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.

Comments

Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy

[ArbitraryConstant]

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

Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy

[Anonymous Coward]

So basically you're talking about Fark...

Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy

[Hatta]

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?

Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy

[the arbiter]

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.

Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy

[sgant]

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.

Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy

[orangesquid]

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...

Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy

[Anonymous Coward]

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!!!!

Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy

[Izago909]

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.

Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy

[spacefrog]

Grunt

Moan

YEEEEEEEES

What was that, again?

Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy

[empaler]

The link itself is to an unobjectionable page.

Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy

[Gentlewhisper]

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

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

Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy

[KarmaMB84]

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

Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy

[Lonath]

Irony, the most sublime of the humors.

Almost like a black fly in your Chardonnay...

Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy

[bnenning]

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.

Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy

[HangingChad]

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

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy

[milkman_matt]

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

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Or uncommon :)

-matt

Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy

[hiryuu]

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.

Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy

[maddskillz]

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

Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy

[Rude Turnip]

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

Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy

[mollymoo]

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.

Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy

[Bachus9000]

..and here comes the science!

Oh, and at some point France would surrender.

Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy

[Genda]

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

Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy

[ZB Mowrey]

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.

Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy

[feed_me_cereal]

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.

Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy

[freakmn]

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.

Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy

[hiryuu]

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.

Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy

[Babbster]

"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.

Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy

[Scrameustache]

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.

Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy

[Scrameustache]

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.

Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy

[pagal_paanda]

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.

Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy

[sgant]

Christy Canyon does have a nice set of eyes though.

Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy

[Yer Mom]

Weapons of Mario Destruction?

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

Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy

[WoodenRobot]

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

Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy

[littlejess]

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.

Re:Well, clearly Nintendo is crazy

[avgjoe62]

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.

Oops

[cuteseal]

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

Re:Oops

[WhatsAProGingrass]

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

Re:Oops

[KDan]

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

Daniel

Re:Oops

[gosand]

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

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

wait a minute...

[iocat]

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

Re:wait a minute...

[MisanthropicProgram]

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!"

Re:wait a minute...

[superpulpsicle]

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!

Re:wait a minute...

[DrAegoon]

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.

Re:wait a minute...

[das_cookie]

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.

Re:wait a minute...

[cgenman]

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

Re:wait a minute...

[Mac_D83]

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....

To Insane Levels

[Norg]

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.

Re:To Insane Levels

[Jaysyn]

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

Re:To Insane Levels

[canajin56]

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.

Re:To Insane Levels

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

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. :-)

Re:To Insane Levels

[Anonymous Coward]

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!"

Is that legal?

[ebooher]

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?

Re:Is that legal?

[TexasDex]

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.

Re:Is that legal?

[dissy]

> 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.

This could be a great thing for SG

[djblair]

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

Re:This could be a great thing for SG

[uberjoe]

/. advertises suicidegirls.

Re:This could be a great thing for SG

[Fnkmaster]

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.

Re:This could be a great thing for SG

[elemental23]

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.

Not a good move, Nintendo

[BenSpinSpace]

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.

Re:Not a good move, Nintendo

[calethix]

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.

Re:Not a good move, Nintendo

[SetupWeasel]

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.

y'know,

[Pandora's Vox]

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

Good for the goose!

[pla]

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.

Re:Good for the goose!

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Good for the goose!

[zangdesign]

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.

Re:Good for the goose!

[kfg]

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

Re:Good for the goose!

[erikharrison]

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.

Re:WTF?

[pboulang]

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.

Intellectual property in dog tricks

[Trurl's Machine]

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...

Pornographic website?

[Nicholas Evans]

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?

Re:Pornographic website?

[MagicDude]

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.

Re:Pornographic website?

[pommiekiwifruit]

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...

Re:before the server starts smoking

[russint]

> 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.

Really Nintendo?

[FroBugg]

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.

Re:Really Nintendo?

[Galvatron]

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.

Nice excuse

[Zebedeu]

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!

IP versus Free Speech?

[taernim]

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??

Does this firm actually represent Nintendo?

[eht]

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.

Please repost the letter.

[BrookHarty]

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.

It's all about the children.

[ToadSprocket]

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.

Fair use has nothing to do with it

[commodoresloat]

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!!!

Re:Crazyness!

[lakin]

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.

Re:WTF?

[MyDixieWrecked]

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.

shares of your feelings

[Doc Ruby]

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.

Re:Hm.

[shawnmchorse]

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.

Automatic form letter

[macdaddy]

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.

Re:Automatic form letter

[Cytlid]

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.

Re:Automatic form letter

[Cytlid]

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.

Re:WTF?

[uncoveror]

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.

Not the first time.

[pavon]

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.

If this holds Slashdot is fux0red

[mmmmmhotpants]

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.

Watch out Slashdot!

[Peter Cooper]

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!

Re:WTF?

[chris_mahan]

I like that, actually.

Bounce the email with:

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

* Categories: Games (Nintendo)

this type of thing backfires when someone fights

[www.sorehands.com]

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.

/.ted

[Southpaw018]

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.

Re:Although It Begs the Question:

[Hatta]

You mean it raises the question

Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore

[Simonetta]

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.

Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore

[s0l0m0n]

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.

Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore

[Average_Joe_Sixpack]

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.

Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore

[BakaHoushi]

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?)

Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore

[Drakonian]

The Suicide Girls concept is about sharing the self-actualization of women in Portland's post-punk subculture.

John Katz? Is that you?

Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore

[DraKKon]

You forgot to mention the MAIN reason why the site was started, which is usually step 3, Profit!

Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore

[Riktov]

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!

Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore

[jallen02]

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

Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore

[mdbales]

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

Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore

[hai.uchida]

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.

Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore

[ShinGouki]

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.

Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore

[Clock Nova]

It's pretty simple, really. If it has shadows, it's art. Porn is usually pretty well-lit.

Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore

[identity0]

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!

Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore

[The-Bus]

Or Super Off-Road 4x4 for the SNES.

Don't ask. Seriously.

Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore

[Ciel]

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.

Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore

[Per Wigren]

"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.

Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore

[jcr]

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

Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore

[jcr]

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

Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore

[GreyWolf3000]

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.

Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore

[jcr]

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

Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore

[Rysc]

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.

Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore

[Pleione]

"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

Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore

[Pleione]

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

Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore

[valdezjuan]

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

Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore

[Anonymous Coward]

You're like a brother to me.

Re:Suicide Girls at Powell's bookstore

[GreyWolf3000]

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.

Re:WTF?

[CustomFort]

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.

WHAT ARE YOU PEOPLE DOING?!?!?!?

[Rary]

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!!!

Re:WTF?

[Poppler]

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.

Re:Simple Explanation

[JVert]

Yea we wouldn't want SuicideGirls and Nintendo getting mixed up by the search engines.

Makes me want to..

[rogabean]

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.

Really?

[ljavelin]

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.

Re:WTF?

[Anthony Boyd]

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.

Re:WTF?

[phasm42]

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.

Re:WTF?

[phasm42]

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

Re:WTF?

[CustomFort]

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.

Some background...

[Remik]

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

Yes,

[pavon]

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.

Overlap between geek-goth subcultures...

[Goonie]

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...

Re:Overlap between geek-goth subcultures...

[tsm_sf]

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.

Re:Overlap between geek-goth subcultures...

[metalligoth]

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

Re:Overlap between geek-goth subcultures...

[theghost]

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.

legal basis for the email

[odin53]

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.

Re:legal basis for the email

[taustin]

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.

Re:legal basis for the email

[geminidomino]

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.

Re:THE LETTER

[TrippTDF]

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.

Re:The case is...

[taustin]

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.

Opinions...

[AgentPhunk]

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

and they usually stink.

SuicideGirls could reply

[codeboost]

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.

Ob. Out the moron lawyer post...

[B747SP]

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.

Re:Ob. Out the moron lawyer post...

[myowntrueself]

"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...

Miyamoto what are you up to?

[b4jts]

What's this? Miyamoto checking out SuicideGirls user profiles - whats the old man up to?

Free Advertising

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Login/Password?

[Lord_Dweomer]

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!

Send this reply back to them

[Skapare]

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.

I just realized...

[GypC]

... how old I am.

I was going to comment about the yummy punk-rock girls, but everyone is calling them "goth".

Bah. Humbug.

probably too late, but here's what probably happen

[Trailer Trash]

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.

20,000 feet and all looks the same.

[twitter]

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.

Check the headers

[DSP_Geek]

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.

Re:The case is...

[geminidomino]

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.

Blame that on Mattel.

[www.sorehands.com]

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.

Live Tour

[kingLatency]

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.

This is crass advertising.

[dominion]

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.

MOD UP

[Zork the Almighty]

Imagine that, the website is also a whore.