting to have sex once you've satisfied the urge like, with, say, food. People that end up pedophiles often have a history of increasingly abberant and perverse pornography indulgence, for example.

      Never for a second was legislation suggested as a means of combatting the problem of pornography. You've just painted yourself a world where a bunch of religious bigots are trying to destroy your vision of America, and aynone who has any similar moral standards automatically has the same aim.

      Furthermore, in all your criticism of Christianity you demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of what it really is. You've been taken in by this imposter that calls itself Christianity, I'm afraid.

      The truth is, you have no real beef against Christianity--you've just convinced yourself that it is some other philosophical concept derived by people who are motivated by power more than anything else.

    114. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And at the same time, the discussions about this pogrom are still available for people to view. Not very tidy control by shadowy background figures. They (the threads you listed) are not much more than a group of strangers speculation. Half of them by anonymous cowards. Doesn't convince me of anything.

      Keep dreaming then.

      No one said anything about free utopia, and I continue to disagree with you.

      The point is that almost 500 moderators has lost moderating power forever because they have dared to moderate up a certain post, which the editors kept moderating down. You said:

      "Slashdot" (in the way that you mean it) doesn't moderate, you do.

      My point is that not everybody does. Not everybody can. Those who has dared to moderate certain posts against the will of the editors cannot moderate and never will. I don't want you to agree with me. I only don't want you to spread your misinformed "Slashdot doesn't moderate, you do" naïvete.

    115. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Because you're wrong. :) Geek guys tend to GET "goth" women because, as the first post illustrates, young geeks tend to be rather desperate to give it away, and the average "goth" chick isn't exactly stingy with the goods. Before asking why I keep quoting "goth," answer me this: Do you really think Alaric was wearing black lipstick and blasting SoM when he sacked Rome in 410 C.E.?

    116. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by sgant · · Score: 1

      Um...no...I was applying the word "irony" to the actual meaning of the word, "irony" in the context that his post was ironic.

      And it wasn't a bummer...

      --

      "Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
    117. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by egriebel · · Score: 1

      Christy Canyon does have a nice set of eyes though.
      And she sure beats the hell out of "Super Off-Road 4x4 for the SNES" too :-)

      --
      ACHTUNG! Das computermachine ist nicht fuer gefingerpoken und mittengrabben. Ist nicht fuer gewerken bei das dumpkopfen.
    118. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by Eric119 · · Score: 1

      And far be it from me to deny someone the right to their definitions, though I would necessarily deny them the right to dictate mine. (Barring points of obvious exception, such as gun-to-the-head, etc.)

      Hey, hey, you can't tell me what to do like that! (That's you're point, right?)

      Oh, come now - we're not discussing HTML color codes, or even portions of the visible spectrum. We're talking about moral absolutes versus moral relativism. If you want to discuss how relativism in its purest form advocates anarchy, and how to best mediate this in societal function to prevent collapse of the human community, that's one thing.

      Why is it a good thing to prevent the collapse of the human community?

      But to indicate that there are actual moral absolutes when we can't even quantify the "best" text editor is kind of silly, in my thoughts.

      But yet you seem to be indicating moral abosulutes.

      Often, those who advocate a specific morality base such upon their religious beliefs. I'm not saying that makes them inherently wrong, but at their core, religious beliefs are items of faith, not fact. They are not quantifiable or scientifically provable or dis-provable. They are neither correct nor incorrect, and they are as varied and variable as the day is long.

      An absurdity. The law of non-contradiction and law of excluded middle.

      Do they make a good starting point for a discussion on agreed-upon moral standards? Sure. History shows it's far from an easy discussion, and someone claiming their side is in the "right" simply because their faith says it to be true doesn't lend credibility to their argument. Show me, for example, that it's not in the community's best interest to presume guilt first, and illustrate the benefits of erring on the side of caution, thinking things through, etc., and we're having a viable discussion about agreed-upon standards of moral conduct.

      I might be able to do what you say, but it wouldn't have any meaning or relevance to morality unless we already accept a moral precept. Without that, it's just a statement of cause and effect, like "If you drop something it falls to the ground." It's amoral.

      Tell me, however, that your religious beliefs dictate that you know what's best for me and that your decision about it supercedes mine, that your choice in my life is more important than mine - and it's no longer a discussion.

      So, if my choice is not more important than yours, then either it is equally important or less important. I presume you do not argue that is it is less important, therefore you argue that the choices all equally important. I ask, then, why is choice held to such a high level?

      How is someone's right to choice so important that is supersedes all other morality? Why insist on the universal moral judgement that, "You shouldn't tell anyone what their morality should be."

      Again, by whose standards?

      Sorry, perhaps I didn't write that well. I meant that there must exist something that is black and white (e.g. your HTML color codes).

      The logic follows only if the assumed premise (morality is physical fact, immutable truth) is correct. I'll agree that standards are necessary, but someone claiming a moral high-ground based on their beliefs and opinions is not contributing to the facts. It sounds as silly as Manifest Destiny.

      How do you know universal moral truths are not derivable from facts, which necessarily exist?

      And anyway you're conclusion only follows if you assume a different premise (that morality is not physical fact and not immutable truth).

      Morality is necessary,

      What do you think it is necessary for?

      but realize it is not immutable fact or truth. It is an agreement that is generally (to greater or lesser degree, varying from topic-to-topic) accepted by a populace. "Thou shalt not kill," for example - I think we can (mostly) agree on that.

    119. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>what does it for you?

      >Probably the same as 90+% of the men I know...

      >Turn ons: intelligence, sense of humor, curiosity, friendliness, a good singing voice, to name a few.

      >Turn offs: smokers, drunks, druggies, pretense, pomposity, puritanism, proselytising, guilt, misanthropy, etc.

      Wow. I vote for the turn offs column. And boobies.

      ---
      mmmm... puritans...

    120. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey. I didn't know. Not all geeks are Alanis fans (thank god).

    121. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well i think the problem is: on google some kid puts in meteoridz and gets suicide girls: a bunch of stupid wrist cutting slut gothgirls who like to get naked and have sex.

    122. Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy by Lonath · · Score: 1

      It's a quote from the song by alanis morissette called "Ironic", which (ironically) is filled with a bunch of examples that are unfortunate but not ironic.

      I have wondered if that song is supposed to work on some meta-level where the whole song is ironic because it's filled with things that aren't ironic. I think that's giving her too much credit, but you never know...

  2. Oops by cuteseal · · Score: 5, Funny

    I wonder how many members they "lost" over the incident... :)

    1. Re:Oops by WhatsAProGingrass · · Score: 5, Funny

      I wonder how many members they gained over this incident. ha ha.

      --
      Mark
    2. Re:Oops by KDan · · Score: 4, Funny

      1. Slashdot top of front page article
      2. pornographic site
      3. ???
      4. Slashdotted!

      Daniel

      --
      Carpe Diem
    3. Re:Oops by euxneks · · Score: 1

      Less than they've made! *click*

      ;P

      --
      in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
    4. Re:Oops by Kenja · · Score: 1

      Thats it, I'm gona "contribute" to the Suicidegirls "legal defense fund".

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    5. Re:Oops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone else think this is a ploy from a porn site to get linked on /. front page? I mean, come on - that's a huge concentration of their target market. What is /.'s cut in all this?

    6. Re:Oops by 88NoSoup4U88 · · Score: 1

      With the demographics of Slashdot, a "5. Profit !" can't be missed in that list.

    7. Re:Oops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Notice how suicidegirls has an add in on slashdot. Hmm now they get front page linkage.
      The summary should at least include a disclamer.

    8. Re:Oops by gosand · · Score: 3, Funny
      I wonder how many members they gained over this incident. ha ha.

      I wonder how many "members" they gained over this incident. Hhhhuh huh.

      --

      My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

    9. Re:Oops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      3. Click-o-fukin-rama

    10. Re:Oops by spir0 · · Score: 1

      I'd say the people who started the site are buying themselves new porsches after the signups in the last few hours.

      The only reason I haven't signed up is cos I'm waiting for more money to be available on my credit card next week. ah hell with it. I'll sign up for one month now...

      --
      The reason girls and Windows users don't understand UNIX is because all the documentation is in Man files.
    11. Re:Oops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I havn't lost my member over it.... yet.

  3. WTF? by Staos · · Score: 1

    This is just fucking rediculous. That is so clearly fair use, yet they still get by. When will the bullshit end? When you TAKE A STAND!

    Add Nintendo to the list of people to not buy anything from.

    --
    In Soviet russia, only old Koreans profit from pictures of Natalie Portman stored on Beowulf Clusters.
    1. Re:WTF? by pboulang · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Meh, as far as I'm concerned, the email they received was unsolicited and therefore SPAM. Plus, that stupid ass disclaimer on the email just makes the sender look like a moron.

      --

      This comment is guaranteed*

      *not guaranteed

    2. Re:WTF? by MyDixieWrecked · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think Nintendo's issue with this is that they have their IP mentioned on an adult website. Although, I'm pretty sure this is fair use... it's not like it says "Watch Zelda get Fsck'd by Metroid!"

      I'm pretty sure that this text was picked up by a bot that the lawfirm probably convinced nintendo to run. the bot probably ran a list of URL's that contained certain keywords and checked to see if any were adult websites. Probably part of a naked-nintendo-character-website crackdown.

      --



      ...spike
      Ewwwwww, coconut...
    3. Re:WTF? by Desult · · Score: 1, Insightful

      While I agree that Nintendo is probably way out of line in any possible suit, it's not as open and shut as you trumpet here.

      From my reading of the letter, Nintendo's claim could be that SG was using "Metroid", "Zelda" etc within the meta tags for the page, or perhaps more extensive terms like "Zelda: Wind Waker" "Metroid video game" and so forth... terms obviously constructed to generate hits to the page that were NOT searches for the actual content of the page.

      I don't know if this was the case with the SG page, but imagine that it was. Is that legal? It's a business practice. It's a business practice that is predicated on an odd use of someone else's trademark. Can I put up a billboard that says "My tree clearing business is just as good as Link in the Legend of Zelda video game series!" ?

      Perhaps I can, perhaps I can't, the fact that Nintendo is questioning it isn't the problem, imo... and it's not "clearly" fair use. This being said, if SG just used the terms Metroid and Zelda in the text of a web page, I think they should be entirely in the clear... but was that all they were doing?

      --
      -Greg
    4. Re:WTF? by uncoveror · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is a clear example of how "intellectual property" laws are nothing but censorship. They don't promote the progress of science and the useful arts anymore, they impede it. Perhaps they always did. Locking up an idea as property is ultimately the same as suppressing it.

      --
      The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
    5. Re:WTF? by chris_mahan · · Score: 2, Funny

      I like that, actually.

      Bounce the email with:

      Sorry, our spam filter has rejected your email for the reasons listed below:

      * Categories: Games (Nintendo)

      --

      "Piter, too, is dead."

    6. Re:WTF? by CustomFort · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Give me a break. Sure it sounds like Nintendo is barking up the wrong tree, but let's not just beat up on them for no reason.

      the email they received was unsolicited and therefore SPAM

      That may be your way of looking at spam, but that is unacceptable for most people. Say your Uncle Sal, whom you haven't spoken with in 10 years because he lives on the other side of the country, happens across your email, say on a University board or something. Is his email Spam?

      that stupid ass disclaimer on the email just makes the sender look like a moron.

      That "stupid ass disclaimer" is SOP for most professionals such as lawyers, doctors, accountants and anyone who deals with confidential messages. It doesn't make him look like a moron, in fact he would look like an asshole if he DIDN'T have it on there. All the email I receive from doctors or lawyers (and my IT company specializes in the Health Care Industry) have a very similar disclaimer on them. It's just an automatic signature.

    7. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That disclaimer is actually pretty nice coming from a company as large as Nintendo. Usually gigantic international corporations have huge email disclaimers. it's probably a template that gets automatically appended to all outgoing emails.

      Not everything unsolicited automatically falls under the category of spam - especially legal notices. For example, there are certain calls that are exempt from the US do-not-call list, eg. survey calls.

    8. Re:WTF? by bluekanoodle · · Score: 1

      I see where your coming from, but I don't think that's the case. Reread the letter. It's basically a form letter saying it found one of those words in somepart of the website, but doesn't specify where. That's because more then likely they never looked at the context of the site, but relied on a bot search, and send out a form letter that covers all the bases.

    9. Re:WTF? by lpevey · · Score: 1

      This is an excellent point. Someone please mod the parent up.

    10. Re:WTF? by Poppler · · Score: 2, Informative

      that stupid ass disclaimer on the email just makes the sender look like a moron.

      I have to deal with big corporations at work, this kind of disclaimer is pretty standard. The sender doesn't really have a choice whether or not to include it.

      --
      What's the ugliest part of your body? Some say your nose, some say your toes, but I think it's your mind. -Zappa
    11. Re:WTF? by Anthony+Boyd · · Score: 5, Interesting
      That "stupid ass disclaimer" is SOP for most professionals such as lawyers, doctors, accountants and anyone who deals with confidential messages. It doesn't make him look like a moron, in fact he would look like an asshole if he DIDN'T have it on there.

      Aside from the fact that such disclaimers have ZERO legal weight. You cannot bind someone to any agreement without their consent. This is why the SG site has no fear of posting the email even though the text at the bottom says they must not disclose the contents.

      I could send you an email saying you have to flap your arms and cluck like a chicken. Or that you have to pay me 25 cents for each email I send. But it means nothing, because you were never in on the negotiations. You never signed a thing. I can't obligate you without your informed consent. And so I think the OP is correct: it does make the sender look like a moron, because she is a lawyer or representative for a lawyer, and yet she doesn't seem to understand a fundamental, basic premise of the law.

    12. Re:WTF? by phasm42 · · Score: 5, Informative
      If you'd actually looked at the page, you'd see that it wasn't in the metatags, it was in the page:
      FAVORITE BOOKS: Screw books! Video games: Ninja Gaiden, Halo, Zelda, Final Fantasy I-VI, Dead or Alive, Mortal Kombat, Castlevania, Silent Hill, Earthworm Jim, Mega Man, Unreal, Metroid, Doom, Soul Caliber, Guilty Gear, F-Zero GX, Eternal Darkness, KOTOR, WarCraft
      Also, if you'd read Nintendo's letter carefully, you'd see that they said "Nintendo trademark(s)/works in the hidden text/visible text/meta tags and/or title and/or links", meaning it could have been any of the things they listed. It's obviously a standard letter, so rather than tailoring it to the particular case, they just listed everything to cover all their bases.
      --
      "No one likes working in a hamster wheel, and your shop smells of cedar shavings from here." - TaleSpinner
    13. Re:WTF? by phasm42 · · Score: 3, Informative

      It would be if it was actually valid. The grandparent poster obviously didn't bother to actually look at the links. Mod grandparent down.

      --
      "No one likes working in a hamster wheel, and your shop smells of cedar shavings from here." - TaleSpinner
    14. Re:WTF? by star_gazer09 · · Score: 1

      As a lawyer aquaintance of mine once quoted to me "Any idiot can retain counsel and seek redress of grievances before the court." Unfortunately, SG may have to expend time and money finding out if this is for real, formulating a reply, getting an attourney to check it, etc., etc. That's the hell of it.

      SG-9(unfortuneately, not connected with SG)

    15. Re:WTF? by CustomFort · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That's not the point. I know they are in no way or shape binding, however, it shows the clients (who presumably receive emails) that the professional at least looks like he cares about their privacy. It's just standard courtesy.

      NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you have received it in error, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you.

      I don't see anything in there that suggests that there is any punishment or liability to not following the instructions. That's like saying I have a "please wipe your shoes before you come in" sign on my house or a bumper sticker that asks drivers to be considerate. That fact that no contract has been made and there are no legally binding situations doesn't make me look like a moron.

    16. Re:WTF? by lpevey · · Score: 1

      I don't understand your point. When I saw the original post, I looked a the links and checked source to see the meta headers. No mention of Nintendo. The post doesn't assume shady stuff is going on, he just makes a point about a nuance to the whole trademark/copyright discussion that is very valid. Fact is, web sites do use trademarked words in meta headers all the time to get traffic.

    17. Re:WTF? by norton_I · · Score: 1

      Probably they weren't allowed to look at the website at work, so they just sent out the form letter...

    18. Re:WTF? by discord5 · · Score: 1
      Nintendo's claim could be that SG was using "Metroid", "Zelda" etc within the meta tags for the page, or perhaps more extensive terms like "Zelda: Wind Waker" "Metroid video game" and so forth [snip] Is that legal? It's a business practice.

      Where I live we have a trade law that explicitly forbids the use of someone elses name in advertising as the main subject of the advert. The law is commonly referred to as "competition falsification" (loosely translated, IANAL and legalese doesn't translate very well either). It basicly boils down to the fact that competitors can't use the name of rivaling companies to attract attention to their advert if the name of (the product of) the rivaling company is used as a means of grabbing the attention of the consumer.

      For instance, if I have a linux consulting company, and would start my advertisement with "MICROSOFT SUCKS" in a giant font, and below I would use a regular font to advertise my company, that would violate this particular law. However, if I were to set my company name in the giant font, and lateron claim that my company believes microsoft sucks (or some comparative study that needn't be backed by officials claims that it does) I wouldn't get into trouble at all.

      Meta tags are of course a whole other subject. Meta tags aren't used to display giant letters, but to draw traffic from search engines that harvest their data from the web. If explained correctly in court, and it can be proven that company X put those meta tags there in order to draw traffic using company Y's name, it still falls under the same law.

      Usually these kind of things get settled before they reach court. Company X removes the meta tags, and two weeks later company Y appears on top of the search engine again. When they do go to court however depending on the goodwill of company X they will either receive a symbolic slap on the wrist or a hefty fine. It all depends greatly on the circumstances, and most judges are sound enough to come to the right conclusion (if properly explained what the problem is about).

      In this case however, Nintendo wouldn't stand a chance (well, at least not under this particular law). Nintendo obviously isn't a competitor in the adult entertainment industry, and the page itself is a "blog" by definition. I can freely use the words "Microsoft sucks" in the meta tags of my weblog if that is my opinion and relevant to a post on my blog, and I don't see the difference with "Zelda rocks" if that is in the content of my blog.

      What this basicly is, is Nintendo (pardon my french) playing "Let's see who's got the biggest dick" using their lawyers, claiming that their IP is being used to draw traffic to an adult entertainment site. The IP card gets you very far in the courts, although any judge with proper information (in this country) will most likely rule that as long as there is content on the page of a user stating likes and dislikes in a weblog the meta tags can stay since they are relevant and not a violation of IP.

      Then again, IANAL.

    19. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > "Watch Zelda get Fsck'd by Metroid!"

      As some dont know, the main character of metroid is a woman. The 'metroid' itself is an alien.

      Though argument can be made at least one of those would be hot :P

    20. Re:WTF? by Fweeky · · Score: 1
      The keywords meta content: "suicide, girls, suicidegirls, members, runelateralus".

      As for the offending page content, imagine this:
      "FAVORITE BOOKS: Screw books! Video games: Ninja Gaiden, Halo, Zelda, Final Fantasy I-VI, Dead or Alive, Mortal Kombat, Castlevania, Silent Hill, Earthworm Jim, Mega Man, Unreal, Metroid, Doom, Soul Caliber, Guilty Gear, F-Zero GX, Eternal Darkness, KOTOR, WarCraft"

      Along with tonnes of other bio stuff, next to a guy's blog, with a few pictures of cute goth girls he likes, and a few suggestive but tame adverts for the site in place of some member-only content. I'll let you be the judge.
    21. Re:WTF? by phasm42 · · Score: 1
      I don't know if this was the case with the SG page, but imagine that it was.
      The post does assume shady stuff is going on.
      --
      "No one likes working in a hamster wheel, and your shop smells of cedar shavings from here." - TaleSpinner
    22. Re:WTF? by Roguelazer · · Score: 1

      It's not for the legal weight. It's so that if I, J. Lawyer, e-mail my client a copy of his will and his psycho son intercepts it and murders him, I'm not criminally liable.

    23. Re:WTF? by back_pages · · Score: 1
      And so I think the OP is correct: it does make the sender look like a moron, because she is a lawyer or representative for a lawyer, and yet she doesn't seem to understand a fundamental, basic premise of the law.

      While I'm not privy to the details of email disclaimers (but take your word for it), I do share correspondence with IP lawyers on a daily basis. They often will write things that make themselves look like morons, but it's usually because they're trying to catch you snoozing on the job. You catch their moronity, they put forth the least possible effort to correct the problem.

      In this case, I doubt the bot/lawyer/investigator was worried the slightest about "appearing" to be a moron. He/she/it was probably more interested in convincing the recipient, with likely no legal education, to keep the story under wraps. Sure, the recipient might have her own lawyer laugh at the disclaimer, but she might not - therefore the disclaimer could have been 100% effective despite being 0% enforceable.

    24. Re:WTF? by bitwiseNomad · · Score: 1

      FAVORITE BOOKS: Screw books! Video games: Ninja Gaiden, Halo, Zelda, Final Fantasy I-VI, Dead or Alive, Mortal Kombat, Castlevania, Silent Hill, Earthworm Jim, Mega Man, Unreal, Metroid, Doom, Soul Caliber, Guilty Gear, F-Zero GX, Eternal Darkness, KOTOR, WarCraft

      I think I'm in love.

      --

      Light is filtering down from above. Would you like to use DIVE?
    25. Re:WTF? by MilenCent · · Score: 1

      Probably part of a naked-nintendo-character-website crackdown.

      No! Don't say it! You'll spark some poor obsessed gamer's deranged inspiration!

      But yeah, Nintendo's SO clearly in the wrong on this one.

    26. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Aside from the fact that such disclaimers have ZERO legal weight. You cannot bind someone to any agreement without their consent. This is why the SG site has no fear of posting the email even though the text at the bottom says they must not disclose the contents.
      Actually, that kind of disclaimer does have legal weight if the person receiving the email is also a lawyer. If the sender were accidentally to send something to the wrong lawyer (say, an opponent), the unintended recipient is more or less required to respect and comply with the disclaimer.

      Not to mention the general social engineering considerations...

    27. Re:WTF? by elemental23 · · Score: 1
      I think it's a guy's profile. Also on that page:
      GENDER: Male
      Any subscriber to the site gets to put up their own profile and such.

      I realize I'm stereotyping Slashdot readers as predominantly straight males here, but I pretty sure it's an accurate assumption. If I'm wrong about you, feel free to tell me to piss off.
      --
      I like my women like my coffee... pale and bitter.
    28. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's just standard courtesy

      Kind of like how it's customary to adopt the local slang or otherwise ill-mannered behaviour of the locals: So you don't stand out like a sore thumb, reality be damned.

      I don't see anything in there that suggests that there is any punishment or liability to not following the instructions. That's like saying I have a "please wipe your shoes before you come in" sign on my house or a bumper sticker that asks drivers to be considerate. That fact that no contract has been made and there are no legally binding situations doesn't make me look like a moron.

      It does make you look like a moron, specifically because you are not saying "please." I'm more inclined to forward misdirected email on to fuckedcompany or another worthwhile site because of a lame sig like you recommend than I would if it was a nice request to keep the information confidential due to their own mistake. None of the disclaimers say please, and none of the disclaimers apologize for bothering you with their misdirected email.

    29. Re:WTF? by AnotherBrian · · Score: 1

      Not in this case. There is no law that is preventing SG from having the tradmarked names on thair web site in the maner that they have them. Nintendo is full of shit and has no legal legs to stand on.

    30. Re:WTF? by antoy · · Score: 1

      Add Nintendo to the list of people to not buy anything from.

      Stupid lawyer firms do not an evil company make. Do you honestly think Nintendo high executives are aware of this, and let this go ahead? I'm pretty sure they told the firm to 'do what you have to do' to protect their trademarks.
      Someone just needs to tell them that the lawyers they pay are idiots. This isn't an evil corporation thing, it's just hilarious.

      Besides, Nintendo makes great games.

    31. Re:WTF? by Piquan · · Score: 1

      You cannot bind someone to any agreement without their consent. This is why the SG site has no fear of posting the email even though the text at the bottom says they must not disclose the contents.

      This is true (AFAIK, IANAL), although they could get hit with copyright violations. (Look for the copyright FAQ.)

    32. Re:WTF? by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      Say your Uncle Sal, whom you haven't spoken with in 10 years because he lives on the other side of the country, happens across your email, say on a University board or something. Is his email Spam?

      I have most of my rellies on my SPAM list because yes, their e-mail is unsolicitated and spam :) (I'm not saying unsolicitated e-mail is automatically spam, I just said they're both things and I'm not commenting on the relationship of the two things).

    33. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      • "Watch Zelda get Fsck'd by Metroid!"
      Hm, so you're secretly into tentacle porn...
    34. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Piss off.

      By bitwiseNomad

    35. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      if the person receiving the email is also a lawyer. If the sender were accidentally to send something to the wrong lawyer (say, an opponent), the unintended recipient is more or less required to respect and comply with the disclaimer.
      Let me amend that to say, "If the sender were actually to send actual confidential information to the wrong lawyer (this happens fairly often in the pre-trial exchange of documents), the unintended recipient is more or less required by the disciplinary rules to respect and comply with the disclaimer."
    36. Re:WTF? by mark-t · · Score: 1
      I'm sorry for this, but I think it's just too funny to pass up.
      ... it does make the sender look like a moron,...
      There's a reason for that...
      .. because she is a lawyer or representative for a lawyer ...
    37. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK this is probably way too late to be modded but still...

      The law in countries with a common-law tradition (england, u.s. australia, canada, nz etc) is different as it is actually two types of law - the law and equity. These evolves out of the king's courts and the courts of the church for reasons I am too bored to go into. Why is this relevant? The equity tradition begets us the law of confidence. Unlike the law of contract you do not need to agree to be bound by an equitable obligation of confidentiality. This relates to equity being derived from the "church" courts which were more concerned with your immortal soul (what you should do) than contract (what you have agree to do). So long story short - as long as I indicate that the information contained in my email is confidential then you may be bound by an obligation of confidentiality. Sounds stupid I know.

      My disclaimer - IANAL

    38. Re:WTF? by bitwiseNomad · · Score: 1

      No, I did not RTFA. I guess it was just wishful thinking that there's a lady out there who even knows the names of half those games.

      --

      Light is filtering down from above. Would you like to use DIVE?
    39. Re:WTF? by pboulang · · Score: 1
      How does the disclaimer make a dang difference in this situation? "See!! See!! I CLEARLY asked any invalid recipient to PLEASE delete this!"

      Doesn't the fact that the disclaimer lies at the END of the message set off any alarms or bells for you that it is completely worthless?

      --

      This comment is guaranteed*

      *not guaranteed

    40. Re:WTF? by pboulang · · Score: 1
      If someone truly cared about privacy, then A) it would most likely NOT be sent via email (this disclaimer really seems to be email-centric) b) would ENCRYPT the information or last and easily the easiest c) PUT THE DISCLAIMER FIRST

      The sender doesn't give a damn about the recipient's actual privacy, just how the recipient perceives the sender... I think in these particular situations that the exact opposite impression is being given and it patronizes the recipient. Hey, it will work for 90% of people (hey, they seem to care!) but if you look into it in any depth, you see it is a poorly formed method of ass covering.

      --

      This comment is guaranteed*

      *not guaranteed

    41. Re:WTF? by pboulang · · Score: 1
      the email they received was unsolicited and therefore SPAM

      That may be your way of looking at spam, but that is unacceptable for most people. Say your Uncle Sal, whom you haven't spoken with in 10 years because he lives on the other side of the country, happens across your email, say on a University board or something. Is his email Spam?

      Oh understood, and occasionally when someone finds my posting on a message board and sends me an email saying that I would be a good candidate for Viagra(tm) I may choose to say "Damn, I think I actually MIGHT send back my credit card number and hope they send me some blue pills"

      It is unsolicited. Therefore it wouldn't pass my whitelist. It would find its way into a bin with thousands of other emails. Shit, now you are telling me that I have to read EVERY fucking SPAM because my Uncle SAl might be trying to send me a personal message?

      No, my real point is that any kind of legal mumbo jumbo like this should damn well be sent by certified mail, not email. That is not the appropriate medium. If I were to receive this email, I would simply delete it immediately.

      That "stupid ass disclaimer" is SOP for most professionals such as lawyers, doctors, accountants and anyone who deals with confidential messages. It doesn't make him look like a moron, in fact he would look like an asshole if he DIDN'T have it on there. All the email I receive from doctors or lawyers (and my IT company specializes in the Health Care Industry) have a very similar disclaimer on them. It's just an automatic signature.
      Hmmm, I stand by my statement above that email is not the correct medium for these transmissions. Sending something plaintext MUST BE ASSUMED to be as good as published. Moron: Follows like sheep and puts in a worthless sig. Moron: Sends private data over unencrypted email. Moron: Someone who gets an email from a doctor that DOESN'T have that disclaimer and thinks that that doctor LOOKS LIKE AN ASSHOLE.
      --

      This comment is guaranteed*

      *not guaranteed

    42. Re:WTF? by pboulang · · Score: 1
      Interestingly enough though, the only disclaimer that makes any sense to me is the one added by the CORPORATION saying that they are not liable for what the INDIVIDUAL has said. This is likely what you are saying.

      However, using these as examples to draw from, saying something along the lines "If you are not the intended recipient you should or should not do something" there are a few questions that arise:

      If the sender makes a typo, how do I know I am NOT the intended recipient? It says so right at the top, and the sender's server clearly sent it directly to my server

      If I *am* the intended recipient, then I can pass along any or all of the email I want to... INCLUDING THE DISCLAIMER :)

      Since there is no legal benefit, why include the disclaimer at all? This is my big beef and made me whip out the M word.

      --

      This comment is guaranteed*

      *not guaranteed

    43. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just one of the reasons I've hated nintendo for so many years. Yet the fanboys just eat up the slop that their master pours for them.

      Nintendo: Eat a bowl of fuck!

    44. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look up the concept of "reasonable expectation of privacy" concerning legal communications of an attorney to a client or interested party. Email was ruled on by the American Bar Association in 1998. It was considered like faxes and land line telephones to have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Also, these disclaimers ARE legally binding. If you take a document with such a disclaimer, disregard said disclaimer, and use the information in the document for gain or in contravention of the disclaimer, the original sender has legal recourse to damages and other remediation. Legal precedents are scary things.

    45. Re:WTF? by Poppler · · Score: 1

      If the sender makes a typo, how do I know I am NOT the intended recipient? It says so right at the top, and the sender's server clearly sent it directly to my server
      I'm not a lawyer though, so this is just speculation - but I'd imagine if there is nothing to indicate that you aren't the intended recipiant than you're in the clear.

      If I *am* the intended recipient, then I can pass along any or all of the email I want to... INCLUDING THE DISCLAIMER :)
      A common disclaimer will include "This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential
      and intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed." So you aren't supposed to send it outside your company. If that's not included then the whole disclaimer is pointless and stupid.

      Since there is no legal benefit, why include the disclaimer at all? This is my big beef and made me whip out the M word.
      It seems that the point is to protect themselves in case you start spreading company secrets, they can say you were told not to. Like I said, if the part about confidentiality is not included (though it usually is in my experience), then it is stupid and you are correct.

      --
      What's the ugliest part of your body? Some say your nose, some say your toes, but I think it's your mind. -Zappa
    46. Re:WTF? by gfreeman · · Score: 1

      It's obviously a standard letter, so rather than tailoring it to the particular case, they just listed everything to cover all their bases.

      Luckily, all their base are belong us.

      Counter-sue the Fsck'rs!

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    47. Re:WTF? by ElleyKitten · · Score: 1

      " No, I did not RTFA. I guess it was just wishful thinking that there's a lady out there who even knows the names of half those games." I do. I even like most of them. Girls play games too. =)

      --
      "What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
    48. Re:WTF? by pboulang · · Score: 1
      I call bullshit:
      A U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania ruled on January 18,1996 that even if an employer promises not to intercept email on a company system, there is not an expectation of privacy in the email. The case underscores the question of whether the court system has an adequate understanding of the underlying technology.

      According to the court, the employer repeatedly told its employees that "all email communications would remain confidential and privileged" and that "e-mail communications could not be used by [the company] against its employees as grounds for termination." Even with that promise, the employer intercepted the communications of Michael Smyth and fired him. The court held that:

      We do not find a reasonable expectation of privacy in e-mail communications voluntarily made by an employee to his supervisor over the company e-mail system notwithstanding any assurances by management. Once plaintiff communicated the alleged unprofessional comments to a second person over an e-mail system which was apparently utilized by the entire company, any reasonable expectation of privacy was lost .... we find no privacy interests in such communications. We do not find that a reasonable person would consider the defendant's interception of these communications to be a substantial and highly offensive invasion of his privacy"
      --

      This comment is guaranteed*

      *not guaranteed

    49. Re:WTF? by CustomFort · · Score: 1

      That case is completely irrelevant to the issue. It simply states that privacy on a COMPANY PROVIDED network does not exist. As it shouldn't; if it uses business resources it should have a business use.

      If I leave a message for you in your internal company mailbox, I don't expect it to be kept private. This ruling just extended that common sense to E-mail.

      What that ruling did NOT do was say anything about email privacy on the internet at large. I suggest you read that link a little bit closer, as well as the original disclaimer at the bottom of the letter and see what it really says, not what you WANT it to say.

    50. Re:WTF? by lpevey · · Score: 1

      I'm really not trying to get into a trenchant or pointless argument here... But I must say, I still think you were too quick to disrregard the original point. "[I]magine that it was..." In other words, "I'm not assuming that it was, but for the sake of illustrating this point, let's enter the hypothetical world and imagine that it was." The original post explicitly holds open the possibility that that his comment doesn't apply in this particular case: "This being said, if SG just used the terms Metroid and Zelda in the text of a web page, I think they should be entirely in the clear..."

    51. Re:WTF? by halbritt · · Score: 1

      Although, I'm pretty sure this is fair use...

      This is a trademark infringement issue. There is no "fair use" in trademark law. Haven't there been enough intellectual property discussions on slashdot by now that people would understand this?

  4. wait a minute... by iocat · · Score: 5, Funny

    Just how did anyone at Nintendo discover this? A little non-work-safe surfing?

    --

    Dude, I think I can see my house from here.

    1. Re:wait a minute... by MisanthropicProgram · · Score: 5, Funny
      What an excuse to tell your boss when you get caught surfing porn at work.

      "But boss, I was looking for our company's name being mentioned on these sites!"

    2. Re:wait a minute... by superpulpsicle · · Score: 4, Funny

      Nintendo is officially out of sync with reality and society in general.

      Every nintendo game that is not a 3rd party title is already a cross between pure fantasy and hardcore Sci-Fi. No Zelda is not real!

    3. Re:wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you work for Dildo Inc. that could be a problem.

    4. Re:wait a minute... by DrAegoon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Probably a bot. Some litigious bastard wrote a script that searched for Nintendo copywrites and "objectional content" then sent threatening emails to the admins of the hits.

      At least I hope that's the case. If a sane human being actually read the site, saw the context, and still decided to send the threatening email it doesn't say much for the state of common sense in the world.

    5. Re:wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      They hired a company like BayTSP to search for them, and BayTSP spiders through things looking for likely strings. Nintendo probably assumed that they were hosting NES roms.

      If you haven't seen at least one anti-pirate bot in your web logs, then you aren't connected to the internet.

      PS Offtopic: Anyone know the user agent string for the BayTSP bot? Or better yet which subnet it's on?

    6. Re:wait a minute... by das_cookie · · Score: 3, Informative
      Just how did anyone at Nintendo discover this? A little non-work-safe surfing?

      More likely they've got staff doing google keyword searches and found it that way.

      --

      You! Yes, YOU! Out of the gene pool!

    7. Re:wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To gather more evidence I'll need a full subscription... for at least a year.

    8. Re:wait a minute... by nomadic · · Score: 1, Funny

      "But boss, I was looking for our company's name being mentioned on these sites!"

      "I mean I've checked this site every day for the past 3 months, just to be 100% sure they aren't abusing our trademark."

    9. Re:wait a minute... by Mooga · · Score: 0

      They probably searched their products in google to see what pops up. It keeps their lawyers nice and busy...

      --
      ~ Mooga
    10. Re:wait a minute... by marshall_j · · Score: 1

      A little googling reveals some sites more worthy of attack than the suicide girls site...

    11. Re:wait a minute... by cgenman · · Score: 4, Funny

      Apparently, however, they're not very happy about crossing over into hardcore fantasy.

    12. Re:wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is clearly a publicity stunt in order to attract more members to this porn site. Suicide Girls has always been trying to get a story on /. for ages. And now they got one. It's also surpsing they got ad space at /. even though there is not suppose to be any ads about adult content.

      Your source of this wanted publicity is clearly the owner, Sean Suhl.

    13. Re:wait a minute... by zoeblade · · Score: 1

      Apparently, however, they're not very happy about crossing over into hardcore fantasy.

      Am I missing something? Did this person cosplay as Zelda or something :shudder: or did they just say they liked the game? Surely anyone should be able to say they like a product by name without fear of getting threatened by the company that makes the product. Are Nintendo really afraid of someone who happens to be on a pornographic site liking their games giving them a tainted image?

    14. Re:wait a minute... by surprise_audit · · Score: 1
      No Zelda is not real!

      Perhaps not, but Zelda is the name of a character in "Sabrina the teenage witch", which my kids spend altogether too much time watching. Wonder when they're gonna get their letter from Nintendo??

    15. Re:wait a minute... by das_cookie · · Score: 1
      A little googling reveals some sites more worthy of attack than the suicide girls site...

      And we know that they didn't send this site a similar note already because....? This one just happened to capture the attention of /., that's all.

      --

      You! Yes, YOU! Out of the gene pool!

    16. Re:wait a minute... by Mac_D83 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Nintendo didn't, the letter is FAKE!

      Suicidegirls have been on slashdot more than
      once time claiming to be "sued" by someone. The say that they have been sued to generate traffic and profit. See here: http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/11/26/17 58210&tid=95&tid=4
      and http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/11/27/10 6259&tid=155&tid=4
      Somebody ougth to tell the original story poster....

    17. Re:wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Litigative Denial of Service (LDoS) attacks are becoming more widespread and misdirected on the internet at large. We consider they represent a threat to the freedom of the internet, and as the trite saying goes, the internet deals with threats by routing around them. So a public service...

      BayTSP principal IP ranges:

      206.135.0.0-206.135.255.255 (subnet 206.135.0.0, subnet mask 255.255.0.0)
      209.101.186.64-209.101.186.95 (subnet 209.101.186.64, subnet mask 255.255.255.224)
      209.122.130.0-209.122.130.255 (subnet 209.122.130.0, subnet mask 255.255.255.0)
      209.204.130.0-209.204.130.255 (subnet 209.204.130.0, subnet mask 255.255.255.0)
      209.204.190.0-209.204.190.255 (subnet 209.204.190.0, subnet mask 255.255.255.0)
      216.132.68.32-216.132.68.63 (subnet 216.132.68.32, subnet mask 255.255.255.224)
      216.132.86.0-216.132.86.255 (subnet 216.132.86.0, subnet mask 255.255.255.0)

      In CIDR form, that's:
      206.135.0.0/16
      209.101.186.64/27
      209.12 2.130.0/24
      209.204.130.0/24
      209.204.190.0/24
      21 6.132.68.32/27
      216.132.86.0/24

      A bit overly broad (feel free to check the IP block assignments and narrow down), but what the hell, ant, meet sledgehammer If you want to swipe a "quis custodiet ipsos custodes" profile, just watch specifically for hits from those blocks to start, then widen the profile.

      They use a few cable modems and DSL lines too. Some of those are covered on the above, some include legit subscribers but are probably worth blocking anyway.

      You might want to block NetPD and Cyveillance as well. There's a whole bunch more of these shitty little companies set up by shady people, contracted to the RIAA, MPAA, BSA, and other litigious bastards. http://www.bluetack.co.uk/ will get you some fairly up to date lists that some teams do work to update.

      Want Ishikawa's home address while I'm at it, to inform him that you think his use of the name "Mark" may infringe your exclusive rights? :)

      - N/TB4

  5. To Insane Levels by Norg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Honestly, companies have become so overprotective of their intellectual property. We can blame a whole host of things, downoading, overzealous lawsuits against consumers that solve nothing, disregard for the work of others, discrepancies betwixt creators and distributors. It's becoming increasingly ridiculous. I have no doubt that this threat will be met head-on and demolished for the sham that it is. Having received such letters in the past, the bark is truly worse than the bite.

    1. Re:To Insane Levels by Jaysyn · · Score: 5, Funny

      What I want to know is exactly how their argument is going to go.

      Nintenlawyer: "Your honor, the defendants like our games enough to tell that fact to other people."

      Da Judge: Um, ok. I hope you have a point somewhere around here.

      Jaysyn

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    2. Re:To Insane Levels by Norg · · Score: 1

      This isn't the kind of threat meant to get to a court. I'm sure some over-eager clerk found the thing, got excited and saw an opportunity. I'll bet $5 with one of you that this doesn't even reach a settlement and Nintendo apologizes and/or drops the threats.

    3. Re:To Insane Levels by chris_mahan · · Score: 1, Funny

      Or the ckick in question will just say:

      I used to like Nintendo, but since they singed what little hair I had (hehe) with their nonsense, I like Sony PlayStation now... Wanna see my singed area?

      Nintendo -> Nintendon't!

      --

      "Piter, too, is dead."

    4. Re:To Insane Levels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      companies have become so overprotective of their intellectual property.

      Companies in 1st-world countries don't actually produce anything tangible anymore, so of course they are going for the jugular when it comes to last bastion of IP. The root problem is that intellectual property isnt property at all -- and most of us feel this on a gut-level -- but in a capitalist system there is a NEED for ownership that is in serious conflict with how the vast majority of Earth thinks and acts.

      Without vigorous IP enforcement the 1st-world economies won't have as much power. You're not a communist sympathizer are you?

    5. Re:To Insane Levels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This would be funny if it wasn't so true. I have thought a lot about this but cant put it into good words.

    6. Re:To Insane Levels by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

      I seriously think that the lawyers are getting no work, and are sitting idle, so the head lawyer says to his slave lawyers, "go find some crap to do so we can charge nintendo" and off they go.

      --
      Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    7. Re:To Insane Levels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you supposed to call them terrorist sympathizers. get with the times man.

    8. Re:To Insane Levels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was looking for:

      Nintenlawyer: "Your honor, they are using our trademarked terms without authorization."

      Defense: "Our client simply listed her favorite games, including Zelda and Metroid."

      Nintenlawyer: "SEE! There they go again. They should not be allowed to use our words."

      I'd like to see them try to file charges, even. How do you complain about someone using your trademark to refer to your product?

    9. Re:To Insane Levels by darkmeridian · · Score: 1

      Trademarks are use it or lose it. Thermos used to be trademarked. Then they allowed everyone to use it. Now, Thermos is a generic name that everyone can use. Aspirin used to be a trademark of Bayer. It was Bayer Aspirin Brand Salicyclic Acid Tablets, now it is not because they allowed everyone to use it.

      Trademarks are important IP. The dependency is so severe that we don't think about it. But imagine if everyone can say they are making MS Windows (okay, okay, FINE) or IBM systems. There'd be confusion left and right.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    10. Re:To Insane Levels by sqlrob · · Score: 1

      But they aren't using it generically in this case. They are referring to the specific item that the trademark refers to.

    11. Re:To Insane Levels by cgenman · · Score: 1

      Actually, this looks like a bug in their system. The nastygram keeps referring to meta tags/invisible text/header text. They obviously were looking for sites who spam their name all over in order to get a search for "Metroid Prime" to return "PrimePieceofAss.com" (Not a real site. On second thought, it probably is). Here you have something that a kid-safe company would consider adult, with no obvious reason to talk about zelda or metroid, which does, in fact, have a bit on the side about videogames.

      It's a misunderstanding. Nintendo's lawyers f*ed up, which wouldn't be the first time this has happened.

    12. Re:To Insane Levels by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

      This is totaly different. The girl was obviously referencing the games themselves, and not using those names to describe something else.

    13. Re:To Insane Levels by canajin56 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not quite. The Aspriin was lost in the USA, true. However, Thermos was not. Another one that is incorrectly thought to have been lost is Kleenex. Others that are still valid, despite being used as a generic term by most peopleXerox, Dumpster, Coke, Band-Aid, Jeep, Rollerblade, and Speedo. Why are they still valid? Because to lose it, another company has to use it to describe their product, and you have to let them.

      In other words, it doesn't matter how many guys on the street, or TV characters, or whatever, call a waste bin a "Dumpster", they can keep their trademark. However, if another company sells a "Dumpster" the company holding the trademark either must sue, or give up the trademark.

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
    14. Re:To Insane Levels by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 2, Funny

      They need to post an official statement saying that they do not support Zelda or Metroid, and anyone who enjoys their website is encouraged to shun these series, also. :-)

    15. Re:To Insane Levels by darkmeridian · · Score: 1

      Thermos was lost. However, there were injunctions preventing unfair competition. The competitors had to put their brandname to describe the generic "thermos" they were making. There might have been a settlement or something. However, Thermos was lost as a brand.

      The context was why markholder are so aggressive in defending them. You have to show such activity to mean that you are "policing" your mark. I mean, Coke sent a letter to a porn site that had a woman, uh, enjoying her Coke, uh, bottle. Was there to be confusion? Probably not. But you don't want to squander your goodwill. See?

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    16. Re:To Insane Levels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Actually, I picture them trying to enter a cheat code...

      Nintenlawyer: UP DOWN UP DOWN LEFT RIGHT LEFT RIGHT B A B ...

      *Judge rips off lawyer's head for trying crap like that.*

      Baliff: "Fatality!"

    17. Re:To Insane Levels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trademarks are use it or lose it.

      This is precisely why Nintendo should *NOT* have sent the letter.

      The letter explicitly states that their issue is that it's on an 'adult' website. If push came to shove, SuicideGirls would have a *very* good argument that Nintendo isn't properly protecting its' trademarks, because they don't send the C&D letters to non-adult sites who use the marks in the same context; and since Nintendo isn't protecting it's trademarks consistently, that they should lose them.

  6. Is that legal? by ebooher · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It seems to me, that a trademark infringement like creating a new game with Link and Zelda or Samus Arun in it is very obviously a legal event waiting to happen. But simply stating "Hey, I love playing Zelda" ... That can't possibly be an event Nintendo would win in anything other than "We have enough money to out lawyer you into the poor house"

    Right?

    --
    "Genius may shine aloof and alone, like a star, but goodness is social, and it takes two men and God to make a Brother."
    1. Re:Is that legal? by cephyn · · Score: 1

      Simple way around it -- countersue nintendo for legal expenses on the grounds that Big N filed a frivolous lawsuit against you.

      --
      Moo.
    2. Re:Is that legal? by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      It seems to me that, for corporations, threats are always legal. Taking action, on the other hand, occasionally backfires.

    3. Re:Is that legal? by TexasDex · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Ever heard of Zelda Classic? A quick Google search will reveal that they are rather blatantly using Nintendo's trademarks in a way that could be confusing to consumers, and they also are possibly violating Nintendo copyrights as well. So far they have not had any sort of letter to stop cloning the game, or copying the quest files or graphics that are copyrighted by Nintendo.

      This is the stupidest cease and desist letter I have ever seen.

      --
      The Cheese Stands Alone.
    4. Re:Is that legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll make it legal.

    5. Re:Is that legal? by gebbeth · · Score: 0
      It seems to me, that a trademark infringement like creating a new game with Link and Zelda or Samus Arun in it is very obviously a legal event waiting to happen. But simply stating "Hey, I love playing Zelda" ... That can't possibly be an event Nintendo would win in anything other than "We have enough money to out lawyer you into the poor house"


      Your use of Nintendo's trademarked names Zelda and Samus Arun have come to the attention of Nintendo. Please cease and desist your comments in the forums of the site referred to as Slashdot. If you must make reference to our games, you may refer to Zelda as the game where a horny little elf fights to save a princess whose name begins with Z and you may refer to Samus Arun as the freaked out bitch bounty hunter kickin' ass and takin' names to the effect of galactic peace without the presence of spherical nuclear looking aliens with big nasty teeth. Thank you for your cooperation.

      --
      A closed mouth gathers no foot.
    6. Re:Is that legal? by glass_window · · Score: 1

      Only if they sue the other 290,000+ websites that show up with metroid and zelda in their title. Oh, wait, make that 290,001. Seriously, if they don't have a very legit reason to single out that one website when there are so many others that fit the same criteria, they have no case.

    7. Re:Is that legal? by dissy · · Score: 2, Informative

      > Is that legal?

      It's more that they have no case.

      First, Nintendo does not even have a trademark on 'zelda', although they do have one on 'metroid'

      Metroid trademark
      Zelda trademark

      However, trademarks are protected as part of the law of unfair competition.

      Additionally, the Copyright Act now reaches architectural design, software, the graphic arts, motion pictures, and sound recordings.
      Note that list does not contain 'Name'.

      Finally, to remove any grey areas, a proper name is given to something so others can reference it. That is exactly how its being used here. It's not even being used to reference some other item that nintendo may not want it to be linked with.

      All sources show the email was sent by a bot, simply because it was sent to the name/email address in whois and not the one listed on their website... As a matter of fact, I dont see the spooky@ address listed on their help page at all.

      Legally speaking, until they have it sent in writting (which may simply be in progress) they don't have to respond at all.
      Technically they don't even have to then, atleast until the snail mail from a court, telling them to be in court, arrives :P But thats not usually a good idea in most cases.

      Unfortunatly it's not really illegal to send a letter like this. At least not yet, as there isnt a law suit. Only once there is a lawsuit can one claim its frivilous.

  7. This could be a great thing for SG by djblair · · Score: 5, Funny

    Their membership is gonna increase 1000% once Slashdot geeks get a look at these girls!

    (I'm a member and love the site!)
    http://suicidegirls.com/members/djblair/

    -DJ

    1. Re:This could be a great thing for SG by uberjoe · · Score: 2, Funny

      /. advertises suicidegirls.

      --

      The days of the digital watch are numbered.

    2. Re:This could be a great thing for SG by Geekwad · · Score: 1

      But .. They all look exactly the friggen same?

      Oooh.. I assume the poses wrought forth from the darker side of life. My being parallels that of dark creatures. But check out my RACK!

      --

      - http://pakman.sytes.net/
    3. Re:This could be a great thing for SG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i think it's the other way around

      suicidegirls advertises on /. -- text link though, not a picture ad

    4. Re:This could be a great thing for SG by Prod_Deity · · Score: 1

      You're not the only one....

      http://suicidegirls.com/members/Prod_Deity/

    5. Re:This could be a great thing for SG by Dr+Reducto · · Score: 1

      And what about Zelda, the model that I dont think is actually named Zelda, but goes by that name?

    6. Re:This could be a great thing for SG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently, SG is run by Roland Piquepaille.

    7. Re:This could be a great thing for SG by Fnkmaster · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I don't really get it. SG advertises on Slashdot. I've been to the site a few times, but I'm not into uber-goth looking chicks. The site is cool, I kinda like the concept, but these girls don't do it for me, and there is zero diversity - they all look alike, as another reply points out.

      Is everybody on /. into this sort of look? What is with the strange association between geek news site and goth chicks? I don't get it. I'm all for slightly funky girls with some spice, but I also like a bit of class, somebody I can take out to a nice restaurant with and not get thrown out on the street. You know, not the first psychological wreck of a pincushion that comes my way.

    8. Re:This could be a great thing for SG by erikharrison · · Score: 1
      Oooh.. I assume the poses wrought forth from the darker side of life. My being parallels that of dark creatures.

      The average shots of girls with legitimate smiles on their faces puts this otherwise amusing piece of sarcasm down.

      But check out my RACK!

      Don't mind if I do

    9. Re:This could be a great thing for SG by fitten · · Score: 1

      So.... what exactly is this site about other than having some pics of gothgirls on it? You seem to be a guy, so is the site really just a bunch of guys who link their favorite goth-pr0n pics or something?

      I looked for a few minutes and couldn't figure it out more than that.

    10. Re:This could be a great thing for SG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Only some of the chicks on SG are "goth"ish. Most are not. Most are just trampy looking unbathed punk chicks.

      Everyone who talks about how smart and "real" and "nice" the models from the site are are complete fucking idiots and have obviously NOT met any of the girls. I've known MANY of them. SEVERAL are longtime friends. Let me tell you, the average suicide girl is a self-involved, narcissitic, uptight, better-than-everyone-else, uneducated, mouthy, inane, web-cam twat just holding down some shitty part time gig until she can find the perfect dreamy band-guy to take care of her for the rest of her life.

      What's funny is that these stupid sluts pose for SO LITTLE MONEY. They get paid about $200 or $300 for a photoshoot. HAHAHAH. Yeah, you're a big time model when you can pull down a whole whopping $200 for photos that you have no further ownership over for the rest of your life.

      BUnch of idiotic drooling slashdot fags.

    11. Re:This could be a great thing for SG by Snaller · · Score: 1

      Is everybody on /. into this sort of look?

      Hell no! Rings in the nose is for cows - and I only eat them, i don't graze with the herd.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    12. Re:This could be a great thing for SG by back_pages · · Score: 1
      You know, not the first psychological wreck of a pincushion that comes my way.

      You can say that again. More power to SG and their site, but none of the pics enticing me to sign up were that enticing.

      And not because I'm some hippie liberal who hates porn for objectifying women. Hell, some bleach and makeup remover will de-gothify those girls and I'm sure they're probably quite sexy - but that wouldn't fix the psychological wreck persona they're selling.

      I guess this will get modded as flamebait at Slashdot, a real champion at respecting different opinions, but I'm just not into trendy shit. Again, more power to SG for their site, but the enticing pics didn't appeal to me.

    13. Re:This could be a great thing for SG by carpe_noctem · · Score: 1

      Speaking as an SG member also, I think it's safe to say that not everyone on /. is a tape-between-the-glasses type of geek. =)

      --
      "Quoting famous computer scientists out of context is the root of all evil (or at least most of it) in programming." - K
    14. Re:This could be a great thing for SG by elemental23 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's a soft-core porn site where subscribers can post a user profile and journal, and there are forums. The girls who model for the pics usually participate in the forums and keep journals, which adds to the community feel of the site. They recently added slashdot-style news posts to the front page, which doesn't really make sense to me, given their main focus.

      Why does everyone keep talking about goth girls? The vast majority of the girls on the site aren't even remotely goth. "Alternative" might be a better word.

      It's a decent site for a while, if you're into that type of thing (I certainly am, having been involved in the punk and goth scenes all of my post-adolescent life), but it gets old fairly quickly.

      --
      I like my women like my coffee... pale and bitter.
    15. Re:This could be a great thing for SG by Temporal · · Score: 1

      That's not true at all. There's around 400 different girls on the site and I'd describe very few of them as "goth". There are more girls with tatoos and unusual piercings than you'd find in the general population, but by no means are they all like that. They are, in fact, far more diverse than what you'd find on just about any other porn site on the net.

      Really, the one thing I think almost all of the girls have in common is that they look like real girls that you might actually, you know, meet. That is to say, not wearing excessive makeup and not chosen for absurd body proportions. Furthermore, the contexts of their shoots are a lot more varied than the standard "girl on bed" porn you get everywhere else. The stuff on SG is a hell of a lot more creative and artistic than any other porn you'll find.

      Personally, I find all this rather refreshing. Obviously it's a matter of opinion, but I see a lot more beauty in these girls than I do in supermodels and similarly made-up women who all look pretty much the same (and completely unrealistic).

    16. Re:This could be a great thing for SG by ppz003 · · Score: 1

      And of course they could use the extra dough to replace the now smolding servers!

    17. Re:This could be a great thing for SG by thrash242 · · Score: 1

      Because people have no clue what "goth" means. If someone has more than 2 piercings, they apparently think they're goth.

      I personally would like to see more "goth" looking chicks there. Most range from pseudo-punk to punk. If you look at their music and the like, the vast majority like punk, followed by goth, industrial, etc. I personally am not a big fan of piercings and tattoos on women. I can handle some, but some of the girls on SG are a little excessive. There is enough variety, however, that I like it.

      The thing is, the girls here are real, girl next door types. Most "goth" porn sites I see just have your typical models with black makeup and cheesy halloween costumes on.

      It's also one of sites with the cheapest memberships I've seen. Individual months are $10, and it goes down from there the more months you get at a time, down to $4 a month.

    18. Re:This could be a great thing for SG by Geekwad · · Score: 1

      .. Meh.

      Though I'm glad you like my rack.

      --

      - http://pakman.sytes.net/
    19. Re:This could be a great thing for SG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've known MANY of them. SEVERAL are longtime friends.

      So why are you friends with a self-involved, narcissitic, uptight, better-than-everyone-else, uneducated, mouthy, inane, web-cam twat just holding down some shitty part time gig until she can find the perfect dreamy band-guy to take care of her for the rest of her life.

  8. Threatening is a good thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least be thankful they had the decency to threaten first. If it was Halo, they would have seen at least 12 Microsoft lawyers deliver the court order.

    1. Re:Threatening is a good thing. by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Hm. I'm not sure that "decency" is the proper word to use in any context regarding Nintendo. Let's see, "courtesy"? Ah ... no. "consideration", perhaps. Nope, nope, that's not doing it either. Frankly, I'm not sure that's any really positive-sounding word that I can apply here. How about "thoughtfulness." {sigh} no, that's not it either. How about "efficiency"? Hm ... that's better.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  9. Although It Begs the Question: by Choco-man · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Which Nintendo employee is a Suicidegirls.com fan?

    1. Re:Although It Begs the Question: by FCAdcock · · Score: 1

      Which isn't? I don't work for Nintendo myself, but I know that I for one like suicide girls. Hot, naked girls with more tattoos than me! What's not to love?

      --
      --Forest C. Adcock--
    2. Re:Although It Begs the Question: by Hatta · · Score: 2, Informative

      You mean it raises the question

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    3. Re:Although It Begs the Question: by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 1

      For the love of bees, can the lameness filter block posts with very little content other than the phrases "begs the question" and "raises the question"?

      While you're at it, posts that have "virii"/"viruses" or "Americans"/"USAians" in close proximity contribute very little to the discussion.w I think we all know the distinction in each pair, and we would prefer to write the popular usage instead of the correct one.

    4. Re:Although It Begs the Question: by glwtta · · Score: 1
      You know, I generally agree with you, I just can't stand the idiotic "popular" use of 'begs the question' (and no, the vast majority of people don't know the correct meaning).

      There's already a perfectly serviceable phrase that means 'raises the question', why on earth would you want to substitute a cool and useful phrase like 'begs the question' as just another variant of the boring pedestrian one?

      If I take 'begs the question' to mean 'raises the question' then what would you suggest I use to mean 'begs the question'?

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    5. Re:Although It Begs the Question: by fatphil · · Score: 1

      "To beg the question" can be used as a transitive or intransitive verb.

      Transitively, it's raising the question (that follows as the direct object).

      Intransitively, it's committing the logical falacy.

      Great-grandparent was transitive.
      FP.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    6. Re:Although It Begs the Question: by glwtta · · Score: 1
      Sorry, but the verb is transitive in both cases and "the question" is the direct object for both meanings.

      I am sure I'll get yelled at for repeating the explanation again, but both (unrelated) meanings of 'aiteisthai' - 'beg' and 'assume' would be transitive in this case, it's just that the more confusing one was chosen when translating the phrase.

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    7. Re:Although It Begs the Question: by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 1

      what would you suggest I use to mean 'begs the question'?

      "is begging the question". You wouldn't use the perfect in the popular phrase, but in the logical sense, it becomes a predicate nominative (this argument = begging the question).

      Or simply "is a circular argument"/"is circular reasoning". Solves the problem of people not knowing the correct meaning, and since "beg" means "ask"/"request" in normal usage, "beg the question" gives a mental image more like the popular than the logical usage. Even "is a fallacy: it begs the question" is fine, since it clarifies the context.

      why on earth would you want to substitute a cool and useful phrase [for] the boring pedestrian one?

      Are you being sarcastic? If you're not, then I'll point out that your sentence (in my opinion) makes more sense as sarcasm.

      Either way, I see nothing wrong with "beg the question" having its meaning determined from context. Gramatically, the popular usage needs an appositive to clarify what question is being begged; the logical usage simply refers to a general "the question". And the actual meaning of the sentence should make it clear.

  10. Not a good move, Nintendo by BenSpinSpace · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Microsoft learned this the hard way thanks to a certain Mike Rowe's Software company.

    I am not quite sure what the Nintendo executives think they're doing, but a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of 1% of people would have been offended by a couple of this Suicide Girls' favorite games being "Zelda" and "Mario." And yet, they expect far, far more people to buy their new Nintendo portable system. I was just thinking today about how much I wanted this new system... but this unnecessary anal retentive actions has given me a sour taste in my mouth, if only for its blatant stupidity.

    1. Re:Not a good move, Nintendo by mindstrm · · Score: 1

      Even if MILLIONS were "offended" that someone mentioned that they liked Zelda, it's still not copyright infringement. Sorry.

      You are allowed to speak about a product, and refer to a product, without the trademark holder's permission.

    2. Re:Not a good move, Nintendo by calethix · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Perhaps they're concerned that some young kid googling for web sites about Zelda and Mario will come across a link to suicidegirls.com. That wouldn't do a whole lot for their family image.

      From the content of the letter
      " It has come to our client's attention recently that you are using the Nintendo trademark(s)/works in the hidden text/visible text/meta tags and/or title and/or links of the above-referenced sexually explicit Web site."
      it sounds like that's the case.

      They certainly can't forbid people from listing one of their games as being their favorite though. I would hope that somebody at the law firm or Nintdeno would look at the real issue here and retract their little infringement letter.

    3. Re:Not a good move, Nintendo by SetupWeasel · · Score: 2, Funny

      It is not Nintendo executives. It is a law firm that Nintendo hired to protect its property rights. Dollars to doughnuts Nintendo apologizes and fires the fuck out of somebody.

      It is like when I worked for the MCI High Toll Department. Sometimes someone doesn't do all the research and blocks the Pentagon from making long distance calls.

    4. Re:Not a good move, Nintendo by PhilipDC78 · · Score: 1

      "a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of 1% of people" In other words, the people who sent the nasty note to the site?

    5. Re:Not a good move, Nintendo by pjt33 · · Score: 1

      Given that Mario is a common name in several countries, Google's unlikely to rank a page which mentions the game once above the hundreds of home-pages which will both use the word a lot and have it used in the anchor text of referencing hyperlinks.

    6. Re:Not a good move, Nintendo by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      Microsoft learned this the hard way thanks to a certain Mike Rowe's Software company.
      ROTFL. In this universe, as opposed to the paralell one you seem to have posted from, Microsoft *won*. (And cheaply too.) Equally, had Mike Rowe not chosen to cave, he'd have lost big time as he set out deliberatly to capitalize on the similiarity of names. A big legal no no.
    7. Re:Not a good move, Nintendo by mrcdeckard · · Score: 1

      it's obvious they don't want their trademarks (which have become known to be kid/family friendly) affiliated with porn sites. i think it's also obvious that this was found by a bot, and the email was a form letter. i think one could easily argue that SG is just as much a public forum as a "porn" site (if not more) quite effectively in court.

      i wonder what Nintendo would think about a mention of one of their games in Playboy, eg.?

      cheers,
      chris deckard
      saint louis mo

      --
      "Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it." - R. Feynman
    8. Re:Not a good move, Nintendo by IInventedTheInternet · · Score: 1

      "Perhaps they're concerned that some young kid googling for web sites about Zelda and Mario will come across a link to suicidegirls.com. That wouldn't do a whole lot for their family image."
      Perhaps it's not their concern. Insted why not leave that to the parents to steer their children away from sights they deem unviewable.

      (personally nuts to that, kids need porn like MJ needs kids (anyone else tired of MH?))(guess I shouldn't have ripped on him again then, but whatever.)

    9. Re:Not a good move, Nintendo by kasperd · · Score: 1

      Mike Rowe's Software company.

      As far as I remember it was not a software company. So why did he include Soft in the name? I think he just found that it sounded kind of funny. (Do we need to say, the name was Mike Rowe Soft).

      --

      Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
  11. The real reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you've seen Nintendo's ad campaign on WWE.com then you'll know the real reason. SuiciDegirlS turned them down on advertising the new Nintendo DS.

  12. before the server starts smoking by kd5ujz · · Score: 0

    > From: Stop IP Infringement > Date: October 27, 2004 10:12:06 AM PDT > To: "'spooky@suicidegirls.com'" > Subject: Infringement of Nintendo Intellectual Property Rights > > > > > > October 26, 2004 > > > > > > > > > > VIA EMAIL ONLY > > Administrator: spooky@suicidegirls.com > > > > Re: http:/www/suicidegirls.com/members/RuneLateralus/3 80354/ > > Infringement of Nintendo Intellectual Property Rights > IDENTIFIED PROBLEM: Pornographic Web site uses Nintendo in link, > text, source code, Zelda and Metroid in text > > Greetings: > > We represent Nintendo of America Inc. ("Nintendo"), the owner of the > trademark(s) and/or copyrighted works listed above (the "Nintendo > trademark(s)/works"). It has come to our client's attention recently > that you are using the Nintendo trademark(s)/works in the hidden > text/visible text/meta tags and/or title and/or links of the > above-referenced sexually explicit Web site. This use is > unauthorized, and we are writing to demand that you immediately cease > and desist this infringement of Nintendo's intellectual property > rights. > > Nintendo has acquired substantial rights in the Nintendo > trademark(s)/works. Nintendo's customers--including many children and > their parents--have come to identify the Nintendo trademark(s)/works > with the high quality of Nintendo products. Your unauthorized use of > the Nintendo trademark(s)/works will tarnish Nintendo's reputation. > > This infringement of Nintendo's intellectual property rights can > subject you to sanctions under applicable federal and state laws. > Accordingly, you must immediately cease and desist from any and all > use of (1) the Nintendo trademark(s)/works, (2) any other Nintendo > trademark(s)/works, and (3) any mark which is confusingly similar to a > Nintendo trademark. This includes, but is not limited to, your > infringement of Nintendo's intellectual property as explained above. > > I look forward to your immediate confirmation that you have taken the > necessary steps to resolve this matter. To that end, you may contact > me at either 2063596742 or StopInfringement@perkinscoie.com. > > Sincerely, > > > Melissa Morgan Nelson > Perkins Coie LLP > 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800 > Seattle, WA 98101-3099 > http://www.perkinscoie.com > > :ceh > > cc: Nintendo of America Inc. > > ISP: peter.luttrell@3jane.com > > File: 51.13 > > NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential > information. If you have received it in error, please advise the > sender by > reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments > without > copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you.

    --
    -William
    God is everything science has yet to explain.
    1. Re:before the server starts smoking by russint · · Score: 2, Informative

      > From: Stop IP Infringement
      > Date: October 27, 2004 10:12:06 AM PDT
      > To: "'spooky@suicidegirls.com'"
      > Subject: Infringement of Nintendo Intellectual Property Rights

      > October 26, 2004
      >
      > VIA EMAIL ONLY
      >
      > Administrator: spooky@suicidegirls.com
      >
      > Re: http:/www/suicidegirls.com/members/RuneLateralus/3 80354/
      >
      > Infringement of Nintendo Intellectual Property Rights
      > IDENTIFIED PROBLEM: Pornographic Web site uses Nintendo in link,
      > text, source code, Zelda and Metroid in text
      >
      > Greetings:
      >
      > We represent Nintendo of America Inc. ("Nintendo"), the owner of the
      > trademark(s) and/or copyrighted works listed above (the "Nintendo
      > trademark(s)/works"). It has come to our client's attention recently
      > that you are using the Nintendo trademark(s)/works in the hidden
      > text/visible text/meta tags and/or title and/or links of the
      > above-referenced sexually explicit Web site. This use is
      > unauthorized, and we are writing to demand that you immediately cease
      > and desist this infringement of Nintendo's intellectual property
      > rights.
      >
      > Nintendo has acquired substantial rights in the Nintendo
      > trademark(s)/works. Nintendo's customers--including many children and
      > their parents--have come to identify the Nintendo trademark(s)/works
      > with the high quality of Nintendo products. Your unauthorized use of
      > the Nintendo trademark(s)/works will tarnish Nintendo's reputation.
      >
      > This infringement of Nintendo's intellectual property rights can
      > subject you to sanctions under applicable federal and state laws.
      > Accordingly, you must immediately cease and desist from any and all
      > use of (1) the Nintendo trademark(s)/works, (2) any other Nintendo
      > trademark(s)/works, and (3) any mark which is confusingly similar to a
      > Nintendo trademark. This includes, but is not limited to, your
      > infringement of Nintendo's intellectual property as explained above.
      >
      > I look forward to your immediate confirmation that you have taken the
      > necessary steps to resolve this matter. To that end, you may contact
      > me at either 2063596742 or StopInfringement@perkinscoie.com.
      >
      > Sincerely,
      >
      >
      > Melissa Morgan Nelson
      > Perkins Coie LLP
      > 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800
      > Seattle, WA 98101-3099
      > http://www.perkinscoie.com
      >
      > :ceh
      >
      > cc: Nintendo of America Inc.
      >
      > ISP: peter.luttrell@3jane.com
      >
      > File: 51.13
      >
      > NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential
      > information. If you have received it in error, please advise the
      > sender by
      > reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments
      > without
      > copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you.

      --
      ^^
    2. Re:before the server starts smoking by KaiserZoze_860 · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the post.

      So my read is that Nintendo is concerned that some kid will find this off of Google or something and mistake it for an official Ninetedo site? I highly doubt that.

      IMHO there is no trademark infringement here. A member is stating a preference, not using the names to draw traffic or defraud anyone.

      -KS

    3. Re:before the server starts smoking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a pr0n site, I think they're used to high traffic. 90% of Slashdot probably allready visits the site on a daily basis anyway.

    4. Re:before the server starts smoking by kd5ujz · · Score: 1

      Danke.

      --
      -William
      God is everything science has yet to explain.
    5. Re:before the server starts smoking by Shadow_139 · · Score: 1

      How can you reply telling the sender that email they sent to you, "without copying or disclosing the contents"

      Hi I got a email from you that you sent in error, but I can't tell you what it said.........

      http://www.beersquirrel.com/

    6. Re:before the server starts smoking by jtev · · Score: 1

      Doesn't act like they're used to the volume they're getting now.

      --
      That which is done from love exists beyond good and evil
  13. Free Society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm glad we live in a free society where shit like this doesn't happen. I mean, if any company had the sheer idiocy to pull a stunt like this, they'd be in danger of having their commercial license revoked by the government of the people.

    1. Re:Free Society by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

      Wow - you must live in Soviet Russia.

  14. Crazyness! by chrispyman · · Score: 1

    Is Nintendo insane or something? There's nothing wrong with saying you like or dislike something, whether it's a copyrighted/trademarked term or not.

    1. Re:Crazyness! by lakin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It sounds like nintendo are more concerned with their game being mentioned on a porn site, and when they aim their console at kids you can see their point. Although, i think a letter asking the blog owner or site admin to remove the reference with a good excuse, like kids stumbing onto it, would have been better received than a cease and desist order.

      --
      Paul
  15. y'know, by Pandora's+Vox · · Score: 2, Funny

    nintendo might have a case against their lawyers for royally wasting their time. like, there are bounds of reasonableness within trademark law and i'm pretty sure (though IANAL) that this is outside it.

    OTOH if it was nintendo pushing for this, then their lawyers should be suing them for being enormous morons.

    -Leigh

  16. Way to shoot yourself in the foot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Any publicity Nintendo can get these days is good publicity.

    1. Re:Way to shoot yourself in the foot by Carthag · · Score: 1

      Your argument doesn't hold. They're arguably getting more publicity over this lawsuit than they ever got from that "favorite games" listing. If you call any publicity good publicity, that's not shooting oneself in the foot, on the contrary.

  17. Ever hear of...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FREE SPEECH?

    1. Re:Ever hear of...? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Sorry ... that's a common misconception. "Free speech", in the United States at least, says absolutely zilch about what a private organization can or cannot do to suppress "speech". It only refers to what the government can suppress.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    2. Re:Ever hear of...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      FREE SPEECH?

      Yeah, I've heard of it. Apparently, freedom of speech got sold away to the megacorps while you were busy watching TV. You can still say anything you want, just make sure that no one owns those words before you say them. The future's a great place to live, isn't it?

  18. Google NT by bstadil · · Score: 1

    Google daily news feature

    --
    Help fight continental drift.
  19. Good for the goose! by pla · · Score: 2, Insightful

    SG has had a bad rep for years over aggressively "protecting" their IP.

    Should we all cry foul because a far, far bigger company has decided to pull the same sort of stunt SG has pulled dozens of times?

    I think not.

    1. Re:Good for the goose! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The difference being that people were taking SG images and content, claiming them as their own or using them in their own ways without crediting Suicidegirls and violating copyright and trademark laws.

      This is just a few members saying "Hey, we like nintendo."

      I enjoy a cool, crisp Coca-Cola. Think they're gonna sue me for saying so? Even on a porn site?

    2. Re:Good for the goose! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very true, I think they are fucking hot, but those bitches go for the throat.

    3. Re:Good for the goose! by zangdesign · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So, by your reasoning we only protect those who have done only right? What do we do those who have been sent to prison and released for serving their time - let them rot in there? Pretty harsh judgement.

      Another question: was SG justified in protecting their own interests? If it was a copyright infringement situation, then they were within the bounds of the law - whether you like it or not.

      Two wrongs do not make a right.

      --
      To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
    4. Re:Good for the goose! by lilmouse · · Score: 1

      There are several posts already here that run along the lines of "great site".

      Nintendo's action is quivalent to SG sending all those posters (or /., I suppose) letters saying "Do not mention Suicide Girls."

      Pretty stupid action. And very different from protecting IP like picture ppl might conceivably pay money for.

      --LWM

    5. Re:Good for the goose! by metlin · · Score: 1

      Depends.

      Who's your Daddy, girl? ;)

    6. Re:Good for the goose! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone who has been a member of SG for awhile, and who likes the site and hopes it doesn't turn into a shitbox with mundanely hip new members, I still have to agree with the grandparent post. If a company wants to be assholes about their IP, there's no way I'm going to defend them when they get hit by another company that are assholes about their IP. I feel the same way about Apple, though I've only ever bought Apple computers and have been a shareholder for years.

      Obviously, in the end most everyone on slashdot would like to see IP laws and process get cleaned up. But which do you think will do it faster - if on occasion ridiculous claims are upheld by the courts and occasionally they aren't or if nearly all the ridiculous IP claims are upheld? Right now without a severe overhaul of the laws, the courts and the government agencies involved there is no chance that we'll ever get to a point where IP laws follow common sense. So until we get a better system that makes the possibility of abuse highly unlikely, if a company wants to abuse IP law I say let them be abused by IP law. It's only fair.

    7. Re:Good for the goose! by cephyn · · Score: 1

      I hope you're Mike from TechDirt because you just jacked his coca-cola example. If you're not Mike, then you just jacked his IP and he'll probably sue /. now. I hope you're proud.

      --
      Moo.
    8. Re:Good for the goose! by kfg · · Score: 2, Interesting

      SG has had a bad rep for years over aggressively "protecting" their IP.

      There is a major difference between uploading copyright protected Suicide Girls pictures to a usenet group and posting that you like the Suicide Girls website.

      In fact, it's the same difference between posting Zelda to a warz site and posting that you like to play Zelda.

      McDonald's would have no case against someone who avers to liking Big Macs (alhtough their taste might well be in question), but if someone opened a diner and called their burgers 'Big Macs' McDonalds would, quite justifiably, come down on them like a ton of bricks.

      Are you suggesting that SG has a history of getting all bent out of shape by people publicly recommending their site, or merely that they get bent out of shape by people reposting their pictures without permission?

      KFG

    9. Re:Good for the goose! by pla · · Score: 1

      So, by your reasoning we only protect those who have done only right? What do we do those who have been sent to prison and released for serving their time - let them rot in there? Pretty harsh judgement.

      Slashdot does not equal a court of law. Considering that, a posting about this issue here can serve only one purpose - Trying to scare Nintendo by pointing a nest of angry geeks at them.

      Well, how many people felt sorry for Rush after getting busted with a Perc habit, after he expressed for years how the government should just round up and execute all the junkies?

      Same situation.

      Nintendo may have overstepped its bounds here, but they didn't exactly pick on a random innocent (no pun intended) party for whom we should all feel sympathy.

    10. Re:Good for the goose! by euxneks · · Score: 0

      Or, two thongs don't make a thigh!

      I'm here all week!

      --
      in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
    11. Re:Good for the goose! by erikharrison · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What the hell are you talking about? I do not ask lightly.

      Here is a story.

      I photograph flowers for a living. Have a website devoted to it. Have photographed some exotic flowers over the years, and I charge to let botonists see my collection.

      Someone takes those photos and pretends they made them. Makes them publically available. I take legal action, as this hurts my legitimate business.

      A third party happens to mention on my site that a set of specific varieties of daisies prefer a specific fertilizer. Then I get a nasty letter from the fertilizer company for mentioning their product.

      Under your reasoning I'm supposed to be like 'Fuck, my fault for aggresively pursuing those who were ruining my business"?

      Unless you are anti IP across the board (which I doubt) this position makes no sense.

      Additionally I'd like to defend SG a bit by saying that aggresive protection of their photos is completely reasonable. Your average hard core porn site probably does not have a personal relationship with their models, nor is their much expectation of trust. Spreading their work is a legal issue only.

      But Missy knows many of her models personally. They've posed under conditions where they have creative control over how they look and who sees them. Missy has every right to aggresively protect the spread of naked pictures of her friends for god's sake. SG has nothing but a good reputation in the indie adult community, and it is for exactly this kind of "aggresive protection" that they deserve it. I would expect nothing less from Missy, from Eolake Stobblehouse (of domai.com) or Alex Firestone (firegirls.com).

      Honestly, I imagine that Nintendo doesn't want to be associated with, say, child porn, drugs, etc, and runs a webcrawler that matches the use of certain terms ("Mario") with other terms ("boobs") and then emails the admin when it matches This is pretty clear from the email that at best, SG was only looked at by a human eye for about 30 seconds.

    12. Re:Good for the goose! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, Mike quoted Sean, from Suicidegirls, whose coca-cola example I just jacked.

      Credit where credit is due.

    13. Re:Good for the goose! by mark-t · · Score: 1
      Actually, the reason for Nintendo's exception to this is made clear in their letter... they do not wish to be associated with material that is, quite plainly, not suitable for children. Because the trademarked terms are appearing on a page within an adult web site, a web search for those trademarks very conceivably could result in a link to that site being produced by a search engine, which may in turn be clicked on by a minor. This is the reason that Nintendo is upset about the use of their trademarked terms on that site. I'm not saying they're right about what they are doing, only that from their standpoint of only wishing to be associated with materials and content which are suitable for all ages, it's understandable why they would be bothered by this.

      Unfortunately for them, that's about all they can do here... is be bothered by it.

    14. Re:Good for the goose! by star_gazer09 · · Score: 1

      I grow roses. There are several rose varieties that are patented. I buy a patented rose. I take it home. Since I'm into roses, I know how to graft a branch from one rose bush to another. And since bushes of the "hybrid tea roses" variety are pretty much all done that way so that the pretty flowers have hardy root stock, it's not unknown. Soooo.... I go home and start grafting away. Pretty soon I have ten new bushes. All of them with the pretty patented rose grafted onto my own root stock. Most rose freaks, especially the ones who have patents or hope to, will say I've violated the patent, even though I haven't sold them. Since the wrapper the original bush came in expressly forbids what I've done, I guess the patent holder does too. I think that's f***ing stupid. SG-9

    15. Re:Good for the goose! by bani · · Score: 1

      actually, it was pretty clear from the email that SG wasn't looked at by a human eye at all. it was completely automated, like the RIAA and MPAA "takedown notices".

    16. Re:Good for the goose! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, they might, depending on how you express that enjoyment on a porn site... I would expect they might be particularly protective of that distinctive green-glass bottle.

    17. Re:Good for the goose! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If SG did not in fact use any Nintendo copyrights or trademarks illegally, then SG is an "innocent" in this case. Guess what? The whole point of the first amendment is to protect all speech, especially "unpopular" speech.

      This situation is not remotely similar to the situation of Rush's opinions on drugs, and then his becoming an addict. We're talking about some people talking about Nintendo, which as I have mentioned in other posts was and still is basically a generic word for video games ever since their widespread dominance after the fall of Atari's stranglehold on the market, in a time when no one thought video games could be profitable, and (allegedly) getting sued over it. This is more like having a blog, referring to something being a "mickey mouse operation", and getting sued by disney.

      And, for the record, I feel sorry for Rush. I'm a smoker and I know what addiction is like, on a small scale. Luckily my addiction only causes cancer - just about any drug besides marijuana can kill you, after all. Cigarettes basically only make people testy (when they don't have them), they don't generally make them sell shit to go buy more smokes. I can't imagine what it's like to be hooked on stimulants, but I've seen what speed does to people, and it's not pretty - literally.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    18. Re:Good for the goose! by jafuser · · Score: 1

      This sounds very much like the property rights management system in Second Life. As the creator, you can set bits to determine what the next owner can do: modify, copy, transfer.

      There has been a lot of discussion on the balance of power between creators and owners as far as these permissions go, including the rights granted by Fair Use and First Sale.

      The problem is if you give someone the ability to copy, then they can replicate as many copies as they want at no cost, and then turn around and sell the copies. Creators don't like this, so they proposed a system where you lose your permission to sell as soon as you make a copy. This has problems as well, and it seems like it's going to take a lot of work to balance out.

      The rose example you give is very similar to this. How do you sell something tangible that can easily replicate itself, and at the same time prevent rampant counterfieting?

      --
      Please consider making an automatic monthly recurring donation to the EFF
  20. Yea, this one'll go far. by TyrranzzX · · Score: 1

    We represent Nintendo of America Inc.( "Nintendo"), the owner of the trademark(s) and/or copyrighted works listed above (the "Nintendo trademark(s)/works"). It has come to our client's attention recently that you are using the Nintendo trademark(s)/works in the hidden text/visible text/meta tags and/or title and/or links of the above-referenced sexually explicit Web site. This use is unauthorized, and we are writing to demand that you immediately cease and desist this infringement of Nintendo's intellectual property rights."

    Since when is expressing your views on a webpage or indexing yourself in a search engine a violation of intellectual property law?

    Nintendo just made themselves look like a bunch of litigous assholes. I am, however, curious as to why they'd do such a stupid thing.

    1. Re:Yea, this one'll go far. by Trurl's+Machine · · Score: 1

      Nintendo just made themselves look like a bunch of litigous assholes. I am, however, curious as to why they'd do such a stupid thing.

      Japan is actually a very conservative society when it comes to certain issues (hentai notwithstanding), and in Japan it's just not good for corporate image to be associated both with porn and with suicide. Especially when talking about corporation strongly dependent on the market of toys bought largely by parents for kids. They just want to remove these references before Sankei Sports tabloid runs a headline "Suicidal porn buffs enjoy Nintendo games".

    2. Re:Yea, this one'll go far. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My guess is they're afraid that a torrent of born-again mad mothers will sue them for allowing someone to use their products to "lure children to adult websites." Won't someone please think of the children?!

      Remember, according to these nutjobs, all games are intended for children. After all, after being prescribed the necessary medication to get into an ultra-busy worker bee frenzy, who has time to relax and play a game? Must work... force children to play soccer... setup your child on play dates with "responsible" children... keep busy, busy, busy, busy... then take other medication to sleep...

    3. Re:Yea, this one'll go far. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because they imagine some kid typing "nintendo" into a search engine and www.suicidegirls.com coming up.

      Real or not, that's probably their concern.

    4. Re:Yea, this one'll go far. by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 1
      My guess, based on the excerpt above (since I'm not even going to try and access suicidegirls from work), is that the problem is due to the pornographic nature of the site. Nintendo is the more "kid friendly" or "family oriented" than the other game systems so they are trying to protect their image. Of course explaining their logic is far different than accepting it. If the context is truly just a "these are my likes" kinda thing, than yeah its pretty stupid. If suicidegirls is doing a lot more with the Nintendo stuff (especially if it is pornographic in nature) than I could understand it a wee bit better.

      That being said, maybe they are doing this as a due diligence in case someone does something truly offensive with their IP. In other words, if they go after someone using Nintendo characters in ribald situations, the other side won't be able to argue that they did not pursue a claim against other adult sites. But, since IANAL, I doubt I'll ever know for sure.

      Having re-read your post before submitting...

      Since when is expressing your views on a webpage or indexing yourself in a search engine a violation of intellectual property law?

      I would think that if you are using someone's IP to generate more hits for your website, than that could be considered violating their IP. But, again, IANAL;-)

      --
      If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
    5. Re:Yea, this one'll go far. by chris_mahan · · Score: 1

      Except that this feels like censorship.

      All I know is that I personally will not buy any Nintendo products, EVER.

      (Of course, I never did in the past, but they could have gotten some bux out of me in the future.)

      --

      "Piter, too, is dead."

    6. Re:Yea, this one'll go far. by Sta7ic · · Score: 1

      Was this even Nintendo's doing? If they don't want a porn site and their trademarks in the same thought process, then what did they think would happen when someone else got a hold of this? Here it is on the front page of /. ... imagine if a more notable news service picks it up. Or if it randomly gets hooked by Google News (the we-just-gather-it site). This is too blatantly someone else's handywork, and a couple US$ says there's at least one Nintendo exec who's annoyed about the relatively massive exposure this is getting. SG prolly wouldn't've had 2k views of the profile's contents over a year, whereas 2k is measured in minutes here. The original goal was context control, and it backfired. Let's hope we hear about the fallout.

    7. Re:Yea, this one'll go far. by TyrranzzX · · Score: 1

      You don't get it; I think Nintendo is aware of all the other things associated with their games; hell, there's an entire hentai industry there if you look. There's some crap around that if a little kid saw it would probably ruin their lives for years to come. So, Nintendo going after these people for making a relitivally harmless comment on a freggin webpage seems pretty steep to me. I can understand wanting to keep a family friendly image, but I'd think they'd realize that they'd be creating a PR mess, and knowing Nintendo, they're smarter than that. We're talking about a company that planned for a $250 million yen fine from the japanese government (about $2 million USD) for monopolization and regonalization of their disks for their systems.

      No, something far more bizzare is going on here besides Nintendo trying to protect their corporate image.

    8. Re:Yea, this one'll go far. by fatphil · · Score: 1

      "Nintendo is the more "kid friendly" or "family oriented" than the other game systems"

      But I've just spent half an hour running round a cave murdering realistically-animated people on my N64. I
      don't call /that/ kid friendly.

      Nintendo are simply another bunch of litigious bastards.
      They're not the first, and they won't be the last.

      I'm glad that the US takes its first amendment very seriously, as I can't see this case even getting to a court.

      FP.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    9. Re:Yea, this one'll go far. by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 1
      Well, I did put them in quotes for a reason;-)

      Nintendo is indeed a company like any other. But when they view themselves as being the (again with the quotes) "family" choice, then they will do stupid things to protect their own [contrived] image.

      I'm glad that the US takes its first amendment very seriously, as I can't see this case even getting to a court.

      I am very glad of this as well. But the Amendments to the Constitution protect only against government action, not the actions between ordinary citizens. I doubt as well that this case will see the light of day (and it certainly shouldn't) but the reason for its failure won't be a Consittutional one. IANAL but I did take a year of Con Law in college;-)

      --
      If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
  21. I just want to say that Nintendo is my favorite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...site for slashdotting. Er, wait, will I get a cease-and-desist order now?

  22. Not the first time this happened by thedogcow · · Score: 1

    The lawsuit is absurd.
    But this is not the first time this happened to "fringe" websites. Take a look at Rotten.coms legal battles of the same nature .
    This is not a troll either, the legal page is without the macabre images.

    --
    Yes! I listen to NYC Speedcore and do math at 3AM. I suggest you try it too.
  23. You insensitive clods! by One+Childish+N00b · · Score: 1

    Slashdotting a site just as...

    wait, nevermind.

    --
    Dealing with lawyers would be a lot less tedious if they all looked like Casey Novak.
  24. Hm. by outZider · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Why is it that at least 75% of those girls are rather.. uninspiring? Yeah, I know, objectification of women and all of that. But, hey. It's a porn site. It's supposed to show the ideals. And.. they aren't. These are like my friends. heh.

    --
    - oZ
    // i am here.
    1. Re:Hm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bell curve. Most girls are average, we just see the hot ones more (via tv/magazines/etc) and we hide away the really ugly ones in basements.

    2. Re:Hm. by outZider · · Score: 1

      They can't really be goth, most of the girls on the site are under 200 pounds.

      --
      - oZ
      // i am here.
    3. Re:Hm. by shawnmchorse · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's the whole point of the site, I believe. They're NOT your standard Playboy bunnies with fake perky boobs and blonde hair. They're people that you might actually know, if you lived in the same area.

    4. Re:Hm. by jtev · · Score: 1

      They are? I rather liked them. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Thank you for sharing your opinoin though.

      --
      That which is done from love exists beyond good and evil
    5. Re:Hm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      They're goth, they can't be inspiring. They're right around the biggest waste of breath on the planet.

      Because they all look the same, dress the same, and have the same opinions. They all go to the same bar, like a Friday-night flock of sheep. They watch the same shows, read the same books, smoke the same kind of cigarettes. All the music they listen to sounds the same. They look down on anyone who doesn't fit in with them, and hurl ridicule and insult upon anyone who is at all different from them.

      Just like you and your friends. Thank you for showing us all that it doesn't take black lipstick or Cure albums to be an intolerant, judgemental asshole. Just because your chosen social group has a greater population than the goths doesn't mean that you aren't a fucking waste of breath.

    6. Re:Hm. by TechnologyX · · Score: 0

      You're welcome, Coward

      The biggest difference between my crowd ( death metalists ) and the goth crowd is that we can kick the goth crowds ass

      --
      Slashdot sucks
    7. Re:Hm. by TechnologyX · · Score: 0

      Definite point, if I had mod points I would give you one, but since I get the big bad -1 all the time, till next time

      --
      Slashdot sucks
    8. Re:Hm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The biggest difference between my crowd ( death metalists ) and the goth crowd is that we can kick the goth crowds ass

      You're a death metal kid? Oh my god, it's like a midget dissing the Pygmies: Too damn funny. I'll take back all that bile, then. Like a black guy using the "N" word, you're free to bash the goths all you like.

    9. Re:Hm. by TechnologyX · · Score: 0

      Yeah, because death/black metal musicians are really a crowd to fuck with

      --
      Slashdot sucks
    10. Re:Hm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That kicks ass... LOL about the church burnings. ahahahahah...

    11. Re:Hm. by Sein · · Score: 1

      Huh, around where I live, there's really not much difference between the black metal and goth crowds. The scene's so small, exclusivity's kinda stupid. If we didn't go to each other's parties and clubs, they'd all go bankrupt.

      I vaguely knew Varg, he used to hang around int he same RPG/Gamer crowd though I don't claim to have more'n prolly bumped into him at some of the local events. Funny thing though, he was one of those BonJovi poodle rockers in high school - guess he had an adverse reaction to singing in the choir. Yeah, I know, completely off topic. Anyway - the blackmetallers around these parts don't think much of Varg at all.

  25. Search by brandonp · · Score: 1

    Wonder if they're worried about the posting being found by kids looking for Zelda/Metroid cheats and tips.

    I'm sure GTA would welcome the endorsement, but I can see Nintendo being uncomfortable when their audience is for a younger more innocent crowd.

    --
    Brandon Petersen
    Get Firefox!

  26. OMFG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Teh suicide grrls r t HAWT with teh pasty skin and b00bies!

    n1ntend0 sux0rs!

  27. Intellectual property in dog tricks by Trurl's+Machine · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm currently reading guide to dumbest events in television history by David Hofstede and there's an excellent chapter on how NBC tried to sue David Letterman after his "defection" to CBS claiming that there is intellectual property owned by NBC in Letterman's "Stupid Pet Tricks". After a lot of ridicule and mockery, even from their very own Jay Leno, NBC finally backed off. I wish Nintendo could be at least that smart...

  28. Free Advertising by Smiley8410 · · Score: 1, Funny

    This is the first time I've heard of a company complaining about free advertising.

    BTW. My favorite video games are also ummm.. "Melda" and er... "Zetroid".

    1. Re:Free Advertising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah.. whoopdee-fucking-doo.. and it was a generic letter sent out by those faggot lawyers.. not Nintendo.. it's nice to see somebody blowing the dust aside and realizing the truth..

      Peace,
      Nicky

    2. Re:Free Advertising by chrome · · Score: 1

      ah, if only I had mod points.

      I've been on slashdot for a VERY long time, and its just going steadily downhill. Its a bit like paying for an O:Line on an IRC network. You can do it, but nobody will admit to it.

      Paying for a story on slashdot? You can probably do it, but nobody would ever admit to it.

  29. Pornographic website? by Nicholas+Evans · · Score: 5, Interesting
    IDENTIFIED PROBLEM: Pornographic Web site uses Nintendo in link, text, source code, Zelda and Metroid in text

    But it isn't a problem when playboy uses (nude) nintendo characters?

    1. Re:Pornographic website? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it isn't a problem when playboy uses (nude) nintendo characters?

      When did that happen? I need it for... uh... research...

    2. Re:Pornographic website? by MagicDude · · Score: 2, Informative

      They weren't using nintendo characters in playboy, they were using chracters who were made by various third party companies. They didn't have Samus wearing nothing but a blaster, or Zelda posing with the triforce conveniently placed. Those characters will always be truly nintendo, and thus Nintendo will go out of their way to specifically protect them.

    3. Re:Pornographic website? by pommiekiwifruit · · Score: 2, Funny

      I have heard from a friend of a neighour of a friend etc. that PS2 controllers have appeared on a top-shelf pr0n magazine, and also images of people playing Wolf3d and other games in a hardcore video...

  30. Slowing...slowwwiinnnggg... by Fenis-Wolf · · Score: 1

    Wow..looks like slashdot is preparing to crush suicidegirls out of existence.
    Although...all the horny slashdot geeks signing up for the service might out weigh the cost of a server meltdown :-)

    --

  31. Bagsie Al by caluml · · Score: 1

    Bagsie Al. I saw her first. Maybe a little mad, but hey, why change the habit of a lifetime?

  32. Really Nintendo? by FroBugg · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The email came from StopInfringement@PerkinsCoie.com.

    Does that look like the email address a multinational corporation would use? Nintendo's sure to have their own in-house lawyers for stuff like this. It just looks to me like some random law firm is looking for suits to file and then hoping Nintendo will pay them for the favor. I'm sure I heard something about laws in certain European countries making this common practice.

    1. Re:Really Nintendo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good call.

      There are a number of ways this could be not-what-it-seems.

      Maybe Nintendo just bought SG and it's a marketing ploy.

      That Mario chick is really hot, btw.

    2. Re:Really Nintendo? by Galvatron · · Score: 3, Informative
      It may be common practice in Europe, but my understanding is that the laws here are a bit different. Anyway, the email states "We represent Nintendo of America, Inc.," and it would surely be illegal to say that if it were not true. Most likely Nintendo just contracts out the dull "search for 'Nintendo' on Google and intimidate every questionable site that comes up" job to a firm that specializes in that sort of thing.

      Virtually all the absurd C&D letters I've seen on the web have come from firms representing the company that actually owns the intellectual property in question.

      --
      "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
    3. Re:Really Nintendo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From their website, it seems they represent several large companies and it's quite possible that the American arm of Nintendo contracts out to American lawyers.

      http://perkinscoie.com/about/clients.cfm

    4. Re:Really Nintendo? by HitByASquirrel · · Score: 1

      Either that or someone just won a bet for getting /. to post a link to a site with pictures of naked girls on it.

    5. Re:Really Nintendo? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      they way (I believe) the "ip protection industry" works is that these law/other firms do this "ip protecting" on contract for nintendo(& others) and quite probably bill them by the number of c&d's sent.

      now, obviously, you and me will see the problem with that arrangement... but these firms sell their services as some sort of magic profit maker(which conviniently can't be measured at all!) to the guys in firms(like nintendo) that make decision to order these services.

      this is _exactly_ why there's so many baseless cease&desist emails flying around - they don't bother to check and they don't want to check even because it would be less to bill. so the shittier they do their job the more they get! I wouldn't be really surprised if these firms these things are contracted to didn't just employ some college kids to browse aimlessly at minimum wage(or on 'performance based' wage even) to send these mails around(with total automation you'd get better results!!!!!!!!).

      and what's really sad about this is that the mpaa/riaa/computer_comps just get screwed out of money(so that piracy costs them _directly_ a measurable amount of money.. a fake investment on which returns they can't measure.. so the performance of these firms sucking money and harassing people with c&d's can't even be measured).

      any fucking real lawyer should have known that the case won't ever fly(and thus not have initiated such emailing.. UNLESS he/they were billing the client by numbers in which case it would be really easy to send one letter and bill for 2 hours or whatever and never do a single thing again of that 'case').

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    6. Re:Really Nintendo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The lawyer has a form e-mail response page at www.perkinscoie.com/common/mailer.cfm?sendto=MNels on. I left her a nasty message. I think her direct e-mail addy is mnelson@perkinscoie.com.

    7. Re:Really Nintendo? by Hacksaw · · Score: 1

      In fact, that's not really the case. In house lawyers handle basic business advisement, and coordinate the activities of the outside firms employed. Outside firms specializing in the appropriate activity are employed because they are more likely to be successful in the endeavor.

      --

      All the technology in the world won't hide your lack of vision, talent, or understanding.

  33. What if? by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    What if one responds to Nintendo with a letter in big letters that just says "Up Yours" or something? I don't see how something like this could make it into court. I'd probably just file something like this in the trash.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  34. Serves them right. by unixbugs · · Score: 0

    What about all those warez sites with links to video game roms etc...? Nintendo wont go after them, no way. No money in it.

    This use is unauthorized, and we are writing to demand that you immediately cease and desist this infringement of Nintendo's intellectual property rights.

    That sounds so silly. SO immature. Frivolous in every sense of the word. As far as that goes, suicidegirls.com should be able to sue Nintendo for electronic trespassing. What a waste of time and energy. There is so much wrong with this fucking planet and we live in country ruled by corporate lawyers with nothing else in mind but their own ass.

    --
    You are about to give someone a piece of your mind, something which you can ill afford...
  35. suicide girls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    after looking at those suicide girls, i want to commit suicide. interesting.

  36. Nice excuse by Zebedeu · · Score: 5, Funny

    At Nintendo:
    [Boss walks into a worker's cubicle...]
    -Hi anderson, I was just.. whhaa?!? Are you browsing porn in the workplace?
    -Uhh no, you see, [looks at screen, sweating all over] these pervert weirdoes are abusing our company's copyright!
    -You're right! Launch every lawyer! For great justice!

    1. Re:Nice excuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems that you've been living two lives. One life, you're Thomas A. Anderson, program writer for Nintendo. You have a social security number, pay your taxes, and you... help your landlady carry out her garbage. The other life is lived in pornographic websites, where you go by the hacker alias "Zebedeu" and are guilty of virtually every perversion we have a name for. One of these lives has a future, and one of them does not.

    2. Re:Nice excuse by Ayaress · · Score: 1

      Just being picky, but "For Great Justice!" is one of the identifying lines from Zero Wing, a well known game produced for the Sega Genesis. By mentioning a Sega reltated trademark in a post relating to Nintendo products, you are hereby violating, I don't know, SOMETHING, so just be nice and send us your address so we can send Dr. Robotnik down there to "sue" your "ass".

    3. Re:Nice excuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But first, take off every zig! (Sorry, seemed vaguely appropriate.)

  37. "You've got to be fucking kidding..." by coltrane679 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I feel like that dude in "The Thing" who sees that disembodied head grow legs and scamper off like a spider.

    The never-ending insanity that is American IP law continues to devour all in its sight. I know this is just a threat, not a court decision--but defending such threats cost real money, lots of it. Until these fucking archcriminals are made to fear the sanction of paying ALL fees and costs (plus other damages) to those they threaten willy-nilly, this shit is never going to stop.

  38. [OT] WWE Site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone else find this headline hilarious?

    1. Re:[OT] WWE Site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Backdoor

      Jericho has up and down night

      i knew Jericho was a homo.. but then again most wrestlers are homos, yessss?

  39. So overly nostalgic... by SynapseLapse · · Score: 1

    stuff at Spencers for things that came out fifteen years ago=good. Naked goth girls who still live in the 80's=bad. Making new games where it's one long reference to what a Japanese programmer had to do with the limited hardware they had in the 80's = good. And naked goth girl's still celebrating it fifteen years later = bad. This probably all came about because little 8 year old Timmy was searching for "mario nintendo" and came across SGs. Parents blame Nintendo who have no control over the situation... etc...

  40. IP versus Free Speech? by taernim · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Are we even talking about IP, here?

    What gives Nintendo the right to censor the mere mention of something? They weren't discussing any secrets of IP or using the namesakes or images illegally... their member simply named two games as their favorite.

    How is it even conceivable that they should be allowed to do this??

    --
    "PC Load Letter? What the $@#% does that mean?!"
    1. Re:IP versus Free Speech? by thogard · · Score: 1

      Since its not real property, they had to tack on the word Intellectual in a hope to con people that it is.

      This is a major problem when a products name is trademarked. How do you refer to just that product if it doesn't have another name?

    2. Re:IP versus Free Speech? by Tlosk · · Score: 1

      From their point of view I suspect they don't want people doing a web search for mario to have a porn site pop up in the list since their target audience is children. Because it's a porn site it might get more traffic than most sites which means its ranking would be inflated.

      Secondly, because the name usage is truely trivial (it adds nothing to their site, it's just a random babbling from a forum poster or something) they have zero incentive to keep it if it's going to create hassle for them and would represent legal costs to try to defend it.

      So is this a bit of big gun legal intidimidation for something that isn't really an infringement? Probably. But that doesn't mean Nintendo is unlikely to achieve their goal, nor that the goal is all that terrible (the means of course aren't great, especially if a lot of companies or people with big legal firms on retainer start using it for more and more trivial purposes).

  41. Does this firm actually represent Nintendo? by eht · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Doing a quick search does yield Nintendo as part of their client list, this may just be over zealousness on the part of the law firm or even just a lonely bored employee and not something Nintendo directed them to do. We have seen law firms in the past do this kind of stuff without the IP owner directing them to so do(or at least that's what they tell us).

    Then again it could just be some jerk who spoofed an email to get everyone's dander up.

    1. Re:Does this firm actually represent Nintendo? by Hacksaw · · Score: 1

      Law firms routinely send out cease and desists like this. However, the good ones don't do it for clearly non-infringing instances. If they were to claim injury because someone has listed a game as a favorite, they were certainly be laughed out of court.

      What's going to happen here is that Nintendo is going to apologize for the dumb law firm, and the dumb law firm is going to grovel at Nintendo feet for giving Nintendo bad PR.

      --

      All the technology in the world won't hide your lack of vision, talent, or understanding.

    2. Re:Does this firm actually represent Nintendo? by infinite9 · · Score: 1

      Admin: Mr. Johnson, according to our proxy logs, you've been visiting the suicidegirl.com website. Are you aware this is a porn site sir?

      Johnson: Uhhh, uh, that's, uh, research! I was just about the send them a C&D!

      --
      Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
    3. Re:Does this firm actually represent Nintendo? by nomadic · · Score: 1

      They probably just outsourced the tedious monitoring for IP abuse to another company, which is under orders to send cease and desist letters whenever they find something. I can't see this suit getting anywhere; I'll bet 5 bucks it's dismissed with prejudice or they find summary judgment for the defendants.

    4. Re:Does this firm actually represent Nintendo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From their website, it seems they represent several large companies and it's quite possible that the American arm of Nintendo contracts out to American lawyers.

      http://perkinscoie.com/about/clients.cfm

    5. Re:Does this firm actually represent Nintendo? by learn+fast · · Score: 1

      Then again it could just be some jerk who spoofed an email to get everyone's dander up.

      Or, it could be some jerk trying to get suicidegirls a lot of free publicity...

  42. Please repost the letter. by BrookHarty · · Score: 4, Funny

    ACCESS RESTRICTED

    WARNING NOTICE

    You have attempted to access a site that has been deemed inappropriate for our business and blocked from ALL internal access. A record of this request has been logged and will be provided to Business Security upon request.

    For further information on why this web site was blocked, please go to the SmartFilter website.

    PLEASE REFRAIN FROM ANY FURTHER ATTEMPTS!

    If you feel this message was generated in error or if there is a business justification for unblocking a specific URL , please contact the
    AT&T Wireless Business Security Group.

    1. Re:Please repost the letter. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, it said it was NSFW. I would stop before you get get fired.

    2. Re:Please repost the letter. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats ok, I dont work for ATT Wireless anymore.

    3. Re:Please repost the letter. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Got tired of insulting customers and screwing up their accounts?

    4. Re:Please repost the letter. by Celt · · Score: 1

      lol
      I must try it in work and see what I get on Monday

      --
      "WebTV: bringing the Internet into the shallow end of the gene pool since 1995" - Martin Bishop
    5. Re:Please repost the letter. by momerath2003 · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised they don't block slashdot.

      --
      I had but a simple dream, to destroy all humans.
    6. Re:Please repost the letter. by jmh224 · · Score: 1

      The violation is that the content contains what some people will feel is sexually objectionable material. If one of these people walks up behind you with this on your screen, said offeneded person can go to HR and complain. Many companies have a zero tollerance policy for sexual material - and, that leaves the company mangement no slack in responding. The innocent slob who clicked on the link not knowing, no matter how wonderful an employee he or she is, will be fired, or at the very least, have a letter posted to their personel file that will live there for a long time or forever. They will be on probation and anything that is out of line can cause them to be terminated. I have seen people, good people, lose their jobs over "sexual harrasment" claims that were less founded than the content of this site.

    7. Re:Please repost the letter. by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

      If companies fire people because of looking at one website then they are in more serious trouble because of dumbass management and currupt to the core wankers. Though I bet you the main IT managers and business managers are 'exempt' from the rules and probably look at real porn daily and screw another girl in the office after hours or some gay action as seams to be quite high in telco managerial staff :)

      --
      Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    8. Re:Please repost the letter. by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

      So america still lives in the 1940s? oh make that 1850s, coz im sure they were randy as hell in the 40s.

      But where is democracy at the work place? why cant it be like survivor and just get the 10-15 people around you to cast a vote, who leaves, you or the said offended person :)

      I bet you a 150k major manager responsible for millions of $$ of profits will never be fired, mainly because he has his OWN office where no one can see what he views on the web.

      The more you think about it, an office work place resembles a pure communist style regime system.

      --
      Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    9. Re:Please repost the letter. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi there. Saw you on the Cingular/AWE thread earlier. Welcome to Cingular. Good to know there's now some new slashdotters in the company. :)

      Yes, Cingular blocks the web, too. In fact, we recently upgraded our filters and they are blocking all kinds of innocent stuff. Last year they decided to block all free email sites, so we couldn't email out any "proprietary information." I guess they didn't realize there are a lot of other ways to get that kind of information out through the web than free email sites, but they claimed it's "standard practice among fortune 500 companies" or something. Basically it just means that we're in an employer's market nowadays, not an employee's market. The pendulum'll shift again. Multiple times before my career's over, for sure.

      Anyway, I hope you find that the AT&T acquisition is great for your career. I hear we've all been promised there will be no layoffs or anything from either company through the end of the year. I also hear layoffs are a lot less likely for the Cingular side than the formerly-AT&T side, but let me honestly say I hope someone tech-savvy enough to be posting to slashdot, and with a user-ID as low as yours, is in our company for a long time to come. I dealt with the layoff scene in late 2002; fortunately I was able to find another place for myself in the company and have been relatively secure since then.

      Anyway, I welcome you to Cingular. Big corporations like this can be so faceless and impersonal; I hope you at least meet a few people you like, and that you'll be able to spend as much time as you like with Cingular doing enjoyable work you like.

    10. Re:Please repost the letter. by supersat · · Score: 1

      Doesn't AWS BSG have bigger security problems to worry about, like, oh, their job security? ;)

    11. Re:Please repost the letter. by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1
      I'm surprised they don't block slashdot.
      Obviously, the guy in charge of the firewall reads Slashdot...
    12. Re:Please repost the letter. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look for me in the exchange address book and email me. ;) Btw, if you now the format for email, easy enough. BTW we are @cingular.com now.

    13. Re:Please repost the letter. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ya, I work in customer care, NOT. Actually, I hardly ever talk to customers anymore, unless customer care lets one slip by, and then its normally a business customer...

    14. Re:Please repost the letter. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's already been outsourced.

    15. Re:Please repost the letter. by slaida1 · · Score: 1
      Har har, that's why some go postal and spray their workplace. No amount of laws in the world will prevent individuals from taking major payback when some stupid drone makes his last sorry mistake by firing over trivial reasons.

      Laws only declare consequences, they don't prevent. Remember that people and think are you safe working in such a workplace where draconian trivial reasons can get people fired. There's the chance someone won't take it quietly and you, while unrelated&innocent, might get hurt in the process.

      --
      Preserve old classics: copy your collection onto all hard drives.
    16. Re:Please repost the letter. by jmh224 · · Score: 1

      I make $150K? Cool! Thanks for the raise. No, I'm not a manager and I do not have my own office. But I have seen one very promising career destroyed and another person have to change companies because of stupid accusations. Not even a chance for an appeal. Thank the lawyers and congressmen for this one. I think this came to bloom during the Clinton era - I wonder what the motivation for that legislation could have been? It's not a democracy because the companies don't want to be sued for allowing an employee do something that is, in fact, illegal. Companies are usually in business to make money, not lose it in lawsuits. When you believe this is happening is irrelevent. It is happening now, The fact that you choose to attack me instead of dealing with the facts show me that you feel that your opinion trumps reality. Very cheeky indeed! And, you are actually correct in your last point. The last time I checked, an office environment was not a democracy. But if you'll give me $150K and my own office, we can probably at least talk.

    17. Re:Please repost the letter. by Spunk · · Score: 1

      Stupid SmartFliter.

      How we hateses it, yessssss.

    18. Re:Please repost the letter. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Look for me in the exchange address book and email me. ;) Btw, if you now the format for email, easy enough. BTW we are @cingular.com now.

      So he's going to be mailing Anonymous.Coward@cingular.com?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  43. Re:Well now... by Tackhead · · Score: 1
    > The question is, what was the senior Nintendo executive looking for when he "stumbled upon" a reference to Metroid and Zelda?

    ...hoping for something with tentacles?

  44. thanx for pr0n by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    thnx man, i needed some pr0n for the begining of the day

  45. I'm getting a PSP then! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Screw Nintendo!

  46. Um, "Zelda" is a fucking name!!!! by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

    "The Legend of Zelda...: is the basis of their IP.

    It would be like them trying to bully people into not using the name "Jim" because you own the copyright to "Earthworm Jim".

    They *might* have a leg to stand on when it comes to Metroid. But there is no fucking way they can force someone to stop using a normal first name on their site.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    1. Re:Um, "Zelda" is a fucking name!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, who can forget their first time with Zelda? Sure, since then there's been dozens of times with all the Jennys, Carols, Beths, etc. of the world but Zelda is always the first one.

      Seriously. I've never met a girl named Zelda. It may as well not be a name.

      But it doesn't mean that a girl featured on a porn site can't admit that she likes Nintendo games.

    2. Re:Um, "Zelda" is a fucking name!!!! by Fnkmaster · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      That John Kerry ad in your sig is ridiculous. It takes a bunch of out of context sound bites and strings them together. In the several of them which I know the context of, their presentation is completely distorted by including sentence fragments and leaving out the preceding sentences. As for the comments on the existance of WMDs, he has no more "flip-flopped" than our own president, that's a legitimate case of being misled by inaccurate intelligence. Read this and you'll see far more substantive flip-flopping by the dear Mr. Bush than you'll ever hear from Kerry. Also see my discussion of this issue from the other day.

    3. Re:Um, "Zelda" is a fucking name!!!! by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      Seriously. I've never met a girl named Zelda. It may as well not be a name.

      I don't know her personally, but she's from my home town Zelda Rubenstein is the little person from the Poltergeist films.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    4. Re:Um, "Zelda" is a fucking name!!!! by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      It takes a bunch of out of context sound bites and strings them together.

      If by "out of context" you mean "intended for different audiences", you're right.

      He has taken both sides on numerous issues. He's running like it's 1980. He isn't thinking about the fact that there are numerous 24/7 news outlets and anything you say in public will be remembered if and when you say something contradictory.

      If you think I find Bush to be perfect, you're mistaken. He's just not as bad as Kerry.

      Even so, I'm not voting on the Iraq war or foreign policy. I am voting because of the domestic issues that are important to me.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  47. It's all about the children. by ToadSprocket · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Nintendo's customers--including many children and their parents--have come to identify the Nintendo trademark(s)/works with the high quality of Nintendo products. Your unauthorized use of the Nintendo trademark(s)/works will tarnish Nintendo's reputation.

    Tarnish it how? Because the children are trolling the SG message boards? Because Hey, when I think Metroid, I automatically associate her with a SG pin-up girl? (Well, I do have a thing for chicks with ink, but I digress)

    Yet another example of why a seemingly huge majority of lawyers contribute absolutely nothing to society. I honestly don't see this diluting the Nintendo trademark at all. What, I can't even mention a word associated with a Nintendo product in certain environments? This is akin to Nintendo saying that "If you are in a strip club, you can't talk to your buddies about Mario Kart."

    Nevermind why you would be talking about Mario in nudie bar.

    --


    If this article confuses you, don't worry. It was posted yesterday in a much clearer fashion.
  48. Fair use has nothing to do with it by commodoresloat · · Score: 4, Funny
    This is trademark law, not copyright law. Nintendo wants to protect their trademark, and they are probably upset seeing their wholesome epileptic seizure-inducing videogames slandered by association with hot goth chicks. Of course, this has got to be the stupidist thing I've ever heard of, and I wish suicidegirls could sue them for threatening a frivolous lawsuit. There is no way Nintendo would win this they are just trying to intimidate the site. You can see from the letter it's a form letter they spam to anyone mentioning their characters on a "sexually oriented" site.

    Let's see if they'll send me a letter: Hey Nintendo! Zelda and Metorid love to get naked and oiled up and have sex with linux goth sluts all day long!! Black fishnets, fuck yeah!!!

    1. Re:Fair use has nothing to do with it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trademarks and copyrights both have 'fair use' attached to them, though the precedents are different and the leeway granted tends to be less on the trademark side.

      Regardless, there is 'fair use' as far as trademarks go, or it would be entirely illegal to even print a game review without violating the trademark.

      As long as you aren't using the trademark to promote your own stuff, as long as you aren't diluting it. Neither is the case here.

    2. Re:Fair use has nothing to do with it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish suicidegirls could sue them for threatening a frivolous lawsuit.

      Isn't it called barratry, and can't SG complain to the bar association?

    3. Re:Fair use has nothing to do with it by tsm_sf · · Score: 1

      The post that launched a thousand fanfics...

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
    4. Re:Fair use has nothing to do with it by kiddygrinder · · Score: 1

      I would suggest they have some kind of web trawler that looks for mentions of possible nintendo ip and blindly fires lawyers at the domain admin email address

      --
      This is a joke. I am joking. Joke joke joke.
    5. Re:Fair use has nothing to do with it by azuretek · · Score: 1

      The next time I look up Zelda and Metroid oiled up sex with goth chicks on google. Your comment better show up.

    6. Re:Fair use has nothing to do with it by ZackSchil · · Score: 1

      For Metroid, I'll assume you mean Samus (the woman in the suit, not those creepy bug things known as metroid life forms). Well, Samus and Zelda are both chicks. Suicide Girls... I like where this is going.

    7. Re:Fair use has nothing to do with it by slaida1 · · Score: 1
      I can just see it now:

      Nintendo, avoiding & driving away hot chicks since 2004. Overdrive your geekness, buy Nintendo!

      --
      Preserve old classics: copy your collection onto all hard drives.
    8. Re:Fair use has nothing to do with it by ElleyKitten · · Score: 1

      I really hope the poster meant Samus and not the Metroids. Eek, that's scarier than most hentai.

      --
      "What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
    9. Re:Fair use has nothing to do with it by CumInHerTaco · · Score: 1

      It has come to our client's attention recently
      that you are using the Nintendo trademark(s)/works in the hidden
      text/visible text/meta tags and/or title and/or links of the
      above-referenced sexually explicit Web site.


      Leads me to believe they are out to discourage porn sites from trying to get ranked with video game searches(read children), by intentionally adding their trademarks to their pages.

      I'm SURE no porn site has EVER tried this to get hits.

      --
      The only way to end war is for everyone to get a piece!
  49. Not what it seems..... by Trailwalker · · Score: 1
    Its actually a recruiting program for schools that offer CS degrees.

    FANTASY: Myself and 5 Suicide Girls on a server room
    1. Re:Not what it seems..... by star_gazer09 · · Score: 1

      > FANTASY: Myself and 5 Suicide Girls on a server room Too late. That's MY fantasy. Oh... and a package of really *thick* tie wraps. SG-9

  50. Show Me the Violation. by femto · · Score: 1
    I didn't think a trademark holder had any power to stop someone from USING their trademark, only to stop someone from from MISREPRESENTING their trademark.

    For example, I can say "Nintendo games are a load of crap". I can't say "This new game I have written is a Nintendo game."

    As long as I don't cause a consumer to mistakenly think something is a Nintendo, which isn't, I'm safe.

    There is no concept of 'fair use' in trademarks as anyone is allowed to use a trademark, as long as they don't misrepresent it. Fair us is a copyright thing.

    At least that is my understanding.

  51. What crime do they imagine being committed here? by raytracer · · Score: 1

    You can of course read more about trademark law here, but the real question is precisely what laws that Nintendo feels the SuicideGirls are violating?

    Infringing use of trademarks can only occur when the mark of the infringer creates a likelihood of confusion in the mind of the purchaser, as the result of the use of an identical or similar mark in connection with its goods and services. If the purveyors of the website sold Nintendo branded sex-toys, they would have a case, but I think the idea that the mere mention of Metroid in a page on your website creates any such confusion would be a serious stretch of all credibility.

  52. motive is clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  53. Understanble by The+Grey+Clone · · Score: 0

    While I do agree that what Nintendo is doing is wrong, I can understant why their doing it. I know that when I was younger (elementary school), I stumbled upon some not so good for elementary school website while looking for "Final Fantasy". I think my father told me that if he caught me looking at that kind of crap again that it'd be my final fantasy.

  54. In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Goatse-dude confirms he likes Playstation 2... Especially the game [Insert funny named game that has something to do with going into eternal darkness]

  55. Note the bottom... by RyoShin · · Score: 1

    > NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential
    > information. If you have received it in error, please advise the
    > sender by
    > reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments
    > without
    > copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you.

    It's privileged or confidential. So they post it on a bulliten board. And now it's going to get /.ed. Spiffy.

    Have they tried contacting NOA? Just because someone claims to be representing a company doesn't mean that they are. Has the webmaster seen if the representing company ("Perkins Coie LLP") exists? I'm too lazy/hungry/'distracted' to google right now. Doesn't Nintendo have their own massive law section? I would think they wouldn't need to outsource.

    The e-mail lists one of the problems as a link to Nintendo. Looking at the given link for *ahem* research purposes, I don't see one. I remember a story from long ago (might not be /.) where some company (actually, Nintendo, I think) sued a porn site because the site was using copyrighted words in Meta-data or just on the page to try and attract younger viewers. Certaintly, you wouldn't want someone to search for something of yours and come up with porn. Actually looking at the page in question, it's rather tame (compared to the rest of the site.) Even so, Nintendo would not want to be affiliated with this.

    In this case, at least to me, Nintendo is in the right- while the girl in question is doing something that would be otherwise harmless, i.e., listing favorite games, in this case it's lined right up with porn. I know I wouldn't want my stuff listed on a porn site (unless I'm certain I can gain from it) Nintendo doesn't like porn to be associated to it's stuff, and as such has the right to ask it to be removed. Technically, they own the copyright, meaning they could sue me or whatever for saying Zelda in this post. But this is /., not porn.

    Of course... hmmm... porn.slashdot.com?

    1. Re:Note the bottom... by raytracer · · Score: 1
      In this case, at least to me, Nintendo is in the right- while the girl in question is doing something that would be otherwise harmless, i.e., listing favorite games, in this case it's lined right up with porn. I know I wouldn't want my stuff listed on a porn site (unless I'm certain I can gain from it) Nintendo doesn't like porn to be associated to it's stuff, and as such has the right to ask it to be removed. Technically, they own the copyright, meaning they could sue me or whatever for saying Zelda in this post. But this is /., not porn.

      Technically, they don't own a copyright on the word Nintendo: they own a trademark. The two are entirely different things. Copyrights protect creative works, trademarks protects the name under which business and goods are transacted. Trademarks convey no protection against unauthorized publication. Infringement of trademarks consist entirely of using the same or similar marks on products where there is a likelihood of confusion. If the SuicideGirls were marketing Nintendo-brand sex toys, there would be a case for trademark infringement, as their trademark would be used in a way which hurts the reputation of the established brand. But I think it is a severe stretch of credibility to suggest that a trademark entitles the registrar to control entirely the means under which the term can be mentioned.

    2. Re:Note the bottom... by fozzmeister · · Score: 1

      > > NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential
      > > information. If you have received it in error, please advise the
      > > sender by
      > > reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments
      > > without
      > > copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you.

      > It's privileged or confidential. So they post it > on a bulliten board. And now it's going to get
      > /.ed. Spiffy.

      Yes that was a bit naughty, still good site :-)

      > Doesn't Nintendo have their
      > own massive law section? I would think they
      > wouldn't need to outsource.

      Actually its very normal for large firms to outsource. Take Apple for instance who's lawyers are always getting them into trouble (sure apple don't stop them either which is why I think Apple are way more evil than MS, who by inlarge dont tend to do that sortof shit)

      > Actually looking at the page in question, it's
      > rather tame (compared to the rest of the site.) > Even so, Nintendo would not want to be
      > affiliated with this.

      I don't think fair use is impacted by this. The implications of that are very very draconian,

      > I know I wouldn't want my stuff listed on a porn > site.

      Still fair use, You can't claim that because search engines exist that this thing becomes wrong. Heck If you can't ask favourite game incase of offending game company (offend Nintendo), you can't ask favourite film (offend Disney), you can't ask favourite food (offend McDonalds) or even city of residence (councils can sue too) (Offend everyone that lives there). Where does it stop! Shit you can't play whack a mole with Freedom (we in the UK do that far too much).

    3. Re:Note the bottom... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course... hmmm... porn.slashdot.com?

      And why not? I would guess that /. readers are among the most knowledgable people in the world when it comes to free pr0n. And I, for one, would love to tap that source of knowledge.

    4. Re:Note the bottom... by SmurfButcher+Bob · · Score: 1

      Small detail -

      >> while the girl in question is doing something that would be otherwise harmless, i.e., listing favorite games, in this case it's lined right up with porn.

      It's not a girl. It's a guy, and he appears to be a subscriber.

      --

      help me i've cloned myself and can't remember which one I am

  56. shares of your feelings by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Funny

    Nintendo has invested so much time and money in learning and creating your personal preferences, that they own a stake in them. Perhaps not the controlling stake they'd prefer, but a minority stake that has a say in how your preferences are published. You agree to this limited license to your feelings by breaking the shrinkwrap on their games that you play.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  57. Nintendo Adult Novelty Store by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In honor of this, I'm opening a Nintendo Adult Novelty Store featuring such wonderful knockoffs as:

    Mega Man X - The Hottub Adventures
    Scale Her - the Shapely Phenomenon
    Texas Hold 'Em Strip Poker
    Kindra and the Amazingly Kinky Mirror
    Mario Adult Golf - featuring Cowboy Neil and Lavicious Ella
    Putting the Joy in Joystick [book]

    --
    The real Nintendo Web Site

  58. Form Letter by danaan · · Score: 1

    This is obviously a form letter that was sent to hosts of websites that are adult in nature and mention Nintendo properties. While I can understand Nintendo's concern of having their games and corporate image attached to adult content improperly, this shotgun approach shows the risk of generating negative publicity and looking like, well, boobs.

  59. based on their logic by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    this whole slashdot story, and the comments underneath it, represents the same sort of "infringement"

    what bullsh**

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:based on their logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      what bullsh**

      It's the Internet, dude. You can say "shit" if you want to. We're discussing a porn site for Christ's sake; the head of anyone who would have taken offense at the word "bullshit" has exploded by now.

    2. Re:based on their logic by The+Cydonian · · Score: 1
      the head of anyone who would have taken offense at the word "bullshit" has exploded by now.
      As also other, ah, heads.
  60. Automated mail ? by Lamtd · · Score: 1

    It pretty much looks like the e-mail was sent by some kind of mass-mailing software, that would look for Z*lda and M*troid references on certain websites and automatically send e-mails to webmasters. I can't believe someone would actually take a look at that page and think "hey, this is tarnishing Nintendo's reputation !"

  61. Automatic form letter by macdaddy · · Score: 5, Interesting
    It looks like an automatic form letter to me. First look at the From address:

    From: Stop IP Infringement

    Next take a peak at the actual To addres:

    To: "'spooky@suicidegirls.com'"

    The From address isn't from an individual. It certainly makes me think it's a bot. The To address contains the actual recipient address in quotes. I've never seen a MUA automatically use the email address in the double-quoted area. I've seen mass mailers do this before though.

    "spooky@suicidegirls.com" is also the administrative contact address for the domain "suicidegirls.com." Their site's help page contains many other contact addresses, yet the one from WHOIS was what they used. It's easy for a bot to harvest an address from WHOIS. It's next to impossible to find the right address on some random website.

    In addition to that the form letter notes the ARIN contact address of suicidegirls.com ISP. Again this is easily harvested via WHOIS.

    The form letter also makes no attempt to name the site administrator by name or even address the letter to common responsible roles. Instead it repeated the address it harvested from WHOIS.

    I say it's a bot, plain and simple. I'd contact a lawyer for some free advice. They'll probably tell you to ignore it. I'd also make sure your ISP also realizes it's a bot and that what your site member is doing is certainly not illegal (not even remotely, even in communist China). That would be my IANAL advice.

    1. Re:Automatic form letter by Cytlid · · Score: 2, Informative

      Have the guy who recieved it look at the headers, grab the IP it originated from, and compare it to the lawyers office (or the ISP of the lawyers office) that it was appearently from in the email.

      If it's a bot, it would be drastically different. Then it's case closed.

      --
      FLR
    2. Re:Automatic form letter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think Nintendo deserves a fine under 512(f) for this. Their claim is even more ridiculous than what Diebold did.

    3. Re:Automatic form letter by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      "spooky@suicidegirls.com" is also the administrative contact address for the domain "suicidegirls.com." Their site's help page contains many other contact addresses, yet the one from WHOIS was what they used. It's easy for a bot to harvest an address from WHOIS. It's next to impossible to find the right address on some random website.
      Keep in mind that the adresses in WHOIS are the folks with legal responsibility for the domain, not the contacts listed on some random web page.
    4. Re:Automatic form letter by elemental23 · · Score: 1

      It would not necessarily be different. Why would you assume the mail would be sent from a different network?

      --
      I like my women like my coffee... pale and bitter.
    5. Re:Automatic form letter by Cytlid · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well probably because I looked at ARIN and found perkinscoie.com to have a /26 and /27 and they're Sprint IPs. First off, they would be in one of those two blocks if it was perkinscoie, (or a 3rd which you could easily look up).

      Secondly, if someone wanted to make the scam complete, I don't know about you but, at the ISP I work at, a customer can't call up and request to have their IPs selected from a block *close to* another customers' block (for sake of making the scam look real.) The ISP usually picks the block so it's highly unlikely that it would be the same network.

      --
      FLR
    6. Re:Automatic form letter by macdaddy · · Score: 1

      BTW, to anyone that read the lines I cite, yes Slashdot stripped off a lot of it. I didn't catch it until just now but I thought I'd mention it anyways.

    7. Re:Automatic form letter by mahart · · Score: 1

      More evidence are the generalizations used in the email:

      "IDENTIFIED PROBLEM: Pornographic Web site uses Nintendo in link, text, source code, Zelda and Metroid in text"

      Links? Source Code? It was plaintext only

      "It has come to our client's attention recently that you are using the Nintendo trademark(s)/works in the hidden text/visible text/meta tags and/or title and/or links of the above-referenced sexually explicit Web site."

      Its way to general to not be a form email.

    8. Re:Automatic form letter by elemental23 · · Score: 1

      You're assuming the cease and desist letter is a scam then? I think it's probably real (god knows we've seen stupider C&Ds), which is why I would expect it to come from the law firm's own network. This does not preclude it coming from a bot though, I'm just of the opinion that it's a bot run by the law firm. This definitely has not-very-bright-automated-process written all over it.

      --
      I like my women like my coffee... pale and bitter.
  62. One moment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    You're allowed to say you like Nintendo's
    products. But that's not what's at stake
    here.

    FACT: these girls are not "real". Yes,
    there are models with their pictures online.
    But the online personalities are fiction.
    So, they are trying to capitalize on
    Nintendo's popularity.

    You can mod this down now, since it doesn't
    take the ra-ra pro-speech, nihilist, anarchy
    point-of-view that is required of highly
    mod'd posts.

    What is the girls dressed up like hobbits or
    Harry Potter, in attempt to interest different
    segments of the population? Clearly, these
    fictional "identities" are just attempts to
    cash in on the brand popularity of other
    products and markets.

    1. Re:One moment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      FACT: these girls are not "real". Yes,
      there are models with their pictures online.
      But the online personalities are fiction.
      So, they are trying to capitalize on
      Nintendo's popularity.
      RTFA. The user whose profile page mentions the Nintendo games is male, and not selling anything. He's a paying member of the site, not a model. No one is trying to capitalize on Nintendo's popularity here.
  63. Was this nintendo.com? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess AT&T doesn't like its employees playing games on the company dime.

  64. suicidegirl bombers by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    What does Nintendo want from this? "My favorite video games are now Playstation games, Nintendo SUCKS, Nintendo players will never see me naked"? Never let lawyers make your business decisions, especially customer relations or PR.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:suicidegirl bombers by mink · · Score: 1

      Well considering it was a guy's (paying member) profile, I bet most slashdoters dont want to see him skyclad.

      Humm, for the rest maybe someone can start //. for people who like that kind of stuff.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
  65. One Word... by bheerssen · · Score: 1

    Licensing.

    --
    (Score: -1, Stupid)
  66. Posting a porn link on slashdot???!! by euxneks · · Score: 1

    "It's like millions of voices cried out in unison, and suddenly were silenced -- with a sigh"

    --
    in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
  67. You can write to the lawyer by agentZ · · Score: 0

    The lawyer who signed the letter is Melissa Nelson of the Seattle firm Perkins Coie. Be polite! Her telephone number is 206-359-3792.

    1. Re:You can write to the lawyer by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Unless you're an employee or agent of SG, it's not really any of your business to interfere.

    2. Re:You can write to the lawyer by agentZ · · Score: 1

      As a Nintendo stock holder, I do have an interest in this. Why is my money being used for this waste and not going after people trading BitTorrent images of Nintendo games? Those people cost the company (and therefore me) money! Why aren't our legal resources being used to combat that threat?

    3. Re:You can write to the lawyer by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Then you should definitely write to the President of Nintendo, or the directors. Complaining to an independent contractor doesn't do much good; it's like if Nintendo outsourced console construction (don't know if I do or not, but bear with me), and you didn't like something in how they were manufacturing. You wouldn't contact the OEM directly; they can't just change things based on your input. You instead contact the executives of the company--THEY'RE the ones that, as stockholder, you've appointed to make the decision of which OEM to use.

  68. Not the first time. by pavon · · Score: 4, Informative

    Apparently this is not the first time that lawyers from Perkens Coie have sent meritless cease and decist letters to websites on behalf of Nintendo.

    It would be interesting to find out more about thier relationship with Nintendo. It doesn't make any sense that Nintendo would actually want to sue it's fans for promoting their games. Almost seems like some lawyer who is paid on commision and got over eager, expecting that it would never garner Nintendo's or the press's attention.

    1. Re:Not the first time. by Riktov · · Score: 1

      It doesn't make any sense that Nintendo would actually want to sue it's fans for promoting their games.

      Except when those fans are porn-peddlers, which is how Nintendo sees Suicide Girls. Nintendo doesn't want to be sued by some hysterical mother claiming that little Bobby Googled for "Metroid Zelda" and came up on a page of horrifying pierced & tattooed naked women.

  69. If this holds Slashdot is fux0red by mmmmmhotpants · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If Nintendo has a valid claim, then imagine how much Slashdot is screwed. Daily we offer our commentaries about products and "IP" we do or do not like. We review books and games and criticize them to death, each person being a member of the Slashdot community. (And lets be honest, posting naked user photos for karma is the next logical step for Slashdot).

    If Nintendo is able to win this and violate what I think are freedom of speech and press, then we're all screwed.

    --

    can't sleep. clowns will eat me.
    1. Re:If this holds Slashdot is fux0red by standsolid · · Score: 1

      (And lets be honest, posting naked user photos for karma is the next logical step for Slashdot).

      Not to over-generalize... but that has got to be the least correct assessment of anything I've ever heard in my life. How many visitors would slashdot have if you posted single, [pale,acne infested], living in their mom's basement, [super skinny|super fat|scrawny], anti-social, [computer geek|engineer] avatars all over it!?

      Do you know what that would do to the slashdot effect? ...worst...prediction...ever...

      --
      WTPOUAWYHTTOTWPA
      What's the point of using acronyms when you have to type out the whole phrase anyways?
    2. Re:If this holds Slashdot is fux0red by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      single, [pale,acne infested], living in their mom's basement, [super skinny|super fat|scrawny], anti-social, [computer geek|engineer]

      you forgot "with no sense of humor"

    3. Re:If this holds Slashdot is fux0red by standsolid · · Score: 1

      Hey, at least I gave options to describe our type...

      --
      WTPOUAWYHTTOTWPA
      What's the point of using acronyms when you have to type out the whole phrase anyways?
  70. Similar incident by electric_mind · · Score: 1

    This was similar:

    "Nintendo still apparently believed that "Pokemon" in Crackerjap's meta tag was so harmful to its business that it had to threaten legal action. Why? Because for some reason, Nintendo thought that Crackerjap.com was a porn site."

    http://www.rightwingnews.com/special/crackerjap. ph p

  71. Watch out Slashdot! by Peter+Cooper · · Score: 4, Funny

    Uh, you just used the word N*ntendo on the front page... N*ntendo might sue you for using their company name on Slashdot, as you're associating their good image with our wonderful trolling community!

    1. Re:Watch out Slashdot! by lightdarkness · · Score: 1

      Although this is funny, it might not be far from the truth.

    2. Re:Watch out Slashdot! by sysadmn · · Score: 1

      Just use "Nintendo Lawyers" as the text for a link to goatse, and watch what happens!

      --
      Envy my 5 digit Slashdot User ID!
  72. sounds fake by focitrixilous+P · · Score: 1

    I doubt Nintendo would sink to that level. Someone mentioned the letter didn't originate from nintendo.com, but some random law firm. This sounds like a scam to get money out of them, though maybe nintendo has outsourced their legal work and is getting this as a reward.

    --
    SAILING MISHAP
  73. this type of thing backfires when someone fights by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Mattel tried using a libel claim to try to shut me up. It really backfired, as that got the interest from a TV station, CNet, and the Boston Globe on two occassions.

    Of course with me, Mattel learned their lesson, as they didn't say a word about Mattelabuse.com or BarbieSLAPP.com.
    But, they didn't learn their lesson before they were ordered to pay $1.8 million to a photographer that they sued for using the Barbie image.


  74. Well.. by OccidentalSlashy · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    This is kind of embarassing, but I just got my Karma to 'Positive' for the first time ever! I'm wondering if this gets posted at 2 for that reason. Thanks everyone for the positive feedback! Oh and leave this message alone or it'll drop back to 'Neutral' again and I won't find out the answer to my question! Thanks!

    --
    vicious, untreated political sewage...niche entertainment for the spiritually unattractive...worshipless pap
    1. Re:Well.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dude that's funny as hell.

  75. Simple Explanation by GirTheRobot · · Score: 1

    Pr0n sites place unrelated keywords in their html code to increase traffic from search engines. This is IP infringement without question, it dilutes the trademark, blah, blah, blah... So Nintendo has a company spider "adult" sites looking for their trademarks and mass mail "infringers" with scary legalese. Pretty much the same tactics as the RIAA.

    1. Re:Simple Explanation by JVert · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yea we wouldn't want SuicideGirls and Nintendo getting mixed up by the search engines.

    2. Re:Simple Explanation by KyleJacobson · · Score: 1

      DAMNIT!!! Why is SuicideGirls blocked for games and Nintendo blocked for Sex... Something must be wrong here :/

      --
      I have worse karma than M$.
  76. There is no infringement by mark-t · · Score: 1
    And I'm sure that the person who received this letter has already called the phone number therein to inform Nintendo's representatives of their error.

    Of course, it's assinine that a company should be allowed to bully or threaten people in this way, and in my opinion, Nintendo should be forced to pay restistution for the false accusation, but hey... I'm not a judge.

    1. Re:There is no infringement by star_gazer09 · · Score: 1

      Years ago, Infocom included a little "newsletter" in the boxes with Zork, Planetfall, etc. The thing contained updates on products in development, errata, etc. It was called "The Gnu-Yack Times" or the "The New Zork Times"... I can't remember which. The masthead also included the phrases "All the gnus wee feet leave prints" and I think "All the news that's printed to fit."

      Anyway, The New York Times came down on them like a ton of bricks with a cease and desist order, saying the "publication" was "confusingly similar" to the newspaper. For a single sheet of paper included in a game box, that no one was making money off of.

      So, Infocom changed the name of the the sheet by having a contest to rename the thing. One reader suggested they *really* piss 'em off and call it "The New York Times"... but I guess cooler heads prevailed and the sheet was changed to "The Status Line".

      So this isn't new. Someone told me that NYT has to be vigilant so that some future real infringer couldn't point to the Infocom sheet as proof that the masthead had entered common language. Kimberly-Clark had that problem with the word "kleenex" and J&J did with "band-aid".

      It's all BS of course. But these companies don't see it that way.

      SG-9

  77. /.ted by Southpaw018 · · Score: 3, Informative
    As of 7:02 PM EST suicidegirls.com is starting to buckle under slashdot's server load. Here's a copy of the forum post linked in the article, with many of the blank lines removed so the comment script doesn't yell at me:

    > From: Stop IP Infringement <StopInfringement@PerkinsCoie.com>
    > Date: October 27, 2004 10:12:06 AM PDT
    > To: "'spooky@suicidegirls.com'" <spooky@suicidegirls.com>
    > Subject: Infringement of Nintendo Intellectual Property Rights
    > October 26, 2004
    > VIA EMAIL ONLY
    > Administrator: spooky@suicidegirls.com
    > Re: http:/www/suicidegirls.com/members/RuneLateralus/3 80354/
    > Infringement of Nintendo Intellectual Property Rights
    > IDENTIFIED PROBLEM: Pornographic Web site uses Nintendo in link,
    > text, source code, Zelda and Metroid in text
    >
    > Greetings:
    >
    > We represent Nintendo of America Inc. ("Nintendo"), the owner of the
    > trademark(s) and/or copyrighted works listed above (the "Nintendo
    > trademark(s)/works"). It has come to our client's attention recently
    > that you are using the Nintendo trademark(s)/works in the hidden
    > text/visible text/meta tags and/or title and/or links of the
    > above-referenced sexually explicit Web site. This use is
    > unauthorized, and we are writing to demand that you immediately cease
    > and desist this infringement of Nintendo's intellectual property
    > rights.
    >
    > Nintendo has acquired substantial rights in the Nintendo
    > trademark(s)/works. Nintendo's customers--including many children and
    > their parents--have come to identify the Nintendo trademark(s)/works
    > with the high quality of Nintendo products. Your unauthorized use of
    > the Nintendo trademark(s)/works will tarnish Nintendo's reputation.
    >
    > This infringement of Nintendo's intellectual property rights can
    > subject you to sanctions under applicable federal and state laws.
    > Accordingly, you must immediately cease and desist from any and all
    > use of (1) the Nintendo trademark(s)/works, (2) any other Nintendo
    > trademark(s)/works, and (3) any mark which is confusingly similar to a
    > Nintendo trademark. This includes, but is not limited to, your
    > infringement of Nintendo's intellectual property as explained above.
    >
    > I look forward to your immediate confirmation that you have taken the
    > necessary steps to resolve this matter. To that end, you may contact
    > me at either 2063596742 or StopInfringement@perkinscoie.com.
    >
    > Sincerely,
    > Melissa Morgan Nelson
    > Perkins Coie LLP
    > 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800
    > Seattle, WA 98101-3099
    > http://www.perkinscoie.com
    >
    > :ceh
    >
    > cc: Nintendo of America Inc.
    >
    > ISP: peter.luttrell@3jane.com
    >
    > File: 51.13
    >
    > NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential
    > information. If you have received it in error, please advise the
    > sender by
    > reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments
    > without
    > copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you.

    --
    ACs are modded -6. I don't read you, I don't mod you, I don't see you. Don't like it? Don't be a coward.
  78. Sorry, it had to be done by smaksly · · Score: 1

    I for one welcome our IP infringing, depressed goth overlords

  79. We need the EFF and ACLU on the job... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and I don't just mean in this case. We're seeing lots of frivolous threats being tossed around in the name of the DMCA, and it's high time to strike back with a vengence. The Diebold case proved that companies can be successfully sued for doing this sort of thing, but these corporations just won't get the message until they're hauled into court.

    So, to that end, I'd like to see organizations like the EFF and ACLU state that, if someone gets threatened in this way, they'll stand ready to assist in suing the offender, then make an example of one of these corporate bullies. Then, plow the winnings back into a fund for more lawsuits. Do it a few times, and you'll see these guys start to get the message.

    I've said this before, and I'll say it again: Slimeballs like SCO, Diebold, SunnComm, etc. will only stop making frivolous threats when they're beaten over the head with lawsuits. They won't stop because they're wrong, since they take the position that might makes right and that they can bully their opponents into submission. They only understand the application of force, so it's time that we apply a little legal force of our own.

  80. complain by Grifter · · Score: 1

    from the sound of it these people are mad becuase they think it's the use of Zelda and whatever that is the issue... that it is not... the issue Nintendo is having is that they are being represinted on a web site that is not moraly pure and Nintendo would like to keep their image clean... Now that being said I don't really know if Nintendo would have a right to remove such content. It's not as if it's a real advertisment or anything.

  81. have a problem with this? email nintendo! by AxemRed · · Score: 1

    Give Nintendo some hell. Use their general contact form: http://www.nintendo.com/consumer/webform.jsp ... or send some mail to noalegal@noa.nintendo.com

  82. Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by Simonetta · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I attended a booksigning for the new hardcover coffee table book of the Suicide Girls portraits about a month ago at Powell's City of Books in Portland Oregon.

    It was different than I thought it would be. The Suicide Girls concept actually is not porn-oriented. The young woman who developed the idea and took the original photos said that she wanted to capture the unique spirit of the women that she knew and hung out with in Southeast Portland. The Suicide Girls concept is about sharing the self-actualization of women in Portland's post-punk subculture. Suicide Girls was developed to be a celbration of attitude of young women rather than specifically providing a visual stimulation for male sexual climax.

    The Suicide Girls website is primarily designed to provide a place for other women who share the same lifestyle throughout the world to find each other. It's not intended to be a porn site although it has the secondary effect of invoking male sexual arousal. It does that rather well and that goes a long way to pay the overhead costs, but it is not the site's main purpose.

    That's what gives the Suicide Girl photos the ambience that they are mocking male sexuality as opposed to the standard porn approach of manipulating male sexuality for profit.

    Many of the original models attended the event since the website started here in Portland and they live here. Talking to them afterwards they seemed just like ordinary people, not porn stars.

    As for the 'ownership' of the name, the author said that it just "came from an old song".

    Nintendo should just lighten up and forget this nonsense. I suspect that the name probably originated somewhere else because a Japanese Nerd video game giant corporation would not be likely to come up with a name like this. Personally, I suspect that William Burroughs thought it up, and a search of his novels from the 1950s and 1960s would find it as a casual reference.

    No, I am not a 'Suicide Girl' myself.

    1. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by s0l0m0n · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm with you here..

      I've met a couple of the suicide girls here in Portland, nice people, very real. The only way I knew that I'd met them was a willy week article that pointed out where they worked (??!!). Never been to the site, my relationships forbids, but I can't see what nintendo would possibly have against a free bump from presumably attractive women.

      After all, it seems like advertisings age old adage is, 'SEX SELLS'. IIRC correctly, if you enter the right code in metroid, you end up playing as a hot albiet pixilated woman. Nintendo may have gone towards a kiddie console setup, but they do still sell M rated games.

    2. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no "young woman" involved. It's a dude you fucking moron. His name is John (really). The only woman is a fucking figurehead, look around it's pretty obvious if you check into the company's background. It's about making a buck, that's all.

    3. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by Average_Joe_Sixpack · · Score: 5, Funny

      Suicide Girls was developed to be a celbration of attitude of young women rather than specifically providing a visual stimulation for male sexual climax.

      You do realize most of us lost our "virginity" to the women's underwear section of a Sears catalog.

    4. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by JabberWokky · · Score: 1
      Samus was a woman the entire game. She just wore a powersuit until after the game was finished, at which point she got out and wore a bikini (depending on how quickly you finished the rather long game[1]). She's actually considered to be one of the first strong action women in video games, often compared to Ripley from Alien.

      [1] Long is both subjective and locked to the era in which the game came out. Don't bother arguing on this one; you think it was short, fine.

      --
      Evan

      --
      "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
    5. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by BakaHoushi · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I know this is completely off topic from your well-made points, but it makes me wonder: What defines pornography as pornography? When does something stop being "art" (And I just KNOW I'm going to get flak for that, hence the quotation marks) and become porn?

      Theoretically, nearly anything may be used, by someone, to cause sexual arrousal. However, the main point, the main design may not be for that purpose. But then that begs a few questions. What if two people create an image of two people having sex. The style, genders, etc. do not have any effect on this. In any case, the images are nigh exact. However, one did it to express his take on the sexuality of mankind (in essense, he is expressing himself, so many would call it art.) The other artist creates the same image as pornography, either for his own personal enjoyment or to sell it. Is it then possible for one of those images to be "art" while the other is "pr0n?" Or are both one in the same? Where does that ever so blurry line lie?

      To apply that to this situation, these girls are expressing themselves, and some men are using as they would pornography. Is it then porn to them, but art and self expression to others? (This same argement can be used over the perception of all, objects. I have a chair. I use it as a chair because I sit in it. A man has the same chair but only uses it as a stool. Is it a stool to him and a chair to me? Can the same object be classified as two different things, changed only by perception?)

    6. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by Drakonian · · Score: 5, Funny
      The Suicide Girls concept is about sharing the self-actualization of women in Portland's post-punk subculture.

      John Katz? Is that you?

      --
      Random is the New Order.
    7. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      stfu

    8. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      The guy that runs Suicide Girls is known to screw around with the girls that he has photographed. I believe his current girlfriend is one of the members and it's pretty widely known that if you pose for the site, you're going to have to deal with fending the guy off of you and avoid his sexual advances.

      Also, as someone who knows a number of suicide girls personally, it should be noted that most of them are self-absorbed, ignorant twits. Their favorite past-times typically involve them, a web-cam and a mirror and lots of sycophantic losers telling them how hot they are.

      Suicide girls is just a shitty website filled with shitty skanks, run by a shitty guy.

      And duh - of course the girls aren't porn stars. They ARE regular chicks. That's why most of them are so ugly. However they look in the photos (which is barely passable and sometimes not even that), they're ten times less attractive in person. They're the typical goth or punk slut you'd find having coffee downtown with her stupid wannabe-band-boyfriend or tapping away at a bench on her laptop telling the world about whatever nane, bland pointless bullshit about her day in her blog.

      Anyone who spends money on that site should be kicked in the fucking head and go out and see what real girls are like. Who knows, one might even talk to you if you get out of your basement and stop wanking off to fugly idiot chicks online.

    9. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like the cut of your jib sah! /me salutes

    10. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by DraKKon · · Score: 2, Funny

      You forgot to mention the MAIN reason why the site was started, which is usually step 3, Profit!

      --
      "It's not like your minds are as open as the source you love..." - Me to the majority of Slashdot.
    11. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was different than I thought it would be. The Suicide Girls concept actually is not porn-oriented. The young woman who developed the idea and took the original photos said that she wanted to capture the unique spirit of the women that she knew and hung out with in Southeast Portland. The Suicide Girls concept is about sharing the self-actualization of women in Portland's post-punk subculture. Suicide Girls was developed to be a celbration of attitude of young women rather than specifically providing a visual stimulation for male sexual climax.

      That's such bullshit.

      She wanted to make a bunch of money selling nude photos of gullible narcisstic sluts who would be eager to do it for so little money because they can then tell everyone "I'M A MODEL! AREN'T I SO COOL?!".

      It's nothing new. Lots of people on the internet make money paying stupid young chicks next to nothing and exploiting their photographs for massive profit with stupid guys who will pay anything to see some skank's tits.

    12. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never been to the site, my relationships forbids

      Man, you're whipped.

    13. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by s0l0m0n · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Totally, Coward.

      Good sex is worth way more than good porn.

    14. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by Riktov · · Score: 4, Funny

      As for the 'ownership' of the name, the author said that it just "came from an old song".

      Nintendo should just lighten up and forget this nonsense. I suspect that the name probably originated somewhere else because a Japanese Nerd video game giant corporation would not be likely to come up with a name like this. Personally, I suspect that William Burroughs thought it up, and a search of his novels from the 1950s and 1960s would find it as a casual reference.

      The dispute is over the use of "Metroid" and "Zelda". OK, you don't have to RTFA, but at least RTF...Slashdot summary!

    15. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by syukton · · Score: 1

      they're hot punk/alternative women, yo. Pierced, tattooed, and makeupped. Not "mainstream" type girls, and Nintendo is somewhat "mainstream."

      That said, I was just yesterday lamenting my lack of an additional $3 because I desired a SG membership. I find that look to be incredibly appealing, but not just in a sexual sense. Their bodies are canvases, they themselves works of art. Not in that oh-I-work-out-and-shave-my-bush-nicely kind of way, but in the there-is-nobody-else-on-the-planet-who-looks-just- like-me way. What is a work of art more than a matter of creative uniqueness; what, even, is a better work of art than a SuicideGirl?

      It's not explicitly sexual, it's explicitly beautiful if you're the kind of person that can see the appeal of the "alternative woman" as a work of art.

      That said, I would probably sleep with any single one of them (or a small group) if provided the opportunity.

      --
      Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
    16. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you know? You haven't shopped around lately.

    17. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by Spyffe · · Score: 1
      How good can the sex be when the girl hasn't the self-confidence to let you look at a stupid website?

      Seriously, a couple of pics are no threat to anyone. Thinking otherwise is borderline paranoia.

      --
      Sigmentation fault - core dumped
    18. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by jallen02 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You can't get a general answer for this question and get a very good response. This is a societal question more than it is a philisophical one. If one society believes that female breasts are generally sexually explicit regardless of the context and it makes them somewhat taboo to discuss or photograph, then it becomes so.

      WHereas, if you take a society that believes in complete nudity and this society is raised on this culture then full nudity is not as arousing to the average person in this society, whereas in a more conservative society the same full nudity could be considered quite explicit.

      I think its pretty clear in America where society draws the line.

      At an individual level it amounts to preference and taste, and thus can't be quantified to a general rule. Thus we use society as our yard stick for these types of social issues.

      Jeremy

    19. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by mdbales · · Score: 3, Informative

      Nintendo may have gone towards a kiddie console setup, but they do still sell M rated games.

      Actually, they don't. All Nintendo developed games are rated T at worst. The only possible exception is Eternal Darkness, which was developed by former Nintendo second-party producer Silicon Knights

      /nitpick

    20. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by s0l0m0n · · Score: 1

      Good point. I checked games for the gamecube, not those specifically published by nintendo.

      They do however, advertise that GTA is coming out for the GC at http://www.nintendo.com/gamemini?gameid=m-Game-000 0-1107&

      They apparently aren't that upset about promoting M rated games.

    21. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by s0l0m0n · · Score: 1

      We're off topic and it's more info than I care to share, but since you asked..

      The sex is great, thanks.

      A couple of pics may not be a threat to a relationship, but the lies that I told to cover them up were. Porn wasn't that important to me, having my best friend around was. I gave up one, and not the other, and ended up with a lady who is more confident with our relationship, and therefore..

      even better sex.

    22. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL! Girls posing naked for money is not porn-oreinted? Right - you take the "tattoos" and "piercings" (real alternative) away and you have your stereotypical nudie-girl site aiming to take money away from men and exploit easily duped girls into taking off their clothing. Seriously. Suicide Girls claims to be about diversity and inclusion but all they've ever been about is single-mindedness and exclusion. (The girls they accept in are primarily white and exceptionally skinny.)

    23. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People can argument and talk about their intentions behind the site, it doesnt matter, the result does, the consequences. And its nothing more than a "community" porn site. For men interested in ugly looking gothic probably manodepressive girls.

      Actually im not the least surprised they choosed *Suicide Girls'' for the name, and my first thought was either it was suicide gang or gothics site when I heard it.

    24. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll post this one anonymously, but lets leave it at this: sex is MUCH better than looking at a picture, and if looking at that picture brings adverse consequences, then DON'T DO IT!!

      Porn is not an issue for some people. For others it is. If it is for your SO, then watching/viewing it is a good way to ruin your relationship. I personally think that anyone who values any vice over the depth of human companionship (and great sex) is a moron.

    25. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by hai.uchida · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The Suicide Girls website is primarily designed to provide a place for other women who share the same lifestyle throughout the world to find each other. It's not intended to be a porn site although it has the secondary effect of invoking male sexual arousal. It does that rather well and that goes a long way to pay the overhead costs, but it is not the site's main purpose.

      I call bullshit. Worse, pretentious bullshit. If they weren't intending to profit from arousing men then they wouldn't be charging for access. It's a straight up porn site, one that found a smart niche-- pictures of "alternative girls" for the guys with weirder tastes (like punk or goth.) Perhaps it makes the models feel better about what they're doing to say they're "empowering" themselves or whatever, but in the end they're taking their clothes off for money.

      --
      my password is private, but unchanged.
    26. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by BlueFashoo · · Score: 1

      The Suicide Girls concept is about sharing the self-actualization of women in Portland's post-punk subculture.

      John Katz? Is that you?


      In an odd sort of way, I miss John Katz. While his editorials were always verbose and made you wonder what he was smoking, they were always entertaining.

      --
      Nice Marmot
    27. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by ShinGouki · · Score: 2, Insightful

      people who use phrases like "sharing the self-actualization of women in Portland's post-punk subculture" should, for the good of the gene pool, walk themselves off a cliff.

      --
      -dk
      Dream with the feathers of angels stuffed beneath your head.
    28. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by Clock+Nova · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's pretty simple, really. If it has shadows, it's art. Porn is usually pretty well-lit.

      --
      There they were, sitting in the van with all those dials, and the cat was dead. -V. Marchetti, CIA
    29. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by Clock+Nova · · Score: 1

      As a dues paying member of SG, I can truthfully say that this AC is completely full of shit. But then, most ACs are.

      --
      There they were, sitting in the van with all those dials, and the cat was dead. -V. Marchetti, CIA
    30. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by The+Desert+Palooka · · Score: 1

      A surefire 5 words to get a +5 post: You're new here aren't you?

      And you just found the second 5 words:

      John Katz? Is that you?

    31. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by Clock+Nova · · Score: 1

      Really, AC. What do you have against SG? If you think these girls are ugly, then I want to see what you think is attarctive. And mommy don't count.

      --
      There they were, sitting in the van with all those dials, and the cat was dead. -V. Marchetti, CIA
    32. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by Simonetta · · Score: 0

      Pornography is any art form that changes its level of aesthetic merit according to the level of sexual arousal of the viewer.

      An image that has no more appeal to a male when he sexually aroused than when he isn't is not porn. An image that is equally appealing in aesthetics to a male regardless of whether he is or is not sexually aroused is not porn.
      An image that seems tacky, vulgar, tasteless, ugly, and degrading to a male when not aroused but gains greatly in aesthetic value ("wow, totally hot!!!") when he becomes aroused is porn.
      An image that induces sexual arousal may or may not be porn. It depends primarily on the male and period of time since his last ejaculation.
      This question is further complicated by the fact that porn is not a binary aesthetic category. Some images are a little pornographic and some much more so. Plus there are many cultural factors. Images of female breasts are sexually arousing in some cultures, but not others.
      With so little real guidelines to label porn, governments draw specific lines. Currently in the USA, the photographic image of penis inserted into another person's body is porn by definition. So are the images of a woman presenting her body for insertion by a penis if the image displays a clear image of the vaginal area.
      Porn is not illegal in the USA, but the display of its legally-defined images is regulated in public places.

      I hope that this helps clear up your confusion.

    33. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by Clock+Nova · · Score: 1

      I get it. You're a bitter goth chick who was rejected by SG. Well, if it makes you feel any better, I'll be glad to look at your nudie pics.

      --
      There they were, sitting in the van with all those dials, and the cat was dead. -V. Marchetti, CIA
    34. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What defines pornography as pornography?

      To be smut it must be ut-terly without redeeming social importance...

    35. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by identity0 · · Score: 3, Funny
      The Suicide Girls concept is about sharing the self-actualization of women in Portland's post-punk subculture.
      ....
      I've met a couple of the suicide girls here in Portland, nice people, very real.

      ... and people wonder why I want to move back to Portland? Between this, microbrews, Open Source Dev. Lab and medical marijuana, what more could I ask for?

      Aside from sunlight, I mean.

      Hawt, pale, sun-deprived punk-goth chicks of Portland, watch out! I'm coming to the Promised Land!
    36. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by s0l0m0n · · Score: 1

      I remember working out at stream international, a phone support company.

      I had my eye on this cute, almost sterotypically sun deprived goth chick, beautiful red hair. I was outside smoking, and she walked by. I commented on the wonderful, unseasonably warm day were were having, and, apparently quite annoyed with me, she said, "I hate the sun!"

      I laughed at her, and told her, "Tough shit. Without the sun you would DIE!"

      She still won't speak to me to this day, even though I occasionally see her in one of the local resturants.

      Goth chicks look great, but the goth community that I've encountered is way too snotty

    37. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by cmstremi · · Score: 1
      In an odd sort of way, I miss John Katz. While his editorials were always verbose and made you wonder what he was smoking, they were always entertaining.

      John Katz? Is that you?
    38. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by jcr · · Score: 1

      I call bullshit. Worse, pretentious bullshit.

      Well sure, SG is even more pretentious than Playboy, but AFAIKT, they do believe their own drivel. Some of their girls look pretty good though, if you can imagine them without the hardware acoutrements.

      in the end they're taking their clothes off for money.

      Sure, but what's wrong with that?

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    39. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the best part is that they're naked.

      Naked Naked Naked Naked Naked Naked Naked Naked Naked Naked Naked Naked

      Gusset

      Cleft

    40. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by thrash242 · · Score: 1

      You obviously haven't seen many Suicide Girls. Most are white, yes, but there are quite a few that are definately not skinny.

    41. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by spankles · · Score: 0

      Actually, the term came from Chuck Palahniuk's novel, "Survivor" - on p. 279

      "It's the samw with these suicide girls calling me up"

      http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0385498721/ref=s ib _aps_pg/104-5045405-0179925?%5Fencoding=UTF8&keywo rds=%22suicide%20girl%22&p=S087&checkSum=wDJ8f1Dgd KtmiTPob01Mm1%252Fa6vsg41YL2khBOxFg20I%253D

    42. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh I get it now... Its porn meant for punk lesbians.

    43. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by The-Bus · · Score: 4, Funny

      Or Super Off-Road 4x4 for the SNES.

      Don't ask. Seriously.

      --

      Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.

    44. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You want to know about Suicide Girl's business ethics, go here:

      http://www.livejournal.com/community/sgirls/

      You got former models and members who were banned from that site because the owner Sean Suhl doesn't agree with people's politics or does as he pleases. Mind you, being conservative is what he prefers and being a racist is what he is.

      I wouldn't be surprised he fabricated something so ridiculous in order to bring more publicity to the site.

    45. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by Caraig · · Score: 1

      Even P.No.3?

      Product Number 3 I guess doesn't have much to qualify it for more than a T rating... except that the gyrating and dancing that the main character does is a bit... excentric. And while well-done, still kind of disturbing. She GRINDS.

      Still, all the enemies are bots, so there's no 'animated human gore,' so I guess it's all cool. If a young kid is going to get hold of 'a gmae they shouldn't,' I'd rather have them exposed to something like this than, for example, Killer Instinct. A young kid would probably not be interested in P.No.3 anyway. "Why's she moving like that? It doesn't make sense! This game is boring!"

      --
      "I am an Adept of Tantric VAX."
    46. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 1, Troll
      Sure, but what's wrong with that?

      Um, a lot of things. Like your sense of self-worth being dependent upon sexually arousing the opposite sex. In this case, they try and hide that by claiming they pose naked for more respectable reasons, but the truth is when you make yourself out to be an object of lust you soon get all of the problems that come with actually being one.

      I frankly pity women that choose to pay the bills by selling their bodies.

      --
      Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
    47. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by Drakonian · · Score: 1

      Heh, I was thinking that as I posted it actually.

      --
      Random is the New Order.
    48. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by Ciel · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's what gives the Suicide Girl photos the ambience that they are mocking male sexuality as opposed to the standard porn approach of manipulating male sexuality for profit.

      Well that's comforting.

    49. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by Per+Wigren · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "I hate the sun!" is goth-speak for either "I think I look better witout a tan." or "I don't like it when it's too hot."

      I can tell you: She doesn't hate you at all. She just think you are a dork. Because OF COURSE she would die without the sun, everybody would. That's not what she meant.

      Strong left-brainers and strong right-brainers don't match. She think you are a boring nerd and you think she is snotty. Probably neither is true.

      --
      My other account has a 3-digit UID.
    50. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by jcr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Like your sense of self-worth being dependent upon sexually arousing the opposite sex.

      Do you know these girls? Do you have any basis at all for your speculation about how they derive their sense of self-worth?

      I frankly pity women that choose to pay the bills by selling their bodies.

      They're not selling their bodies, they're showing their bodies, and if you can't tell the difference, then you need some serious professional help.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    51. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 1

      Do you know these girls? Do you have any basis at all for your speculation about how they derive their sense of self-worth?

      For most of us, our sense of self-worth comes from what we provide others. You don't have to accept this premise; and if you don't, then you don't have to accept my conclusion. However, I wrote my post to express what my problems were with the parent.

      They're not selling their bodies, they're showing their bodies, and if you can't tell the difference, then you need some serious professional help.

      You obviously don't believe that I can't tell the factual difference between posing naked and prostituting oneself (if not, I wouldn't be able to complete this sentence).

      I attribute your refusing to understand my point as a means of warding off the potential moral convictions regarding viewing pornography. There's no other way a person of your intelligence could not know that I was speaking metaphorically.

      Technically, a prostitute doesn't even 'sell' her body. She rents it.

      Please, reread my post and just try and understand my point. You may find it completely ridiculous--that's ok.

      I, however, think women ought to bring more to the world than just jerk-off material, and not for my sake, but for theirs. I don't think you can become a sex object and not suffer from losing your humanity.

      --
      Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
    52. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by jcr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Please, reread my post and just try and understand my point.

      Your so-called "point" is nothing more than your projection of your own prejudice onto people that you don't know.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    53. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by slaida1 · · Score: 1
      but in the end they're taking their clothes off for money.

      There's a saying that fits here nicely: stupid is not the one who asks for money but the one who pays.

      There's endless amount of freely available hi quality, high rez pics&vids on the net, one just has to know where and how to look for'em.

      --
      Preserve old classics: copy your collection onto all hard drives.
    54. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 2, Informative

      What is my prejudice? That women shouldn't show their naked bodies for money?

      Fine, I'm prejudiced. I'm not requiring you to join with me in this antiquated, prosaic ideology of sexual "suppression."

      But I think you have a far stronger prejudice here which you are projecting--that our sexuality has no boundaries, and thus no room for deviation. Yet there isn't a single pair of eyes reading Slashdot that doesn't think at least some act of sexuality is perverse. There are boundaries, and I very much believe that selling your own sexuality, be it the act or the photographict depictions of the act, is damaging to both the viewer and the model. You can draw the line at pedastasy and necrophilia, I'll draw it sex without proper emotional context.

      Yet now there's a moral absolute drawn by the sexual liberation crowd--an absolute that has absolutely no rational context surrounding it. Normalcy cannot exist without definitions, therefore by extension, neither can deviation.

      At this point I'm not so much refuting your point as I am refuting "sexual liberation" in general. I apologize if you feel as if I'm putting words in your mouth, or if it seems like I have a larger axe to grind.

      Your so-called "point" is nothing more than your projection of your own prejudice onto people that you don't know.

      I don't know a single suicide girl, but I'm not wholly ignorant on the matter.

      I'll assume the opposite of my premise--that these women (and by these I mean not just SG's) really do find self-realization or at least gratification by their line of work. That would mean that either they enjoy being naked for the sake of being naked, or they enjoy being naked for the attention (i.e. for the reaction they get from themselves, or the reaction they get from others).

      The first case is unlikely, because we all spend ample time naked by ourselves. That need is already fulfilled. There could be a case for combining this theoretical enjoyment derived from nakedness with earning wage, but this is a real stretch. I'm going to dismiss it on grounds of absurdity.

      The second case actually works for my position Engaging in any act in order to solicit attention from strangers suggests serious psychological problems, not the least of which is self worth!

      I know you probably think I'm this total nut who can't see the world outside of his own narrow perspective. I'd say you're right, but that's the condition humanity has always been in. It is my hope that through honest discourse we can look past ourselves for a minute.

      In my case, that means accepting that while watching women in sexual acts might be gratifying, there are people at the other end of the computer screen that probably don't really like having to do what they're doing.

      --
      Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
    55. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think anyone is questioning your sex life. It is more a question being whipped.

      I'm not having a go at you, I'm pretty whipped myself. And I agree, comprimising with a partner is sometimes often better than being alone and doing anything you want.

      But on the scale of things, being forbidden to look at porn says that she has a reasonably sized problem.

    56. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by jcr · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Let me spell it out for you, sunshine: the prejudice for which I'm taking you to task was in your charmingly patronizing pop-psych assertion that their "self-worth" is "dependent on sexually arousing the opposite sex".

      Like I said, do you know even one of them? Do you have any idea what else they may do in their daily lives?

      I don't know a single suicide girl, but I'm not wholly ignorant on the matter.

      Actually, you are profoundly ignorant on the matter, and knowing precisely squat about why any of the SG models does what she does, you smugly assert your prejudice as fact.

      ...you probably think...

      Why is it I always see that phrase when someone like you is arguing vehemently against their own straw-man?

      Get over yourself.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    57. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by Oddly_Drac · · Score: 1

      "The Suicide Girls concept is about sharing the self-actualization of women in Portland's post-punk subculture. Suicide Girls was developed to be a celbration of attitude of young women rather than specifically providing a visual stimulation for male sexual climax."

      Post-modernist art critique aside, I think it's fairly safe to say that they're exercising a certain level of freedom of speech, and enjoying themselves before gravity introduces them to the ugly truth of skin elasticity.

      I content myself with admiring Voltaire from afar.

      "Nintendo should just lighten up and forget this nonsense."

      Or stop having people kill things in their games. Talk about mixed messages and moral hypocrisy. Personally I believe that a pretty girl in the nip isn't more morally reprehensible than murder by proxy, especially if she's enjoying herself.

      I will point out that I'm currently panting for the release of San Andreas (delayed, bast*rds), so I don't have a moral objection to computer games.

      --
      Oddly Draconis
      Too cynical to live, too stubborn to die.
    58. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Props dude. I'm impressed.

    59. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by Pleione · · Score: 1

      The "Metroid" name they might have a case against. Zelda? Not a chance. Just use Gabe's (Penny Arcade) super-leet encryption method. "Yeah, so I was playing this top-secret beta of Hetroid by Hintendo. You wouldn't believe the extremely graphic and gory fashion in which Rammus Baran dies!".

    60. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only for its rarity value.

    61. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by Rysc · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Technically, a prostitute doesn't even 'sell' her body. She rents it.

      Technically a constructure worker rents his body as well. I rent my brain out every day I go to work. This is life. So if a woman rents her body and provides a service in, say, a Wal Mart checkout it's okay, but if she does it in a bed it isn't? Who says?

      Can it be proven that selling sex is inherently self destructive?

      I, however, think women ought to bring more to the world than just jerk-off material, and not for my sake, but for theirs. I don't think you can become a sex object and not suffer from losing your humanity.

      So if that's what you think, never having been one, and someone who has been one swears it's not true. what is the reality? You wont admit they're right, because you are comitted to the idea that (at the very least) they can't tell, or more likely wont admit, that they have been damaged.

      Resign yourself: It's impossible to know for sure. You speak with no weight of authority, none of us do. We can only cite specific cases back and forth until we get tired and go home.

      --
      I want my Cowboyneal
    62. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by Pleione · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "What is my prejudice? That women shouldn't show their naked bodies for money?" Precisely. If one is inclined to show their body, whether for money or not, doesn that automatically label them a bad or immoral person? I don't believe that it does. "Fine, I'm prejudiced. I'm not requiring you to join with me in this antiquated, prosaic ideology of sexual "suppression."" The funny thing is that you say that with hints of derision. One could certainly look at sexual suppression as being an outdated and archaic form of control and censorship. And, yes, I do fully understand that many past or "antiquated" social groups have at one point or another, embraced sexual freedom. I'm not stating that this is any type of new sexual revelation (or revolution depending on who you speak to), it's no different, nor something to be frowned upon simply because it's not your cup of tea. "But I think you have a far stronger prejudice here which you are projecting--that our sexuality has no boundaries, and thus no room for deviation. Yet there isn't a single pair of eyes reading Slashdot that doesn't think at least some act of sexuality is perverse. There are boundaries, and I very much believe that selling your own sexuality, be it the act or the photographict depictions of the act, is damaging to both the viewer and the model. You can draw the line at pedastasy and necrophilia, I'll draw it sex without proper emotional context." Sexual boundaries, or boundaries in relation to any topic is subjective to the individual. For you to make a blanket statement asserting that your view is more correct or moral is quite selfish. For some, it's a way to pay the bills, for others, it's the experience of it all. How is selling images of your naked body fundamentally any different than selling images of landscapes? Both are natural, both are beautiful. Personally, I enjoy sex without emotional context on some occasions. It doesn't mean that I am incapable of conveying and nurturing more connected sexual relations. It is also neither necessarily disrespectful nor illegal. Thus drawing a comparison with your emotional boundary to the boundary of pedarasty and necrophilia is ridiculous. "Yet now there's a moral absolute drawn by the sexual liberation crowd--an absolute that has absolutely no rational context surrounding it. Normalcy cannot exist without definitions, therefore by extension, neither can deviation." Moral absolutes exist everywhere, in every clique. You've made this point without realising that you were shooting down your own argument. "At this point I'm not so much refuting your point as I am refuting "sexual liberation" in general." But why? Are you so bothered by what other people do that you feel the need to interject and tell them that they are wrong for what they do? Is it perhaps an issue of repression within your own psyche? "I'll assume the opposite of my premise--that these women (and by these I mean not just SG's) really do find self-realization or at least gratification by their line of work. That would mean that either they enjoy being naked for the sake of being naked, or they enjoy being naked for the attention (i.e. for the reaction they get from themselves, or the reaction they get from others). The first case is unlikely, because we all spend ample time naked by ourselves. That need is already fulfilled. There could be a case for combining this theoretical enjoyment derived from nakedness with earning wage, but this is a real stretch. I'm going to dismiss it on grounds of absurdity." I enjoy wearing my necklace at all times. Is it possible that someone might enjoy wearing nothing at all times? You have to calculate in the thought processes of many people before you can summarily dismiss the notion. "The second case actually works for my position Engaging in any act in order to solicit attention from strangers suggests serious psychological problems, not the least of which is self worth!" Are you saying that artists, musicians and actors, whose professions by defi

    63. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by Pleione · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Sorry, I had my original response set to HTML formatted without formatting, doh. Here it is...

      "What is my prejudice? That women shouldn't show their naked bodies for money?"

      Precisely. If one is inclined to show their body, whether for money or not, doesn that automatically label them a bad or immoral person? I don't believe that it does.

      "Fine, I'm prejudiced. I'm not requiring you to join with me in this antiquated, prosaic ideology of sexual "suppression.""

      The funny thing is that you say that with hints of derision. One could certainly look at sexual suppression as being an outdated and archaic form of control and censorship. And, yes, I do fully understand that many past or "antiquated" social groups have at one point or another, embraced sexual freedom. I'm not stating that this is any type of new sexual revelation (or revolution depending on who you speak to), it's no different, nor something to be frowned upon simply because it's not your cup of tea.

      "But I think you have a far stronger prejudice here which you are projecting--that our sexuality has no boundaries, and thus no room for deviation. Yet there isn't a single pair of eyes reading Slashdot that doesn't think at least some act of sexuality is perverse. There are boundaries, and I very much believe that selling your own sexuality, be it the act or the photographict depictions of the act, is damaging to both the viewer and the model. You can draw the line at pedastasy and necrophilia, I'll draw it sex without proper emotional context."

      Sexual boundaries, or boundaries in relation to any topic is subjective to the individual. For you to make a blanket statement asserting that your view is more correct or moral is quite selfish. For some, it's a way to pay the bills, for others, it's the experience of it all. How is selling images of your naked body fundamentally any different than selling images of landscapes? Both are natural, both are beautiful.

      Personally, I enjoy sex without emotional context on some occasions. It doesn't mean that I am incapable of conveying and nurturing more connected sexual relations. It is also neither necessarily disrespectful nor illegal. Thus drawing a comparison with your emotional boundary to the boundary of pedarasty and necrophilia is ridiculous.

      "Yet now there's a moral absolute drawn by the sexual liberation crowd--an absolute that has absolutely no rational context surrounding it. Normalcy cannot exist without definitions, therefore by extension, neither can deviation."

      Moral absolutes exist everywhere, in every clique. You've made this point without realising that you were shooting down your own argument.

      "At this point I'm not so much refuting your point as I am refuting "sexual liberation" in general."

      But why? Are you so bothered by what other people do that you feel the need to interject and tell them that they are wrong for what they do? Is it perhaps an issue of repression within your own psyche?

      "I'll assume the opposite of my premise--that these women (and by these I mean not just SG's) really do find self-realization or at least gratification by their line of work. That would mean that either they enjoy being naked for the sake of being naked, or they enjoy being naked for the attention (i.e. for the reaction they get from themselves, or the reaction they get from others).

      The first case is unlikely, because we all spend ample time naked by ourselves. That need is already fulfilled. There could be a case for combining this theoretical enjoyment derived from nakedness with earning wage, but this is a real stretch. I'm going to dismiss it on grounds of absurdity."

      I enjoy wearing my necklace at all times. Is it possible that someone might enjoy wearing nothing at all times? You have to calculate in the thought processes of many people before you can summarily dismiss the notion.

      "The second case actually works for my position Engaging in any act in

    64. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by Rysc · · Score: 1

      I'll assume the opposite of my premise--that these women (and by these I mean not just SG's) really do find self-realization or at least gratification by their line of work.

      Just as there is a danger in premature optimization, there is a danger in premature generalization. If we want to talk about all women who pose naked we will have a far different conversation than if we talk about any specific set. While your assertion on a general level may be true, you seem to be saying that since it's true generally (a thing that has not been proven to my satisfaction) it must be true in this case with this set of women.

      The second case actually works for my position Engaging in any act in order to solicit attention from strangers suggests serious psychological problems, not the least of which is self worth!

      So movie stars, singers, and so forth are lacking in this nebulous 'self worth'? A lot of them certainly seem to enjoy the attention.

      I seriously disagree with you there. While it is *possible* that engaging in any act in order to solicit attention from strangers means rge actor has psychological problems, I would assert that cases in which that is true are by far the exception, not the rule (as you seem to imply).

      In my case, that means accepting that while watching women in sexual acts might be gratifying, there are people at the other end of the computer screen that probably don't really like having to do what they're doing.

      Your position seems to be that there is no way in which there could be people on the other end who do like, or at least are not damaged by, doing what they are doing. This seems like an arrogant and largelky baseless assertion to me.

      The fact that *some* or even *most* probably don't like doing it is not so important to the discussion.

      --
      I want my Cowboyneal
    65. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah SG was never about money... otherwise they'd pay girls more than $250 a shoot. Besides, it's not like the creators made a bunch of cash, moved down to LA and started living like rockstars or something. Oh wait, they did.

    66. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by gunmenrock · · Score: 1


      Like your sense of self-worth being dependent upon sexually arousing the opposite sex.

      Spoken like one who never could.

    67. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by valdezjuan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I have to disagree a bit here. Granted it is a site that contains pictures of women in various states of undress, and yes they do charge a fee. But saying they are a 'straight up porn site' and implying that they are in it for the money (as I believe your post does) is a bit misleading.

      I think if they were trying to separate people from their money they would charge more than $18 for 3 months and they probably would stop throwing parties and events. I might be able to concede that the Burlesque tour was started in part to drum up business for the site (though I don't think this was/is the only reason and it was a fantastic idea). They also would probably jack the prices of the merchandise up a bit (you know, if they were in it for just the money).

      The pictures on the site are not what anyone would consider hardcore (at least I seriously would hope not). Only a few of the girls have pictures that show all the goods (I can still picture Mary's String of Pearls set in my mind, but I digress), most are artistic in flavor. More along the lines of the older Pin-Up style, not your typical 'pr0n' (you will not find a 'money shot', 'perl necklace' or penetration type of picture, though this can of course change). They also allow the girls to choose there own photographer and they don't have to be a professional, this is great for someone that is learning how to take pictures (nudes are perfectly acceptable subject for photography, painting, drawing and must other art forms). The site also has interviews (the latest being with Danny Glover), that include a wide range of people. There is also a section for news stories, with the current top story being Yasser Arafat's health. I just can't say this fits the profile of a 'straight up porn site'. The message boards and groups convey more of a sense of community then a 'sleazy' site.

      Also some of the posts in this particular thread speak as if these women are giving up some part of there humanity. I think this is flat out wrong. These girls are not 'whoring' themselves out (I don't mean literal prostitution either) or debasing themselves in anyway (at least in my opinion). To quote from one of the posts in this thread:

      Um, a lot of things. Like your sense of self-worth being dependent upon sexually arousing the opposite sex. In this case, they try and hide that by claiming they pose naked for more respectable reasons, but the truth is when you make yourself out to be an object of lust you soon get all of the problems that come with actually being one. I frankly pity women that choose to pay the bills by selling their bodies.

      Now I could be wrong, and I know I can't speak for any/all the girls on the site but I highly doubt that any of them tie there self worth around being able to arouse the opposite sex. For each member (and not all members have picture sets uploaded), there is a list of questions that describe various aspects of that person. For example, favorite movie, 5 things you can't live without, body modifications, and why I did SG. Some girls answer with, I like to try things at least once, others answer that they are exhibitionist. Accusing them of trying to 'hide' the truth about why they posed is inaccurate and rude. Sure, some of them did it for nothing but the money, others because they wanted to feel sexy, and attractive. For me whatever motivated them isn't really relevant. I enjoy the 50's style pin-ups (Bettie Page style) and this is more in line with what the site offers (instead of the typical pornographic images that are floating around). I also like that the site doesn't enforce the typical stereotype of what makes a women beautiful (long legs, blonde hair, thin enough to see through, etc.). Most of the girls don't fit that mold. They have tattoos and piercing's, some of them are even into scarification (basically designer scars), yet they all are beautiful in there own right. I have to agree with some of the posts that describe it as empowering. The site throws conventional beauty out the door, and shows t

    68. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      amen.

    69. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      Thank god someone said it!!. Everyone was waxing lyrical about how wonderful this site was for women to express themselves. Balls. It's a members only porn site catering to those who like goths.

      One of the replies to your posts suggests that they aren't in it for the money. Then, how come I saw them on TV promoting a book and their website just two weeks ago? Sounds like the usual media whorage when you've got something to sell.

    70. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      You're like a brother to me.

    71. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by Curt+Cox · · Score: 1
      The second case actually works for my position Engaging in any act in order to solicit attention from strangers suggests serious psychological problems, not the least of which is self worth!

      So everybody in showbiz (or school plays for that matter) has serious psychological problems if they're doing it "in order to solicit attention from strangers"? Thank goodness I spend so much time reading slashdot. I always thought I was an introvert, but now I know better.
    72. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by oninojudo · · Score: 1

      I have (for no fee other than copies of the images) volunteered as a nude model in a class run by a professional photographer before. Did it improve my sense of self-worth that I was accepted? Of course. Is my sense of self-worth dependent on it? Hell no. I own my body and my sexuality, and I don't see any reason why I should limit myself in that regard by what someone else thinks is right. There is nothing better about using my body to sell fast food or my brain to write code than using my image to produce something people like to look at, in whatever state of dress or undress.

      Of course I enjoy the attention. I also enjoy the attention when I play a game or dance. Humans are gregarious creatures. I simply can't see what's wrong with that. It's not like anyone is in any way forcing me to do any of those things. And, frankly, if my choice was between a mcjob and posing naked, I'd probably take the latter. It seems a lot less damaging to me.

      Engaging in any act in order to solicit attention from strangers suggests serious psychological problems, not the least of which is self worth!

      Hi! Welcome to Slashdot! You don't know me, I don't know you, and yet you are still posting, an act that assumes that strangers are going to give you attention. How does your self worth feel today?

      I'm not asking you to look at these pictures. I'm not asking you to want your daughter to pose. I'm asking you to respect me, my independance, my choices, and not try to protect me from the icky, scary men out there. Or from myself. Thank you.

    73. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only that, but they've struck a deal with PlayBoy, advertised on a lot of websites. Been on HBO, TechTV, and countless other promotions. Meanwhile the owner Sean Suhl and his partners get a huge chunk of all that money. Especially now since they got huge publicity from this story.

      Meanwhile, the girls only get $300 to take off their clothes. SG is the wal-mart and Hot TOpic of porn.

    74. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by jlseagull · · Score: 1

      "Never been to the site, my relationships forbids, but I can't see what nintendo would possibly have against a free bump from presumably attractive women."

      Then you need to reevaluate your relationships. If cupcake explicitly forbids you from looking at what she considers "porn", you're being manipulated. Women who cheat often project onto their mates, demanding their mate's faithfulness while sleeping around themselves.

      She considers you as having so little self-control that looking at artistic nudes will lead to you cheating on her. In reality, this is probably a projection of how little self-control SHE has.

      --
      'Be always mindful, even when ditch-digging.' --D. T. Suzuki
    75. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 1

      Let me spell it out for you, sunshine: the prejudice for which I'm taking you to task was in your charmingly patronizing pop-psych assertion that their "self-worth" is "dependent on sexually arousing the opposite sex".

      Patronizing? This is just my belief that I'm not requiring you to share. But I think basic psychology (at least how I've studied it) agrees with me here.

      Actually, you are profoundly ignorant on the matter, and knowing precisely squat about why any of the SG models does what she does, you smugly assert your prejudice as fact.

      I never did once. In fact twice I have mentioned that this 'prejudice' is my opinion not fact. Besides, I'm talking about posing/"acting" in the nude here, not the suicide girls specifically. I think this is where your confusion is (of course, inasmuch as I have jumped to conclusions about suicide girls, you have jumped to conclusions about my intentions).

      Why is it I always see that phrase when someone like you is arguing vehemently against their own straw-man?

      My motivation isn't to "spar" with you, so bringing out a "straw man" is totally not my intention. If I have, please point it out.

      If you're talking about me making broad generalizations about women posing in the nude and imputing them with the SuicideGirls, please read your post I was originally responding to:

      in the end they're taking their clothes off for money.
      Sure, but what's wrong with that?

      I was attempting to tell you one of the reasons I thing taking your clothes off for money is wrong.

      Earlier in the thread, the concept of the SG's not posing for profit was sufficiently debunked. In fact, you seemed to agree with it:

      Well sure, SG is even more pretentious than Playboy, but AFAIKT, they do believe their own drivel. Some of their girls look pretty good though, if you can imagine them without the hardware acoutrements.

      Please, what argument was I trying to prove and what irrelevant argument was I using as a straw-man?

      Get over yourself.

      They're not selling their bodies, they're showing their bodies, and if you can't tell the difference, then you need some serious professional help.

      Putting these statements together, I'm having a hard time making sense of this.

      --
      Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
    76. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 1

      Just as there is a danger in premature optimization, there is a danger in premature generalization. If we want to talk about all women who pose naked we will have a far different conversation than if we talk about any specific set. While your assertion on a general level may be true, you seem to be saying that since it's true generally (a thing that has not been proven to my satisfaction) it must be true in this case with this set of women.

      Well, first off all, the point I'm disagreeing with is that there's nothing wrong with posing in the nude in general, so I don't feel I have to defend my position with the SGs.

      So movie stars, singers, and so forth are lacking in this nebulous 'self worth'? A lot of them certainly seem to enjoy the attention.

      I personally think the fan adoration is harmful for people like Brittney Spears. However, I'm not really going to get into that.

      I seriously disagree with you there. While it is *possible* that engaging in any act in order to solicit attention from strangers means rge actor has psychological problems, I would assert that cases in which that is true are by far the exception, not the rule (as you seem to imply).

      What is common then, that most women who pose nude just do it for kicks? I think that's the utopia that men who enjoy looking at porn tell themselves, but I've never met a woman who actually wanted her body to be exploited sexually--whether in person or on photo.

      Your position seems to be that there is no way in which there could be people on the other end who do like, or at least are not damaged by, doing what they are doing. This seems like an arrogant and largelky baseless assertion to me.

      I can see where arrogance would be perceived--after all, I'm basically saying that what tens of thousands of women do is wrong, and more than that, "not good for them." However, I'm not saying that it ought to be illegal--they have the right to choose to do it. But we also have the right to choose not to look at porn, and also determine for ourselves whether or not we think that posing nakid is morally acceptable.

      The fact that *some* or even *most* probably don't like doing it is not so important to the discussion.

      I can see where I think you're going with this--it seems unfair for me to pronounce 'judgement' on a whole class of people and judge them for what they choose to do, even if I were correct in that they lead self-damaging lives. But my point is not to pronounce 'judgement' just give a good reason why both myself and many others have a decent reason to think that there is "something wrong" with posing naked.

      --
      Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
    77. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by reeve · · Score: 1

      Can it be proven that selling sex is inherently self destructive?

      I would say so. AIDS, VD, etc. Worse yet, what about when a prostitute gets pregnant? Then it's not only self-destructive, but also brings another person into the world only to destroy them as well. It greatly disturbs me that fewer and fewer people understand that.

      --
      Reeve the cat
    78. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 1

      Sexual boundaries, or boundaries in relation to any topic is subjective to the individual. For you to make a blanket statement asserting that your view is more correct or moral is quite selfish. For some, it's a way to pay the bills, for others, it's the experience of it all. How is selling images of your naked body fundamentally any different than selling images of landscapes? Both are natural, both are beautiful.

      Am I making a blanket statement that my view is more correct? In my view, I'm simply showing why myself and others can legitimately have problems with women posing naked.

      Moral absolutes exist everywhere, in every clique. You've made this point without realising that you were shooting down your own argument.

      At what point did my argument become a request to change? Meaning, I think it is you that have assumed that I'm trying to bring other people to accept my moral standards. I'm really not--just trying to demonstrate that there are perfectly good reasons for thinking that it is wrong to pose naked.

      Personally, I enjoy sex without emotional context on some occasions. It doesn't mean that I am incapable of conveying and nurturing more connected sexual relations. It is also neither necessarily disrespectful nor illegal. Thus drawing a comparison with your emotional boundary to the boundary of pedarasty and necrophilia is ridiculous.

      It is only ridiculous if your enjoyment of sex without emotional context is clearly not perverse. While I have nothing against you as an individual, I personally think that this kind of sex is perverse. I'm sure you could find a thousand and one things I don't do quite right if you knew even the least bit about me.

      I agree that there's a diffence between consentual, meaningless sex, and nonconsentual, meaningless sex, and of the two, I'd prefer consentual, but that doesn't mean that my view that meaningless sex is wrong is out of the question.

      Again, I'm not asking you to rally behind my flag here, just showing that I am no less rational for taking my position.

      Are you saying that artists, musicians and actors, whose professions by definition is soliciting strangers, have serious psychological problems? More so than your average person? Art of any kind only becomes such when it is exposed to others to create an impression or evoke an emotion. It can't be art until that has happened.

      I should have put the word 'sexual' in front of attention. The problem I have here is trying to get people horny watching you naked.

      People also work at McDonald's. I highly doubt that many of them were fulfilling any sort of long-term goal by doing so. It's simple, some people like doing what they do and others don't. Act upon it.

      Oh I completely agree. I just don't think these women that pose naked really want to be doing what they're doing.

      If they have a deep-instilled, genuine desire to be the jerk-off material for men they don't know, then hey, I'm powerless to stop them. But I just don't think that's the case.

      Again, I'm not telling everyone else why they should throw away their porn stash, or wipe out their hard drives--I'm just refuting the statement that there isn't anything wrong with posing naked. I have a serious problem with it, and I'm only trying to get people to say "O.K. I can respect this guys opinion--it does kind of make sense that someone would think posing naked is wrong."

      --
      Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
    79. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 1

      I have (for no fee other than copies of the images) volunteered as a nude model in a class run by a professional photographer before. Did it improve my sense of self-worth that I was accepted? Of course. Is my sense of self-worth dependent on it? Hell no. I own my body and my sexuality, and I don't see any reason why I should limit myself in that regard by what someone else thinks is right. There is nothing better about using my body to sell fast food or my brain to write code than using my image to produce something people like to look at, in whatever state of dress or undress.

      I definately think it would be a crime to humanity if you used your body to shovel fries. However, I'm going to ask you to more deeply question your motives for why you liked getting accepted by the photographer.

      I'll concede that you're self worth isn't dependent upon you being considered sexually attractive when naked, but you don't do this for a living. If all you provided the world was pictures of your genitals, I think a lot of things would change.

      I own my body and my sexuality, and I don't see any reason why I should limit myself in that regard by what someone else thinks is right.

      And you don't have to. I'm just saying I think posing naked is wrong. Forget any damage it does to you, think of what it does to men--there may be much more to you than your sexuality, but if you were to begin earning all your income by posing naked, I think you would find that those other parts of you seem to come out less and less--and certainly not many people would even care about them. My claim for damaging the poser stems from this--when all they see is your genitals, when all they care about is your naked body, who cares about you?

      I don't think your case refutes my point because you just don't do this enough. While I do think that posing naked has probably had a malignant side effect, that's really something you'll have to wrestle with. Of course I think you've already pigeon-holed me, so I don't expect anything other than a reaction like "this guy is an arrogant jerk."

      Often times I accept the premise that I disagree with in order to entertain it's plausibility for a second. Suppose posing naked is a reflection of deeper sexual issues. Would it be more helpful if you genuinely considered the possibility rather than label me a self-richeous hypocrite and not consider it? The only things at stake here are my pride and your mental well being. I'll tell you right now my pride isn't that valuable to me.

      Of course I enjoy the attention. I also enjoy the attention when I play a game or dance. Humans are gregarious creatures. I simply can't see what's wrong with that.

      I know women (and men) that often strive to get attention from others, and it's usually a sign of low self esteem, and become the center of attention to compensate. I'm not going to pretend to know you well enough to say that this is the case, but I'm not going to concede that all humans are attention-getters, and that attention-getting is a healthy and normal thing. Normal, maybe, but healthy, no.

      Hi! Welcome to Slashdot! You don't know me, I don't know you, and yet you are still posting, an act that assumes that strangers are going to give you attention. How does your self worth feel today?

      This is (somewhat) rational discussion--a process by which humans grow.

      I'm not asking you to look at these pictures. I'm not asking you to want your daughter to pose. I'm asking you to respect me, my independance, my choices, and not try to protect me from the icky, scary men out there. Or from myself. Thank you.

      I'm not trying to control you. People have this immature opinion these days that anyone trying to suggest that something they do is wrong is trying to control them. I have no desire to do that. This is like the teenager who defends a drug habit by accusing his parents of wanting to control every aspect of the teenager's life, when really they're just concerned

      --
      Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
    80. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Technically a constructure worker rents his body as well. I rent my brain out every day I go to work. This is life. So if a woman rents her body and provides a service in, say, a Wal Mart checkout it's okay, but if she does it in a bed it isn't? Who says?

      I think you're talking about legality--in this case, I think I agree with you. We'll never approach an agreement here. There are folks that don't even think a midriff should be shown in a movie--I'd be hard-pressed to let them decide what can get put into a movie.

      So because we have no chance at agreeing upon standards for acceptible sexual conduct, we'll have to settle for anything consentual. My point is that I believe that posing naked is destructive to the poser, and the viewer. You don't have to accept it, I'm just disagreeing with someone else's post.

      Can it be proven that selling sex is inherently self destructive?

      It's not a strictly scientific claim from a logical positivist perspective, but a case can certainly be made to suggest it. I think a famous sexual predator was quoted as saying something like in jail, there wasn't a single sex offender that wasn't a frequent viewer of pornography.

      Porn changes us when we view it, and it changes us when we're part of it. The extent to which it does, and whether or not the effects are good or bad, is open for debate. And certainly the degradation of women is almost a requirement in much pornography

      So if that's what you think, never having been one, and someone who has been one swears it's not true. what is the reality?

      The woman who has posed naked has certainly not become a sex object--she didn't charge, and she doesn't do it regularly.

      You wont admit they're right, because you are comitted to the idea that (at the very least) they can't tell, or more likely wont admit, that they have been damaged.

      Sure--I can't fathom how selling your body out for cash won't damage you. I'm not making a case for women that casually pose naked for the 'thrill' of it. I'm talking about women that pose naked as their primary source of income. Do you really believe that it doesn't harm them?

      Resign yourself: It's impossible to know for sure. You speak with no weight of authority, none of us do. We can only cite specific cases back and forth until we get tired and go home.

      You're right--I'm certainly no expert here. And I'll even concede that it's possible that posing naked is completely harmless. However, this seems unlikely to me, and I don't think my reasons for thinking that it is harmful are totally off base.

      I'll resign myself if you concede that because none of us speak with authority, none of us knows whether or not a life of pseude-prostitution is acutally harmful. In which case, the original parent that I was rebutting, who claimed that there is nothing wrong with posing naked, is equally baseless.

      If we're all going to settle for ignorance, then we should at least have a desire to investigate this further before we view more porn. It could be the case that these women are living in hell right now, and that by purchasing porn that they're part of, we're perpetuating that living hell. This kind possibility deserves some kind of consideration.

      In the end, I'll just get labeled a moralist that wants to impose my views of right and wrong on everyone else.

      My political belief is that porn ought not be illegal, at least at the federal level. Not even child porn.

      It's a sign of sad times when we take philisophical ideas and make them into political ones. What is legal isn't necessarily acceptable.

      I guess there are just a lot of moralists out there who want to impose their morality on us through legislation that we get jumpy when we hear anyone speak of moral absolutes.

      --
      Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
    81. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by oninojudo · · Score: 1

      If all you provided the world was pictures of your genitals, I think a lot of things would change.

      I don't think all anyone provides to the world is pictures of their genitals. Porn stars have lives off screen, hobbies, college degrees, children, friends. If really all someone did was porn, than of course that person would be one dimensional: just like if all someone does is run or read or whatever.

      Forget any damage it does to you, think of what it does to men I honestly don't see what damage I'm doing to men: I'd like to debate the point, but I need something to go on. --there may be much more to you than your sexuality, but if you were to begin earning all your income by posing naked, I think you would find that those other parts of you seem to come out less and less--and certainly not many people would even care about them. I'm lucky enough to have a job I enjoy which can expand my mind - but it's not the largest part of my life by a long shot. I have hobbies, and my hobbies can help me grow regardless of my day job. My claim for damaging the poser stems from this--when all they see is your genitals, when all they care about is your naked body, who cares about you? The only people who'd only see my genitals are those who would consume any images produced and not know me. My friends could care less what I do, though some appreciate that side of me as well. People who think less of me for doing this are not the kind of people I really want in my life, anyway. There are many caring, accepting people around I'd rather spend time with.

      Yes, striving to be the center of attention can be a sign of low self esteem. No, doing things that draw attention to oneself and enjoying said attention (or simply enjoying things that aren't mind expanding) are not a sign of a psychological problem. I enjoy discussion, and grow by having them. I enjoy Tai Chi, but I don't know that that actually helps me grow, except maybe physically. I also enjoy roller coasters, and I don't think they've ever expanded my mind or body =)

      I think all humans are attention getters, but I only have vague memories of studies from psychology. Someone who is raised completely alone, completely ignored, tends to have a whole slew of problems. This is not to say that one should always be the center of attention, but there is a level everyone does need.

      While I don't believe that you are directly trying to control me, I do think you are on a slippery slope to that point. If you think what I'm doing is wrong enough that you need to tell me, then you think that it should not be done. If you think it should not be done, then perhaps people should not be allowed to do it. If it causes harm (especially to others, as you have said), then I almost definately shouldn't be allowed to do it. I don't like legislated morality, and this smacks of such to me.

      Please forgive me if I'm putting words in your mouth.

    82. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 1

      If you think it should not be done, then perhaps people should not be allowed to do it.

      You'll find it re-assuring that I completely disagree with that line of reasoning that is so common today among moralists.

      I'm more of a libertarian here--what is legal isn't necessarily acceptable, and you can't create a moral society through legislation. I personally believe that if a society loses it's moral foundation (as was the case with the Greeks, the Romans, and many other empires), it loses the threads that bind it together.

      I don't like legislated morality, and this smacks of such to me.

      I hate this kind of legislated morality. If I genuinely wanted you to change because what you were doing was harmful, then legislation would just get in the way of an honest debate.

      I honestly don't see what damage I'm doing to men: I'd like to debate the point, but I need something to go on.

      I attribute rising divorce rates and broken marriages (which are quite damaging to the children) to sexual infidelity, and I make no distinction between actually carrying out infidelity and imagining yourself in the act. Furthermore, I think whetting your appetite, so to speak, before beginning the big responsibility of starting a family hurts that families chances.

      I also think that constantly feeding sexual desires makes us crave it more and more. If I try and eat with abandon, I'll maybe eat for two, but sex is something that we never really get tired of for any meaningful amount of time.

      Anyways, I find you much more interesting and thoughtful than people I agree with on this. I'm sort of wierd in that I enjoy talking to people with different opinions more than ones with similar opinions.

      Someone who is raised completely alone, completely ignored, tends to have a whole slew of problems.

      I agree there. I'm talking about a different kind of attention-getting--where the attention-getting is a means of self validation, not a motive for social gathering and entertainment.

      The only people who'd only see my genitals are those who would consume any images produced and not know me. My friends could care less what I do, though some appreciate that side of me as well. People who think less of me for doing this are not the kind of people I really want in my life, anyway. There are many caring, accepting people around I'd rather spend time with.

      I agree with this somewhat, but I feel that humans have a certain obligation to produce sometihng useful for society. Call it the open-sourcer in me, I even go so far as to think this need to "add something to the table" is part of our psyche. When we add our naked flesh to be devoured by others who are almost devolving into lower forms of life by being consumed by lust, we're not giving anything useful.

      Pornography has a base and cheap feel to me. I wish there were no demand for it. I wish we could exist together without glorifying sex so much--it gets in the way. That's not to think that I feel sex is bad--on the contrary, I think sex is wonderful, when it's not exploited.

      I'll admit to a huge bias here. But I know the way I work. It is exceedingly difficult to even speak about sex in an adult manner without occasionally straying to more impure thoughts. You see, I'm no better than the next guy--and it's because of my own experiences with sexuality that I think "man, I know these other guys looking at porn all the time are just as bad as me--so I know it's doing them harm." It would be doing me harm if I looked at porn.

      I don't think they've ever expanded my mind or body =)

      I agree that not everything we do needs to have lasting benefit. What we do to earn money should, however.

      I have hobbies, and my hobbies can help me grow regardless of my day job.

      Hobbies seldom provide lasting benefit to others. I love watching movies, but no one is the better for it.

      I'm not here to convince you that yo

      --
      Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
    83. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First, learn to spell "definitely". Misspelling very basic words undermines your points (this goes to both of you.)

      I attribute rising divorce rates and broken marriages (which are quite damaging to the children) to sexual infidelity, and I make no distinction between actually carrying out infidelity and imagining yourself in the act. Furthermore, I think whetting your appetite, so to speak, before beginning the big responsibility of starting a family hurts that families chances.

      You can attribute things however you wish. I attribute rising divorce rates to spiders. Or McDonalds. Or the growing cost of child care. It doesn't make them true.

      What about couples who watch porn, or strippers, together? Why is that wrong? I will go ahead and put words in your mouth: Because of your ideals. Not mine. I have a healthy relationship. I watch porn frequently with or without my spouse. People should envy the type of commitment, trust, and respect that is present in my relationship? You know why? No hiding. We made a commitment to each other, but in no way am I going to stop being attracted to other women; nor her to men.

      To deny that is to deny the essence of what we truly are: animals. You can try to promote yourself as a higher being, but really, that is more damaging than all of the nude women could ever accomplish, if damaging men was their goal.

      This 'tolerant' society of ours is becoming increasingly intolerant to anyone who believes in something unpopular. I guess humans aren't getting any better.

      You need to study history just a touch more. Find 2 points through history were homosexuality was not just accepted, but openly promoted. Go ahead, it's a good excercise.

      Perhaps you missed out on several very famous statues of naked people.

      This "intolerant tolerant society" that you mention is not known to exist in reality. Just think, a mere 90 years ago it was legal to beat your wife in America. In many cultures it is still legal to kill your wife.

      Your morals are imaginary. Just like mine are.

      If someone wants to view pornography, and they get damaged by that, it is their own hand. Nobody is forcing them to fulfill their urges.

      Besides, I'd wager your religion is more damaging than pornography and has killed more people.

    84. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by elemental23 · · Score: 1

      The owners of the site are certainly making money from all of it, but it's not a secret that the girls don't get paid very much. They're not living off SG, that's for sure, and they're contractually obligated not not pose for competing sites, so most of them probalby aren't making a living off modeling at all.

      These two points (pay and non-compete rules) came up once in a while on the forums when I was member a while back. They were both confirmed by the girls on the site.

      To address a couple other points: First, it's a porn site, but soft-core. I'm sure they could make more money going hard-core, but they haven't yet. Secondly, what's wrong with posing nude for money? If they're doing it because they want to and aren't being exploited, I say more power to 'em.

      --
      I like my women like my coffee... pale and bitter.
    85. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by hai.uchida · · Score: 1

      There's a saying that fits here nicely: stupid is not the one who asks for money but the one who pays.

      I see it the other way around. If a guy wants to pay a few bucks a month to look at naked women, if that's what floats his boat and he can afford it, what's the problem? It's not my choice of, uh, recreation, but whatever.

      The girls, on the other hand, are showing their genitals to the world for profit. It may seem like good money now (though I can't imagine the models are making THAT much) but Suicide Girls who are "dabblers" in porn may not realize that these pictures will always be out there, to potentially be seen by a future employer, their parents, their children or spouse a few years down the road... And I know a 20 year old punk chick may not think she wants those things, but we all turn 30 some day.

      --
      my password is private, but unchanged.
    86. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 1

      Besides, I'd wager your religion is more damaging than pornography and has killed more people.

      Nobody's religion has killed anyone. Do you blame Atheism for the death of so many Buddhists in Tibet? Or at least Marxism? Neither of these ideologies prescribe mass murder or war as a solution to problems they address.

      You can attribute things however you wish. I attribute rising divorce rates to spiders. Or McDonalds. Or the growing cost of child care. It doesn't make them true.

      You're right. I'm not inventing a moral absolute, just explaining why I have one.

      I have a healthy relationship. I watch porn frequently with or without my spouse. People should envy the type of commitment, trust, and respect that is present in my relationship? You know why? No hiding. We made a commitment to each other, but in no way am I going to stop being attracted to other women; nor her to men.

      I could argue that you have less of a capacity for closeness, but I just plain don't want to go there.

      To deny that is to deny the essence of what we truly are: animals. You can try to promote yourself as a higher being, but really, that is more damaging than all of the nude women could ever accomplish, if damaging men was their goal.

      Well, I'd like to think that that cereberal cortex of ours makes us unique. Your rebuttal suggests that we are more than animals. We don't drop our drawers at the first hint of pheromones in the air.

      You need to study history just a touch more. Find 2 points through history where homosexuality was not just accepted, but openly promoted. Go ahead, it's a good excercise.

      You don't understand my point--it's that my view that pornography is wrong is not tolerated by others who claim to promote more tolerance.

      Your morals are imaginary. Just like mine are.

      First of all, you had mispelt 'where.'

      That's an unscientific statement; your morals may very well be "true." In a certain sense, the idea that morals can "exist" is very easy to verify--what validates them is entirely different. The Judeo-Christian perspective (I believe this includes Islam) is that if something is "wrong" it will have a negative consequence on the perpetrator. Of course, we'd have a difficult time agreeing on what consequences can be considered "negative," so there really is no point in going down this road.

      Besides, if our morals are imaginary, is not love then imaginary also? In the same way we supposedly choose a set of standards to live by, do we not then agree upon a set of standards to live by with our spouses? Isn't this agreement just as arbitrary as our morals?

      What makes the decision to jerk off to porn any different than the decision to engange in adultery? You've still made another woman the object of your sexual desire--hence any pretension that sex is somehow a binding factor in such a marriage ought to be dropped. In a sense, in this case one chooses to put sexual desires above one's spouse.

      You can do as you will, but I'm going to try for a marriage that is based on a more binding contract--because without room for difficulty and sacrifice, there is no room for love.

      --
      Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
    87. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hot...!

      http://www.mobygames.com/game/shots/p,15/gameId,10 547/gameShotId,51562/

      The game on other systems (including the original arcade) seems to have hotter girls.

    88. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by Rysc · · Score: 1

      Those things you list are not inherent to selling sex, which encompases porn as well as prostitution. They are not /necessarily/ inherent even to prostitution, though for all practical purposes they are at present, in most locales.

      --
      I want my Cowboyneal
    89. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      Secondly, what's wrong with posing nude for money? If they're doing it because they want to and aren't being exploited, I say more power to 'em.

      Don't get me wrong, I have no issue with that, other than the fact the ads are distracting (and sometimes mesmerizing) when I'm over at boingboing. ;-)

      I just found it silly that several posters were putting them up on a plinth as some example of higher conciousness. It's just smut!! :-)

    90. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by Rysc · · Score: 1

      I personally think the fan adoration is harmful for people like Brittney Spears. However, I'm not really going to get into that.

      And I personally think that it is not necessarily harmful, if the famous person is sufficiently prepared. I do not think Britney Spears is, but that is irrelevant.

      I like disgreeing on basic things, it makes arguing clean.

      What is common then, that most women who pose nude just do it for kicks? I think that's the utopia that men who enjoy looking at porn tell themselves, but I've never met a woman who actually wanted her body to be exploited sexually--whether in person or on photo.

      What is not common is psychological damage from attention-soliciting acts in general, as I was not refering to posing nude in particular. Although I will say I do think that there can be and probably is a percentage of women who pose nude who suffer no real or imagined psycholigical damage. You seem to be set against that possibility, which is fine.

      However, I'm not saying that it ought to be illegal--they have the right to choose to do it. But we also have the right to choose not to look at porn, and also determine for ourselves whether or not we think that posing nakid is morally acceptable.

      I can see where I think you're going with this--it seems unfair for me to pronounce 'judgement' on a whole class of people and judge them for what they choose to do, even if I were correct in that they lead self-damaging lives. But my point is not to pronounce 'judgement' just give a good reason why both myself and many others have a decent reason to think that there is "something wrong" with posing naked.


      So you, in the end, are attempting to explain your morals, your stance on why choosing not to look at pornography is good.

      Let me just say that I disagree with your premise, and the odd fact or to, so my morals fall differently, and I have few problems with looking at porn.

      All that remains is for me to scream about you trying to tell me what I ought to do, which we can all just take as read (if you don't mind) since my heart isn't in it.

      I can't believe I've just had a more or less wholly reasonable exchange on Slashdot.... I must be slipping.

      --
      I want my Cowboyneal
    91. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by Rysc · · Score: 1

      It's not a strictly scientific claim from a logical positivist perspective, but a case can certainly be made to suggest it. I think a famous sexual predator was quoted as saying something like in jail, there wasn't a single sex offender that wasn't a frequent viewer of pornography.

      Insert some minor, generic mumblings about cause and effect here. Post hoc ergo proctor hoc, I think it goes. Not too important, since it is a generic defense and not worth getting in to. Generic arguments tend to end the same way every time: boringly, badly.

      Porn changes us when we view it, and it changes us when we're part of it. The extent to which it does, and whether or not the effects are good or bad, is open for debate.

      I will not disagree, although I would like to in principle. The question of whether or not one can remain unchanged by ones surroundings is interesting to me, but incidental to this topic.

      And certainly the degradation of women is almost a requirement in much pornography

      I would tend to disagree; I would soften it and say, "The degredation of women can be necessary for some forms of pornography."

      Sure--I can't fathom how selling your body out for cash won't damage you.

      And I can so fathom. Therein lies 98% of our disagreement, I think. I like it when it's simple, 'cause understanding a basic difference is better than arguing to convince someone of a minor detail. (This has been a Baseless Assertion! Stay tuned for more.)

      I'm talking about women that pose naked as their primary source of income. Do you really believe that it doesn't harm them?

      I believe that it *can* pose no harm. I would tend to agree that it *probably doesn't* cause *no* harm, in most cases. I would disagree that it causes extreme harm in most cases, if you ever said it did (apologies otherwise).

      I'll resign myself if you concede that because none of us speak with authority, none of us knows whether or not a life of pseude-prostitution is acutally harmful. In which case, the original parent that I was rebutting, who claimed that there is nothing wrong with posing naked, is equally baseless.

      I will agree that none of us knows whether or not a particular life of pseude-prostitution is acutally harmful, but not that a life of pseudo-prostitution must be in some way harmful.

      If we're all going to settle for ignorance, then we should at least have a desire to investigate this further before we view more porn. It could be the case that these women are living in hell right now, and that by purchasing porn that they're part of, we're perpetuating that living hell. This kind possibility deserves some kind of consideration.

      Certainly it does. My answer to this is along similar lines to my response to "With so much pain and misery in the world, how can you live with yourself, given that you are a by-comparision rich, slothful and people-hurting First-World country resident?" Which I can go in to, if you like, but you may be able to guess the gist of it.

      In the end, I'll just get labeled a moralist that wants to impose my views of right and wrong on everyone else.

      My political belief is that porn ought not be illegal, at least at the federal level. Not even child porn.


      Libertarian? Doesn't matter! I will, in the end, be labeled the same way, but for different views.

      I guess there are just a lot of moralists out there who want to impose their morality on us through legislation that we get jumpy when we hear anyone speak of moral absolutes.

      I did get jumpy, and I am glad you did not jump back at my rather harsh initial tone.

      --
      I want my Cowboyneal
    92. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 1

      And I personally think that it is not necessarily harmful, if the famous person is sufficiently prepared. I do not think Britney Spears is, but that is irrelevant.

      I like disgreeing on basic things, it makes arguing clean.

      Yes, I've come to the realization that slashdot forums are a place peole come to intellectually "spar," and nine times out of ten most of us are ill-prepared.

      Although I will say I do think that there can be and probably is a percentage of women who pose nude who suffer no real or imagined psycholigical damage. You seem to be set against that possibility, which is fine.

      I think this issue has gotten to the point where it's a matter of "to what extent" rather than "does it really?" Without any quantifiable data, as you suggested, there really is nowhere to go.

      All that remains is for me to scream about you trying to tell me what I ought to do, which we can all just take as read (if you don't mind) since my heart isn't in it.

      In my opinion, we ought to rely on eachother, not the government, to keep us in check. I envision a society where people are willing to address problems with eachother in a civil manner and have a genuine, thoughtful discourse. I think when we disagree with others we almost have a moral responsibility to try and convince others--the problem is that often times we prove so unwilling to make the kind of concession that we expect out of others.

      I don't think, for example, religions would cause wars if people just said how they feel. Without speaking to one another, we lock ourselves in to tribal roles where we demonize the "other side" until we don't know where the points of contension actually are.

      There's just too much wrong with our society to begin with. The moral absolutists are a very powerful group, and while I agree with most of their sentiments, I can't stand their disdain for intellectualism. For all of it's haughty arrogance, it's a lot better than haughty arrogance without rationality. Moral decisions made without critical thought are like death penalties being administered before the trial has even commenced.

      --
      Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
    93. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      By that definition, some people would think bubblegum is pornographic.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    94. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's not very clear in America to draw the line. You still have people who think that exposing the ankle is an outrage(don't ask about pants). There are people who think that full nudity is nothing. Then you get the people who still manage to find 100% coverage erotic.

      As the judge said "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it." But some people consider the statue of david pornographic, and some consider it a "study of the ideal human form" or whatever.

      Besides, humans are naturally sexual, why should we try to deny that?

      Has anybody ever heard of a study where they ask people to rate pictures as pornographic or not? Say, a couple hundred people and a thousand or so pictures? Maybe give them a list of choices: sexual, scientific, artistic, deviant; Check any that apply.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    95. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by HerbanLegend · · Score: 1

      As a kid, I saw the occasional "Beaver Hunter" magazine at Boy Scout Camp, but after that I wasn't exposed to porn really until I started to get online. Back in the day, Newsgroups were the place to go for good pictures without alot of hassle.

      For years afterward, I was a regular porn collector and watcher. I spent long hours every day browsing and maintaining a porn collection. I can vouch that it IS destructive to an individual who looks at it.

      When it comes time to quit porn, like when you get married (as I did), all of the sudden you realize you haven't gone a week without it in 10 years. It's pretty hard to quit - and even when you 'do', you'll probably relapse a couple of times. And it makes regular old sex less interesting to you, because you are aware of a whole lot of possibilities, a whole range of beautiful bodies splayed in arousing positions, etc. What wife can compare with the thousands of women who have already displayed themselves in the lewdest of ways to your eyes?

      I don't necessary agree that ALL porn is debasing or unethical, but it certainly does change the observer, and quitting is pretty tough.

    96. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      If they have a deep-instilled, genuine desire to be the jerk-off material for men they don't know, then hey, I'm powerless to stop them. But I just don't think that's the case.

      You might be suprised. I've heard interviews of strippers, and they usually enjoy what they do. The ones I remember most were college students who were stripping as a part time job. They loved the attention they got, the pay (they made more a night than they could get working elsewhere for two weeks).

      My policy: do it where I don't have to see it, and as long as nobody who's not made informed consent is harmed(and there are people, notably children, who can't really be informed), and I don't care.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    97. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by gobbo · · Score: 1
      But on the scale of things, being forbidden to look at porn says that she has a reasonably sized problem.

      Or, that she teaches Women's Studies at a college, has a reasonable analysis of the nature of the porn industry based on experience and studyl, and doesn't have time to bother investigating erotica to see if it is meeting her high standards, since life is sexy and erotic enough in the short moments between caring for children, chores, and work. So, porn consumption is suspect until proven worthy, fair enough. Erotica is generally ok but... "aren't you getting enough? C'mere" would be a more likely response than forbidding in such a relationship.

      Some things just aren't worth the argument. And some whippings make up for other whippings.

      [not the g.p. poster, by the way, just chiming in]

    98. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by mwood · · Score: 1

      That's the trouble. For *you*, art becomes porn when *you* think it does. Your neighbor may disagree. It seems you've figured that out. Even judges who've studied the question carefully have had to cop out with references to vague concepts such as "community standards".

      If something among your behaviors or possessions is bad for you, get rid of it. If you do that, it doesn't matter what you or anyone calls that from which you freed yourself.

    99. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by Archangel_Azazel · · Score: 1

      As far as I can tell *puts on Flame-retartand suit* most Christians believe the body to be innately sinful, and therefore, any depiction of it is automatically wrong, unless it's for the bible. They're told that this body was created by sin in the first place, and that it's practically a sin to be born...and we're SUPPOSED to be ashamed of our bodies anyway, reference Adam and Eve story.

      To my point though:
      It's difficult for someone to see something as art when it has been engendered in them that what they're looking at is a "Bad Thing". I referenced Christianity because it's the major religon in the US, and therefore affects society the most. A lot of the tastefully done nudes I've seen I would whole-heartedly consider art. I find that the line is mostly intent. Personally I don't even like surfing for porn anymore because it's always "bitches ho's and sluts!". The entire industry has no class as far as I'm concerned. They *do* degrade women and treat them as objects...which I see as wrong and also as engendering that type of behaviour pattern in those who enjoy viewing it...or perhaps bringing out an existing pattern. So, in answer to your question, I'd have to say that, for me at least, intent and style are where I draw the line. YMMV.

      A.A

      --
      Your mind is like a parachute. It works best when it's been opened.
    100. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      And probably both are true.

    101. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by Archangel_Azazel · · Score: 1

      --I just found it silly that several posters were putting them up on a plinth as some example of higher conciousness. It's just smut!!--

      One man's 'smut' is another's artwork, and vice versa. A lot of the posts here seem to try to home in on the fact that "I don't find it correct and healthy for ME, therefore...it must not be correct and healthy for ANYONE." bent...and that just irritates me.
      For me, the questions are this:

      1.) Are they doing this because they enjoy it?
      If yes, than go for it!

      2.) Are they being coerced in any way to post these pictures?
      No? Then frankly who cares what they do with their time??

      Thanks!

      A.A

      --
      Your mind is like a parachute. It works best when it's been opened.
    102. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by jallen02 · · Score: 1

      Think FCC and the fines they levy for swear words and Janet Jackson's incident. I would say that represents the majority of America or there would have been outrage at the fines ;)

      Jeremy

    103. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      The American legal definition dodges the issue of defining the line by instead defining the line between art and pornography as whether the work carries "significant social value or commentary."

      By 1940s and 50s standards, many of our better modern horror movies, such as Se7en and Tetsuo: Iron Man (and in fact some of our action movies) would be classified as pornography, and not because of the sex scenes. Two generations ago, vacuous violence was considered pornography.

      In 40 years, to qualify as pornography, it's going to have to be less than five minutes, have no dialogue and no camera cuts.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    104. Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't understand my point--it's that my view that pornography is wrong is not tolerated by others who claim to promote more tolerance.

      I've been thinking that since this thread started... He's not trying to oppress other people with his opinion, he's just expressing it. Not only is it a completely valid expression, it seems to be well-thought out and reasonable. Most other people in this thread are being quite the opposite.

  83. WHAT ARE YOU PEOPLE DOING?!?!?!? by Rary · · Score: 5, Funny
    Who posted this article?! Isn't there a law somewhere against slashdotting a pr0n site?! Well, there should be.

    For the love of god and all that's holy, don't do that again!!!

    --

    "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein

    1. Re:WHAT ARE YOU PEOPLE DOING?!?!?!? by star_gazer09 · · Score: 1

      methinks thou dost protest too much. :)

    2. Re:WHAT ARE YOU PEOPLE DOING?!?!?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Insightful? Who scored this post as insightful? I would think more... funny.

    3. Re:WHAT ARE YOU PEOPLE DOING?!?!?!? by star_gazer09 · · Score: 1

      Parent post to these must be from some pointyhairedmanagement type, not a techgeek(like me). Wasn't it in "Revenge of the Nerds" they said "All jocks think about it sports. All nerds think about is sex."

      SG-9

    4. Re:WHAT ARE YOU PEOPLE DOING?!?!?!? by Humpinate · · Score: 1

      For the love of all that's SANE....

      NO mention of G*d or H#liness..........PLEASE !

    5. Re:WHAT ARE YOU PEOPLE DOING?!?!?!? by Rary · · Score: 1
      Sorry, I had Rejected on the brain.

      For the love of god and all that is holy, my anus is bleeding!!!

      --

      "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein

  84. THE LETTER by Celt · · Score: 0, Redundant

    > From: Stop IP Infringement
    > Date: October 27, 2004 10:12:06 AM PDT
    > To: "'spooky@suicidegirls.com'"
    > Subject: Infringement of Nintendo Intellectual Property Rights
    >

    > October 26, 2004
    >

    > VIA EMAIL ONLY
    >
    > Administrator: spooky@suicidegirls.com
    >
    >
    >
    > Re: http:/www/suicidegirls.com/members/RuneLateralus/3 80354/
    >
    > Infringement of Nintendo Intellectual Property Rights
    > IDENTIFIED PROBLEM: Pornographic Web site uses Nintendo in link,
    > text, source code, Zelda and Metroid in text
    >
    > Greetings:
    >
    > We represent Nintendo of America Inc. ("Nintendo"), the owner of the
    > trademark(s) and/or copyrighted works listed above (the "Nintendo
    > trademark(s)/works"). It has come to our client's attention recently
    > that you are using the Nintendo trademark(s)/works in the hidden
    > text/visible text/meta tags and/or title and/or links of the
    > above-referenced sexually explicit Web site. This use is
    > unauthorized, and we are writing to demand that you immediately cease
    > and desist this infringement of Nintendo's intellectual property
    > rights.
    >
    > Nintendo has acquired substantial rights in the Nintendo
    > trademark(s)/works. Nintendo's customers--including many children and
    > their parents--have come to identify the Nintendo trademark(s)/works
    > with the high quality of Nintendo products. Your unauthorized use of
    > the Nintendo trademark(s)/works will tarnish Nintendo's reputation.
    >
    > This infringement of Nintendo's intellectual property rights can
    > subject you to sanctions under applicable federal and state laws.
    > Accordingly, you must immediately cease and desist from any and all
    > use of (1) the Nintendo trademark(s)/works, (2) any other Nintendo
    > trademark(s)/works, and (3) any mark which is confusingly similar to a
    > Nintendo trademark. This includes, but is not limited to, your
    > infringement of Nintendo's intellectual property as explained above.
    >
    > I look forward to your immediate confirmation that you have taken the
    > necessary steps to resolve this matter. To that end, you may contact
    > me at either 2063596742 or StopInfringement@perkinscoie.com.
    >
    > Sincerely,
    >
    >
    > Melissa Morgan Nelson
    > Perkins Coie LLP
    > 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800
    > Seattle, WA 98101-3099
    > http://www.perkinscoie.com
    >
    > :ceh
    >
    > cc: Nintendo of America Inc.
    >
    > ISP: peter.luttrell@3jane.com
    >
    > File: 51.13
    >
    > NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential
    > information. If you have received it in error, please advise the
    > sender by
    > reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments
    > without
    > copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you.

    --
    "WebTV: bringing the Internet into the shallow end of the gene pool since 1995" - Martin Bishop
    1. Re:THE LETTER by TrippTDF · · Score: 2, Informative

      and hereis the attourney that sent the letter... though, and I'm surprised no one else has done this, I question if it's real or not.

    2. Re:THE LETTER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to be mean, but... ... woof. Pecking keys takes on a whole new meaning with that noz...

  85. Firefox and Adblock extension... by Cryptnotic · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    ...all you need. No ads ever again.

    --
    My other first post is car post.
  86. Check out Ciska (sp?) by Precocious+Child · · Score: 1

    She's posing with old school contollers and the light gun.

    And Nintendo didn't catch this!? Funny.

    Good thing, I guess, as it's a set I'm fond of.

    --
    WAKE UP
  87. Riska, the new game not coming from Nintendo by dorpus · · Score: 1

    Japanese are into virtual-character "mania" games, you know. Expect to see games like this in the US tech fringe soon. http://www1.odn.ne.jp/~adc52520/risukagazou.htm

    1. Re:Riska, the new game not coming from Nintendo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BTW, ppl cutting themselves, that's nothing new. Me and all my friends did it 10 years ago or so. I played with fire too, nearly had one arm amputated to save my life, had an AIDS scare from sharing razors etc. Weirdos on the fringe have probably been doing that ever since society has existed and possibly longer than that even.

  88. Unwanted Endorsement by Anonymous+Custard · · Score: 1

    an unwanted endorsement is not an intellectual property violation.

    1. Re:Unwanted Endorsement by nomadic · · Score: 1

      "After selling drugs to children, nothing relaxes me like a nice refreshing Pepsi."

  89. Anyone remember Oasis? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remember the band Oasis? They sued their own fans who put up fan web sites about them, claiming copyright infringement. Heard an Oasis record lately? I haven't.

  90. Makes me want to.. by rogabean · · Score: 3, Funny

    go out register like 400 domains and just put up an image of myself naked with just a caption that says "Hi my name is Robert and I like Zelda!"

    oh wait my GF just volunteered to pose for the pic, so ummm forget the part about me naked.

    Oh wait.

    --
    "why don't you just slip into something more comfortable...like a coma!"
    1. Re:Makes me want to.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is this GF? I don't want to see your Grandfather naked.

  91. That's Nintendo's lawfirm genius by KU_Fletch · · Score: 1

    That's an actual lawfirm. If you actually go to their "list of clients" page (http://perkinscoie.com/about/clients.cfm) it clearly lists Nintendo of America. It's legit.

    --
    It's not stupid. It's advanced.
  92. Really? by ljavelin · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is there any evidence that this is true?

    OK, someone claims to be a law firm claiming to represent Nintendo. Clearly not a violation of the law. Oh, and the law firm is sending, um, Email. That's kind of weak, isn't it? Not even on a letterhead?

    This story sounds very much like a way to generate web site traffic of Slashdot proportions.

    1. Re:Really? by MP3Chuck · · Score: 1

      There are posts above stating that apparently, Perkins Coie is one of Seattle's oldest firms and Nintendo has been one of thier clients for some time.

      It's kind of surprising that they don't have their own in-house lawyers for that kind of thing, but whatever...

  93. The case is... by Anita+Coney · · Score: 1

    Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Welles 279 F.3d 796 C.A.9 (Cal.),2002

    In this case Welles was a former Playmate of the Year. She put that on her website. Playboy sued to force her to take it off (the phrase, not her clothes again!).

    The court held that since it was true that Welles was indeed a Playmate of the Year, there is no trademark infringement for her to say it.

    This is analogous to our case. It's simple a fact that one of those two-bit goth whores likes certain Nintendo games. The two-bit goth whore saying it clearly is not an infringement.

    This is analogous to our case. It's simple a fact that one of those two-bit goth whores likes certain Nintendo games. The two-bit goth whore saying it clearly is not an infringment.

    --
    If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
    1. Re:The case is... by taustin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, from what I understand, Playboy v. Welles involved more than just trademarks vs. free speech. It also involved the right one has to put work experience on a resume, basically. Among performing artists of any kind - actors, models, and such - there is an explicit legal right to list previous work in one's portfolio.

      Which is to say, Playboy were (and probably still are) even bigger shitheads than Nintendo, but that's hardly news either.

    2. Re:The case is... by geminidomino · · Score: 4, Funny

      This is analogous to our case. It's simple a fact that one of those two-bit goth whores likes certain Nintendo games. The two-bit goth whore saying it clearly is not an infringement.

      You SERIOUSLY need to update your video drivers. I get 32-bit goth whores here.

  94. would you want to be employed there? by wikinerd · · Score: 1

    "Named one of Fortune(R) magazine's '100 best companies to work for' 2004" - http://perkinscoie.com/

  95. What an age we live in... by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

    that people will be threatened for saying that they *like* a product!

    WTF?

    Time to move the Vogon constructor fleet into place, wipe this one out and start again.

    --
    In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
  96. Meh. by Gannoc · · Score: 1

    No big deal about the porn link. I aleady had an erection from reading that article about the Bush campaign site being blocked from outside the US.

  97. Damn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd hit it with a subpoena!

  98. Yay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I for one, appaud this, mostly because I've had to use Adblock on their ads on deviantART. Think of it in context, if Nintendo was really going on an IP-related witch hunt, they would sue all the nintendo fanclubs on deviantART as well. It's a fanboy on a pornsite.

  99. VIA EMAIL ONLY by wikinerd · · Score: 1

    "VIA EMAIL ONLY" - http://suicidegirls.com/boards/The+Site/55715/ (link potentially sexually explicit - don't go there if I wonder what would happen if you receive legal communication via email only and you never check your email.

    1. Re:VIA EMAIL ONLY by wikinerd · · Score: 1

      The correct text is:

      "VIA EMAIL ONLY" - http://suicidegirls.com/boards/The+Site/55715/ (link potentially sexually explicit - don't go there if 18 or at work/college).

      I wonder what would happen if you receive legal communication via email only and you never check your email.

    2. Re:VIA EMAIL ONLY by SmurfButcher+Bob · · Score: 1

      ... or the spam filter kills it :)

      --

      help me i've cloned myself and can't remember which one I am

    3. Re:VIA EMAIL ONLY by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Or the mail server is down...
      Or the nameserver is down...
      Or there's an unfortunate bulldozer incident...
      or the fan dies and the server slags...

      And that, boys and girls, is why relying heavily on email for business is foolish. Allowing legal notice to be served via email is downright stupid.

  100. This story is 100% FALSE. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One of my friends put the pokemon roms up on his site to share them with the various pokefans, and received a "CEASE AND DESIST" letter from legal@nintendo.com ordering them to take them down (which he did). This false letter was from a different law firm entirely (StopInfringement@PerkinsCoie.com). Also, you can visit the Perkins Coie website -- http://www.perkinscoie.com/casedigest/icd_results. cfm?keyword1=copyright&topic=Copyright -- and will see no mention of "suicide" or "suicidegirls" at all, and only one notice of Nintendo which dates back to 1998.

    -- Atma, who has no /. account

  101. down the road.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .... Microsoft will be suing linux zealots that criticize them online, but first they will change all their logos to a mirrored version, so they can sue using the DMCA.

  102. Some background... by Remik · · Score: 2, Informative

    I work for one an Intellectual Property firm (IANAL), so I wanted to share some insight into how things like this come about.

    Most IP firms have 'Investigators' on staff...think of them like P.I.s, but with a legal background, who prefer using Google to walking anywhere. Their job is to sniff out when people are using any of the IP of their clients in a manner that would tarnish the client's image or take one cent out of the client's pocket.

    These people sit at their desks all day searching for "Nintendo" + "Sex", and "Metroid" + "XXX"...I'd bet their search patterns are quite similar to that of an average /. troll.

    When they get a hit, they send a C&D to the ISP, Host or Content creator. I'd say 99% of the time, the site is gone or changed within a couple of days...such is the threat of big-time litigation.

    -R

  103. HEY NINTENDO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I play zelda and like to molest midgets. sue me.

    -bradly

  104. Yes, by pavon · · Score: 5, Informative

    Perkins Coie is one of Seattle's oldest firms, established in 1912. As I mentioned in an early post, they have been doing this sort of thing for Nintendo since at least 2001. Google searches show that several high level employees including a senior vice president, and Head Legal Counsel have had jobs at both companies. I doubt that Nintendo had direct knowledge of this suit, but Perkins Coie is definately working for them.

    1. Re:Yes, by medeii · · Score: 1

      Except that most of their trademark work is done by Christensen, O'Connor, Johnson, and Kindness ... another firm in the Seattle area. (My sister did the trademark for Conker's.)

      --
      got standards? --- http://www.w3.org/
  105. Odd.. by penguinboy · · Score: 1

    Strange, I would think they'd have more of a problem with the NES pictures in one of the photo sets.

  106. Could be from a semiautomated search by sidney · · Score: 1

    There are lots of pr0n sites that try to get traffic with misleading meta tags and other embedded text to get hits for unrelated searches.

    The cease and desist looks like a form letter. I bet the law firm has somebody running searches for their client's trademarks and firing off the letter to any porn site that shows up in the results. They would not bother to read carefully to find out that this porn site has a public members profile page singing Nintendo's praises.

  107. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  108. IT IS A PORN SITE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Suicide Girls website is just taking advantage of Slashdot ..

    The site's primary purpose is two fold:

    1. Sign up girls to pose naked or semi-naked to provide content for the site.

    2. Sell subscriptions to all that content..

    The owners are laughing all the way to the bank..

    Shame on Slashdot for helping them out!!

  109. Plus another one... by f8free · · Score: 1

    Fees

  110. Overlap between geek-goth subcultures... by Goonie · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I'm not sure that geeks and goths are all that opposite.

    There's a fair overlap between the tastes of at least a certain subset of geeks and a certain subset of goths (or sort-of-goth) in terms of music, books, tv shows, and so on - they probably bump into each other at Buffy conventions and the like :) Both groups tend to have a dislike of the mainstream subculture - they may well have both suffered through high school.

    And finally, goth girls seem to often be quite intelligent and worldly, and they seem to appreciate somebody they can have a decent conversation with. Most geek guys, if they can get over their shyness, can do that.

    Anyway, that's my 2c...

    --

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
    --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
    1. Re:Overlap between geek-goth subcultures... by Flunitrazepam · · Score: 1

      "goth girls seem to often be quite intelligent and worldly,"

      wow.

      --
      1) Your analysis is based on bad assumptions so your result is way off. 2) You're a sick bastard for fucking a horse.
    2. Re:Overlap between geek-goth subcultures... by tsm_sf · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think he's referring to the pre-Hot Topic*/Marilyn Manson generation of goths. Like punk, an interesting subculture that reached it's creative peak in the late 80's.

      *If your culture is interesting, someone will always be happy to sell it back to you at retail prices.

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
    3. Re:Overlap between geek-goth subcultures... by metalligoth · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm not sure that geeks and goths are all that opposite.

      As a Goth that owns a software company, I have no idea as to what you could be talking about. I think there is no way a Goth could ever be a Geek, or vice versa. */sarcasm*

      In other news, looks like I'm going to have to finally get a Suicide Girls subscription... With all this /. traffic, they're going to go bankrupt. C'mon everyone, let's help them out! :-D

    4. Re:Overlap between geek-goth subcultures... by mausmalone · · Score: 1
      Both groups tend to have a dislike of the mainstream subculture - they may well have both suffered through high school.
      It used to be a really tight coupling of geeks and goths, both sharing the same "fringe" properties. Now "goth" is pretty much just another part of mainstream, which pisses off a lot of the real goths who don't like the "posers" in their group. Now, thanks to Hot Topic and similar stores, geek culture and video games are starting to become mainstream, which is annoying people like me. I'm especially pissed seeing people I knew as popular jerks in high-school several years ago try to do geeky shop-talk. Advice for them: The case and all the components in it is called the "computer," not the CPU, the tower, the hard drive, or the drive. assholes
      --
      -=-=-=-=-=
      I'd rather be flamed than ignored.
    5. Re:Overlap between geek-goth subcultures... by tekunokurato · · Score: 1

      I hope you're aware of the can of worms you're opening up there! I have to respectfully disagree.

      I am respectfully disagreeing because punk as a subculture (not counting avril et al here) reached it's genuine rebelliousness peak in the 70s, reached its popularity peak in the 80s, and has not yet reached its actual creative peak. There is more diverse and more creative punk rock out there now than there ever was before. I will agree that it is not as rebellious as it used to be (note that my disagreement is respectful rather than rude), nor as popular, but it is far more interesting now.

      And how you EVER thought 80s punk was creative, here or in England, is a mystery to me...

    6. Re:Overlap between geek-goth subcultures... by ziggy_zero · · Score: 1

      Haha punk reached it's creative peak in the late 80's? You're a decade late, my friend.

      --
      I belong to the ______ generation.
    7. Re:Overlap between geek-goth subcultures... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is all just a publicity stunt fabricated by Sean Suhl.

      Before you even decide to join, have a read here:

      http://www.livejournal.com/community/sgirls/

      It discusses Sean's business ethics, his right wing political views, his racist remarks, and a whole lot of other things that should be questioned from this business person making money off something he is not part of.

    8. Re:Overlap between geek-goth subcultures... by tsm_sf · · Score: 1

      the late 80's in washington was a great time for punk, but yes... adding punk to that sentence was really just a troll.

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
    9. Re:Overlap between geek-goth subcultures... by Pleione · · Score: 1

      That's what makes it even more sad. The girls on SG probably aren't even goths or geeks.

    10. Re:Overlap between geek-goth subcultures... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Q: What do the assholes of a computer look like?
      A: They usually look humanoid and have their hands hovering over the keyboard while they laugh at their own jokes.

    11. Re:Overlap between geek-goth subcultures... by Senjaz · · Score: 1

      A few of the original ones were Mac using goth/punk/indie geeks. :D

      --
      Don't blame me - this .sig had steal me written all over it.
    12. Re:Overlap between geek-goth subcultures... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I'm not sure that geeks and goths are all that opposite.

      ...The Holy Trinity, the three Aspects of the Fiction: Sci-Fi, Fantasy and Horror...

    13. Re:Overlap between geek-goth subcultures... by theghost · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A real Goth would tell you that nothing really lives until it dies. They're probably celebrating the mass-marketification of "Goth" as the death throes of a subculture. After that's come and gone then the true bleakhearts can return like a dark phoenix.

      Or maybe not.

      --
      The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
    14. Re:Overlap between geek-goth subcultures... by Poe+Suicide · · Score: 1

      I beg to differ, asshole. Maybe you shouldn't say such ignorant, uninformed stupid shit until you meet one of us.

    15. Re:Overlap between geek-goth subcultures... by Coriander · · Score: 1

      *rolls eyes* Don't listen to this guy.
      Sgirls is a community filled with people who got kicked off the site for saying something stupid or being inappropriate towards the girls. Now they're mad.

      I've been dealing with the site for years - it's a wonderful place, and Sean Suhl has always been great to me.

      Oh, and the girls are HOT.
      So join and spite Nintendo. ;)

    16. Re:Overlap between geek-goth subcultures... by zaffir · · Score: 1

      I'm not ashamed to be a geek. I certainly hope that my friends will be kind enough to shoot me where i stand if i ever become "goth."

      --
      "Upon attaching the waterblock to my penis, I began to notice that I know nothing about computers." -- JRockway
    17. Re:Overlap between geek-goth subcultures... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dated a girl that's on that site. She was definitly Goth. :)

    18. Re:Overlap between geek-goth subcultures... by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      Actually, a real goth would coat himself in psychoactive blue paint and gut you crotch to sternum before you had a chance to ask him why he was drawing his sword. Goths were violent tribes of warring barbarians.

      Oh, and before you tell me it's about the gothic movement in the catholic church, please familiarize yourself with the art and architecture of the period, which is largely about soft edges and pastels, pink stone, that sort of thing.

      The 80s social movement couldn't have picked a less appropriate name.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    19. Re:Overlap between geek-goth subcultures... by theghost · · Score: 1

      A real pedantic twit would tell you all about the Visigoths in some strange knowledge-based pecker-measuring attempt. He would affect superiority to the inferior beings who use a term's well-accepted alternate meaning, while everyone who read his post would pitty him and think he should really get out more.

      It doesn't matter whether the Goth subculture has anything in common with the Visigoths or with Gothic art and architecture. That's what they're called. Learn to recognize irony and humor and get over it.

      --
      The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
    20. Re:Overlap between geek-goth subcultures... by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      There's a certain subtle beauty in watching you insist on people accepting alternate terms, bitching that I need to pick up humor when you've missed my own, and then closing with a total misunderstanding of the word irony.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
  111. legal basis for the email by odin53 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A lot of posters seem to think there's no basis for the email -- some even said it was frivolous -- but there is a very good legal basis for it: it's called trademark dilution (see subsection (c) of the linked section 1125)). It's one of the more questionable additions to trademark law, but it's not new (though relatively young). Essentially, an owner of a famous trademark can sue people who make commercial use of the mark for tarnishing the mark (like sullying the "good name") or impairing the connection between the owner's product and the mark it represents (called "blurring").

    Here, the argument would be that Zelda, etc. are famous marks, that suicidegirls's use of the mark is a commercial use, and that associating a site like suicidegirls with the marks dilutes the marks (n.b. Nintendo is particularly strongly associated with children's games, more than Playstation or Xbox).

    Certainly there are arguments to be made on the other side (e.g., not a famous mark, not a commercial use, there's no actual dilution, etc.), but there's no doubt there's a good legal basis for the cease & desist.

    1. Re:legal basis for the email by taustin · · Score: 4, Informative

      Trademarks explicitly do not protect from commentary or criticism (of the literary variety). The trademark holder cannot stop you from saying "this is my favorite game" or even "this game sucks donkey dick," so long as you make it clear it's your opinion.

      In short, no, there's no legal basis for the email, and Nintendo should be crucified for extortion, and hit with substantial SLAPP sanctions if they file a lawsuit.

      I wish I bought their crap, just so I could stop. But then, this is nothing new from Nintendo. They've been dicks for a long, long time.

    2. Re:legal basis for the email by odin53 · · Score: 1

      First of all, there are 3 exceptions under the trademark dilution statute:

      "(A) Fair use of a famous mark by another person in comparative commercial advertising or promotion to identify the competing goods or services of the owner of the famous mark.

      (B) Noncommercial use of a mark.

      (C) All forms of news reporting and news commentary."

      Now, I have no idea what the context of the use is on the website (I'm not about to go check it out while at work). But I assume that suicidegirls is a commercial adult-oriented community website, and that the use of the mark was in a member profile. Given that, it isn't difficult to imagine an argument that the use of the trademarks is commercial (the whole site is commercial; publishing members' profiles is meant to entice other people to join, which would be a commercial use), that the use isn't "news reporting/commentary" (it sounds like it was used in a member profile, not news reporting or commentary), and that it's not fair use per the description in subsection (A) (that sounds pretty clear).

      It's certainly not a slam dunk, but it's definitely not meritless.

    3. Re:legal basis for the email by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

      Doubt it. If that was the case, then commercial newspapers would have one hell problem each time they wrote something about a company that the company didn't like.

    4. Re:legal basis for the email by odin53 · · Score: 1

      Read section 1125, which I linked to in the parent. Specifically, see (c)(4) for the exceptions, one of which (sub (C)) is for "all forms of news reporting and news commentary."

    5. Re:legal basis for the email by Delita · · Score: 1

      Don't you think you're over reacting a bit? It's a bot generated letter. How about a simple email that says "No, we're not changing anything, we're well within the law." See how things go from there. It'll probably just be dropped.

    6. Re:legal basis for the email by headwes · · Score: 0

      And you sir should read (c)(4)(B), which provides an exception for "Noncommercial use of a mark." Read the US Supreme Court's ruling on Mattel Inc. vs. MCA Records for an explaination as to what constitutes noncommercial use.

    7. Re:legal basis for the email by geminidomino · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Is SG saying "One of our members loves Zelda and Metroid, so you should subscribe?"

      Actually, quite the opposite if you read the Terms of Use.

      "User acknowledges and understands that all content a User transmits to the site, whether publically posted on the site or privately transmitted onto or via the site, is not reviewed or pre-screened by SuicideGirls and is the sole responsibility of such user from whom such Content originates or is uploaded " (emphasis mine).

      That means the user in question is responsible for the posting in his profile. Does he get any commercial gain from someone subscribing to the site? No. So It's a noncommercial opinion, covered under exception B.

    8. Re:legal basis for the email by odin53 · · Score: 1

      Fair enough; like I said, I didn't visit the website, and I made some assumptions. That said, it certainly doesn't mean that SG is automatically in the clear and that the cease and desist letter is therefore frivolous. There are arguments to be made on both sides, and other facts to be determined.

    9. Re:legal basis for the email by odin53 · · Score: 1

      And you sir should read (c)(4)(B), which provides an exception for "Noncommercial use of a mark." Read the US Supreme Court's ruling on Mattel Inc. vs. MCA Records for an explaination as to what constitutes noncommercial use.

      Um... okay. Are you saying that the news reporting/commentary exception is not the applicable exception in the parent's post about commercial newspapers? That would be odd.

      If you mean that (c)(4)(B) should apply to SG's use, well duh, that's one of the things SG would argue, and it's a good argument. Like I said in my original post, "certainly there are arguments to be made on the other side (e.g., ... not a commercial use)". I never said Nintendo would win. My point is that Nintendo's letter is not without a legal basis.

      By the way, as far as I know, the Supreme Court denied cert on Mattel Inc. v. MCA Records. The ruling you are probably talking about is the 9th Circuit's opinion. Well, at least you knew about the case.

    10. Re:legal basis for the email by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      I know you were assuming, that's why I addressed and corrected instead of frothing and flaming. ;)

      All else being equal, though, NOTHING is outright frivolous in our "rake you till you're broke" court system. =\

  112. No case by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Last I heard you can do a review or a paraphrase legally, so regardless of their 'moral view point', they are out of luck.

    Id also recommend boycotting Nintendo for imposing their arbitrary values on others..

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  113. Some pics do have nintendos in them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To be fair, some of the pics (for example http://suicidegirls.com/media/girls/Kiscica/photos /Duck%20Hunt/23.jpg have Nintendo stuff in them. All in all, a stupid lawsuit, though.

  114. Opinions... by AgentPhunk · · Score: 2, Funny
    well... opinions are like assholes, everybody has one.

    and they usually stink.

    1. Re:Opinions... by Slime-dogg · · Score: 1

      I thought that the word was "Excuses," not "Opinions." Although, they both seem to fit well.

      Does that opinion stink?

      --
      You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
    2. Re:Opinions... by Lendrick · · Score: 1

      and they usually stink. ...because they're full of shit.

    3. Re:Opinions... by slaida1 · · Score: 1
      well... opinions are like assholes, everybody has one.

      and they usually stink.

      What do you mean "usually"? Urrgh, wait.. I don't wanna know.

      --
      Preserve old classics: copy your collection onto all hard drives.
    4. Re:Opinions... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Porn stars often bleach, enema, and scrub their assholes... and spray them with well scented perfumes.

      Dont ask how I know.

    5. Re:Opinions... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats because some guy is going to fuck her there and then expect her to suck his cock after he pulls out.

  115. Bar Association by Detritus · · Score: 1

    I hope they file a complaint with the state bar association. Sending out letters with groundless threats may be marginally legal, but I would consider it unethical and unprofessional conduct.

    --
    Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    1. Re:Bar Association by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not an entirely baseless claim, because the person making the statements is an employee of the website when they made them. It's definitely different from someone posting something on Slashdot.

  116. if you read their pages... by bani · · Score: 1

    ...they clearly state nintendo is a client.

    doesn't get any more obvious than that.

  117. Harassment by Tony · · Score: 1

    Automated harassment is no less intimidating than personally-signed harassment. In fact, it is perhaps *more* stifling.

    --
    Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
  118. Anti-SLAPP? by Dragoness+Eclectic · · Score: 1

    You know, since the page in question has someone stating an opinion or preference about Nintendo products, said law firm and Nintendo could potentially be in trouble if the Suicide Girls website is based in a state with anti-SLAPP laws, like California...

    Seriously, trademark law does not forbid you from commenting on the merits or lack thereof of a product, no matter how offensive the venue is to the trademark owner. Lawyer doesn't have a case, and will know it if their bot gets a live response and some live person actually has to check what they were sending letters about. IANAL, but I've heard that when meritless C&D letters are returned with the respect the deserve, the sharks go somewhere else--unless, of course, the lawyer is one of those net.kooks who files lawsuits for the fun of it. However, real law firms working for real clients don't push unwinnable cases past a C&D letter--there's no percentage in it.

    --
    ---dragoness
  119. Stupid Law Suit Penalty by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Any company who pulls this garbage and files a junk lawsuit like this should be penalized.

    The penalty should include total permanent disbandment of their company, and fines high enough to put their entire board of directors in the poor house.

    While you may say that is extreme, perhaps it would get their attention and prevent stupid garbage like this as the risk would be too great.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Stupid Law Suit Penalty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The firm has already been slapped with large penalties (over half a million) in the past for conflict of interest:

      http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/2003/0 8/11/daily8.html

      That doesn't seem to have hurt their business much.

  120. WTF, you ask? Duh, this is WTF. by wyrmBait · · Score: 1

    What everyone seems to be missing when they go "WTF?" is WTF actually went wrong. Try reading the actual letter instead of browsing the boobs. It's simple:

    1. Nintendo has a policy of promoting their family image.
    2. As such, they have a policy of sending cease and desist letters to porn sites who refer to their trademarks because they don't want to be associated in any way with porn.
    3. SuicideGirls is a porn site.
    4. Without actually checking the content of the site (beyond its "porn" label) and the context of the trademarks' appearance on the site, they send a form-letter cease and desist.
    5. They look stupid.

    Probably no-one at Nintendo actually knows that they've sent this letter. It was likely generated by web-crawling software, pulled out of a database query into a form letter, and sent to SuicideGirls email automatically.

    This is completely normal and reasonable policy. However, since their trademarks are not be exploited for porn-profit and are used in a context where free speech would be protected, they're out of line. However:

    1. This is not a copyright infringement, and so Fair Use doesn't apply.
    2. The comany's obligation to vigorously defend their trademark does apply, but so tenuously that any court will probably throw it out if Nintendo itself don't realise the inappropriateness of this letter before then.

    So there you go. That's WTF.

    --
    -- "Perhaps the truth is less interesting than the facts?" -Amy Weiss, RIAA
  121. Do like me... by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1, Funny
    Do like I just did... Put a picture of you naked, hiding your shlong with a nintendo box, on a web page.

    BUT DO NOT GIVE THE URL TO ANYONE ELSE THAN THE LAWYERS!!!

    Send "Stop IP Infringement <StopInfringement@PerkinsCoie.com>" an e-mail telling them about your web page, and carefully monitor the access log to see when it is accessed, and to see if you are sent a nastygram, or your ISP is.

    Better yet, make sure that ONLY THE PERKINS-COIE people can see your page by checking their IP address (they are from 63.79.33.0 to 63.79.33.63), and NOT the ISP or anyone else by putting the following PHP code that makes sure that no one else can see the page:

    $raa=$HTTP_SERVER_VARS['REMOTE_ADDR'];<br>
    $ra=ex plode(".",$raa);<br>if (($ra[0]==63) && ($ra[1]=="79") && ($ra[2]=="33")) <br>
    then { ?&gt; show the page &lt;?php
    }
    else { ?&gt; display your 404 error &lt;?php }

    This way, the lawyers will be the only one seeing the page, and whenever they will complain about it, they will look like a bunch of complete morons...

    1. Re:Do like me... by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Or you could just use a simple .htaccess and not have to diddle with PHP.

  122. Yeah... by Garridan · · Score: 1

    But it's a GOOD porn site. I subscribed to the site for a while, and downloaded every picture they had (gotta love my porn spider). No men, no dildos, no penetration. The lesbian stuff is all pretty tame, too. This isn't a dark alley porn shop that kidnaps girls and stuffs them full of twenty cocks. There are almost as many female subscibers as male. That alone speaks volumes about the moral content of the site owners. Slashdot is merely helping provide them with some extra traffic (thus subscriptions) so they'll have a better chance in the upcoming legal battle.

  123. SuicideGirls could reply by codeboost · · Score: 4, Funny

    Dear Nintendo,
    It has come to our attention that one of our users has used the name of your company on his page. Since your company is often associated with videogames for children, it damages our site's reputation by suggesting that we are a childish adult site and don't have enough hardcore material to satisfy every visitor's darkest fetish fantasies.

    1. Re:SuicideGirls could reply by SmurfButcher+Bob · · Score: 1

      Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of

      Dear Nintendo,
      It has come to our attention that one of your law firms has been illegally using one or more of our trademarked names and intellectual property in their emails...

      --

      help me i've cloned myself and can't remember which one I am

  124. Not Nintendo to blame by SkunkAh · · Score: 1

    I guess that Nintendo has simply delegated the fighting of IP infrigment to the advocates office that is involved. And on 'bad day' where they had no 'real infrigments' to persue they simply started googling and so they found the website in question and thought it might be a great victim, and so they could write a few additional hour for finding and pursuing them. So my guess is that Nintendo is just a victim of the fact that they hired a malcious advocate company. But I doubt if they will stop doing business with them because in my opionion all lawyers are only intrested in writing time in blocks of 6 minutes.

  125. I guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you are the nintendo bot that decided to send the letter to suicide girls.

  126. How Amusing by Fizzyboy · · Score: 1

    I wonder how Nintendo came across that site and that member's page. Makes me wonder...

  127. Ob. Out the moron lawyer post... by B747SP · · Score: 4, Funny
    OK, this is the obligatory out-the-lawyer post: The gutter crawling ambulance chaser in this case is one Melissa Morgan Nelson, an associate (is that like office junior?) at Perkins Cole's Seattle office. Her telephone number is +1 (206) 359-3792, and her fax number is +1 (206) 359-9000. If you prefer email, we have that right here: MNelson@perkinscoie.com, and if you have an appointment to see her then you should turn up at 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800, Seattle, WA 98101-3099.

    Of course, one look at her picture will unearth the real reason for her going after SuicideGirls. She's Unattractive, dowdy, downright ugly even! ie: She's jealous. Ugly girls always hate the pretty ones.

    --
    I find your ideas intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
    1. Re:Ob. Out the moron lawyer post... by myowntrueself · · Score: 3, Funny

      "She's Unattractive, dowdy, downright ugly even! ie: She's jealous. Ugly girls always hate the pretty ones."

      Oh I don't know...

      Just because she doesn't have any facial metalwear or bolts through her face...

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    2. Re:Ob. Out the moron lawyer post... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its _her_ IP their infringing on.

      I mean, look at her Zelda ears!!!1

    3. Re:Ob. Out the moron lawyer post... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually, she's pretty hot.

    4. Re:Ob. Out the moron lawyer post... by fatphil · · Score: 1

      I dunno, on a scale from nought to two, I'd give her one.

      *tish boom*
      FP.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    5. Re:Ob. Out the moron lawyer post... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Ugly girls always hate the pretty ones.

      Not quite. I can attest that self-centered insecure girls hate the *prettier* ones.

  128. Cannot believe no NERDS figured this out! by coverguy · · Score: 1

    Well, I haven't read any subject titles that caught my attention from the nerd community here. Folks, this is CHEAP advertising! Don't you get it? Nintendo, SuicideGirls, and the ANONYMOUS person are all basically members of the same marketing team. Nintendo's and SuicideGirls' hits have been boosted SO much from this little pseudo-scandal. Any 'oh yeah's, partners? :)

  129. Shameless advertising???? by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 1

    Now I know I maybe jaded but I have noticed that the subject website advertises on slashdot a lot.

    Could this action not be some sort of publicity stunt either by a slashdot editor or suicide girls? Hmmmmmm.

    I notice several above posters even questioned the validity of the source of the "threatening" message.

    1. Re:Shameless advertising???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course it's a publicity stunt. Sean Suhl, the owner of SG, has been wanting to post a story regarding his site on /. for ages. Now he gets the chance to. Could it be that he created something so stupid and he had to make it stupid in order to grab attention.

      More business ethics concerning Suhl and his site can be found at:

      http://www.livejournal.com/community/sgirls/

  130. Grow up? by Kell_pt · · Score: 1

    I think any grown up, and specially a techie, will understand that this is most likely related to a poorly written automatic content-verification system rather than an actual intent to shut down the site.
    If you actually take time to read the letter, you'll see the matter can most likely be solved in a civilized manner. But no... someone had to make an issue out of this and... post it as news on Slashdot? Oh please... c'mon. Please please don't become just another sensationalist media, ok? :)
    IMHO, it really seems obvious that it's a misunderstanding. If it's not, then it's just a stupidity, and should be ignored as such, not brought into the limelight as "news". Geesh, there's no need for /. to sink deep below water level. :p

    As /. reader, I could really do well w/o having to read this kind of stupid stuff. At least post it elsewhere other than on the mainpage.

    Just my opinion, for what it's worth - no harm intended.

    --
    "I don't mind God, it's his fan club I can't stand!" E8
    1. Re:Grow up? by SmurfButcher+Bob · · Score: 1

      I somewhat agree - but I also disagree.

      a) Definately a result of a bot or google harvest.

      But,

      b) Neither the site nor the ISP should have to deal with this f*up. The phrase DUE CARE comes to mind, and there clearly isn't any present in this case. None.

      Does it belong on the main /. page? No, for the reason you describe. And yes, because it illustrates how the content provider is by default GUILTY. An entire pile of crap needs to be dealt with by the provider, simply because of the incompetence of / complete lack of dilligence by the sending law-firm. The cost of this crap comes straight out-of-pocket of the provider, with no prayer of reimbursement. In that sense, it belongs on the main page because there is no SLAP clause for a**holes who abuse such things, who blatently omit any "Due Care" in their actions. They are a bull in a china shop, and they know it, and there's not a damned thing anyone is going to do about it.

      It's a lot like spam, if you think about it... and it's just as egregious.

      Oh well, have a good one -

      --

      help me i've cloned myself and can't remember which one I am

    2. Re:Grow up? by Kell_pt · · Score: 1

      It does depend on how you look at it, and you have a good alternate pespective there. Nice reply, thanks.

      cheers

      --
      "I don't mind God, it's his fan club I can't stand!" E8
  131. If they think that's infringment by ChrisXS · · Score: 1

    Wait till they get a load of this misuse of poor Mario's ass!

    NSFW http://www.goatse.org/ NSFW

    It goes without saying that this link is NSFW, but I'll say it anyway. Warning, the above link features a 3d rendered cartoon Mario(TM) spreading his asscheeks like the goatse man.

  132. How many people thought "IP" meant "Internet by RiffRafff · · Score: 1

    How many people thought "IP" in the title meant "Internet Protocol" raise your hands.

    --
    "I might have made a tactical error in not going to a physician for 20 years." -- Warren Zevon
  133. Nintendo has gone after other adult sites. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A friend of mine ran a hentai site and had 'pokemon' listed in his META keyword tag. No actual pokemon images or intellectual property stolen, but Nintendo's legal goons sent him a notice telling him to remove the word. Not wanting any trouble, he took it off.

  134. LOL mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I never get tired of tentacle rape anime jokes. Keep up the good work!

  135. Re:I submit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I pray that none of your daughters ever feels so insecure and unappreciated that she needs to display herself nude in public to get a little attention.

  136. Collective stupidity by HangingChad · · Score: 1
    Amazing how you can organize otherwise intelligent people into a corporation and their collective IQ nosedives.

    If Nintendo was trying to stir up loyalty and direct web traffic to Suicide Girls, then this plan was f'ing brilliant. If it was for any other reason, they're on crack.

    There isn't a win for Nintendo anywhere in here I can see. It's possible the law firm is under contract to provide the service and did this without Nintendo's direct knowledge. But if Nintendo bought off on this...crack.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
  137. Unless it comes via actual physical mail.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would just ignore it as a hoax, even though the name listed is an actual laywer for the firm (easy enough for a forger to grab off the firm's website). Since the referenced link does not include the full header, it's hard to say if it did come from the law firm. Even if it did though, I personally would do nothing until a certified letter arrived at my door if it were my website.

    Should my ISP yank the site, you'd be sure they'd be getting an actual letter from my laywer about the matter (and a few phone calls as well). Cease and desist emails are too easily abused and forged. If it were my website and any interuption in service happened due to the ISP responding to the baseless cease and desist letter, I'd be happy to put out the money to take the letter writer (if found) and perhaps even the ISP (assuming they refused to reinstate the site) to court to get a ruling against them. It would be money well spent to get legal precidence against email cease and desist letters.

  138. Miyamoto what are you up to? by b4jts · · Score: 4, Funny

    What's this? Miyamoto checking out SuicideGirls user profiles - whats the old man up to?

  139. Free Advertising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    I've noticed a paid advertisement link to Suicide Girls site on the front page of Slashdot for a couple of weeks now. How "coincidental" that they now get a story posted on the main page of Slashdot. And a lame fucking story it is. SG gets a C&D via email for mentioning Nintendo trademarks. Whoopdee-Fucking-Doo. Man the battlestations. Calling all nerds with a credit card. Save SuicideGirls.

    Nothing to see here. Move along.

  140. This has to be fake! by Sam+Jackson · · Score: 1

    No one is this stupid. This has to be some sort of joke. But history shows us that teams of over paid lawyers, can pull some really stupid laws out of their own ass. I've read the letter but I still don't believe it.

    --
    --- hows it taste mother f$#@er!!!
  141. The issue is that they have no case... by spiritraveller · · Score: 1

    Nor would they have one against playboy.

    But they know that playboy can afford good lawyers...

    Apparently they (Nintendo) think that the folks running the SG site will be scared enough of litigation (and the associated costs) to just remove the link and be done with it.

  142. Fair Use is a valid defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is such a thing as fair use of a trademark. Lawyers can probably look for case laws that establish fair use rights.

  143. 'Miserable failure' by Nomeko · · Score: 0

    Seems like they want to avoid the whole 'George Bush' 'Miserable failure' mixup.. Now who would want that? (Looking for porn, ending up at nintendo..)

  144. Login/Password? by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 2, Funny
    Well, for once its not offtopic to ask if someone has login info for Suicide Girls. So please, for the love of god, share it!

    --
    Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
  145. Send this reply back to them by Skapare · · Score: 2, Funny

    Send this reply back to them:

    This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification.

    Delivery to the following recipient(s) failed.

    spooky@suicidegirls.com

    Reason code:

    Sender IQ level is below required threshhold of 50

    For additional assistance, contact your ISP or email administrator.

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  146. Somebody needs a clue-by-four! by Lisana · · Score: 1

    Wow, what a load of crap! The boilerplate letter makes it extremely clear that all they did was Google for their copyrighted names and sent emails to anyone who used them.

    I hope someone stands up and fights Nintendo over this sort of bullying! Mentioning that a couple of video games are your favorites is in no way, shape, or form, copyright infringement. For crying out loud, think of the geek boys who might go out and buy Zelda or whatever just because this person from suicidegirls likes them.

    Anyone seen my clue-by-four?

  147. I just realized... by GypC · · Score: 2, Insightful
    ... how old I am.

    I was going to comment about the yummy punk-rock girls, but everyone is calling them "goth".

    Bah. Humbug.

  148. Re:this type of thing backfires when someone fight by vhold · · Score: 1

    The site says they paid $1.8 million, compensating his legal fees. I wonder how much, if any, he personally saw.

    Can you even imagine ... $1.8 million in legal fees?

    Making $250 an hour by most standards seems pretty extreme.. And if everybody involved was making that that'd be 7200 man hours to prove that putting a barbie in a blender is free speech. What's up with that?

    That'd be a seriously overpaid 10 man legal team working 10 hours a day for almost 3 months straight.

    Man.. why didn't I become a lawyer?

  149. Concerning Gothicism... by Bloodlent · · Score: 0

    There seems to be alot of classification of these women as "goth"... Simply wearing lots of fishnet and leather doesn't make you goth... May I point the unwashed masses to http://www.scathe.demon.co.uk/histgoth.htm for an in-depth history of what goth really is... And yes, I know a good majority of them don't classify themselves as goth. I'm talking about the people on /. saying the girls are goth.

    1. Re:Concerning Gothicism... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guess what? Nobody fucking cares. Seriously. SuicideGirls are goths, they are Goths! GOTHS GOTHS!!!. Bitching about them not being goths is as bad as ESR talking about hackers vs. crackers. STFU!

    2. Re:Concerning Gothicism... by Bloodlent · · Score: 0

      Oh sweet Christ, go away, Anonymous Pussy.

  150. She's not bad looking... for a lawyer! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  151. But the sender is almost cute! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.perkinscoie.com/attorney.cfm?id=08211

    Maybe she should be a suicide girl!

  152. probably too late, but here's what probably happen by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm against what's happening here, and I doubt they have a legal leg to stand on, but consider what's happening around the web.

    It's likely that Nintendo pays these lawyers to look around for their trademark being used to promote pornographic sites. Consider the case of John Zuccarini, who was using domain name typos (like 15 variations of "cartoonnetwork.com) to lure children to porn sites. He got a commission for each "click", although the clicks were cauased by pop-up hell. He brought in around $1,000,000 in his last year of business.

    It doesn't take more than a couple of minutes on Google to find someone using Nintendo's trademark to get search engine hits to their porn site. I often hit such sites while searching for information on other famous trademarks. Here's a site which uses "linux" as one of the search keywords, and it has nothing to do with Linux.

    Anyway, overzealous lawyers, yes, but they do have a legitimate job.

  153. GOOGLE BOMB! by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 1

    Is this not just going to google bomb Suicide girls and nintendo together? If I remember correctly google also counts sites linking to them using the worlds right? If so theres going to be alot of news stories linking to both sites.... oh how fun

    --
    I like muppets.
  154. Nintendo's lawyers know nothing of this by MilenCent · · Score: 1

    According to this post on BoingBoing, Nintendo's law firm knows nothing about the letter.

  155. 20,000 feet and all looks the same. by twitter · · Score: 2, Insightful
    There's a fair overlap between the tastes of at least a certain subset of geeks and a certain subset of goths (or sort-of-goth) in terms of music, books, tv shows, and so on

    Three cheers for mass culture. One, two, poo.

    Both groups tend to have a dislike of the mainstream subculture - they may well have both suffered through high school.

    Yeah, whatever. I'm not about to mutilate my penis over it. Nor will I use pictures like that of myself and others to make a slimy buck.

    Suicidegirls is sad the same way punks demanding money for photographs in London is pathetic. If it's recorded, it's static and dead. Culture is to be lived not ogled.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  156. I have fucked more SuicideGirls... by character_assassin · · Score: 1

    than you slashdot losers have fucked socks. DEAL.

    --

    If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
    1. Re:I have fucked more SuicideGirls... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      than you slashdot losers have fucked socks. DEAL.

      And you're posting this 'fact' on /.?

      When did Suicide Girls start coming to your mom's basement?

      And why do they look like socks?

  157. IDENTIFIED PROBLEM: Pornographic Web site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WHOOOOOT!

    Honestly, if it weren't stuff like this, I'd never have known Traci Lords was underage. Or that Monica Lewenski was servicing the President while he was ordering troops into Bosnia. Or that Marilyn Monroe was taking care of John Kennedy. Or that Jacques Chirac was helping his one hundred mistresses while he was trading with Saddam under "Oil for Food".

    Suicide is painless?

    It is if you're Nintendo. Christ, I bet their Dual-Screen sells like a wildfire this Christmas, if only they can make the 5 o'clock news.

    Someone send this link to CNN...

  158. WTF? People getting hung up over SG... by chaosphaere · · Score: 1

    OK, so all the slashdotters are getting hung up over whether or not SuicideGirls is "porn", and missing the whole point of why the links were posted. It is exactly the same case, as if you had posted that you liked Metroid and Zelda in your blog for Chrissakes and Nintendo wanted to sue you.

  159. Now I know why they sue... by mekanizer · · Score: 1

    I went to this suicide girls site, looked for keywords on Nintendo, Zelda, Metroid...

    I found that one of the girl was called Zelda, so I click on her... an ugly bitch appears and then I was like... damn, now I know why they sue.

  160. And the funny thing is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in Japan, naked boobies ain't pr0n. You can show the bare butt-hole and all the nipples you want to 6 year old boys, and it's still not pr0n. Only the pussy-hole is pr0n.

    SO...

    In Japan, Suicide Girls is pr0n. But the letter was written in English, instead of Kanjii.

    One of those international "WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON IN HERE WITH THIS WEB CRAWLER ALGORITHM?!!?!" things.

  161. abuse by nintendo, and stupidity from a few /.ers by drwho · · Score: 1

    This is just more ludicrous barratry from the IP lawyers. Best thing to do is point out that usage is not infringing, and that if they continue to harrass, you will sue for barratry and get damages and get them disbarred.

    IANAL, yea.

  162. Ahem--has NOTHING to do with First Amendment by bonch · · Score: 1, Informative

    Once again, the First Amendment is mis-cited.

    The First Amendment prevents the government from censoring you so far as your speech is not blocking someone else's rights. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH PRIVATE GROUPS. It's all about preventing the GOVERNMENT from messing with your rights, not freakin' Slashdot.

    I see miscitations of the First Amendment on Slashdot over and over. It doesn't fucking matter. If Slashdot wanted to censor Suicide Girls from their ad rotation, it wouldn't be a violation of the First Amendment. I'm so tired of people misunderstanding what the First Amendment means.

    1. Re:Ahem--has NOTHING to do with First Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The above post is TRUE and modding it down does the entire Slashdot community a disservice.

      But since it seems that 90% of posters (and moderators) here are liberals, they can't stand to see factually true posts about the First Amendment be read by others. And since I expect this post to be modded down immediately, I am posting anonymously. :D

    2. Re:Ahem--has NOTHING to do with First Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The above post is NOT TRUE and modding it up does the entire Slashdot community a disservice.

      But since it seems that 90% of posters (and moderators) here are clueless, they can't stand to see factually incorrect posts about the First Amendment not be read by others. And since I expect this post to be modded down immediately, I am posting anonymously. :D

      bonch

    3. Re:Ahem--has NOTHING to do with First Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, very smart. Very witty. Your post is the equivalent of a "is so!" "is not!" response. If you are using a forum (like, say Slashdot) which is a privately owned entity, the owners have the right to edit your speech all the live long day, and "censorship" has nothing to do with it--it's their system. You have no RIGHTS to how you use it .. if they want to shut you up, they may. They are not the government.

      Simple minded liberals are so very selective when it comes to their understanding of the Bill of Rights. It's funny.

  163. The letter is a fake... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The letter is a fake...

  164. Check the headers by DSP_Geek · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is everyone absolutely sure this letter is indeed from Perkins Coie? SG didn't show any headers, but I wouldn't be a bit surprised to find it came from somewhere else; real lawyers send warnings of this sort via certified mail or FedEx.

    It reads like a cart00ney to me (cart00neys are the term of art in the anti-spam community for the squeaky-voiced legal threats ill advised spammers occasionally send out), so I'd be surprised a tech-savvy firm like PC emailed this hunk-o-junk with no paper support.

    Francois.

  165. Re:abuse by nintendo, and stupidity from a few /.e by drwho · · Score: 1

    I hat to respond to my own post, but I forgot...ALl you people who say even the mention of a site that has breasts on it is immoral. Get off slashdot. We have no need for you. If I ran this place, I'd throw you out, and place a pox on your family. Really. One time I had a party and someone thought that the artistic photograph of a woman whose women whose breasts were bare 'exploited women'. I threw her out on the spot, told her she was never welcome in my house or any party I had control of, and that she should fuck off. She talked a storm, but didn't try to re-enter. Her coat followed her onto the sidewalk. People looked shocked, but later lots of people were telling me how funny it was.

    Don't tell me what's porn or not, in my house. I wish the slashdot editors would do the same, and delete your account.

  166. Re:this type of thing backfires when someone fight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Man.. why didn't I become a lawyer?

    Because you're not an invertebrate.

  167. What the f... hell?? by masterLoki · · Score: 1

    I just wanna know... How did Nintendo personal find out that particular page? And how the use of a simple name can damage them. If I said "Zelda, Metroid AND Nintendo sucks" (hoping no Nintendo Corporatives are reading this) what can they do if that's what i think? If what they want is money they should sell them to Microsoft when they (MS) wanted to buy they (N); insted of demanding for such silly things

  168. Re:GF by Sinner · · Score: 1

    I read it as GIF. Just say no to GIF pornography! I think I still have dithering burnt into my retinas from 1995!

    --
    fish and pipes
  169. so like, uh... where's the pr0n? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It like wants money or something...

  170. It had to be said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A ohhhh yeahhhhh!

  171. How dare they! by Duncan3 · · Score: 1

    Attack one of the slashdot sponsors like that!

    Did they pay extra for the story links?

    --
    - Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
  172. nintendo produces 'family' products by Paralizer · · Score: 1

    Nintendo is known for their generally cartoonish games for the whole family. What probably happened was some poor kid search for something like "zelda hints" on Google and stumbled upon SG. Maybe his mother walked by when he opened it and flipped out, sending Nintendo a nasty letter not knowing anything about the situation other than her underage son had pornography on the screen.

    It's sort of lame Nintendo wants them to remove it, but if this is the case it's certainly understandable that Nintendo is at least asking for it to be removed; they want to remain the "fun for all ages" company.

  173. I'm asking by zrail · · Score: 1

    wtf?

    1. Re:I'm asking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm wondering too... Maybe there were force-feedback devices for the SNES?

  174. Re:abuse by nintendo, and stupidity from a few /.e by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wish the slashdot editors would do the same, and delete your account.

    I disagree in as much as I think you are over reacting. I think that slashdot is a place where anyone can express an opinion, even if it's controversial. I didn't see a sign anywhere that said "ultra conservative zeolots from the dark ages of the inquisition need not apply". Sure, maybe I'd like nothing more than to put a bullet in their cranium, but that's just as right as them wanting to do the same to me for my beliefs.

    But anyways, if I was slashdot, I wouldn't delete their account, I would just make it so all of their initial posts are started at -1 Flaimbait.

    ( o )( o )
    gasp!
    ({})
    avert your eyes son! ascii is the devil. satan 666, kill yourself, but take some naked pics before you do if you're a hot chick. that would rule. uh huh huh...

  175. Re:Login/Password? Suicide Boys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On their tour page, it says you can be a Suicide Boy:

    10. BE A SUICIDEBOY?!

    Men, submit your pics to the SuicideBoys group and be fawned over for your naked body.


    I can imagine all the slashdot geeks joining up and submitting their own pictures to the site now. That would be cool.

  176. meta:ot:sig by themusicgod1 · · Score: 1

    awesome sig, man.

    --
    GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
  177. We have prepared a response..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AHEM....

    Fuck You.

    You may direct your comments to the wall behind me. Thank you.

  178. Blame that on Mattel. by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Mattel has a reputation for writing blank checks to attorneys who treat litigation as war. One of the common tactics that Mattel uses is to kill forests and try to bury opponents on the resulting paper.

    That is why Barbi Leigh surrender her prior domain BarbieFlasher.com. In the Miler case, they spent over a year litigating it, and even made the one of lawyers in the case want to quit law -- because the tactics of Mattel and it's attorneys.

  179. .^ aaa aaa aaa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a google for "zelda girls" (not using quotes) aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Since when is there a limit that makes you have to post soo much in order to submit? :P - A Coward

  180. Here's the infringing image by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's a link to the page with image for which the nastygram was sent. The problem with the C&D letter is that it was too vague and the link didn't go directly to the infringing image.

  181. They can ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If Nintendo wont put in writing that they were wrong suicidegirls can go to the court to demand summary judgement on the issue.

    Just like HardOCP did.

    You have to be very pigheaded with deep pockets and balls of steel to go that route though.

  182. Live Tour by kingLatency · · Score: 2, Informative

    Apparently you are unaware that Suicide Girls performs live shows at night club venues. Still canned and false (which the site and all the members are), but dynamic and alive.

    --
    "I've got to stop masturbating! It makes me too lazy! Stop it, Albert. Stop it." -- Albert Einstein
  183. Are you kidding? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Slashdot" (in the way that you mean it) doesn't moderate, you do. And I do. And the 'clueless fuckwit' does. Drop the paranoia, not everything is subtly controlled by shadowy background figures.

    I hate to break it to you, but it seems that frankly you don't know anything. Please read those threads and get some clue.

    1. Re:Are you kidding? by forgetful_ca · · Score: 1

      Yes, I often take direction from anonymous cowards.

    2. Re:Are you kidding? by forgetful_ca · · Score: 1
      "I hate to break it to you, (snip)"

      Then from the referenced articles:

      Update (5/28/03): The information in this journal is outdated and no longer reflects the state of Slashcode; this journal remains as a historical record but is no longer accurate.

      Apparently you don't either.

  184. I pity the fool. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure, but what's wrong with that?

    Um, a lot of things. Like your sense of self-worth being dependent upon pleasing a boss. In this case, they try and hide that by claiming they write code for more respectable reasons, but the truth is when you sell your time you soon get all of the problems that come with having a boss.

    I frankly pity men that choose to pay the bills by selling their time.

  185. This is crass advertising. by dominion · · Score: 4, Informative

    How many times has Sean (the straight male who started and runs the site, while pretending that it's a queer-friendly, woman run enterprise) from Suicidegirls crudely exploited Slashdot for free advertising? This is a pattern that has been happening time and time again, and it's ridiculous that the moderators here haven't realized it.

    Suicidegirls is not a DIY, woman-run project. "Missy" is their PR point-person, who gives a progressive, friendly face to an otherwise pretty sleazy operation. The site is actually owned and run by a guy named Sean Suhl (public knowledge, not saying anything new here), who is not exactly the most progressive guy on the planet. His politics are solidly right-wing (although he's a neo-conservative, who are more libertarian when it comes to sex... as long as someone can make money from it). Dozens of models have quit or been kicked off the site, many of whom were basically removed for being too "opinionated".

    Ultimately, Suicidegirls is the Hot Topic of alternative porn. They took an underground, DIY concept, polished it, and presented it slick and packaged back to the community that created it. You can read more about it in the SGirls community on Livejournal:

    http://www.livejournal.com/users/sgirls

    As a disclaimer, I'm not anti-porn. I'm a big fan of any porn that is sincere, DIY, and woman-oriented. There's a whole slew of sites, some of whom have been around longer than SG, such as FatalBeauty, ManicJane, VegPorn, along with DIY erotica zines such as State of Nature.

    SG is not DIY, they don't challenge patriarchal standards of beauty, and they don't give a crap about the women who pose for the site. This attempt by Sean for cheap publicity is yet another example of the only thing SG really does well: Marketing.

  186. Computer Geeks != All Geeks by linzeal · · Score: 1

    That is just "computer" geeks. There is still hundreds of scientific disiplines that are left to those of us interested enough to pursue them, ever see a person say, "I'm going to geologize that bitch!". Thought not.

  187. gee... they didn't delete and stifle themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    immediately delete the message and any attachments
    > without
    > copying or disclosing the contents.

  188. Wonder how Nintendo found out.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wonder how Nintendo came to finding this out... They have someone in their ranks surfing SuicideGirls?

  189. Pirating roses? by Vo0k · · Score: 1

    Now, now... Pirating flowers, THAT'S original!

    --
    Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
  190. Run a porn site on a nintendo? by Loconut1389 · · Score: 1

    I wonder if anyone could somehow build a game cartridge that runs a basic web server and has a couple of io ports on the back of the cartridge? Then you could run a porn site -on- a nintendo.

    Or just gut it and replace the parts with the mini itx boards (as seen a few weeks ago).. Then its not technically running -on- a nintendo, but oh well..

    I say, run the porn site on the nintendo and reference every game possible by making all member account names be required to be either a game name or a character name.

  191. How to tell art from porn the easy way... by BlackHawk-666 · · Score: 1

    If it's in black and white it's art, if it's in colour it's porn.

    --
    All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
  192. How is SG porn ? by escallywag · · Score: 1

    I just rummaged around the site a bit... Apparently it's just a collection of nude pics of mostly goth and punk females ? As far as I can tell no intercourse whatsoever... how is that porn ? Erotica, yes, but it's not porn.. You anal retentive bible thumping prudes really need to lighten up..

    1. Re:How is SG porn ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Porn isn't pictures of intercourse; it's pictures that are sexually explicit and are meant to cause sexual arousal. The distinction you're drawing is between two different types of porn: hardcore (intercourse/penetration/exchange of fluids) and softcore (sexually explicit nudity).

  193. My assumption is... by marktaw.com · · Score: 1

    My assumption is that this is a form of geurilla marketing. Basically, Nintendo discovered that Hot Goth Girls like their games, and they wanted to publicize that fact. They did so spectacularly well, not only does the whole Suicide Girl community know this, all of Slashdot does too now.

    1. Re:My assumption is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      except that the member in question is a guy

  194. Re:I submit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't worry, I'm going to give them lots of love and attention myself. (and with the help of my wife too) mmm, those sexy little girls, I'll keep them all to myself!

  195. I think Nintendo is actually right by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure whether or not Nintendo is legally in the right, but I feel they actually have a very good position. Nintendo wants to protect it's child friendly attitude Ala Disney, and if a little kid is bumbling along looking for a Zelda game background for his computer and SHAZAM suicide girls comes up... that could be bad for Nintendo's image.

  196. lawyers by stewwy · · Score: 1

    the clue is in the phrase our clients ...its obviously a form letter from their lawers and has cost them approx. zero to send .... and cost nintendo $500 in fees

  197. Well, this is why I hate Nintendo by Moraelin · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Yes, I'm if you will a Nintendo anti-fanboy. I want to see them die a horrible death, or at least go away for ever.

    I hope the PSP finally puts these fuckers out of their retarded misery. Better yet, I hope MS gets into the handheld market and puts as much money behind it as they put behind the XBox. Heck, I'd even preorder some 20 MS handhelds.

    They've been using every single strong-arm tactic they thought they could get away with.

    They threatened emu makers. They threaten sites for merely mentioning their games.

    They broke trade laws in Europe and actually _planned_ that they'll get fined, but probably will make more money than the fine. (Much to their surprise, the EU had a much nastier bite than they had planned.)

    When they were still the number 1 console, they imposed all sorts of surrealistic restrictions on the game devs. Just because they're the big N, and you're just a worthless peon begging to make a game for their console.

    And generally, I dunno, they just fucking act like they whole fucking Earth revolves around them. They're the Alpha and the Omega, they're The Big N, God's bless to gamers, and so on.

    At a time when the N64 was having a grand total of some 3 genres for it, and about 2 games per whole fucking year (at least in Europe, anyway), Nintendo was shooting its mouth off to the press about how they're great and have all the games they need. See, it's Sony who'll go bankrupt for having hundreds of games on their consoles. You just wait and see. All those stray developpers will come begging back to Nintendo.

    No, literally.

    Not only idiotic, but a downright slap in the face to all of us whose N64 was catching dust for lack of games.

    And so on.

    And I don't know... I wish they just ate shit and died already. All this corporate narcisism is making me sick already.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    1. Re:Well, this is why I hate Nintendo by MilenCent · · Score: 1

      Yes, I'm if you will a Nintendo anti-fanboy. I want to see them die a horrible death, or at least go away for ever.

      Uh-oh. Shields up!

      They've been using every single strong-arm tactic they thought they could get away with.

      The Nintendo of today is considerably humbled versus the Nintendo of the late 80's and early 90's, who did, in fact, use many questionable tactics to continue their stranglehold on the home video game industry.

      But Nintendo, even the Nintendo of the early 90's, is a saint compared to Microsoft's entire damn history. Do not forget that. (Of course, this is Slashdot, so it's unlikely that you'd be able to.)

      As for the lawyer letter, it turns out that Nintendo didn't know about it, and Nintendo's law firm didn't either.

      They threatened emu makers. They threaten sites for merely mentioning their games.

      We've already handled the threat. As for emu makers: yes, this is a problem, but it is by no means limited to Nintendo. Remember a little thing called Bleem!, that Sony really took a dim view towards? Microsoft has not been all that happy about people modding their XBoxes, either. This is actually a consequence of the corporate mindset that runs the console (and most other) industries.

      They broke trade laws in Europe and actually _planned_ that they'll get fined, but probably will make more money than the fine. (Much to their surprise, the EU had a much nastier bite than they had planned.)

      I'm not familiar with that situation, but again, Nintendo is not the big game company that's being bitten worst by the EU -- Microsoft's antitrust case is going (or was, it's been a while I heard) badly for them.

      When they were still the number 1 console, they imposed all sorts of surrealistic restrictions on the game devs.

      Again, all three companies do this. Development kits are expensive to make, after all. Me, I'm unhappy that the big three game makers tend to be so homebrew unfriendly, but again Nintendo isn't alone in this. And it seems like they're trying to get better -- supposedly they were the ones who contacted Warp Pipe Industries, the guys who made the Gamecube LAN portal, about cooperation between them. That's unprecedented.

      (Snipped bit about developers running back to Nintendo.)
      No, literally.

      Hmmm, you sound like you have an axe to grind here. You might convince more people if you, ya know, calm down a little.

  198. Re:this type of thing backfires when someone fight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It backfired that time, and so what is your point?

    The reason Mattel uses that technique isn't because they were ignorant of some "lesson" you needed to teach them, or because they thought it was an infallible way to shut down sites they didn't like. It's a risk/reward equation. Most people don't bother fighting back. Your resistance is futile, and had already been accounted for before the plan was set in motion.

    Do you really think Mattel will never again attempt to leverage their corporate power and immortality to bully individuals, because of these "lessons learned"? Fat chance. You're a speed bump to them.

  199. Not true. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nintendo not crazy, just flumoxed by lawyers.

    It's like any job. In order to keep it, you have to continually demonstrate your importance to the organization.

    The lawyers are hired to protect the company's (un-named 'cause I don't have time to fsck with lawyers) interests.

    Looking at it from the outside, these lawyers clearly have very little to do. Yes, the company can force anyone to refrain from using their trademark. No, it doesn't make sense in this particular cultural context (240lb geek, pathetically trying to impress chix at what is clearly a 'grab the pathetic geeks money' web site).

    What they lawyers have acheived instead is a huge promotional gain for this businesses web site as /. represents a $hitload of pathetic geeks in search of pussy. The lawyers have also given that particular pathetic geek 3 of his 15 minutes of fame. Hell, maybe he'll actually get some pussy out of the deal. If he's an average /.er, he'd be willing to trade a few weeks in the army for some pussy so this is a 'hell of a deal' for him.

    All I want to know is, "is that lawyer lady hot and does she want to fsck?". "Hey lawyer lady, I wear 55cm shoes and you know what that means! Are you woman enough?"

    1. Re:Not true. by l3prador · · Score: 1

      Too bad 70-80% of the people on this site are cheapskates who really only use linux because it's free.

  200. SG Password? by cerebralpc · · Score: 1

    Can a fellow /.'er lend me their password?

  201. Interesting parallel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Were you just giving a counter-example, or were you intentionally drawing a link between suicidegirls and drug pushers etc?

    Not a flame or anything, just an honest question. If so, why?

    1. Re:Interesting parallel by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Just trying to make a joke. Young women exposing their bodies to the world is the moral and right thing to do, unlike pushing drugs on children.

  202. I wonder.... by Eccentrica+Galumbits · · Score: 1

    ... if they've seen the girl posing with the NES control pads?

    1. Re:I wonder.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ok, you can't post like that and not provide a link

  203. They're not exactly goth... by renata.org · · Score: 1

    I believe it's a "alternative to worldwide media beauty" erotic site. Many girls there are exhibitionists who do the pictures for their own pleasure - and, wow, can earn some bucks also! - and the site members are men and women who like this alternative-beauty fetish. There's a bunch of sites like Suicide Girls around, like Nakkid Nerds and RaverPorn/EroticBPM. Also, it looks like geek guys tend to like these alternative beauties rather than the default ones. And, as a geek-non-default-girl who likes geek guys, I've never had any problems to find men who like me - and, no, I'm not goth, although I always wear black and have my hair dyed in bright red and do like some goth rock and... wait, this topic was supposed to be about Nintendo... Well, so, my IMHO, Nintendo is crazy and I'll not buy a Gamecube anymore. :P

  204. worst... thread... ever... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    weird. I always considered slashdot readers above the types that would peddle moral righteousness. My illusions have been painfully shattered by this response thread.

    (Score:5, Funny because I'm not even being sarcastic)

  205. Or by PigeonGB · · Score: 1

    or the Microsoft. That one drives me crazy.

    --
    I have 3656.9 Bogomips. How many Bogomips do you have?
  206. enough speed bumps by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 1

    If they keep hitting speed bumps, they may slow down.

  207. the reason i agree with nintendo by c4thy · · Score: 0

    GOOGLE MOTHERfucker, they did use it!

    --

    i am convinced that "/.ers" are homosexuals and imma make that my "sig"
  208. Uh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Once again, you misquote and twist things to your own purposes. Try as I might, I fail to see how the OP conflated the First Amendment and Slashdot.

    Oh, that's right, he didn't--you did. Your post is nothing more than a transparent attempt to troll and gain karma on the cheap.

  209. mmm, tool! by linhux · · Score: 1

    hey, as I read this post, I am actually listening to the Tool album Lateralus. I must be so connected to that girl!

  210. Trying to read the topic... by KillScriptKiddies · · Score: 1

    trying to read the topic for the eleventh time,
    but i get stuck at girl number 52.

    Yummie!

  211. Eek! by ElleyKitten · · Score: 1

    "Watch Zelda get Fsck'd by Metroid!" Eek. I hope you're talking about Samus too. Now I have scary images of Princess Zelda having sex with metroids (the icky blob things). I hope you're happy.

    --
    "What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
    1. Re:Eek! by mink · · Score: 1

      Depending on how you chose to misunderstand the meaning it could be:
      Link getting it from Samus
      Princess Zelda getting it from a Metroid
      Link getting it from a Metroid
      Princess Zelda getting it from Samus

      So we have hot hetero action (depending on what link you are thinking of). Hot alien tentacle action. Creepy hot alien tentacle action (well some gay hentai fans may be up for it) and last hot lesbian action.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
  212. I call bullshit by phorm · · Score: 1

    Sorry, but I'm actually considering signing up for this site. In fact, even my gf was thinking of signing up (she's straight, BTW).

    Why, not because of the pictures, but because it looks like a really cool community. The girls are confident and expressive. The journals are - for many of them - quite interesting. They even have some interviews with various famous personalities (Danny Glover recently).

    I've seen lots of porn sites with similar picture content and greater volumel, but for me - while I might browse the pics from time to time - I'd probably spend more time actually getting to know the members and chatting on the boards.

  213. Amazing! by tilleyrw · · Score: 1

    It is incredible that among the expected literati that might be expected to visit Slashdot, such opinions on sex can exist!

    Research tantra and learn about the cleansing and revitalizing power of sex. And no, it's not about the positions in which you can manage to fsck but about the mental presence you maintain during fscking.

    Dedicate yourself to your partner(s) during physical loving. Maintain an awareness of the pleasure and emotions being shared within the moment. Be conscious during the act!

    On a more materialistic level and to repeat a common phrase, "It's all good." Discussions about the value of pornography, positions, sexual acts, etc. are pointless unless your consiousness and awareness are increased.

    Tantra, It's not just a breakfast cereal anymore!

    --
    This post encoded with ROT26. If you can read it, you've violated the DMCA. Handcuffs please, sergeant.
  214. Ahh! The smell of sex in the morning by tilleyrw · · Score: 1

    Consider this following bit of logic.

    • The purpose of life is sex
    • The purpose of sex is life

    Now consider the current state of our country in which sex is treated as a taboo subject. One to be joked about at the water cooler and snickered at by children. "Hahahaah...she said 'sex'!"

    Pornography? Harvesting porn of the 'net is a hobby of mine, so I feel qualified to comment on the subject.

    Quality adult movies are rare. The majority consisting of low-budget scenes recorded in cheap studios with mechanical actors.

    What I treasure are the jewels, the "diamonds in the rough", that occasionally appear piles of slag which I collect. I do not even watch most of what I download (but I do save it, "just in case") and instead burn it directly to DVD.

    Sex is good and if you don't like porn -- Don't watch it. But do not prevent another citizen of this country from enjoying their goatse.cx.

    --
    This post encoded with ROT26. If you can read it, you've violated the DMCA. Handcuffs please, sergeant.
  215. 80's Punk Not Creative??? by KnarfO · · Score: 1

    uh, hello?...

    R ......>>>1984
    H ......>>>1985
    C......>>>1987
    P......>>>1989

    Go to chuch, my brotha!

    --


    "Creativity is allowing ones self to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep" - Scott Adams
    1. Re:80's Punk Not Creative??? by tekunokurato · · Score: 1

      Okay, who here thinks the chili peppers are punk? Even back in the eighties??

    2. Re:80's Punk Not Creative??? by elemental23 · · Score: 1

      I was about to say the same thing. This relates to punk music how, exactly?

      --
      I like my women like my coffee... pale and bitter.
  216. IP by alexo · · Score: 1


    The whole "intellectual property" concept, as it is understood and practiced nowadays in the western world is bogus.

    Had to be said.

  217. the SG site - half porn, half art by jlapier · · Score: 1

    I called "bullshit" on it for about 9 months for the same reason you do now. There are boobs, they charge money - you can't get a more simplistic definition of porn than "Boobs For Profit".
    My girlfriend is still a member - not a model, mind you, but a paying member, and has been for over a year now. I finally gave in and tried to see her point of view on what I considered a run-of-the-mill women-objectifying porn site. This girl considers herself a feminist, and swears that she feels like SG is a site which allows women to be open and artistic and just be themselves without holding back. There is a new generation of feminists out there right now that aren't the bra-burners of the 60's. These women believe they shouldn't have to dress like a man to get equal respect - they want to be sexy and respected.
    That's kind of the premise behind SG I think. These women basically say, "Hey, I'm going to show you my tits, not because you are paying for it and you are telling me to, but because I'm strong and I love myself and I love my body".
    So my GF is a member, and I don't get on her case about it any more. It's a place where she can talk to other women, and sure there are jackasses on there, but there are always going to be jackasses. It's the internet. And SG has a lot of other aspects to it that I personally like - most of all their interviews - they interview some really interesting people (http://suicidegirls.com/words/).

    Anyway, I thought Nintendo was ready to break out of their strictly younger market and try to appeal to a mature crowd once in a while? Why spend all kinds of time and money in advertising trying to get Metroid and Zelda to be household names, and then try to restrict what people can actually write those words?

  218. YAAD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are a dumbass. What we're talking about isn't a forum self-policing, we're talking about one entity telling another entity that they can't say certain things. Only an idiot (such as you) would try to skew things to mean something completely different from what the original discussion was about.

    Simple minded conservatives are so very selective when it comes to their understanding of ANYTHING. It's funny.

    Moderators: You ought to be ashamed for modding a known troll like bonch up!

    1. Re:YAAD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah I see how it is .. you can't argue with me, so you remind me that "that's not what we're talking about. Stick to the topic. You're a dumbass."

      Gosh, I feel so .. so hurt...

      Nice try though .. care to try again?

    2. Re:YAAD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can argue with your completely off-topic (and wrong) point, but it would be a waste of time. Since your feeble little mind has trouble grasping this unbelievably simple point, let me illustrate it for you:

      Suppose I was to say "George W. Bush is the most dangerous man to ever occupy the office of President of the United States" and you then countered with "George W. Bush is not a comuunist!" I would rightly conclude that 1) you are an idiot and 2) arguing with you is complete and utter waste of time.

      You truly are a dumbass.

    3. Re:YAAD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He may be dumb, but he's right. First ammendment protects you from the government's actions. Private entities (receiving no government support or funding) can squalch whomever they please. It's called freedom. YRO=owner's discretion.

  219. heh by PhraudulentOne · · Score: 1

    Well, for one, someone at Nintendo has been looking up hot chicks on the internet and going through their homepages. Two, I don't see how its going to tarnish Nintendo's image if the comment is on a site like this. The only people that are going to read the comments from this person are people who go to these kinds of sites (read: PEOPLE WHO LIKE THIS STUFF), so I find it hard to believe that they are going to get upset at a mention of a video game.

    --
    You create your own reality - Leave mine to me.
  220. Another update by dyskrasia · · Score: 1

    A post with an attempt to fix the mistake. (Read Seans post at the bottom of the page.)

  221. MOD UP by Zork+the+Almighty · · Score: 2, Funny

    Imagine that, the website is also a whore.

    --

    In Soviet America the banks rob you!
  222. Nintendo Apologized by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And even chipped in a system for the site admin.

    http://suicidegirls.com/boards/The+Site/55715/po st 2692373/

  223. Re:probably too late, but here's what probably hap by user32.ExitWindowsEx · · Score: 1

    i'd say it doesn't take too long on google to find porn *regardless of the search topic*

    --
    "Evil will always triumph because good is dumb." -- Dark Helmet
  224. Further Update by MilenCent · · Score: 1

    Again according to BoingBoing, Nintendo has apologized to both suicidegirls.com and the member whose profile had the text in question, and has offered both the site and the member a free system and game.

    So I suppose the only thing left to add is... how can I start one of these internet ruckuses, so I can get free stuff?

  225. For those still reading this discussion by Southpaw018 · · Score: 1

    The issue has made the Friday Penny Arcade strip. See http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2004-10 -29.

    --
    ACs are modded -6. I don't read you, I don't mod you, I don't see you. Don't like it? Don't be a coward.
  226. Re:Princess Peach! by cfalcon · · Score: 1

    Uhh... isn't this not a troll because slashdot clearly shows that each link points to a site with "hentai" in the name? I mean, click on those, I've got a feeling you know what you are getting.

  227. Why does this surprise anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nintendo has a history of shooting off it's own feet right before leading its fans into certain oblivion. It's like the pied-fucking-piper. So what? Nintendo has always fucked over it's most important asset: it's fans. Just look at the GBA SP, or the Gamecube...weak. I guess that's what you get for liking kiddie games, anyway...

  228. Well, it looks like Nintendo apologized... by Goronmon · · Score: 1

    http://www.boingboing.net/2004/10/28/nintendo_apol ogizes_.html

    Guess somebody was a bit too quick on the "Threaten Lawsuit" button at the firm.

  229. Rabid lawyers... by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    Actually, they wouldn't have a case for either. I'm at work so I can't visit that site (not even going to try). But if the usage is "I like Metroid" then it's a form of review. Nintendo can't send a cease and desist for a commercial magazine that reviews their released game (pre-release contracts are different). Well, they can, but they'll be laughed out of court.

    That's why Nintendo is "settling" and bribing the site, because the higher lawyers looked at the situation and publicity and say "we're in trouble".

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  230. Wrong again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's not only dumb, he's dead wrong. If I stand on a street corner and give a speech and you come along and tell me to shut up you are violating my 1st Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech. That's the point that you and bonch are missing.

    We're not talking about walking into a bar and doing the same thing. Let me put it this way for you. It would be as if you came into my house and told me to shut up. That's what we're talking about here--again, this IS NOT about a forum policing itself.

    Damn, you're as much of a dumbass as bonch. It wouldn't suprise me to learn that you really are bonch, posting anonymously.

  231. Outrageous by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

    How does the saying go? "Even bad publicity is good publicity" If I read the article correctly, Nintendo was pissed because a user had posted those on their private user page, as their favorite videogames. What I want to know is how Nintendo found out? Was the CEO doing his regular cruise of the SG website when he stumbled across the users page? Or did the user have links to those games posted in the profile? Regardless of how they found out, how many games were sold as a result of that? How many hits does the SG site recieve that is pushing those games FREE OF CHARGE for Nintendo?

    Grow up people. A quote saying my fave games are: "blah" and "blah", is not grounds for a lawsuit. Had they posted sourcecode yeah I could see, had they been pushing pirated copies ok I can get with that, but a user profile, grow up. I just lost respect for Nintendo. Don't forget who is your target group guys. It isn't children. It's the pockets of the these kids parents you are looking to get into.

    --
    I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
  232. Ok Zonk! How much .. by slackerny · · Score: 1

    did you make from this ad in /.??

    anyways it was good change from all the geekiness!!

  233. Don't kid yourself. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Suicide Girls was developed to be a celbration of attitude of young women rather than specifically providing a visual stimulation for male sexual climax.

    But the reason the owner has a big house in the suburbs is precisely because of the "male sexual climax."

  234. Goths and Geeks. by Darth23 · · Score: 1
    Actuallly a lot of Goths ARE geeks.

    Geeks come in many stripes. Check out Dragon*Con in Atlanta and their new Gothic Journeys programming track for confirmation.

    At D*C 2004 acoustic Goth musician, artist, writer and filmmaker Voltaire mistakenly claimed that Goth was NOT really a 'geek thing'. The other members of the panel, and most of the audience immediately disagreed and Voltaire (who has an EP of Star Trek parody songs, btw) immediately conceded the point.

    --

    -------- In Soviet Russia, "Soviet Russia" sigs hate Slashdot.

  235. Sometimes the legal trolls DON'T get their way by geekboy_x · · Score: 1

    It should be poitned out that some clear-thinking individuals at NOA caught wind of what their legal zealots were up to, and issued an apology to the folks at SG. After the Rare fiasco, NOA knows better than anyone the ins and outs of what REALLY counts as IP.

    Someone should update the original story.

    --
    -- There are two kinds of motorcycles. 1: German. 2: Crap.
  236. About the goth BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All this concentrated use of "goth" got me to reply.

    What the hell does "goth" mean?
    Do you really know or just use a meaningless word time and time again.
    I have searched for a definition of "goth" but guess what, nobody knows or everyone is saying something different.

    To conclude, "goth" has no meaning (except the goths as a nationality) so stop saying that someone is a "goth".

  237. Re:Well, clearly parent poster is crazy by Hognoxious · · Score: 1
    it promotes the objectification of women
    Explain to me how this and similar puplications do that? By making them feel excluded, perhaps?
    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  238. They're trying to protect children by woddfellow2 · · Score: 1

    They're trying to protect children from finding about this explicit (and therefore crappy) Web site via a search engine.

    --
    1-Crawl 2-Cnfg 3-ATF 4-Exit ?
  239. ... they apologised ... by splint3r · · Score: 1

    They apologised.

    Just coz of the bad press though?

  240. Why? by danila · · Score: 1

    Well, since everyone appears to be more concerned with the girls than the actual story, let me give my attempt at explaining the logic behind that nastigramm.

    It often happens that porn sites, especially the dirtier and spammier ones use popular keywords in an attempt to boost their popularity in search engines. You probably saw one or two examples. Sometimes they would go as far as to use words like "Nintendo" or "Zelda" in a semi-futile attempt to attract the gaming fan via an accidental link on Google. Obviously, Nintendo is pissed off when it happens (you would be pissed off too if a search for your full name would bring irrelevant porn search results), so they devised a clever strategy.

    They used a robot or a database that located sites belonging to two sets simultaneously - the set of pornographic sites (possibly from some filtering database) and the set of sites with Nintendo brandnames (accessed via Google API, own web-crawling, or something). The software then sends a nastygram to the site admin, informing about the problem. Since most pornographic sites have no reason to mention Nintendo and its products, this strategy doesn't produce many false positives (especially, when there is a certain threshold, such as at least 2 brands or something) and so it was decided to automate the process.

    Then of course, it went wrong. But please understand, first, that there was no malicious intent, second, that Nintendo lawyers were quick to fix it by apologizing and offering a free Gamecube to Suicide Girls and the poster who mentioned the brands, and third, that lawyers are not paid to harass the innocent people, it is being done automatically by computers we all know and love. :)

    Thanks for tuning in.

    --
    Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.