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.
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.
But it isn't a problem when playboy uses (nude) nintendo characters?
The Yasashii Syndicate ||
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
/. 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.
Is everybody on
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.
/. from work (for better or worse).
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
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
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.
My Greasemonkey scripts for Digg &
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.
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.
Do you have ESP?