Slashdot Mirror
Jack Thompson vs Amazon?
Zorglub writes "Feeling his book page at Amazon has been harassed by bad reviews, nasty tags, and a user-submitted vomit pic, anti-game lawyer Jack Thompson threatens to sue Amazon if the offending material isn't removed."
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1414304420/103-17 36564-3760662?v=glance&n=283155&n=507846&s=books&v =glance
"Religion is the most malevolent of all mind viruses." - Arthur C. Clarke.
Does Amazon even own the comments? Like Slashdot, they probably have a disclaimer. Even then, isn't it considered free speech?
The list is amusing, heres the few on the page:
First tag: lies (6mullet on Nov 17, 2005)
Last tag: Propaganda
Lies (7),Propaganda (5),Childish Name Calling (4),Unfounded assertions (4),Slander (4),Unscientific (4),Defamation (3),Self-promoting with fake reviews (3),Biased (3),lies (3),Racist (2),Scaremonger (2),toilet-paper (2),Money grabbing lawyer (2),Ambulance Chaser (2)
The amazon page listing them is here.
liqbase
Short of slander, whatever nasty stuff someone says about you in a situation like that is fair game. If he doesn't like the attention, maybe he should shut the fuck up and stop making an ass out of himself publically.
Word is Amazon has just patented a mechanism for being sued by insane book authors.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
1. Jerk writes book.
2. People who hate the jerk play underhanded amazon tricks to sabotage book on Amazon.com
3. Jerk complains to amazon that such tricks are clearly against amazon's rules and asks amazon to remove the offending material, which amazon does poorly or incompletently.
I expected the mesasgeboards there to be filled with "I disagree with what Jerk says, but I respect his right to say it in a fair way", instead it is full of Vigilante Logic such as pointing to Jerk's supposed jerk activities in a vein of "two wrongs make a right" logic criticizing the guy for asking for amazon to play by its own rules.
Sad.
/shame
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Someone should write a book about how lawyers are a bad influence on our children.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Amazon.com Legal Dept.
Amazon.com HQ
November 20, 2005
Jack Thompson
Dear Sir:
Per your request we have instructed our client to remove all of the materials you reqested. Please accept our sincerest apologies. To ensure that such an unfortunate incident does not occur, we have also instructed them to remove this book from their catalog. Furthermore, we are recommending they remove all works authored, co-authored, edited, forwarded, or otherwise contributed to by you.
Again, we regret these unfortunate events and we trust that you will see that we are serious about making sure that nobody ever makes another negative comment about any of your works on Amazon.com in the future.
Sincerely,
The Amazon.com Legal Team
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
First: yes, I really did read the book.
I decided to give this book a go after hearing that Thompson was actually suing Amazon over the reviews left here. Considering I already loathe Thompson for his consistent lies and self-serving press releases, and considering said lies and releases have him in ethical trouble, I was going in prejudiced. I really don't think that made a difference. The book is as rambling and nonsensical as many of Thompson's own statements. When obvious counterpoints to his zealous, frothing-at-the-mouth rage exist, he ignores them entirely (in the real world, he threatens legal action after committing slander. Gee, sounds familiar.)
Read this book over the hype, if you want. Yes, it will give Thompson some more money, and that's what he wants. It's worth it, though, because it exposes just how...well...insane he really is.
ACs are modded -6. I don't read you, I don't mod you, I don't see you. Don't like it? Don't be a coward.
This is a very interesting post on this guy, how a 14 year old properly rebutted all he has been bs'ing about. This 14 year old is not me... just posting what he put here because i find it interesting...
I wrote:
I found a link to your site, www.stopkill.com, through an online forum. I looked over it, and although I think that there is some genuine concern over the effect of violent media on kids, many of your statements on that site were made in ignorance. What I plan to do in this email is to help you gain a better understanding of video games, and to show you that while your intentions are good, your current course of action is a mistake. I'm going to present my arguments calmly and logically, and you're welcome to write a rebuttal if you wish. First off, let me tell you a little about myself. I'm 14, and I've been playing video games avidly since I was 8. I'm pretty knowledgeable about the subject of video games as a whole, and I've played my fair share of Halo 2 and other shooters, including the Ghost Recon series, which is regarded as one of the most realistic FPSs (first-person shooters, in case you aren't familiar with the terminology). I also enjoy strategy games, in which the death toll is often far higher than what you'd encounter in a FPS. I'm an archer, a martial artist (Tae Kwon Do), and I was taught how to operate a gun by my grandfather, who's an experienced hunter. And, oddly enough, I've never felt the urge to kill, or even seriously injure, anyone. I imagine that killing in self-defence would be extremely difficult for me, despite my alleged desensitization. Now I'd like to dismiss a misonception (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and not assuming that you're twisting the truth) you have about games like Halo, which are called FPSs. These are not "sniper games." They are games presented in first person, in which you shoot enemies, manage ammunition, and explore levels. You may fail to see the distinction between "sniper" and "first person" based on that description alone, but if you ever take the time to play any of these games, you'll understand that there is no comparison between playing a FPS and operating a rifle. Which brings me to my next point- games can't accurately "train" you to commit violent acts, despite your claims. First off, games are innacurate by their very nature, and they give you less practical knowledge on operating firearms than watching a few hours of History Channel would. Secondly, I'm going to walk you through a typical scenario of me playing Halo 2, which is probably the best FPS available right now1) I rotate the right control stick slightly, then hold down the right trigger. There is no violent intent towards my enemy, wether it's an AI-controlled bot or a human opponent I'm facing online- it's a simple challenge in the case of the former and a friendly competition in the case of the latter.(2) On screen, a series of polygons which emulate bullet trails appear. Those polygons collide with the polygons rendered to represent my enemy, and those same polygons then emulate my opponent dying.The important distinction here is that there is no gun, no bullets, and no enemy. There is a rotation of the control stick and a pull of the controller's trigger, resulting in a change of the onscreen display. Anyone who can't see the difference between this and the act of firing a gun at a human being is clearly unfit to be playing these games and, frankly, is an idiot. Which, once again, leads me to the next point I'm going to make. No one in their right mind would ever do the things that you blame on video games. A quick glance at such actions shows that there are far bigger, far more serious causes than violent media behind them. Now, you may wonder, "Why would someone kill a person in a video game if they think it's wrong to do in real life?" Well, the truth is, no one gets hurt when you kill a video game character. There are corporeal consequences to commiting acts of violence on rea
Nom de dieu de putain de bordel de merde de saloperie de connard d encule de ta mere.
At this point, Amazon has three options:
1) Do nothing and get sued.
2) Remove the offending comments and get a reputation for censorship.
3) Remove the book entirely from the Amazon website and don't sell it anymore.
I guess 3) would be the least painful version, and it would also show Thompson that he cannot do business with Amazon AND tell them how to run their website. Good riddance.
C - the footgun of programming languages
Amazon are refusing to take down the fake ones because they dont explicitly break their rules, and instead pull the ones complaining about the fake reviews.
To make matters worse, when someone adds a 1* review to the self-published book, they copy that negative review to either my book or the o'reilly alternative. So we are getting our ranking pulled down by real reviews written about a different book.
This has been ongoing for months and amazon are doing nothing about it, even though it shows that you can't trust amazon reviews at all. What interested parties can do is go to this page and leave 1* comments to balance off the fake ones.
Comment removed based on user account deletion