Slashdot Mirror
Guy Game Results in Lawsuits and Injunction
Several readers have written in to report on Tuesday's lawsuit regarding 'The Guy Game'. The PC/console offering, which strings a weak trivia game around footage of naked college age girls, has come under fire after the revelation that a woman featured prominently in the game was under the age of 18 at the time the footage was taken. The lawsuit names Sony (PS2), Microsoft (Xbox), Take-Two Interactive (Publisher), and Top Heavy Studios (Developer) as defendants. Commentary available on GamesIndustry.biz.
After Traci Lords....???
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
I wonder what the church thinks of the game. Maybe if she wants to be such a model citizen, she should start out by not running around topless during spring break.
...yes, I'm certain this won't hurt sales at all. Kinda like Traci Lords "leaking" the fact that she was underage in order to get all her old movies pulled (and turned into hot collector's items) with the fringe benefit of making her last and only "adult age" porno flick sell like gangbusters.
What? So I'm a pervert. At least I'm open about it.
El riesgo vive siempre!
So sue Sony because a playstation can play a game that features content that breaks the law.
... which arguably operates as a clearing-house when they choose to slap a rating on a game.
I'm surprised they were so short-sighted:
They should sue the maker of the digital camera used to take the picture of the girl.
If they used a scanner and a traditional camera, they should sue both the maker of the scanner and the camera. Double the dollars!
How about suing the DVD Consortium because they produced the scandard by which the disc used to distribute the content contained the illegal picture.
Too much? More realistic:
Jail all of the end-users because they now possess child-pornography.
Sue the ESRB
One can argue that because MS, Sony et. al. have put controls on their console allowing them to essentially declare what can and cannot run on it (without a mod-chip of course), that they "sanctioned" rather than just simply "allowed" this to take place...
Of course, we can expect that Sony, MS et. al. will probably be far more conservative in deciding what is or isn't allowed to operate on their systems from here on out. I may not agree with the content of the game, but it'll shame when all of the software is dumbed down so as not to offend even the most conservative among us.
But the cynic in me has to ask the question...if this succeeds: What happens when a slick lawyer is able to confuse a judge and a jury into drawing the conclusion that the OS/product not only "is" a clearing-house, but legally "must operate as" a clearing-house for the applications running on it. Do they sue all of the Linux programmers when Linux fails to block something illegal or offensive?
"God is dead!" - Nietzsche
"Nietzsche is dead!" - God
"This thread is worthless without pics..." Whoops... wrong forum...
But seriously, the game description of half naked spring breakers that reward you by showing you their boobs for answering trivia questions reminds me of those tetris clones (porntris?) where the filled rows became part of a hardocore image.
No thank you. If I want to see "Girls Gone Wild", I'll just check out the latest video and save myself the trouble.
No sig
So she's old enough to be in college, she's happy to run around topless while at college, and she's smart enough to sue - but unable to give (or, indeed, not give) her consent to appear in the game.
Hurrah! for the law.
Registering accounts later than some other chrisb since 1997
Curious - if she was allowed to go to Spring Break in the first place, and flash her breasts around to anyone and everyone, what makes you think her incapable of making an informed (or ill-formed) decision?
I was pictured topless in the game here:/ 919657_20040901_thumb008.jpg
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2004/reviews
(Remove stupid spacing)
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Maybe someone should charge her parents with contributing to the corruption of a minor by allowing her to go there unsupervised.
If the location the videos/photos were taken was public property, can't they legally photograph anyone they please?
I know with personal security cameras you can't have their view extend onto another persons private property, but if it gets the street in front of your house then that's ok. Say there was a naked 17 year old girl standing there in the street... I'd say it's obvious that the person who owns the camera (and thus took the picture) wouldn't be in trouble, but someone who took that tape and tried to sell it would be.
Is that right or do I have a no clue on the actual laws?
I wish people would get over it. They're boobs. That's all. Just a couple blobs of fat and skin.
Everyone else has already made the comment, if she was only 17 why was she there? Wouldn't it be nice if she was drunk in the game? Because God knows how much harm comes to girls that show nipples versus girls who drink too much.
Interest generalization. Because one human being is evil, you assume that everyone associated with them is also evil. So do you feel that all of humanity is evil (since we are all human beings ... do you extend their evil to include all of the rest of us, too)?
Disclaimer: I had a partial Roman Catholic education. One of my school teachers was accused in that scandal. I do not know how his case turned out - I did not follow the case. But I did find myself remembering that I really disliked that man, and that my parents really disliked that man at the time, too. I remember him being a mean and nasty human being. So, when the charges came up, I found myself wondering if he really did what he was accused of or was it just someone using the furor to retaliate against a mean human being. because that man was so nasty that I wondered if the accusation was real, or just an opportunity taken to strike back at a nasty man.
Here in NZ, it would be perfectly legal for me to hit on and have sex with the 17 yr old in question. (hell, 16 is fine)
However, if I took photos of her...
At least your laws are consistant, if somewhat puritan: people are minors and totally brainless and not allowed to make their own decisions until they are 18.
The reality, of course, is little miss "topless beacon of christianity" probably took on three guys at once that night in a drunken, sexual orgy.
How sweet...like candy...
Anyone have a link to the screenshots?!? This reply was computer generated and no humans were involved in processing this request Of course I'm joking, kind of.....
Does anyone have a link to some screenshots?
Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
The parent post is the definition of Flamebait.
It is also Offtopic.
It getting Modded as Insightful is rubbish and a clear abuse of Mod points to push a political adgenda. Maybe they meant Inciteful.
Someone with mod points, please banish the parent down to the -1 gutter, with his buddies in GNAA.
Oh, and my "street cred'," I am athiest. I have no love for religion, but I'd like to read Slashdot with a minimum of garbage (I know dare to dream).
BTW:
I was rasied in a heavily baptist town, by religious parents. Luckily, I got over it.
It really doesn't sound like you got over it. It sounds like you still have plenty of issues to work out.
The only person who should get in trouble is the girl! She's the one who did it, was probably drinking (underage as well), and probably thought no one would ever see it. Now Joe-Blow at her High School pirated the game from the, enter-net, and saw her and recognized her from his Bioligy class. Then he proceeds to tell people, and she proceeds to take the defensive and say she's a good christian girl who has real morals and is underage and doesn't want this to ruin her future. Family sues game company, game consoles, people who filmed it, etc. Now, let me get this straight...You mean to tell me if I cut my arm off with a Craftsmen Saw, I can sue Craftsmen for cutting off my arm? Sweeeeeeeet! Lets all go out and make bad decisions, and then get defensive, and sue everyone!
Flat Screen TV for F
If the location the videos/photos were taken was public property, can't they legally photograph anyone they please?
NO...at least not any more. Recently I went to the local rollercade and a TV show was being shot there that night (it happens on occasion). It is a public place, and the shoot was happening during regular business activity. During the shoot and for about an hour afterwards one of the production crew was cheasing down EACH AND EVERY PERSON who was not part of the cast to sign a release form. A person at the front door made sure to ask if they had signed before they left.
I asked what the big deal was, and they said something along the lines of this: We have to get legally binding consent from every single person who may appear onscreen. If they refuse to sign a release or we forget to offer them one the producers MUST electronically obscure those people or cut the footage from the show entirely (notice how that happens more often these days?).
If those people are not removed from the footage they have the legal right to sue (for monetary compensation and/or to order the footage removed from broadcast/distribution). It doesn't matter at all when or where, or who took the footage. You could willingly tape yourself and your partner having sex and send it to playboy with a note "see how naughty we are" and if they were to show it to ANYONE without getting your legal consent on a release form, you could sue their asses--even though it is clear by your actions that you are total exhibitionists and are not distressed by others seeing you.
It goes even further than that. If you are wearing clothing that has anything that could possily be copyrighted or a registered trademark, the producers must also blot out your clothing or chase down the likely coyright or trademark holder for consent. Notice lately that if there is any logo or design on a person's shirt on TV more often than not it is blurred out? That is because the copyright or trademark holder of that image has the legal right to sue if they see it on TV without their permission--and they have sued with rapidly increasing frequency. Stupid, ridiculous but true (they sell logo shirts so everyone can wear them and be seen in public--but they have a problem with it briefly flashing on TV? morons...)
Incidentally, all minors were given a release form to sign, but the parents had to also consent since minors cannot legally give consent on their own. Given the insanely litigious climate today (especially in the US where it is the new American dream it seems) it was a colossally stupid move on the game producres part to skip due-diligence and not get a release from every participant. The left themselves open to lawsuits and did not make enough effort to ensure they were not unwittingly producing child porn. they are so dumb they deserve to be sued out of existence.
HOWEVER...It was equally colossally stupid for the 17-year-old girl to go on vacation and BREAK THE LAW by drinking underage and expose herself in public. Now she bitches and moans about having to deal with the obvious and inevitable consequenses of public drunkenness and nudity. HELLO...I bet there were a dozen other digital cams out there that captured your tits and that thousands of people on Kazza, eDonkey, Gnutella, etc were mastrubating to your pics LONG before that crappy game was released.
I have some advice for her (and the hundreds of other young ladies out there that did the same thing on Calgary's Red Mile during the Stanley Cup finals)...when out in public...KEEP YOUR CLOTHES ON YOU STUPID SLUTTY BIMBOS! If you cannot seem to keep your tits in your shirts then don't complain about humiliation or trauma or the bad rep you got, because you DESERVE every bit of it. Accept it and be responsible for your consequenses. If you take resopnsibility and act maturely from that point on people will forgive you for doing something typically stupid in your youth. If you act childish and complain and sue and deflect blame
Well, it's a Thursday before Christmas Shutdown, nobody is here except us few poor souls with no vacation time left, and I happened upon this post on /.
SO - Because im bored, I decided to take a look at the website (pointed out in the website) that supposedly showcases this teenage girl along with her real name. Any speculation on which one she is? I think the blond, second from the left, is a good candidate.
Maybe this should be a poll for the week? =)
http://www.theguygame.com/index-enter.htm
Its Deluxe, son. Deluxe!
The State of P2P: Analysis Shows "Guy Game" Is Half of All Traffic
Well here's the Guy Game website,
and here's the Gamespot pics,
and here's PS2 pics,
and here's XBOX pics,
and here's XBOX videos,
and here's PS2 videos.
Can anyone figure out who's the girl in question? Or I guess we can just download it all, and then see what pics and vids mysteriously vanish from the websites in the next day or two. heh.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
It's clear she was an active participant and knew EXACTLY what she was doing. Whoring for attention.
They are great tits. Appearently what God saw fit to bless her with, wasn't good enough for her. Which is almost a tragedy, because, while it was a great job, I bet they were pretty good prior, and she is insanly cute otherwise.
She jumps rope topless in front of a crowd on a professional set while smiling directly into a video camera. If she didn't sign an image relase, well then the publisher should take her lawyers balls on the chin. HELLO!! But if she did, the publisher should sue her.
Something like this happen to girls gone wild, There was a girl flashing the camera that was underage and sued. The case was won by GGW because the girl was doing it in public of her own free will. So if this game is done the same way using girls from the public then it should not be an issue for them.
Also someone else said they are just boobs...
There's simply no way this girl got up there without a very convincing fake ID. None. They have a whole crew of people dedicated to verifying ID's and signing waivers in these kinds of productions. She falsified her age because she was hammered, no doubt about it.
So now the question is, does the crew have a scanned copy of her license(most likely) and what does this do for their defense in regards to contractual law and their responsiblity to obey criminal law? Too bad we'll never really know the outcome as it is likely the case will be dropped or moved to an out of court settlement once both sides show their cards.
Re: American society being f'd up
So many older Americans act so naive about teenage kids. Kids getting out of high school already have been there and done that with most sexual feats I haven't even attempted. Why do you think STD's are running rampant amongst young people right now? Half are country is living in the dark, refusing to face the fact that sexual promiscuity is no longer a dirty little secret amonst teenagers. Then there daughter goes topless and suddenly we gotta sue. It wasn't her that was embarassed, it was her parents. Too top it all off, there's guarunteed to be plenty worse she has done. She was free of parental control, no doubt drinking, with friends, on spring break where people screwing around is the main focus. She prolly had sex with 2 or 3 different dudes, contracted HPV and a nasty case of syphallis as she's on birth control and is too drunk and dumb to realize she still needs to use a condom. Yeah, she'll be going to church alright. You think girls wanting to get attention from guys flashing aren't going to do other desperate things for attention from guys? Get a grip people! She's 17... immature, but not brain dead.