Slashdot Mirror
Rockstar/EA Tit for Tat in GTA/Simpsons Feud
Last week we discussed how GTA parody elements were pulled from The Simpsons Game after some of Rockstar's lawyers got into the act. Apparently, the folks at EA who made the game are a bit peeved about the aggressive lawyering on Rockstar's part and the wussy lawyering on EA's: "The game begins with Bart wanting to play a game called Grand Theft Scratchy. Of course this is a parody of Grand Theft Auto. And Marge immediately takes it away from him. She tries to clean up the town and stop the game from being distributed in Springfield because Marge is against video game violence. She uses horrific violence to stop video game violence... in a video game... That's called irony. The people who make Grand Theft Auto - they spazzed out like little babies."
"Spazzed out like little babies"? The man's intellect is stunning, if nothing else...
Ahh, Reality. Adult Intelligence required for the complex world we live in.
That free speech and all is a bitch when its making fun of your product isn't it? Then again, you've used it a few times to cover your ass, haven't you RockStar?
Can we start shooting lawyers yet? GTA/Simpson style?
You don't have to protect yourself from fair use. Allowing anything covered under fair use is required by the law. They would have been all set, with no risk to their trademark. This was clearly parody/satire, which falls comfortably within Fair Use.
My Photography - http://ian-x.com
The Deathlings (comic) - http://thedeathlings.com
How do you protect a trademark from a parody? Makes me glad I haven't bought a GTA game in forever... fuck them.
So now are they going to patent "Making a violent video game" now? If so then I think that the quality of games is going to drop.... But clearly, its not hurting Rockstar, everyone knows that GTA is violent, so is it right for Nintendo to threaten other platforming games that have a character that can jump? Because everyone knows that Mario does that and so Nintendo is loosing money left and right because of that....
There is no "disagree" moderation, and troll, flamebait and overrated are not valid substitutes
Damn right! If anyone, EVER, dares to make a third-person shooter-em-up in which the protagonist is capable of interacting with his or her environment, they'll have to go through ME.
Send out a "Permit and Proceed" letter like Eve Online did, saying that you noticed and officially sanction it as fair use.
The law is no excuse for being an asshole, though it is often used as such.
Then maybe we should release the Jack Thompso... er, Hounds. Seriously, though... As appalled as I am that EA caved on what was clearly a case of parody (vs. freaking Rockstar games -- not like they don't have every other mission as a parody), Rockstar is on my list now.
Regards, Ian
you are an idiot.
Damn right! If anyone, EVER, dares to make a third-person shooter-em-up in which the protagonist is capable of interacting with his or her environment, they'll have to go through ME.
It's not like they're just happening to make a game a bit similar, otherwise they would already have sued for Saints Row or 25 To Life, the thing is that they repeatedly make their games off copying their games. As in, they're not even going "no, we're not copying your game, we're just doing an unrelated third person game in which the protagonist is capable of interacting with his or her environment", they go "yup, we're copying your game and making money off of it, and? Get some humour!"
You just got troll'd!
Except that there's no trademark infringement here because they're not actually using the trademark. Also, it's entirely permissible for a markholder to license another person to use their trademark.
--AC
The last thing Rockstar wants is for the mindshare that GTA-like games causes violence. Even if it's a joke, they don't even want that joke to be said, because it just propogates the idea that it's true. Most people aren't sophisticated enough to understand the irony.
Do I think they are in the right? No. But I understand where their actions are coming from. They will learn that it is pretty fruitless though.
So it says "Tit for Tat," but I'm not seeing it. That phrase usually implies some form of equal retaliation, such as "Suzie didn't invite me to her party, so I'm not inviting her to mine."
So... Rockstar pulled out their lawyers, and so EA got really mad? Is that what they're referring to?
The point is: Tat or GTFO.
Fnord.
As always, IANAL.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
Parody, meet LingNoi.
LingNoi, meet Parody.
Bow-ties are cool.
ER... Sandbox games like this have been done to death - not only in GTA but in Saints Row, and a bunch of other less notable ones. If EA was using the GTA name purely to cash in on GTA's fame, then sure, Rockstar should object, but this smells like a clear parody to me. For one thing, the marketing around the game isn't centred about "look! we're just like GTA!", and neither does the GTA-parodying part make up a huge chunk of the work.
Everyone at Rockstar was a Family Guy fan.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
They just renamed that section to mob wars. Otherwise it looks just like San Andreas. Marge suns around a place that looks just like the grove you start out at in GTA:SA, where CJ's house is.
You can see it right here.
http://www.ea.com/simpsons/mob/
Stop QQing!
For that idiot have cost you much credibility with gamers. The gamers who supported you during the recent gaming related stampedes. bad move. very bad move. and top quality idiot(s) you have there.
Read radical news here
That's the sort of scam he would pull.
I have excellent Karma and I am not afraid to Troll it.
Look, I'm no PC language Nazi, I sometimes refer to myself and my friends as a "spaz" or my computer "spazzing out". But I'm not sure it's a good look to have on the front page of a corporate website :/
I think the Simpsons would get off their cases if they just released GTA: Emerald City.
...
Why?
Because the real-life version of Emerald City is Seattle, and it has a Monorail.
Plus, we have a lot of Guitar Hero III players here, now that it's been ported to the Wii in addition to the PS3 and xBox360
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Or American Dad fa...no wait..where is my head...
If it's hard work, it's not worth doing. especially not if something like the free speech you exercise in every episode of your show is at stake.
If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
Yes, Rockstar should be taking advice from someone who is still pretending that Teh Lunix is better than Windows, and that somehow what Microsoft says about Teh Lunix is going to cost them market share.
Rockstar persuing legal action against a Simpson's game which nobody will ever buy until it hits $15 (I'm a Simpson's fan, but it's true, and their games have a history of teh suck) will cost them about what, three sales of GTA4? I'm sure Rockstar isn't worried.
Like Bart Simpson says, what people on the internet think doesn't matter.
Those of you wishing to attend Rockstar Games' Halloween party in Simpsons costumes on Wednesday in Brooklyn, NY (Williamsburg), can find more information here, including an RSVP email. Free admission & open bar.
the .biz writer was merely quoting an EA developer. sounds about right.
just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand!
Methinks that Rockstar has gotten too sensitive to anything that looks like "Violent video games are Bad(TM)" thanks to Jack Thompson. Simpsons are parodying GTA and perhaps even Jack himself but it's not beyond the realm of what's already been covered in the Simpson's show itself (i.e. Marge going on a crusade against something she finds indecent like a burlesque house, etc.).
Rockstar is simply making themselves look like fools and in some ways giving Jack Thompson some comfort by letting him know that he got under their skin.
Idiots.
...and that's the way the cookie crumbles.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
South Park already do it?
Or wait, "Simpsons already did it."
But the South Park movie came first...
Ow, my head's hurting.
Too bad they didn't rename it "Springfield: Vice City"
I don't think it was a good move as far as building credibility with gamers, but maybe the underlying reason isn't trademark, which does sound absurd. Maybe Rockstar is more concerned that the references in a franchise many more conservative parents would find acceptable (the Simpsons) will bring Rockstar unwanted attention from a potentially hostile audience. Despite all the press about sex/violence in Rockstar's titles, I'll bet that many of the details have remained below the radar of many of these parents. Maybe the fear is that all the references, in a game these parents' children own, will start getting explained in more mainstream media, leading to more legislative pressure. Maybe a stretch and maybe flawed in reasoning, but it sounds just as plausible to me.
Worst lawsuit... ever.
If Rockstar had no legal leg to stand on, as most here seem to think, why didn't EA simply fight it? Surely they have the legal resources to mount a defense.
Unless they were worried that Rockstar had some legitimate point.
Perhaps EA caved because they foresaw the result would be more damaging to their competitor than themselves. Good press for EA, bad press for Rockstar. No lengthy trial... And all they had to do was change the title of a level!
Read topic.
So sue me, rockstar!
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?