Slashdot Mirror
Surprisingly Few People Collect On GTA Hot Coffee
Relin writes "Out of the millions eligible, less than 3,000 have come forward to collect their money in the 'Hot Coffee' settlement. While the plaintiffs' lawyer is surprised by the development, Theodore Frank of the Legal Center for the Public Interest at the American Enterprise Institute seems convinced that the lawsuit was 'meritless' and will result in no payment for the legal counsel opposing Take-Two."
It's $5
Anonymous Coward
"Seth Lesser, lead lawyer for the plaintiffs said that he is "disappointed" by the outcome, and doesn't understand why so many people don't care."
It is, after all, just a video game.
I've got your sig, right here.
American Enterprise Institute seems convinced that the lawsuit was "meritless" and will result in no payment for the legal counsel opposing Take-Two.
Oh boy, I can only hope. Oh please.
The time it would take filling out the forms and cashing the $5 check is better spent on something else.
And frankly, anyone who buys Grand Theft Auto, the game that lets you kill hookers instead of paying them, is going to be hard to offend with some sex scene they have to use a hack to see in the first place.
That lawsuit never should have been brought to court, I hope the laywers don't see a penny!
I'm probably eligible, but all things considered I'd rather they just kept the 5 bucks and bought themselves some hot coffee and get to work on some DLC for gta 4.
Being that it requited a hack to unlock the feature (aka censors already deemed the code unacceptable) and the kids who downloaded the hack could have just as easily have gotten real porn. It really isn't that big of a deal. Besides who wants to say after buying GTA I am such a prude that I want money to accommodate my suffering. I think most people will say they hypocrisy needs to stop at some point.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I wonder what % of those collecting 5$ are just retailers and wholesalers.
So it might just turn out that all that moral outrage and mass hysteria was just a ruse brought up to try and cash in on a game franchise.
Everybody now: "YA THINK!?!"
TFA states that the attorneys that brought the case are demanding 1.3 million in legal fees, way more than the 2,676 * (max $35) = $93,660 settlement fees that Take Two will have to pay.
In other news, it'd be GREAT if the scummy lawyers didn't get paid, or if they got paid on contingency and get a percentage of the overall "winnings". (this is typical of class action suits)
If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
Perhaps the remaining millions who did not claim the money actually, you know, liked the game?
I don't think it would make sense for gamers to exploit a frivolous lawsuit to get a few dollars out of a company that made a game they enjoyed.
I wonder what the networth of the attention take 2 got from this is worth. Surely far more than the cost of paying out the penalty and the fees of the lawers that they probably have on full time retainer anyhow.
I Need someone to rebuild a Digitech Digital Delay pedal for me....for me...for me...for me.
and no, you are not smart for regurgitating what the fast food lobby has fed you.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
about the suit until now, and I have that game. Maybe the numbers will go up now that /. is covering it...
Suppose I bought some porn video and there was a code that my kids found that let them play a game where they beat people and ran them over for fun. Would I have case?
Who exactly is supposed to care about this?
-Dave
"I read instructions on the Internet on how to mod GTA so that I could see a sex scene, and when I followed those instructions, the game actually let me see a sex scene! Now I feel surprised, shocked and offended and want $5!"
Sometimes I really wonder if there are any normal people left in this world.
and no, you are not smart for regurgitating what the fast food lobby has fed you.
I think you mean the tort reform lobby. Anyways look at each side and what they stand to gain. Those in support of the current tort system want to continue to earn buttloads of money from stupid cases. Tort reform folks want to reduce the amount of money sucked from stupid lawsuits which gets passed on to the consumer.It's estimated that ladders cost $25 more than they should because of the tort tax.
And yea, I am biased, I am for tort reform.
If the GTA makers owe me $35 for their hidden NPC sex scene, then the Second Life makers owe me seven figures for emotional trauma from the brief virtual walk I took though the general area.
and I still want my money!
Engineering is the art of compromise.
are the lawyers. The lawyers don't care if everyone get pennies, because they get their millions. And if there is a settlement or verdict, it should always be in monetary form distributed automatically to every class member. Members shouldn't have to fill any paperwork. The corporations should calculate it for them. Two examples:
1. Bank of America privacy lawsuit.
Fees waived for deposited items getting returned!
Fees returned for calling customer service!
12 months free subscription to a credit card protection service (a $30 value)!
90 free days of Privacy Assist Identity Theft Protection Service (a $17.85 value)!
Hell no. Basically, they get free marketing. OUCH.
2. Visa MasterCard Discovery Currency lawsuit.
They want you to calculate your foreign purchases yourself and document them for your reimbursement. Hell no. They should pay us $400/hr as they do their lawyers for the time we spend sorting through years worth of credit card statements. Some companies even charge a fee for requesting older records.
Settling should not be an option for class action lawsuits. The client/s should decide whether to settle, not the lawyer/s. A settlement should always be an opt-in, not an opt-out.
Maybe this vocal minority is smaller than believed? Meanwhile, the rest of us are able to distinguish fantasy and reality, do not find the former offensive, and would prefer seeing naked human bodies engaged in sex acts rather than human bodies being brutally blown apart.
had Joe Pesci, these stupid lawyers against Take-Two and a big, fat baseball bat....
I'm a GTA San Andreas player who was not at all interested in money from Take Two because of the Hot Coffee content in the game. I'm not surprised that only a handful of people have taken them up on it, the game is limited to sale to a 17+ audience, an audience that already knows (except in the states whos names start and end with a vowel) that people have sex.
I *DO* however wonder how many of those 3,000 people were really offended by the Hot Coffee content, and how many were just going "Cool, free money!"
The Hot Coffee patch reminds me of ROT-13 encryption. It's trivial for someone to get at the content if they want to, but you have to deliberately go after it. You can't "accidentally" see it. You're saying "I know this might offend me, and I want to see it anyway".
We sadly live in a culture where it's more acceptable to beat up or kill a woman than it is to have sex with her. Which explains a lot of unfortunate things. It doesn't make them right though.
You want to know what is really offensive? And I don't think I'm alone here... I find it particularly offensive that someone would sue over this. And win.
I had so much hope for our species.
Sean
There are plenty of ladders available for less than $25. Does it cost a negative amount to manufacture and ship the things? I doubt it.
Actually a little reading/education will go a long ways in this discussion. The suit vs. McDonald's was legitimate though the jury-awarded amount was a bit extreme. Do some research and you'll see why she lost the lawsuit. (Hint: 700+ prior cases of injury, third degree burns requiring skin grafts and stuff, the judge lowered the punitive damages to less than $500,000 USD, and the elderly lady who was burned was burned a second time when the corporation didn't want to pay only her medical bills and they became the first and only people that she sued.) I realize that people love to point to that particular lawsuit and make fun of it but the reality is a lot different than most people are aware. Her suit was legitimate.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
I live in the GTA. Where do I get my free coffee?
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
This doesn't apply to any versions of the game sold outside of the US, correct?
If each mistake being made is a new one, then progress is being made.
It's estimated that ladders cost $25 more than they should because of the tort tax.
Heck, look at the price difference between a drug marketed for humans and the same drug, made in the same facility, put in the same bottle, just labeled for animals - a lot of the price difference is the tort cost.
Generics don't have to worry as much, as do drugs that have been out for a long time.
I think that they should put a $50 or so deductible on cases like this - per person. Sure, it'd encourage some companies to try to screw every customer out of $50. But, I wouldn't have the deductible count in small claims court(IE not brought by big lawyer firm), or in cases where people were pursuing independent action. Of course, under $50, most people would be in small claims anyways.
But I tend to dislike the cases where they claim some company screwed people out of money or whatever without them knowing. When I bought some money from crucial - then later received paperwork from some lawyer firm for a class action, I didn't bother pursuing it - because I had paid what I felt was a fair price.
I don't read AC A human right
Reminds me of Duke Nukem were all the sex scenes were cut out but could be activated by typing in a code word. Here is a game were you can blow peoples heads off and swear but oooh no, boobies are not allowed.......sheesh
Could we send in $5 to enable the hot coffee mod?
I've never seen so much consensus in Slashdot comments! And you're all right - the fact that gratuitous violence is more acceptable than sex is sick, sick, sick.
All pass beyond reach of medicine. None pass beyond the reach of love.
maybe I'll go to the movies, by myself....
My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my Father! Prepare to die!
The suit was not legitimate. If it were, do you think companies today would still be serving coffee at the same scalding temperature? No, they would not.
I have looked into this case a lot and I once shared your view. Check out overlawyered.com if you genuinely want more insight. http://overlawyered.com/2005/10/urban-legends-and-stella-liebeck-and-the-mcdonalds-coffee-case/ It is alluring to think the common sense answer is wrong but in this case it is not. Keep in mind that trial lawyers have a vested interest in making you think this case was legit.
Thanks for your time.
I bought a version that didn't have the sex scene. Can I collect $5 from the people that made them cut it out?
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
Whenever I call them about the $5, they always tell me that the check is in the mail.
What if I'm offended by other things in the game? Like the substandard story line, the lousy dialogue, the lack of interactivity with the environment, the poor AI, or the nonsensical game logic?
That suit was not really legitimate. Adults should be smart enough to know that hot liquids are dangerous. OK, maybe the coffee was TOO hot, but do we really need warning labels on all hot liquid containers? Do we also need lighter to warn not to hold your hand in the flame?
Lawsuits are more about money, especially for the lawyers, rather than defending public rights.
Mod parent up. It's good to have an informative link to show ill-informed people who try to say the case was legitimate. It could be better without the comments about people on the left - however, it is sadly accurate IME.
Are you high? *sighs* I'll go on, I'd figured it'd be obvious. It isn't to you so I'll help you along. M'Kay? *grins* (Forgive my attitude - I'm slightly intoxicated at this point.) McDonald's had served coffee at a temperature that was much hotter than the average at that time. McDonald's had known of prior injuries. The corporation had willfully declined to warn customers. (I'd have said the suit was bogus with just a warning - just a warning, but they did not.)
This, in and of itself, is enough for me. The damages done were nothing less than willful negligence. (Yes, I even read your link.)
I'll leave you with this... Some searching, effort if you'd like, will show that I (of all the people on the planet) am not a leftist nor do I typically ascribe to anything the gibberish monkeys put out from either extremist views. That being said, they reason it was legitimate was because they knew that people were stupid enough to keep getting burned and didn't even warn them. I would argue that we don't need a nanny state where people are constantly protected from their own stupidity BUT when coffee burns result in third degree burns and the company knew this but opted to not warn their customers they have failed the checks and the suit was, I feel, legit. I don't know about your state but in mine you can't serve a drunk more alcohol and all sorts of things come with warnings on them. I am no fan of the nanny state that we have going on now BUT I feel this case had its merits and was certainly legit enough. I am not a lawyer.
No, thank you for your time. I love a decent conversation about great topics where we can agree to disagree. In this one I have the advantage of the court already having deemed it acceptable but I'd not just rely on that. Again, I'm not a lawyer. I just have some views of what justice is and I don't think justice should be "just us." In short, the suit was legitimate. Companies serve their coffee as hot today (or even hotter) because now they warn the idiots. Our society is about protecting those who can not protect themselves. (Or at least it *was* at one point. We can argue all day long about if it still is or not.)
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Yes. Why? 'Cause some people are fricken' stupid. Hypocrisy only goes so far. We hold the tobacco industry liable for their damages even though common sense should say you should NOT set shit on fire and then inhale the smoke 'cause, oh, your body tells you not to when it coughs and it really isn't smart. We hold car makers to certain safety standards instead of saying that idiots should not be allowed to drive. When you are "wronged" by an industry you will also expect something to be done. To put it into /. perspective? Adults should be smart enough to not buy an OS based on their limited knowledge but should educate themselves and buy the OS that best suits their needs. Being an adult, or any age, doesn't grant immunity from needing to have warnings. We have warnings on road signs to warn of dangerous curves but adults should be driving in a responsible manner and not need those signs, right? We put 'em there 'cause some people are dumb. not all people, just some. We'll never know if a big ol' sticker saying "You're an idiot, this is hot" would have helped. What we can GUESS is that a warning might have alerted the person and made them more attentive. They opted not to do so - after more than 700 warnings. So mod the parent up if you want. I would. I don't agree with 'em but I see their point.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
a nonsensical lawsuit to begin with.
I'm just wondering how long it will take for Take Two to release an uncut version of the game that has the Hot Coffee minigame available without the mod?
Adults should be smart enough to know that hot liquids are dangerous.
Adults are. But there's a difference between "ow, that's hot" hot and "in hospital for weeks" hot.
OK, maybe the coffee was TOO hot, but do we really need warning labels on all hot liquid containers?
You do when it's non-obvious and going to cause that sort of damage, yes.
Do we also need lighter to warn not to hold your hand in the flame?
The situation is more like selling lighters that look normal but shoot out a 2' long flame - in which case, yes, they damn well should come with a warning.
Makes me wonder what you think a fair price for buying money is, and maybe the lawyer there actually had a case. Think you meant memory.
Eating from McDonald's is an idiot move (I say this as someone who had breakfast there this morning. Duhhhhhh...) so by definition they should assume that all their customers are idiots and put big fucking warning signs with simple ideograms to back them up on everything they sell. "WARNING THIS SHIT WILL GIVE YOU A HUGE ASS" I have my habit under control now, I eat in there maybe once a month or less and I get a rational amount of food. But I'm standing behind two fatasses who can barely breathe (granted, visibility is shit here right now due to the California fires - they said air quality is "Fair" today, which is pure concentrated federal-grade washington d.c.-worthy bullshit) and they're waddling up to the counter and ordering two 1,000 calorie breakfast sandwiches a piece. Here's a hint, lardasses: That's your whole fucking calorie allotment for the day, assuming you're active. McDonalds and every other fast food company is no different from a tobacco company: they make money selling a product that harms the bodies of their customers, which leads to tiredness, depression, and even diabetes! There is NO ONE on this PLANET who should be consuming an entire gigantic cup of sugary soda or sweet tea. It's just plain bad for you. Even the "food" has no food value, because it's all a bunch of stuff produced for maximum yield and not for nutrition. It's tasty, so sometimes I decide to eat it, but you can't actually be healthy (as in, you won't get the nutrients you need for things like proper immune system functioning, or as a child, for proper development) on a diet of just fast food. This is what most people seem to be eating today; if it doesn't come from mickey deeznuts or toxic hell (or perhaps the KKKarl's Junior fast food Reich) then it comes out of a Stouffer's box. Or perhaps a ramen packet. So yes, yes, we do need lighters to warn not to hold your hand in the flame, and we do need warning labels on all hot liquid containers. The food is designed to make you stupid enough to buy more of it. They should have to assume that their customers are idiots.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
> you can't have sex with a whore
So that's why Jesus's great-great-...-grandfather Judah intended to do it?
Anyone who reads the Bible with an open mind understands that societal norms at the time were (or are depicted as) very different from those of the religious right today.
Maybe (s)he is getting old and his money is starting to slip.
http://greenobyl.com/ please.... think of the children!!
GTA is a good game, no worse than any episode of The Sopranos. I've played it heaps, but had no RL urges to shoot cops, run over pedestrians, steal cars or not pay a hooker. The lawyers and moralists who got outraged at some pixelated lowpoly boobies need to get a life and a real job. Did they really think anyone would get out of bed for $5, head to Jack in the Box and declare "This tasty burger and beverage offsets the misery I experienced when I found and downloaded Hot Coffee"?
Burnt once, ok, might be the fault of McDonalds. But twice?
Some people never learn?
I guess she forgot to take her medication too.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
Ok, what about a mod which introduces boobs (or more) to some popular children's game?
How hard is to bring boobs in ANY game and hack it to show them?
How different is that from having the actual pixels sleeping on the disk?
I think a good lawyer could proove there is NO difference.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
With class action lawsuits, all the risk is borne by the lawyers. If they don't win, they don't get paid. People whine that the consumer gets a $20 coupon while the lawyers make bank, but the consumer is getting something with no effort made or risk taken on his own. So if you don't like it, hire your own damn attorney and file your own damn lawsuit.
They say the devil's greatest trick was convincing the world he didn't exist. The devil has been one-upped; people in America have been brainwashed into thinking that standing up for themselves through unions or lawsuits is bad. They would rather money stay in the hands of those that wronged them rather than have it fall into the hands of (gasp) lawyers. They'd rather save $1000 a year in union dues rather than make another $10 an hour with 50% more vacation time. Americans excel at cutting off our noses to spite our faces.
Rant much?
McDonalds: This may have actually been ligitimate, IF (and only if) the coffee was DANGEROUSLY hot, meaning hot enough to be a threat. I've spilled my own coffee on my lap several times, and never had a sever burn, so it may be negligence on McDonalds part.
Car safety standards: These are needed, because shit happens to even the most competent among us. All of us have driven when we really shouldn't have at some point (distracted, tired, "only had a couple". None of us are infallible, even the smartest of us. Also... We share the roads with people who are infallible, AND with morons, teenagers, and illegal immigrants without US licenses/standards.
Road Signs... See above. Also notice that I am not psychic, so don't really know that there will be a series of radical S-turns with a 5000 ft drop on the other side, nor do people going the other directions.
OS's: Perhaps. BUT... Most people are ignorant when it comes to computers, they are rather new, and a whole generation of people (mostly) have no bloody clue. And really, if it wasn't for them, they never would have become the commodity that we all enjoy now.
Smoking: God I hate this one. No one who started smoking since 1950 actually thinks they are good for you (the term "coffin nails" is surprisingly old), and I would agree that this, at least, is a superfluous lawsuit.
But yes, sometimes I marvel at the ignorance of my fellow man, BUT i also realize that intelligence and being informed is not perfect insurance against idiotic actions. I also realize that sometimes corporations overstep their bounds, and act recklessly. Do you think that if you wander into the bad part of town, you should not be able to press charges against the guy who stole your new car? It was your fault for being there, after all.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
I do not agree with all the above but someone mod it up. Again, I'd have said the lawsuit vs. McDonald's was wrong EXCEPT they *knew* the risks and didn't warn the masses. Sorry but, well, if you give a stupid person a steak knife and they stab themselves in the eye (and keep doing this) then you're surely accountable somewhere along the lines. Err... So, yeah... In answer to your question, I rant much. ;) (I try to do so in a manner that facilitates conversation as opposed to preaching, 'snot always effective but I try.)
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Sorry but, well, if you give a stupid person a steak knife and they stab themselves in the eye (and keep doing this) then you're surely accountable somewhere along the lines.
Now we enter "guns don't kill people; rapid projectiles kill people" territory. I think there is a line here, though. A knife (no matter the type) is considered dangerous, we enter my anti-anti-smoking argument now. You KNOW that severe bodily harm will result from stabbing yourself in the eye, any reasonable person does, thus if you do this the liability is solely yours. Just like if you bought a gun, any reasonable person knows the risks. Though, if you walk into a gun store, buy a gun, and tell the salesman "I'm going to use this to kill Joe Smith, in cold blood, even!" Then perhaps the store has some liability.
If I give a stupid person a steak knife, and they TELL me that they are going to use it to stab themselves in the eye, then there is SOME shared responsibility. Just like if you tell your psychiatrist that you plan on killing yourself and they don't report it. This is... arguable... But if you give a moron a knife for the explicit purpose of stabbing someone else in the eye... then your probably partly responsible.
Remember kids, drinking and analogies don't mix.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
I played the PC version of GTA:SA with the hot coffee setting turned on and I could not believe such a fuss was created about something so innocuous. In case anyone doesn't know, there's about 5 seconds of sex taking place INSIDE a house (with the camera showing the outside of the house), I was expecting graphic nudity given the amount of controversy.
So this was merely about the fact that sex takes place in the game than any actual depiction of it.
Personally, I don't care whether or not an adult rated game has sex scenes in it or not. But the reason the scene was included in the first place was JUST to create controversy at some point so that more people would go out & buy the game. It's a clever marketing exercise, nothing more.
And as for the court case, that's just pure and simple greed - i.e. "They have a heap of money due to selling lots of copies of their game so I want some of it".
Yes, only 3000 people claimed it - but I bet none of the lawyers involved forgot to take their fees, did they?
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
The minigame play as "out-of-the-box" didn't have nudity. But some fragments of the necessary file where still around.
The whole constroversy was around this.
Paranoid parents complaining that the files where shipped on the disc (even if unaccessible and part broken)
Take-two defending themselves that the rating is on who the game is played (and nudity isn't normally accessed during game play).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
What the Christ do you expect the parent will do ? Pay ....gasp!... *attention* ? *Read* it in detail ? It's already a miracle they got shelf corresponding to the system they have at home.
{/sarcasm}
seriously, some paranoid parents live under the impression that they should be able to pick any box, and only nice kittens, rainbows and ponies are going flow out of it.
They somewhat suddenly have completely forgotten how it was to be a kid and play cruel game.
At least it's easier for the current generation of children to torture virtual characters in video games rather than small defenseless animals and insects or bullying their peers.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
I need to hire an editor...
Yes, buy memory.
I don't read AC A human right
When a class action lawsuit is available, and they send out fliers to everyone who has owned the game (in this example) who actually pays for the printing, paper, research for the fliers?
The thought here is would Take-Two counter sue for damages of a frivolous lawsuit.
I need it to complete the $59.99 for GTA4 !!! Dumb lawyers...Tryin' to make money out of nothing. Good lesson guys!
I thought she more or less intentionally got herself burned by coffee again, just to force a payment :)
You know, i can imagine a lot about americans and their lawsuits.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
Heck, look at the price difference between a drug marketed for humans and the same drug, made in the same facility, put in the same bottle, just labeled for animals - a lot of the price difference is the tort cost.
I call bullshit. I think it's far more in the research and testing. Most of the research is on human medicine; known human cures can then be 'ported' to animals at a much lower cost (fewer stabs in the dark). And testing for human consumption is a massive task, far greater than for animal consumption.
I think the obvious is missed. Pay the lawyers based on the number of people that actually apply and recieve their portion of the settlement. In this case we have X million of posible payments. If the lawyers want their 1.3 million, then make it a sliding scale based on the percentage paid out.
If the courts are serious about getting rid of the nuisance lawsuits. Then fix the lawyer fee's not to the whole settlement number but to the number of people in the class action that actually cared enough to collect their portion. Make it a sliding scale to be fair to the legal community. However if you want to see the lawyers run away, that is how to do it. This will protect the real class actions that are important to society and put an end to the friviless stupidity.
...
Again, I'd have said the lawsuit vs. McDonald's was wrong EXCEPT they *knew* the risks and didn't warn the masses.
That's pretty much also the argument in the suit against the tobacco industry. It ain't that those things are deadly. It should be common sense that it's not good for your body to inhale the fumes of something burning. The argument was that the tobacco industry had studies that proved that tobacco smoke increases the risk of certain diseases but they constantly denied knowledge of any correlation between smoking and lung cancer, heart attacks and so on, or they simply ruled it out altogether and called other studies coming to the same result bogus and manipulated, despite knowing better.
So I'm kinda torn what to think of the suit. On one hand, you smoke, get used to the idea of dying early. On the other hand, a company that outright lies about the safety risks of its product isn't really much higher on my esteem list than people who claim ignorance of the damages of tobacco smoke.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
No, but really .... what a stupidity. GTA was violent, sexual, outrageous, criminal, drug and alcohol using.
You buy the game to behave like that, and anyone who is offended by the hot coffee thing should get a wii an play super mario (no offense to wii owners meant).
just my2c ...
Besides that, I think III was the best GTA .. 4 is nice, but I feel that there is little to do other than 'hang out' with your lame buddies.
this is the first time I hear of this.
Where did they announce the settlement and the financial award?
Somebody somewhere knew "exactly" what he was doing when he buried this information in some obscure legal journal somewhere.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Anyone want to give me two tens for a five? I think that's a fair price.
un-ALTERED reproduction and dissimination of this IMPORTANT information is ENCOURAGED
This must be the third time in as many days I've seen the lawsuit explained on /. and modded to +5. I'm thinking trolls just like to trot it out whenever there's an article on lawsuits, and don't bother reading the replies, or don't actually care whether their original stance was wrong or not (hence they are trolls).
I think it's a waste of time to try to get these people to read what really happened.
On the other hand, I think it's stupid that the result was to require McD to put "Hot" all over the hot cups. It's nearly as stupid as the warning labels on ladders that people might fall off and injure themselves if they're high above the ground. A better resolution probably would've been to require them to lower the temperature of their coffee.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Perhaps the people who haven't claimed are all dead or in jail for running over hookers in their stolen cars, or beating cops to death with baseball bats.
01110000 01010111 01101110 00110011 01100100
The goal of this system was always to generate lots of legal fees by having the total class awarded enough money that the lawyers' percentage of the settlement would be large, and secondarily to punish the company for making a game that offended some people. It was Grand Theft Lawsuit.
Nobody was ever really concerned about reimbursing customers who bought a game involving the criminal protagonist killing prostitutes, starting ethnic riots, and shooting cops for their shock that it might also let you change the software to find hidden pr0n. And if adults who bought it for their kids were shocked, well, if little Johnny can download the software patch that lets you decrypt the hidden pr0n, he can also download real pr0n from the net, and if that bothers them they shouldn't have bought a game called Grand Theft Auto. But awarding them a nominal $5 was enough that the total award was large, and AFAICT the lawyers get a percentage of the total award, not a percentage of the amount actually collected to the winning class.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
That McDonald's hot coffee thing had more to it than a simple 2 word description would give (go figure). Apparently McDonald's was the only big business in the US to have coffee that friggin hot... it was something ludicrous like 20 or 30 degrees hotter than normal coffee. Normal coffee would be like "ouch, that was hot, damn"... the old version before the lawsuit of McDonald's coffee was "OMFG I JUST GOT 3rd DEGREE BURNS, i'm DYING!". And the lid had a glitch or something to make sure you'd spill it if held a certain way. Notice how McDonald's lids now are like the best lids at fast food places... you can't spill shit now.
I would like to send Take Two an extra $5 for putting the coffee mod into the game. I found it much more entertaining then that.
"I guess I'm gonna fade into Bolivian."
Unfortunately, it was not made clear that there was any option that this suit could be declared meritless or I wouldn't have put in my claim. When I saw that the class action had been settled for a fixed sum of money that Rockstar would end up paying regardless of my submitting a claim or not, I decided the best thing I could do would be to make my claim and then buy GTA4 with that money.
Since I didn't particularly agree with the reasons for the suit, I would have foregone the money if I'd known it would hurt the case of those who submitted it.
However, the settlement was not just $5 across the board. You can view details at the settlement site (http://gtasettlement.com/) but if you had proof of purchase (like I did), the offer was $35.
...but I'll tell you what's not cool--killing hookers. Hookers are people too; naked people who are willing to pleasure you for a price you negotiate in your car parked in a dark alley. Besides, there's no reason to kill them, 'cause most of them are already dead inside...Good night, folks!
(Forgive my attitude - I'm slightly intoxicated at this point.)
You're wasting precious booze on Slashdot?
It's actually not that surprising . . . most people that buy a GTA game knows what kind of content to expect in the game (namely M rated stuff), so the hot coffee probably isn't enough to make these people want to get money from Take Two (that and $5 isn't worth the effort)
Either the court that ruled on a depiction of animated fellatio in Grand Theft Auto forgot about that precedent, or (much more likely) grossly misjudged the standards of the community of Grand Theft Auto players. I think we all know that most in the community of GTA players would be more offended by poor animation than by the fact of fellatio being portrayed in the game, but how would any court know that? It would have to survey the community in question!
Theodore Frank, director of the Legal Center for the Public Interest at the American Enterprise Institute, believes that the lack of claimants proves that the case was meritless from the beginning. He submits that this lack of response proves that the plaintiffs claims were overblown, and as a consequence the suit may be deemed meritless and the lawyers who tried the case will not be able to collect their $1.3 million in legal fees they are demanding from Take-Two. Speaking to the New York Times, Frank says:
"There are two possibilities. Possibility one is they have a meritorious lawsuit and theyre selling out the class for attorneys fees. The other possibility is that, and frankly I think this is the more likely possibility, they brought a meritless lawsuit that had no business being brought to court at all."
Because I'm not a lawyer trying this case, and my only interest in this case is as a citizen who values my right to decide for myself what to consider indecent, I have no need to be as delicate as Mr. Frank. Of course it's "a meritless lawsuit that had no business being brought to court at all." The Supreme Court's own previous opinions on obscenity have no business being brought to court at all. Consider the lack of claimants in the GTA case in lieu of a formal survey of that community's standards. The court's incorrect estimate of that community's standards illustrates vividly that offering "community standards" instead of objectively defining what may be considered legally prohibited obscenity and what cannot be excluded from the First Amendment protection of free speech, is nothing better than a cop-out, and provides little or no value as precedent for subsequent judgements. To apply that "precedent" honestly would require a community survey for every obscenity case ever brought to court. Obviously, "community standards" do not provide a sufficient definition, in purely pragmatic terms, to have any positive value for purpose of upholding the rule of law. Laws are objective. Malleable statutes mean rule by fiat.
http://library.findlaw.com/2003/May/15/132747.html
The definition of obscenity set forth in Roth was:
Speech which " . . . to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interest" and which is "utterly without redeeming social importance..."
Customers who are not so offended that they demand a full refund and willingly return their copy of the game are entitled to no compensation whatsoever for their offense. Whatever judge ruled that customers have the right to keep their game and receive punitive damages for having been offended by a work that they intend to keep should be disbarred.
"I can't imagine how things could get any worse!" (some guy) "That could just be failure of imaginatioÂn on your p
Those who see "hacking a tit off" as PG and "sucking a tit" as R are sick sick animals. As are those who think a game that requires you to steal and kill to win, are also sick sick animals.
Go ahead MOD me down. I'm sure GTA is a great game of violence, but it will never be in my house. Nor will any other game that's main theme is violence or war. There used to be games that while they contained mild violence and war themes, were,'nt so realistic that it actually simulated real violence. I also don't allow these kinds of movies in my house.
However, to each his own. If you're into sick warped twisted violent video games and you are an adult or have the blessing of your guardians (if you have any), go for it. If you're not, then don't buy them. Also, if you're going to buy a game make sure you know what it is about BEFORE you buy it. Then you don't need to sue someone because you're too freaking lazy or stupid to take responsibility for your actions.
I also will have no problem with allowing my children to see nudity or know about sex. Since there are multiple versions of the Ksma Sutra in the house and some books on Renaissance Art, that shouldn't be a problem. Not to mention some of my own art.
Violence seems to be worse now than before the Catholic church outlawed polygamy around 1200. Before the Romanization of the Christian faith, only the Romans and Greeks were in any way "monogamous". Although both of those societies used slaves and concubines liberally.
So the escalation in violence seems to be more that we've gone away from our natural tendency of men having multiple simultaneous partners and some women also having many partners to a society that constricts our sexual drives. This leads to frustration on possibly a genetically programmed level, and thus become a subconscious conflict resulting in the tendency to be more violent.
In societies where polygamy and sex are more open tend to be less violent.
Also, the fact that we live in highly dense populations may have a tendency to increase violence. This has been shown to be true with rats also. So, linking sex to violence may not be justified unless you can prove this with some double-blind studies or any really good study that has eliminated other factors.
Society is a complex thing and to just say sex should be censored because it leads to violence, I say BS, and prove what you say with concrete data. I would say that the suppression of sex and sex related subjects is more cause for violence rather than jealousy from overexposure to sex.
God told the prophet Hosea to go out and take a whore as his wife. Sure, "God" had a lesson to teach the people of Israel. I say Hosea just got horny for some experienced lover. But you see back then when you could have 100 wives sex was more open, and prostitution was a legal profession. It was the whores in Temples they didn't like. Not everyone could afford to take care of 100 wives so prostitution filled a primary human need. This was recognized back then, and it's something we've repressed. But your quote isn't talking about whores, but about wives mostly. Which makes some sense from a wartime perspective. It's probably not a great idea to take a woman as a wife after you've just slain her husband and the father of her children, and maybe some or all of her children.
If you're into sick warped twisted violent video games and you are an adult or have the blessing of your guardians (if you have any), go for it.
Who are you to imply that I'm 'sick', 'warped', 'twisted' or 'violent'? I own every single GTA game ever released and I've not so much as been in a fist-fight since school. Don't try to tell me that what takes place in a video game has any bearing at all on a persons real-life actions and desires.
there are multiple versions of the Ksma Sutra in the house and some books on Renaissance Art
Since you are familiar with Renaissance art, you are doubtless familiar with the work of Hieronymus Bosch, particularly The Garden of Earthly Delights and The Haywain Triptych, both of which feature more torture, death, and hideous brutality than anything Grand Theft Auto has ever mustered. Is that acceptable for your children just because it's 'art'? What makes your artistic medium of choice intrinsically better than mine?
I understand your position of not wanting to expose your children to Grand Theft Auto - that's why it's 18+ rated and should stay that way - but branding it 'sick' without further explanation is over the line.
- Elias.
Dealing with lawyers would be a lot less tedious if they all looked like Casey Novak.
hehe, i always laugh when i visit america and see those stupid warnings on every single car mirror.
And there's of course the old joke that warning signs need warning signs to warn people not to trip over the warning sign.