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."

Comments

Any surprise?

[Kinky Bass Junk]

It's $5

Re:Any surprise?

[Gewalt]

And when I paid for GTA, I actually wanted that 5$ to go to Take Two. And I STILL want them to have it.

Re:Any surprise?

[Alibaba10100]

I'm not sure how this works, but if you don't claim it what if it goes to the lawyers who brought the class action? You should claim the money and then send it to Rockstar just to make sure. Cash, so they can't throw it out.

Re:Any surprise?

[Wavicle]

No, you should not do that. RTFA.

The best thing you can do is DO NOTHING AT ALL.

Take Two may have the suit declared without merit because of extremely small response, in which case the defense lawyers will be unable to collect legal fees.

Re:Any surprise?

[DustyShadow]

in which case the defense lawyers will be unable to collect legal fees I think you mean the plaintiff's lawyers?

Re:Any surprise?

[AftanGustur]

Any surprise?
It's $5

The $5 is supposed to be a symbolic gesture, saying "you were right, we were wrong" to those who "who had purchased the game and been offended.".

It's supposed to be a "emotional closure" for those offended. It is not intended to be a meaningful sum of money you can do anything interesting with. It's symbolic.

If it would be, for example, $1000 USD, then you would have people coming from left and right, with fake receipts claiming the "compensation fee", for emotions they never had.

The reason that so many people aren't claiming their 5 dollars is probably because they never had any feeling of beeing offended by hot coffie.

Come on, seriously, what boy/man would be "offended" by seeing computer characters having sex, after installing a patch do see just that ?

Re:Any surprise?

[nitz7978]

i bought the game, loved the game, if i collected any money from it, I'd send it back to rockstar for making a kicka$$ game. that low of a number would indicate that only a select few actually were offended as the article states. people need to get off their moral high horse and let others decide for themselves what they want to view. to many people in this country let themselves be guided blindly by extremist groups, usually the religious right. Take a stand people; think for yourselves once in a while.

Re:Any surprise?

[Anonymous Coward]

Take 2 or Rockstar? You sure about your answer?

Re:Any surprise?

[jon53851]

I don't want the money on general principle. GTA is awesome! ... and it's only 5$...

Re:Any surprise?

[D'Sphitz]

Come on, seriously, what boy/man would be "offended" by seeing computer characters having sex, after installing a patch do see just that ?

Well the other thing is the vast majority never even saw this offending content. I'd go as far as saying the 3,000 people who did respond did so fraudulently. How could anyone say they were offended by seeing explicit content, when they had to make a fairly significant effort to crack the game specifically to reveal said explicit content?

Re:Any surprise?

[jandrese]

My guess is that anybody who was going to be offended never got around to installing the hack in the first place.

Re:Any surprise?

[Rip!ey]

Take Two may have the suit declared without merit because of extremely small response, in which case the defense lawyers will be unable to collect legal fees. If the suit was declared "without merit", wouldn't the legal counsel opposing Take-Two be required to cover legal fees for all parties concerned rather than simply "not collect"?

Re:Any surprise?

[CogDissident]

Because precious little 12 year old Timmy could never install a hack like that. It showed up all on its own, and now he is scarred for life, boobs should never be seen until you're 18 years old.

/sarcasm

Re:Any surprise?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just enough for a coffee.

Re:Any surprise?

[nacturation]

I think this article sums it up the best:

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=ticket_to_hell
 

Re:Any surprise?

[HappyDrgn]

"The best thing you can do is DO NOTHING AT ALL."
 
Exactly! I do not feel that I was wronged in any way. I do not feel I should be in receipt of any payment. Therefor I refuse to collect my $5. I feel I am making a statement by not collecting. Does anyone know of a way I can make that more well defined? I don't want to collect, but there is potential that my outstanding payment gets chalked up in a group of people that they assume don't know about the payment. I know about it, I just don't want it because I don't agree with it... how does one make that known to the court?

Re:Any surprise?

[HTH NE1]

boobs should never be seen until you're 18 years old. And if your kid knows how to tie his own blindfold, he's too old to be breastfeeding.

Re:Any surprise?

[DustyShadow]

Most of the time the defendant is not awarded attorneys fees without the plaintiff doing something very egregious.

Not surprised

[Monkey_Genius]

"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.

Re:Not surprised

[corsec67]

It is, after all, just a video game.

It is a video game where you can regenerate health with the services of a prostitute, kill her when she gets out of the car, take your money back, kill a cop and steal his cop car, kill national guard members and steal their tank, and these people are worried about a little bit of clothed dry humping?

Re:Not surprised

[Anubis350]

Ah, I see you were stalking me this morning :-p

Re:Not surprised

[GroeFaZ]

Free worldview improvement suggestion of the day: Google for "this is not a pipe"

Re:Not surprised

[ThreeGigs]

doesn't understand why so many people don't care

Ahh, but they *do* care.

They care that to get their five bucks they have to fill in a few blanks. Like with their name and address. And somewhere, in some database will be a bit of trivia about just what it is they do on their computer. And I don't remember all the terms of the settlement, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were possible to obtain the names of all claimants. Imagine someone posting *that* list on a public webserver that Google indexes.

Re:Not surprised

[Gewalt]

I woudlnt be ashamed to be on a list of people that own GTA, but I would be ashamed if someone thought I had asked for a rebate because a game included the content I was looking for when I bought it.

Re:Not surprised

[Awptimus Prime]

It is a video game where you can regenerate health with the services of a prostitute, kill her when she gets out of the car, take your money back, kill a cop and steal his cop car, kill national guard members and steal their tank, and these people are worried about a little bit of clothed dry humping?

Exactly. I bought this game and enjoyed it. There's no way I would stick it to the people who gave me so many hours of fun game play.

I really doubt any of the people actually purchasing this game were offended. There might be an occasional stupid parent who thought the hyper-violence in the game was tolerable, but the nudity was over the line. Regardless, it was baseless, in my opinion-- and the people who are okay with violence and freak out over nudity are rather scary. I would not enjoy living in their heads. Give me nude women any day over guns. I'll take both in my video games when it's an option, though.

Actually, the people who have a stranglehold on America's censorship are the scariest of all. Every other TV show or movie have probably ten times the violence than sex. I remember in the 1970s and early 80s, you could, at least, see the occasional boob on UHF broadcast. Something went wrong somewhere.

Re:Not surprised

[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." Dear Mr Lesser:

Please let me, speaking on behalf of Americans who bought San Andreas, clear up your confusion. The few people who were offended by the game lack the necessary level of intelligence to understand how to claim their settlement money.

Just in case you were one of the above mentioned persons, I'll repeat it in smaller words. Move your lips if that helps.

Only ignorant fucking morons with the mental capacity of a particularly stupid puddle of mud were offended and can't figure out how to get their check.

Hope that helps.

Re:Not surprised

[Maestro485]

For a second there I read it as 'Seth the Lesser' and wondered why a WoW character was lead lawyer.

Re:Not surprised

[corsec67]

One minor correction to your post, although I agree with all of it:
There is no nudity in the Hot Coffee minigame as it was on the disc.

Re:Not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

AMERICA! FUCK YEAH!!! Some people seriously have their priorities out of whack.

Re:Not surprised

[clarkcox3]

Remember, any suggestion of sex or sexuality to children will warp their tiny widdle minds. ...but violence, that's just good red-blooded American fun.

Re:Not surprised

[nawcom]

"Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves." - Numbers 31:13-18

It's sort of obvious, you can't have sex with a whore, but killing her is alright. This is where the game crosses the lines of correct morality.

*shakes head at this crazy country he lives in*

Re:Not surprised

[Grimbleton]

I wish the real world were so awesome.

Re:Not surprised

[joocemann]

I think that's why so few people turned out for the cash-handout. Its really hard to rationalize a displeasure with your kid seeing video-game 'sex' when you compare it to the rest of the game that the parent knowingly purchased.

I still don't understand how they won. Its like going to a Friday the 13th movie and expecting only drug use and murders without the irresponsible sex. Its just not the 13th without the irresponsible sex (lol).

Should the buyers have been so surprised? lol.

   

Re:Not surprised

[Jurily]

Yes, sex is evil.

Re:Not surprised

[Machtyn]

It's interesting, because neither enjoy the violence nor the sex. Granted, I don't watch R rated movies and carefully choose the PG-13 and PG movies. (Yeah, PG is getting annoyingly bad.)

I think there were a lot of unsuspecting parents who picked up this game for little Johnny and didn't bother to look at the rating. I had a co-worker who did just that for her 9 year old son. She had to take it back from him once she figured out what was going on.

Now, I agree, the lady wasn't smart by not paying attention to the rating and warnings. I also agree that it's stupid for the government to sue Take Two. But I also think that GTA stands for everything that is wrong with the world and does nothing to help improve it. In fact, I believe it actively does the opposite. I feel the rating on GTA should warrant something much stronger than "mature", in that it should not be sold to anyone.

... Oh, anyone considered a "minor".

Re:Not surprised

[rm999]

I somehow doubt a list of people who bought the best selling video game of all time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Theft_Auto:_San_Andreas#Sales) - with 22 million sales - would generate much buzz online. I think GTA is far less controversial than the media wants us to believe; for every Jack Thompson/vocal-overprotective mom out there, 50,000 people bought the game.

Re:Not surprised

[jfclavette]

I'm sorry, the game is called Grand Theft Auto and the box art is rather informative. I mean, If it had been called Brokeback Fountains, and the box had depicted dressed women wearing suggestive clothing, would you also have excused her for not paying attention to the rating ?

Re:Not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

You got to hit some parents with a clue bat...the T in GTA stands for Theft, so would you please take the time to read the box or look at the big bold rating?

What am I saying. THese parents probably walk around nekkid in their living room anyway.

Re:Not surprised

[networkBoy]

That makes me so, so sad.
My wife and I have had long discussions about that very topic, and we've both agreed that sex/nudity/etc. is ok for the kids to see, but Violence is what we want to protect them from.

That my 5 year old daughter knows she has a vagina and that her brother has a penis actually offends people. My son (3) also knows the appropriate verbage to describe his body. Meanwhile one of my daughters friends thinks that she has a "WooHoo".

Which is more degrading to a woman?
Which is more useful in a conversation with a doctor?

I'll shut up now since I'm just rambling, but suffice to say when my daughter walked in on me playing GTA the other day she admonished me to stop at red lights and not run anyone over. :-)

Re:Not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, just cause YOUR not getting any doesn't make it evil...

Re:Not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

Why were you and your 5 year old daughter's friends discussing WooHoos?

Re:Not surprised

[Wavicle]

Extremely off topic, but...

Over at a skeptic forum I frequent, someone involved in investigating child sexual abuse made a rather enlightening post about children and the names of their body parts: TEACH THEM THE PROPER NAMES OF THEIR BODY PARTS. The argument went something like "investigating this is hard enough without having to figure out what a 'cookie' is."

Re:Not surprised

[networkBoy]

My daughter and her friend were, I was unfortunate enough to overhear it :(

Re:Not surprised

[potat0man]

I think you also needed the original receipt or some proof of purchase. I remember going to the website to look into it when the decision was announced and there was something required like that. Frankly, I'm surprised 3,000 people had that lying around 3+ years after the game came out.

Re:Not surprised

[aussie_a]

Who the fuck would tell their kids its called a cookie while trying to keep them sheltered from sex? Cookies is something you eat. The child may eventually decide to test out why s/he calls it a cookie.

Re:Not surprised

[aussie_a]

At least you weren't modded Informative or Insightful.

Re:Not surprised

[aussie_a]

I was about to say that they shouldn't have installed the mod if they didn't want to do that sort of thing. UNTIL I realised that all the things you listed are actual features of the game (rather then a hack applied by people playing the game). Good god! I may have to check this shit out.

Re:Not surprised

[drinkypoo]

Are you really surprised to find out that there are stupid people having children?

Re:Not surprised

[EdIII]

It is a video game where you can regenerate health with the services of a prostitute, kill her when she gets out of the car, take your money back, kill a cop and steal his cop car, kill national guard members and steal their tank, and these people are worried about a little bit of clothed dry humping?

Ummm, yeah. That is what they are worried about.

You cannot "regenerate your health with the services of a prostitute, and then kill her when she gets out of the car". That's not even possible in the real world. Not only is it counter intuitive, but you would need some serious Sponge Bob Squarepants physics to pull that off.

Have you ever tried to take your money back from a prostitute? It's only that easy in video games.

Now killing a cop and stealing his car is possible in the real world, but a little more unlikely. I truly doubt that more than a couple kids per hundreds of millions are going to be so inspired by GTA as to re-enact that situation.

National Guard members and Tanks? That one is a little less likely too. I mean seriously, it is not a National Guardsman SINGULAR that rides with a tank but PLURAL National GuardsmEN that are with that tank. Not only will it be a incredibly small fraction of kids inspired to pull that stunt off, but most likely 1 out of a million that succeed.

Clothed Dry Humping? That happens ALL the time with teenagers growing up. Hell, you don't even need a video game to inspire that. PONG was not even developed and kids were getting to 1st and 2nd base.

So actually, it makes perverted sense that dry humping and little feelsies action would be what upsets the parents. It hits closest to home and is the most probable.

However, all that being said, I think it would FUCKING FABULOUS if a video game taught and/or inspired a young man (or woman) to do a little dry humping. All my video games did in the 80's and 90's was make me stay up till dawn trying to figure out how to beat Ganon or get to the last level in Metroid or some crap like that. They never got me any action. Lucky little bastards.

Re:Not surprised

[Mr. Beatdown]

I got this.

Re:Not surprised

[aussie_a]

When you put it like that, no. But I am surprised at the level of stupidity one can have and still somehow manage not kill their child.

Re:Not surprised

[A beautiful mind]

Violence and sex are both deeply rooted in humanity's past. One important distinction might be is that sex is a more hierarchical, selection driven aspect. The one who gets to reproduce wins. Violence just happens, due to outside factors or it is a tool to enforce sexual wants. A huge number of contemporary murders are due to jealousy and "love sickness".

This makes me think that sexual behaviour, the display of sexual behaviour and the depiction of sexual behaviour would tend to be more sensitive subject in the standard psychological setting.

It takes conscious effort and education to get rid of this feeling.

In today's world it is not a bad policy to excercise reasonable restraint on one's sexual behaviour (I'm thinking avoiding sleeping with everyone), because while violence is condemnable, sex causes violence. Yeah, some people are enlightened enough to handle sex (polyamorous relationships), but most of the people are not like that and it leads to extreme feelings, which then leads to violence.

Re:Not surprised

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Cookies is something you eat. The child may eventually decide to test out why s/he calls it a cookie.

I always get cookies on the internet. Even Slashdot gives me cookies. But I keep opening my case and cannot find them. Anyone have any advice?

Re:Not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

It is when it produces people that think it is. Or something.

Re:Not surprised

[Omestes]

Who the hell would name their children's genitals after FOOD? The person should be investigating these people. There has to be some mixed wiring at least.

Never mind, I just had a college flashback, with all the drunken "tube steak" references.

Re:Not surprised

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Yeah, some people are enlightened enough to handle sex (polyamorous relationships), but most of the people are not like that and it leads to extreme feelings...

Everyone who wants to impose their values on the world, or proclaim their superiority, calls themselves "enlightened". It's a great word, because, who doesn't want to be enlightened? And, it's nice and vague. Mormans, Southern Baptists, and all sorts of religious extremists call themselves "enlightened". So do strong-atheists.

I object to your characterization of sex as polyamorous. While some people enjoy that, I don't particularly. I don't enjoy penises being inserted into me either though, so I recognize that it takes all types to make up the world. I enjoy my "intense feelings".

In today's world it is not a bad policy to excercise reasonable restraint on one's sexual behaviour (I'm thinking avoiding sleeping with everyone), because while violence is condemnable, sex causes violence.

I tend to avoid sleeping with girls who are unattractive because I don't want to. There's also an increased chance of STDs with more partners, etc. etc.

What's wrong with the violence that sex causes? I mean, you have to respect safe words, but other than that...

Re:Not surprised

[TheLink]

Orange juice futures aren't orange juice, but they are still real in a way.

Money is often just some bits in a computer.

Our minds make it real :).

But when you have "surprisingly few people" on your side of "reality", you better be really sure what you are doing is right, and "not meritless" ;).

Re:Not surprised

[Eivind]

More to the point, it's a video-game where you steal cars, murder cops, hit people in the head with baseball-bats and perform drive-by-shootings.

Why anybody, in this context, would be offended by normal, adult, consentual sex is beyond me.

Plus, let's face it, it's $5.

Re:Not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a video game where you can regenerate health with the services of a prostitute, kill her when she gets out of the car, take your money back, kill a cop and steal his cop car, kill national guard members and steal their tank, and these people are worried about a little bit of clothed dry humping?

Exactly. I bought this game and enjoyed it. There's no way I would stick it to the people who gave me so many hours of fun game play.

I really doubt any of the people actually purchasing this game were offended. There might be an occasional stupid parent who thought the hyper-violence in the game was tolerable, but the nudity was over the line. Regardless, it was baseless, in my opinion-- and the people who are okay with violence and freak out over nudity are rather scary. I would not enjoy living in their heads. Give me nude women any day over guns. I'll take both in my video games when it's an option, though.

Actually, the people who have a stranglehold on America's censorship are the scariest of all. Every other TV show or movie have probably ten times the violence than sex. I remember in the 1970s and early 80s, you could, at least, see the occasional boob on UHF broadcast. Something went wrong somewhere.

As Too Much Coffee Man said, "You can bear arms but you can't bare breasts."

Re:Not surprised

[4D6963]

That one is probably not 'une pipe' because 'pipe' only refers to a smoking pipe, and not a general pipe, which would be 'tuyau'. I wonder if the maker of this thing was aware of that or not, it's not obvious to me.

Re:Not surprised

[Anzya]

There is a lot of talk about killing porsitutes but I can't recall any instance in all the games where you are encouraged to do that.
Yes you are free to do that but you are never forced to do it.
If little Timmy enjoys going around beating virtual women then that might be a problem with his upbringing, not with the game.

Re:Not surprised

[Sky Cry]

Read between the lines. Religions weren't made for fun, but to guide people without providing explanation and proof to every detail, even those people who have nothing to lose (by telling them they have a soul and afterlife they can still lose).

They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people.

This might be the real reason - having sex with a whore would just spread "the plague". And since there was having no way to heal them, killing is the only choice.

Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.

The fact that they can keep virgins confirms this - if you're really killing women because "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor," then what gives virgins extra protection?

Seems I went a bit offtopic...

Re:Not surprised

[Chrisq]

Exactly. My mum would be very offended by the scene, but she would not go near the game in the first place. People who buy the game are unlikely to be offended.

Re:Not surprised

[discord5]

when my daughter walked in on me playing GTA the other day she admonished me to stop at red lights and not run anyone over.

Maybe she's really bad at GTA ;)

Re:Not surprised

[flayzernax]

GRAND THEFT AUTO....

what the fuck do you expect to be going on?

Re:Not surprised

[flayzernax]

I'm not surprised that we evolved from poo-flingers

Re:Not surprised

[Killjoy_NL]

This puts a whole new spin on Sesame's Cookie Monster :D

Re:Not surprised

[A beautiful mind]

Everyone who wants to impose their values on the world, or proclaim their superiority, calls themselves "enlightened". It's a great word, because, who doesn't want to be enlightened? And, it's nice and vague. Mormans, Southern Baptists, and all sorts of religious extremists call themselves "enlightened". So do strong-atheists.

But not everyone who is enlightened wants to impose their values on the world. From Webster's:

en.light.ened adj
1: freed from ignorance and misinformation
2: based on full comprehension of the problems involved

I used enlightened to mean "free from ignorance", as it relates to sexual matters.

I object to your characterization of sex as polyamorous. While some people enjoy that, I don't particularly. I don't enjoy penises being inserted into me either though, so I recognize that it takes all types to make up the world. I enjoy my "intense feelings".

I guess I failed to state my views correctly. In my opinion it is same underlying problem, caused by the evolutionary history that shaped our bodies and thinking, that prevents people from being _able_ to exist in a polyamorous relationship and being able to tolerate public displays of sexuality. There is a difference between "prefers not to" that you're referring to, and "not being able", which I'm referring to. In my opinion the majority of people wouldn't be able to exist in a polyamorous relationship, a smaller percentage would be able to, but prefers not to and an even smaller percentage is able and prefers to.

What's wrong with the violence that sex causes? I mean, you have to respect safe words, but other than that...

I specifically ment violence that stems from relationships and sex, like murder committed because of jealousy. I tried to find relevant statistics, but a quick googling and wikipedia didn't provide any statistics as to the leading causes of murder, however I remember reading Hungarian specific statistics, that murder committed because of jealousy and other sexual/relationship related causes is the single biggest cause of murder in Hungary.

Re:Not surprised

[TheLink]

Heh sure sounds like those parents were abusing their children :).

I guess their children can't watch Sesame Street either.

Cookie Monster- "Mmmmm, cookie..."

Re:Not surprised

[Kneo24]

Guess what? PG-13 is the new R these days. Sex? How do you think you were conceived? Furthermore, how do you intend to prove that these type of video games make society worse, not better?

In the end, you can be a prude and say retarded things all day. We'll just mock you for them. However, what happened to freedom of expression? This clearly wasn't being forced upon anyone.

Re:Not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

Little kids often seem to have very different ideas on what's acceptable as compared to adults (even their parents).

No surprise they talk about such stuff. I think some of the stuff they say, do and think might horrify their parents.

A few of these little kids in my church think it's funny to run at me, and try to punch me in my balls. I most certainly didn't teach them that (and I doubt I gave them a good reason to). Maybe their parents taught them that? Or they learnt it from some movie/show?

Letting kids see shows where people hit others in their balls is not good. I figure that comes under violence.

However exposing little girls to male nudity, could make their aim better.

Re:Not surprised

[overkill1024]

I had a hard enough time collecting my free (emphasis on free) copy of Vista when it was offered to people who had purchased XP boxes shortly before the release. Taking the time for just $5 doesn't make sense for either party, plus the majority of people don't have their proof of purchase, don't know about the settlement or the mod, or just plain don't care. I'd call it a huge success with those numbers. I'd even bet that there's a fair number of people who learned about the mod through this case and that also a handful that took the money and then took to finding the mod. what a world what a world

Re:Not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

"I am surprised at the level of stupidity one can have and still somehow manage not kill their child."

Thousands upon thousands of years of natural selection ensured some decent survival rate.

Re:Not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

I am upset. Not because of the nudity, but because the game sucked compared to it's predecessor.

Re:Not surprised

[zippthorne]

You are never forced to do *anything*. It's a sandbox game. If you don't do the missions.. there's other stuff you can do.

As for the hookers, you can exchange money for health by letting one in your car. Then you can get out of the car and beat her till you get your money back. Or until she's dead, and you get your money back.

It's not so much that you're forced to do this. It's really more of.. those game mechanics are in there, eventually you're going to try it.

I think we're all hoping that that doesn't teach any kind of lesson or anything.

Re:Not surprised

[Flip-Chip]

You won't find the cookies in one piece.
They are stored in the harddrive which has an internal blender that operates at 5400rpm or more.
If you pry it open you might find some crumbles. . .

Re:Not surprised

[evilbessie]

But sex is bad, it should not be had by anyone, or is that what I have been conditioned to believe, extreme violence OK, but natural (well mostly natural) procreation is to be leglislated against.

Re:Not surprised

[GigaplexNZ]

GRAND THEFT AUTO....

what the fuck do you expect to be going on? Stealing cars. Grand theft auto as a crime does not inherently cover unthinkable acts of clothed dry humping. Or murder, for that matter.

Re:Not surprised

[KDR_11k]

Unfortunately there are people who think that the best way to teach their children restraint on their sexual behaviour is to never tell the child what sex is. Those children tend to find it out when they get teen-pregnant.

Re:Not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember the first time my wife told me her woohoo was sore. After she told me what a woohoo was all I could do was laugh and ask, "baby....don't you think you're old enough to use grown up words?" 8 years later and she still calls it a woohoo....and I usually end up laughing my ass off at her.

Re:Not surprised

[residieu]

There were some clueless parents who were offended. But they probably didn't understand that you had to mod the game to get the content. In a ny times article on the subject one mother says "I'm aware that there is killing in the game," Ms. Stanhouse said in the deposition. "I wasn't aware of the stealing." She wasn't aware there was stealing in a game called "Grand THEFT Auto"

Re:Not surprised

[Opportunist]

Jack Nicholson summed it up rather nicely: If you suck on a tit the movie gets an R rating. If you hack the tit off with an axe it will be PG.

And the same applies to games. Ain't that scary? I mean, remember what those things are actually good for? Tits aren't "not suitable for children", they are first of all suitable for children, for crying out loud! That you might pop a boner when you see some is maybe some additional value, but not their primary function.

That's what's really wrong with censorship, and society as a whole. It's more acceptable to show how people hurt each other than showing how they pleasure each other.

We really are sick, sick animals.

Re:Not surprised

[Opportunist]

Not to mention that a teacher might not get too alerted when some child confides that "daddy puts his fingers into her cookie jar"...

Re:Not surprised

[Opportunist]

I guess they found out by accident. I.e. hitting someone while playing and being amazed at the rather impressive reaction they gained. Usually, when a child hits an adult, there is little to no immediate show of pain unless it's in that area.

Give you a quite nice feeling of power, as a kid.

As you might be able to tell, I can vouch for kids finding it out that way. :)

Re:Not surprised

[Opportunist]

Lemme guess, this is the reason, right?

Re:Not surprised

[Red Flayer]

Yes. Obviously, since it was not men on the cover wearing suggestive clothing, it must have nothing to do with teh sex, despite the title.

Instead, it is probably a yard ornament installation sim, since everyone knows that scantily clad women always present their backsides to landscapers, and the game is Brokeback Fountains.

I personally prefer the game, Borkbork Mountain, which is about simulated sex with the Swedish Chef... but that's just me.

Re:Not surprised

[Opportunist]

And out of the 50,000, 30,000 don't care for the boobies.

The other 20,000 bought it because of the boobies.

Re:Not surprised

[SETIGuy]

At some point we were supposed to stop flinging poo? Nobody told me!

Re:Not surprised

[steveo777]

You gotta hand it to the nut shot. Kids think anyone in pain makes funny faces. And I haven't seen many kids movies lately that didn't feature the nut shot. Granted, I don't watch a lot of them. Don't want to get hit in the balls? Don't make a face when you do, problem solved... wait

Re:Not surprised

[yuna49]

When I read that comment in the much more extensive story in the Times, I wondered about that lady's priorities. Not only was she not aware of any stealing in Grand Theft Auto, she seemed more offended by the stealing than by the killing. I hope she was just misquoted since parents who teach their children that stealing is worse than killing need some serious parental retraining.

I also found this quote from the plaintiffs' attorney quite puzzling:

Besides, the [plaintiffs'] lawyers argue, if the lawsuit had no merit, should that not make the settlement that much more impressive?

This argument makes no sense to me. Take-Two faced the option of a lengthy and expensive litigation where they might have demonstrated that the plaintiffs' case lacked merit. Instead they chose the quicker, and presumably cheaper, approach of reaching a settlement. Anyone who has read a Slashdot story on the RIAA suits understands this logic.

Re:Not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought my wife was the only one...

Re:Not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

Sex causes violence? I manage to get laid on a fairly regular basis without beating anybody up.

Re:Not surprised

[bickle]

It is also a game where you can make tanks drop from the sky, fly airplanes with no wings, and find rocket launchers lying around town. You can jump your car hundreds of feet, land in a fireball & walk away unscathed. You can 'surf' on the tops of moving cars. You can walk around town, drive a taxi, or put out fires with a firetruck. *You* decide what you are going to do. *You* make the game. If you find the behavior appalling, you need to look in the mirror and ask yourself some questions - you are the one responsible. The game reflects *your* actions.

Re:Not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

As a parent is the midwest my child is more likely to have underage unprotected sex than he is to shoot someone. Have you watched a horror film and felt you needed to kill someone afterwards? No? Well, how do you feel after watching a porno? Exactly...

And now you know the difference between sex and violence in video games.

Re:Not surprised

[Opportunist]

If you can take a nut shot and not make a face, you have a great career as an actor ahead of you. Or stuntman, depending on why you can keep a straight face.

I know I can't. And unfortunately, I can vouch for that, too...

Re:Not surprised

[pablo.cl]

The original writing by Magritte was "Ceci n'est pas une /pip/". The one in the picture is "Ceci n'est pa une /paip/".

Re:Not surprised

[kalirion]

From what I hear, the cretins are also cloning and feeding. And I want a TV, god dammit!

Re:Not surprised

[CelticWhisper]

Which is why sex education needs to teach kids to use proper protection instead of this fairy-tale "abstinence only" bullshit.

The problem in your statement comes from the word "unprotected." "Underage" and the entire age-of-consent can of worms is another matter entirely, but regardless of one's opinion of what the "proper age" is for sex, "underage" sex is less inherently risky than rampant unsafe sex. Unfortunately, people far more prudish and sex-averse than yourself have taken it upon themselves to decide that children shouldn't know how to properly guard against unwanted pregnancy and/or venereal disease. After all, nobody in god-with-a-capital-G's country has sex outside of marriage! Why, that would be sinful!

Fix this one little thing, teach kids to exercise common sense when they have sex (because seriously, they can, will, and do have sex no matter how hard they're hit over the head with the chastity-hammer) and we go a long way toward unscrewing our at-present screwed-up priorities.

Re:Not surprised

[hansamurai]

If they bought it from a site like Amazon they might have been able to go back in their shopping history and get a "receipt" like that. I had to do that once for a video card I bought on Newegg over two years previous to prove when I bought it for warranty purposes.

Re:Not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

Every one knows its a monster of Sesame street.

Re:Not surprised

[EmperorKagato]

As a parent is the midwest my child is more likely to have underage unprotected sex than he is to shoot someone...

If he's popular.

If he is not very popular and not very sociable he is most likely to kill someone.
Teenagers experience a lot of stress. Teaching them how to deal with that stress (other than sex and physical violence) will benefit them for life.

Re:Not surprised

[AmaDaden]

It's not a pipe it's a PICTURE of a pipe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treachery_of_Images

Re:Not surprised

[hldn]

remember, cookies are only a sometimes food.

Re:Not surprised

[Killjoy_NL]

Where did the bad (blue) man eat you?
*points at doll*

Re:Not surprised

[DaFallus]

Remember, any suggestion of sex or sexuality to children will warp their tiny widdle minds. ...but violence, that's just good red-blooded American fun.

You forgot about harsh language. I used to play Counter-Strike and it always tickled me when I came across a server that had banned cussing. I just have a lot of trouble understanding that logic: "Heavens to murgatroid! Little Billy was sitting at the computer, having a good time shooting counter-terrorist operatives and hostages in the face and using an AK-47 to write his name on the walls in blood. The next thing I knew, someone called him a 'cunt-rag' and it warped his fragile little mind!"

Re:Not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

A few of these little kids in my church think it's funny to run at me, and try to punch me in my balls. I most certainly didn't teach them that (and I doubt I gave them a good reason to). Maybe their parents taught them that? Or they learnt it from some movie/show? Well I don't know, but I personally laughed out loud thinking about a bunch of kids trying to punch you in the balls at church!

Re:Not surprised

[Thalagyrt]

Somewhat off topic, I had to deal with a guy on a forum I ran who fell into category C there, "is able and prefers to" with regards to polyamorous relationships, and I swear he was the most pretentious asshole ever. He was utterly convinced that anyone who wasn't comfortable with that was emotionally immature, unenlightened, and needed to grow up, and he'd engage in endless debates about it.

The guy tried at one point to convince me to cheat on my fiancee with my ex, which earned him a big "No, I'm not an asshole, fuck you very much." That was the last I heard from him. I honestly hope his pretentiousness comes to bite him in the ass when his girlfriend who he "loves more than the world" leaves him for another guy who actually can commit to her and her only.

Enlightenment is just an excuse to be a pretentious ass in my opinion.

Re:Not surprised

[ROBOKATZ]

Banning swearing, porn sprays, etc., helps ensure a mature environment. I generally enjoy shooting counter terrorists in the face with an AK, but not while being called the N-word by a 12-year old whilst an animated homosexual act loops on the wall.

Re:Not surprised

[Avatar8]

Good start, but I think there's more to it.

1. It's a video game only owned by X number of people.
2. All of the adults owning this game bought it for such content anyway.
3. A large percentage of owners have no idea about the lawsuit or that they could get any money.
4. A large percentage are teenagers who are not going to explain to their parents why they can get money for the game because then the parents' might have some clue of what the game is about.
5. A certain percentage don't even know how to mod it to see the extra content.

If you start with a small percentage of the population and start applying these factors, 3,000 people sounds about right. I'd wager all of those filing for payment are either hypocrites who just want the money but still will play the extra content or they're parents who had no idea what they were buying.

Re:Not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

You just don't want your children to have sex before you did. It's not fair!!! stomp stomp stomp.

Re:Not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

A huge number of contemporary murders are due to jealousy and "love sickness". [citation needed]

Re:Not surprised

[cduffy]

You forgot about harsh language. I used to play Counter-Strike and it always tickled me when I came across a server that had banned cussing. I just have a lot of trouble understanding that logic

The other reply is entirely right: It's not about protecting the children; it's about being protected from the children. Being able to play with a bunch of adults is fun. Being endlessly cussed at by 12-year-olds while trying to play a game isn't.

Re:Not surprised

[mcmonkey]

Who the fuck would tell their kids its called a cookie while trying to keep them sheltered from sex?

Your current mod is 'funny' but should be scary. What happens when that little girl tells her parents Johnny touched her cookie? Little Johnny gets the perp walk out of school in cuffs when he just wanted Susie to share her oreos.

True story: my SO recently went on a business trip to China and brought back gifts for my 3 nieces. When I asked my 5-yr old niece if she wanted a gift from China, she said no and walked away. This from a girl whose usual response would be, "I'll take that and what else do you have for me?"

I mentioned her unusual behavior to my sister, who told me 'china' is what my niece calls her cookie.

Now it's a funny story to file away for a wedding toast when she grows up, but at the time there was some nervous laughter. All we needed was for her to tell some friends or a teacher about her visit from uncle mcmonkey and how he had a gift for her china.

Re:Not surprised

[Cornflake917]

Since when did adults playing counter-strike get more mature then children? Last time I checked adults were racist and cussed just as much. I'm completely okay with servers banning racists, but not being able to yell "Bullshit!" when you get owned through a wall is just painful. Cussing and lack of maturity don't always go hand in hand. People can be total douches without saying a single word in that game.

Re:Not surprised

[ukyoCE]

Interestingly, if you listen to the latest Penny Arcade podcast, Tycho (Jerry) says the same thing. His son started trying to grab/punch him in the balls one day. He has no idea why, just that it hurts like hell.

I'm guessing its from some retarded slapstick comedy (or commercial) on tv.

Re:Not surprised

[cduffy]

Since when did adults playing counter-strike get more mature then children?

I don't play Counterstrike -- but back when I played Tribes and Team Fortress (and today, when I play TF2), the adults tend to be fairly mature.

I'm not in favor of a ban for a single-word outburst, particularly when that outburst is well-deserved. That said, I completely understand (and support) servers having policies against excessive and unnecessary language, presuming that enforcement is done with reason in mind.

Re:Not surprised

[The End Of Days]

If he is not very popular and not very sociable he is most likely to kill someone.

I don't think that "most likely" is the right phrase. It's not like kids are killing each other in epic numbers, media sensationalism notwithstanding.

Re:Not surprised

[sma11s101]

Well we all know about the secret sexual undertones on sesame street...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=6AXPnH0C9UA

Re:Not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, how do you feel after watching a porno? Like I need a nap?

Re:Not surprised

[SupremoMan]

Are you really surprised to find out that there are stupid people having children? Not at all. Now a days it seems like a requirement!

Re:Not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes! C is for ____?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=LTbtWUNx6Q4

Re:Not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

And now I'm an Amputee G**Damn you! I lost my cookie too!

Re:Not surprised

[frost_knight]

Perhaps enlightenment that serves just as an excuse to be a pretentious ass is not true enlightenment.

Re:Not surprised

[Actually, I do RTFA]

They are stored in the harddrive which has an internal blender that operates at 5400rpm or more.

My laptop's harddrive only has a 4200 rpm blender. Do I need to upgrade?

Re:Not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

problem is that sexuality has been repressed for the past few hundred years to the point that it's regressed horribly. It's not enlightenment, it's programming. The Puritanical attitudes of the west over the past few hundred years have caused the problems we have today. Children raised in families that are openly sexual, Poly relationships for example where multiple partners are a team and everything is done with love and respect grow up without the problems of modern puritianical sexual problems.

It's not human nature to mate with one. We mate with many, It's why divorce is incredibly popular and "cheating" is incredibly common.

Problem is most social bahaivoir research that talks about this is repressed to the "fringe" or hidden because it goes against the christian right, the Muslim right, and the fact that it empowers women, most men are threatened by it.

Now, most "poly" relationships are actually just swingers or humping frenzies. Very few are 3-4-6 way committed relationships. Most are some pot smoking kids that want to fuck as many as possible, and they are dirtying the name Polyamory. They are not poly, they are swingers.

Re:Not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, I'm going to head off you nonsense right now.

I know MANY Polyamory tribes and they are NOT what you think they are. Yes lots of people that call themselves poly are really swingers or plain old whores. but only a fricking retarted moron sleeps with anything that moves and has sex with someone they do not know their sexual background and knows they are clean. Increased chance of STD's? If you are doing the casual sex scene, yes. If you are doing the real Polyamory not a chance in hell. I know a Poly triad that have UNPROTECTED SEX and they don't explode or instantly get STD's, and their risk of getting STD's is way WAY lower than yours. it's about using your brain instead of your penis.

I know it's hip to screw indiscriminately, but remember... the pretty bimbos are crawling with more parasites than the homely ones. The Cheerleader type typically bounce from guy to guy as they are the flavor of the week and think each one is THE one. Thus she has herpes I,II and III as well as a host of other ookies.

Re:Not surprised

[Cirga]

Yup indeed. Its just like Age of Conan. The ESRB didnt want to give it an M rating because of topless females.. however in the game you can decapitate people and shove your sword through their skulls... etc. Dismemberment.. gore galore.. blood spray. But taht was all ok.. it was the females "nipples" that were apparently the huge offensive item. This country needs to remove head from ass.

Re:Not surprised

[Actually, I do RTFA]

But not everyone who is enlightened wants to impose their values on the world... I used enlightened to mean "free from ignorance"...

Yes, everyone who uses enlightened uses it to mean "free from ignorance". In fact, the two camps are commonly set up as dipoles. But "ignorance" is used to mean "disagreement with me". You haven't explained why you/your position is "enlightened" or others/others' position are/is "ignorant". You just assert it.

Almost every time enlightened is used, it is used in this manner. Like-minded people will agree with the sentiment, and people who disagree are ignorant and can be ignored. It's just othering without supplying information and argument. Hence, I object to its usage. Similar, in concept, to the way that many people object to Flash. It has its uses, but 99% of the time, it's an impediment to doing what I want. Hence, I object unless a reason not to is shown to me.

There is a difference between "prefers not to" that you're referring to, and "not being able", which I'm referring to

What is the difference? Other than the degree to which people object to it? If you are using physical violence as your sole criterion, then I would say you are quite mistaken. The vast majority of people who discover cheating/having multiple partners do not resort to violence. Look at the divorce rate where infidelity is cited over the murders caused by infidelity.

Re:Not surprised

[b00fhead]

Very well put. Thank you.

Re:Not surprised

[Gewalt]

Natural selection ended the day we started social welfare programs.

Re:Not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it doesn't offend me but I have no problem using a "cutesie" name until they're older, either.

My daughter, 6, had a rash, I called my wife and said "she needs some balmex on her hoo-ha". My daughter said "wha'ts a hoo-ha?" I said, "that's just what daddy calls your private parts." She said "can I pick a name for it?" I said, hesitating, "uh, sure...".

Some of her choices... candy, curtains, cheese, cheese-puff, piggy, muffin...

My son, 8, was in the kitchen doing homework and yelled out "Call it Steve!".

And so it was said, and so it was done. She now calls it her "Steve".

It works for me. When she's older and brings a boyfriend home, I can ask him "Have you met Steve?" and I'll know in one brief moment if I have to kill him.

Re:Not surprised

[Thalagyrt]

That's also a good point. :)

Re:Not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem seems two fold to me. Often people seem to get stupider after having kids and secondly, the stupider people are the MORE children they seem to create.

Re:Not surprised

[Jens Egon]

'Une pipe' is also a blowjob.

Re:Not surprised

[4D6963]

lol. En effet.

Re:Not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

No, many MANY people (that bother to post online at least) DO care, but specifically pointed out they were not going to collect $5 because they support Take 2's work. Some even intended to tell Take2 they were specifically NOT collecting.

          The rest don't care.

Re:Not surprised

[EmperorKagato]

Chicago has experienced numerous teen deaths due to gun violence this year. An emergency summit was called to find ways to help reduce the violence

Also, this list of noteable school shootings are growing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting

Re:Not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

Back to the topic in question: people talking of sex and affection in this thread seem to be completely forgetting what we are talking about - the portrayal is of a guy visiting a hooker, not a healthy or loving sexual relationship. Some Slashdotters seem to not even know the difference. That's actually quite depressing.

Oh and the issue of offence about this game was much to do with what initially appeared to be an attempt by Rockstar to sneak content past the censors rather than a pixelated boob.

I wish some Slashdotters would also try to maintain some perspective in these things. They are just as prone to their own knee-jerk reactions as the people they are so annoyed by.

Re:Not surprised

[clarkcox3]

Back to the topic in question: people talking of sex and affection in this thread seem to be completely forgetting what we are talking about - the portrayal is of a guy visiting a hooker, not a healthy or loving sexual relationship. Some Slashdotters seem to not even know the difference. That's actually quite depressing.

Oh, I understand the difference, and I still find portrayals of sex (even loveless, hooker sex) to be less offensive than portrayals of murder (not to say that I find video-game murder that offensive in the first place).

If someone is mature enough to handle the graphic violence in the game, then they should be mature enough to handle a sex scene. It is not for the courts to decide whether or not my son is mature enough to handle either, it is for me to decide.

Re:Not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

I was reacting to several other comments in the thread as well rather than just your post in particular. I still think, though, that your original comment still reflects some of the attitude I was commenting on. I don't think you've fully understood the controversy or why people reacted to it, or else you did but saw it as an opportunity to get in a cheap potshot or easy laugh. There are many here who know (or should know) better but prefer to keep holding up the parodied version so that they can keep disparaging a certain group of people that they may disagree with on other related or unrelated issues.

Regarding your follow-up comment, the issue never was what you, or GTA fans, find offensive (it's unlikely anyone from the GTA playing demographic would be offended) but it was about 1) Rockstar's perceived attempt to circumvent parents and ratings boards (which later turned out to be an oversight) and 2) the effects of the game on the young.

I don't think encountering the notion of loving sex ever will warp a child's mind but that can't be said of every expression of sexual behaviour, some of which children would find difficult to understand or contextualize. I'm not saying, either, that certain expressions of sexual behaviour will warp them any worse than simulated violence but differently - I don't think the two should really be compared as they are too different.

How does a person decide if one is mature enough to "handle" something? It's not a given that a person who enjoys something is best placed to know if he can handle it, but in a free society I agree that as long as the person is over 18 and their behaviour is not negatively impacting others we have to trust their judgement -- that's the privilege/peril/responsibility of living in a free society.

In the case of children, however, that responsibility does fall to the parents. So if parents aren't given all the facts - how can they adequately make judgements? If game developers sneak adult content into a game (as it was perceived at the time) then parents are effectively denied the right and ability to choose what's best for their children. Seeing it from that perspective should make people understand why some people objected to what they saw as interference with their parental rights.

Incidentally, I think a lot of the objections came from people who did not, and would never have, bought the game but who objected, on principle, to what they perceived was Rockstar's unethical behaviour. I am sure that explains why hardly anyone claimed the $5. either they feel they made their point, they didn't buy the game, or they recognized it was just a mistake and they hope Rockstar will do better in future. I doubt anyone of these people actually thought "the violence is OK but not the sex". People expect some measure of violence in games generally (most games depend on it in some way and not all violence is "bad" per se) but they may also just not have been aware of the nature of the violence compared to the kind of alien bashing, car wrecking games they played as kids.

I don't think these kinds of issues are best addressed by repeating or believing caricatured versions of events originating from gamers and the games press. They are best addressed by balanced and truthful investigation and commenting.

Re:Not surprised

[awakened]

Jack Nicholson summed it up rather nicely: If you suck on a tit the movie gets an R rating. If you hack the tit off with an axe it will be PG.

Yeah, really. I got to watch the Uncut version of Gangs of New York in school without any negative repercussions on the class or teacher. I saw a guy get impaled UNCUT, and that's any better than seeing the boobs of some whore at the whore house in the movie? Take this as my answer: if the latter is worse, why didn't I cringe at the sight? "Because you're a boy and a horny chauvanist pig who likes to see women exploited as sex objects and-" SHUT UP!!! I saw her breasts, nipples and all, in great detail for the few seconds it was on there. I know there is in fact an over-abundance of full-on porn of any and all kinds imaginable available for FREE on the internet. So why am I being told that the low-res, low-quality sex game that can ONLY BE ACCESSED BY THOSE ABLE TO FIND AND INSTALL A CERTAIN MOD is the most scandalous, evil act in Video Game History since the first Mortal Kombat fatality scene? I saw a movie in JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL that was far and beyond more bloody, graphic and sexually suggestive than ANY Grand Theft Auto game. So why wasn't there an uproar over that? Care to explain that, anyone?
Look, I'm just going to be forthright about it: Sex is WAAAAY better than Violence. For one, Sex won't get you thrown in Jail unless you go Hardcore Public at the wrong place/wrong time, etc. Heck, you can get thrown in Jail just because someone even THINKS you MAY become violent or aggressive these days! Hitting someone gets you fired, but "sexual harrassment" only gets you reprimanded, yet the former gets less of an uproar. But why then, if Violence is so wrong, am I shown copious amounts of it EVERY SINGLE DAY??? It's not a matter that I watch it, it's that it's even available to BE watched!
A child learns most from the ones they are around the most, and the TV says that it's OK to hack that man's hand off with a hatchet if he doesn't give you the money so you can buy that big, loud pop gun that turns people into pools of what appears to be grape juice, so when they push over little Timmy because he has the nice red fire truck toy that they want and Timmy doesn't want to hand over, the child doesn't understand why they're being paddled three seconds later by their mommy...and why their mommy is then suddenly being taken away by big, scary men in sunglasses and black suits who carry silver pop guns on their belts and don't say anything...and why Timmy just said "eew!" when the kid told little Susie she looked pretty.
So violence is wrong, officer? Well, tell that to my Electronic Babysitter, I think he disagrees with you. Now give me back my back issue of Maxim, will ya? Oh, it's inappropriate due to sexual content? SCREW YOU! (sounds of scuffle) POLICE BRUTALITY, POLICE BRUTALITY!...AND GET THOSE CAMERAS OUT OF MY FACE, YOU LOW-BROWED CORPORATE SLUM-RATS FROM "COPS"!
Meanwhile, on the other end of the TV camera...
Annonucer: Tonight on COPS...
Me: POLICE BRUTALITY, POLICE BRUTALITY!
Little Timmy: "Gee, I should do what that cop is doing to the boy who took my Fire truck today when I see him at school tomorrow!"

Surprise surprise

[Skreech]

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.

Re:Surprise surprise

[ClamIAm]

The only downside to this is that it would reinforce the notion that anyone should listen to the neocons at the American Enterprise Institute.

Not worth my time.

[iansmith]

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!

Re:Not worth my time.

[Anonymous Coward]

aww, have a little sympathy for the lawyers - I'd send them a check for $-100

Re:Not worth my time.

[Anonymous Coward]

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. I know, seriously! And how you can blame the makers of a game that merely simulates reality? What, next some lawyer's going to be telling me I can't kill hookers instead of paying them in real life?

Re:Not worth my time.

[Anonymous Coward]

It'll cost you $5 in gas to get to the bank to cash your $5 check!!! LOL!

Re:Not worth my time.

[Digital Vomit]

What, next some lawyer's going to be telling me I can't kill hookers instead of paying them in real life?

What?!? Since when???

Re:Not worth my time.

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe 2000+ people should fill out a copy of the form and say they don't give a damn and think the case is pointless and that the plaintiff's lawyers should give them $25 for making future games more expensive. Send a copy to both set of lawyers. The people who started this should be publicly shamed as well for being too uptight as well.

Re:Not worth my time.

[Anonymous Coward]

Forget the hookers in a game - I want to be able to simulate killing lawyers, journalists and politicians.

Because those whiny shitheads only seem to care about 'The American People' when they can somehow generate artificial outrage for their own benefit.

Re:Not worth my time.

[Flip-Chip]

Yes, because all the people you see in the game are obviously accountants :-p

Re:Not worth my time.

[Anonymous Coward]

That got modded funny, but I think its an interesting point. If (hypothetically, of course) someone created a simulation of the world, why should it be labeled as "inappropriate"?

Re:Not worth my time.

[wertarbyte]

Are you refering to "Postal 2"? Try the demo (runs on linux as well), you *can* just get the milk from the supermarket and get home. No violence involved. But then you find the shovel. And from there on, havoc unfolds...

Re:Not worth my time.

[Reapy]

Ironically enough, I played every GTA up till vice city before I was aware you could "bang a prostitute", and only then from reading news articles about having sex with them and getting your money back by killing them. It's funny how there is so much sensationalism about such a SMALL part of the game.

Good.

[cyberworm]

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.

Well is it worth it.

[jellomizer]

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.

Re:Well is it worth it.

[Chris Burke]

the kids who downloaded the hack could have just as easily have gotten real porn

Yeah, that's exactly why this whole issue has always cracked me up. Oh noes! If a kid goes unsupervised onto the internet, he may download a mod for a game that would show him low-poly-count boobs. We need to stop this, prevent minors from buying GTA, make Take Two release new discs without the content on it, and then, at long last, kids won't be able to find boobs on the internet!

Really, it's just too funny.

Re:Well is it worth it.

[badboy_tw2002]

Not to mention that the game is rated M in the US - which means that the only people who Take2 was (legally) selling the game to that couldn't legally watch porn were 17 year olds. The same 17 year olds who can see full frontal nudity and way racier sex scenes in an R rated movie, or even on M rated TV (anyone watched Nip/Tuck lately?)

Re:Well is it worth it.

[SirSlud]

It's called a political opportunity. It's not about reality, its about aligning yourself to an issue and making news. "The choir, let me preach to it."

Besides, in laymans terms, the game contained material not suitable for the rating it received. The amount of work you have to do to "unlock" it via the patch (and I did out of curiosity - it took 5 minutes) is trivial, but the joke is, the only reason I became aware of it is because of the news.

Lets face it - it was sloppy of Take Two. They didn't deserve the attention and the suit, but it would have been easily preventable. Having shipped more than a few console games myself in my day, I can assure you that whatever didn't enable the game mechanic of bangin your gf in the build was 'removed' on a pretty high level - just a boolean or the removal of a game event or trigger.

I agree with everyone saying the lawsuit was meritless, but its a valuable lesson for all game developers. (Case in point: my friend wrote something obscene on a texture in a game that would never be readable by a customer with the in game camera. Clients get a 'free camera' mode where they can run through everything, up to any level of detail. Guess who falls on the 'right' side here? The people paying the money. My employers and the client were rightly not amused. Whats to be gained?) Ship a violent movie, and a super ultra softcore porn scene that isn't accessible via the movie on one DVD ... there is political weight to taking issue with that, if only because its possible to access it and because if its not meant to be accessed, what is it doing there?

So to summarize, it was a meritless lawsuit, for obvious reasons, but I don't have much sympathy for Take-Two unless it was one developer who kept the assets in there technically unbeknownst to everyone else. I doubt that was the case, and while they didn't deserve the lawsuit, they certainly opened themselves to misguided criticism. There are more stable platforms to assert one's distain for overly heavy handed sexual censorship.

I don't have to agree with somebody to necessarily not want to provide the opportunity for them to feel provoked, especially when money or political power is involved, no matter how fucking stupid they might be.

Re:Well is it worth it.

[blitziod]

i am pretty sure the news from the lawsuit sold more games than the makers of GTA4 had to pay.

Re:Well is it worth it.

[Anonymous Coward]

which means that the only people who Take2 was (legally) selling the game to that couldn't legally watch porn were 17 year olds. While some stores may refuse to sell M-rated games to minors, there is nothing illegal about doing so. The ESRB is not a government organization, and whether or not publishers have their games rated is completely voluntary; it just so happens that most stores won't sell unrated games. Nonetheless, the only thing game stores have to fear about selling M-rated games to minors is the negative backlash from the public and distributors.

Re:Well is it worth it.

[Anonymous Coward]

"won't be able to find boobs on the internet!"

Most of the boobs I find are the ones posting on slashdot...erm,wait,nevermind.

Re:Well is it worth it.

[drinkypoo]

Have you ever looked at the patch? First you have to have the original version of the game, then you have to have it for PC or else it's kind of a task to do the hack. You need a modchip for PS2 and a hacked copy of the game, or on Xbox you can copy it to disk and then hack that... criminy! I speak from experience when I say that even in the age of the BBS it was easier for kids to find porn with their computer than it is to use the Hot Coffee mod today. (But then, I have the wrong version of the game, for Xbox, and modem internet.)

Re:Well is it worth it.

[drinkypoo]

The amount of work you have to do to "unlock" it via the patch (and I did out of curiosity - it took 5 minutes)

That's about four minutes and fifty-five seconds longer than it takes to just find some porn with google on a broadband connection. It's not like it's hard to do, it's just orders of magnitude harder than just downloading some porn.

Re:Well is it worth it.

[user]

> which means that the only people who Take2 was (legally) selling the game to

Do what now? To the best of my knowledge, there is no law in most (all?) states which gives any force of law to either ESRB or MPAA ratings... and I think this is a good thing. This means that private businesses may choose to self-limit their sales to minors if they believe that they'll more than make it up in public good will generating replacement sales. It means that if certain standards differ from state to state or locale to locale, companies are free to make their own call locally. Even better, as public opinion changes over time, policies can adjust without dealing with the political process.

I'm worried, though, that your comment is representative of the general impression - but it worries me when people are afraid of breaking non-existent laws.

Re:Well is it worth it.

[Domo-Sun]

As one should assume with orphaned game material, if the inclusion of the Hot Coffee material into the game would have pushed the ESRB rating from "Mature" to "Adult", even if it's as small as a one-year age difference, then a wrong has occurred. However, that wrong was negligible and few care. The population is already bombarded with more realistic sex depictions on TV.

But Take-Two was wrong in first attempting to deny it was in the game (albeit inactive), then later trying to justify it with a lot of excuses. They should have simply apologized right away, and offered a replacement, then maybe people wouldn't have made a big issue about it, like Hillary when she was trying to win over republicans.

Re:Well is it worth it.

[smartr]

It's perfectly legal to sell M games and rated R movies in the USA to children and babies. M is not A (adults only) and R is not (NC-17), which suggests porno (what you legally can't sell to minors). The rating system is a private industry standard and practice. Stop suggesting that it takes precedent over the 1st amendment.

Re:Well is it worth it.

[Opportunist]

Bluntly, if you buy a game advertised with the bloody, violent features it contains, and then you get offended enough by it containing hidden "porn" content you have to hack first of all, that you can't even stumble upon by accident, then 5 bucks is about what your consciense is worth.

Re:Well is it worth it.

[oji-sama]

Besides, in laymans terms, the game contained material not suitable for the rating it received. The amount of work you have to do to "unlock" it via the patch (and I did out of curiosity - it took 5 minutes) is trivial, but the joke is, the only reason I became aware of it is because of the news.

Applying any patch to any game is a trivial. So I don't think the amount of work is really important here, but rather the intent of the patcher. The coffee was disabled, and (I believe) there was no way to enable it within the game. An adult mod created from scratch for any other game would be as easy to install.

One couldn't access the hot coffee by accident, the mod had to be downloaded and installed intentionally. Operating systems are not rated R, although installing an adult game is trivial.

And I do believe the characters had clothes on in the game data... I have no idea what 17 year old persons are allowed to watch in the states, but seems to me that the game is no more no less harmful with the coffee mod enabled.

Re:Well is it worth it.

[Opportunist]

Way more. Ponder this for a moment:

A game hits the market. A game that already created a controversy long before it came out. Then, almost instantly (one has to wonder how much "luck" or "skill" those hackers had...), it's revealed: A porn scene, "negligently" left in by the programmers. Horror! Self proclaimed moral watchdogs with too much time on their hands and no meaning in their little life are all over the game, big discussions on national TV, moralizers condemning it and Take2 and everyone involved as the big evil, big groundbreaking lawsuit on behalf of the poor, unsuspecting customers, now dubbed victims...

That's some advertising you couldn't possibly afford.

And as we see now, after a few years there's some verdict. Does anyone who bought the game even care anymore? Anyone who cares about the sex scene (provided they didn't actually want it and buy the game partly because of it) didn't buy the game in the first place anyway! Now subtract all the people who can't find their receipt anymore and ... well, you gotta be surprised that it's even 3000 people.

And out of the 3000, I bet 2999 were just thinking "hey, a free fiver!"

The remaining one is the statistical variance.

Re:Well is it worth it.

[evilRhino]

The hot coffee content did not contain nudity.

Re:Well is it worth it.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no legal basis for restricting the sale of M rated games to anyone. Just like there is no legal basis for refusing anyone admission to an R rated movie.

Re:Well is it worth it.

[Chris Burke]

And as we see now, after a few years there's some verdict. Does anyone who bought the game even care anymore? Anyone who cares about the sex scene (provided they didn't actually want it and buy the game partly because of it) didn't buy the game in the first place anyway! Now subtract all the people who can't find their receipt anymore and ... well, you gotta be surprised that it's even 3000 people.

Actually, if I still had my receipt, I'd consider applying for the $5 rebate simply to signal my disapproval of Take Two for not making the sex scene accessible in the unmodded game! I have the PS2 version, but no Gameshark, so I was denied the content that I (unknowingly at the time) payed for!

Re:Well is it worth it.

[Anonymous Coward]

What I am confused about is; if you had to hack the game (alter someone elses commercial IP post sale), which we all know you certainly did. Then arent the people who where offended by it, guilty of violating the Milenium Copywright Act (which in essence says you dont actually own anything you buy anymore)? I think Take-Two should file a counter suit . . . LMAO

Re:Well is it worth it.

[SirSlud]

That's a pretty rash assumption that nobody can substantiate; we're already talking about a monster franchise already. I don't know too many people who bought it because of the controversy, I just know plenty of people who became aware of the hidden content because of the controversy.

ManHunt 2 kicked up some crazy controversy (nothing that got it pulled from store shelves mind you, but it was on cnn all the same) and it didn't sell well. Hell, you can *buy* games that are sexually explicit; the fact that there was some tiny polygonal nudity broadcast to the world probably didn't result in massively increased sales. The violent content of the game had already run its course in the mainstream media - anyone who went from "GTA-what" to "oh, I gotta get me that" was probably already sold long before the hidden content was discovered.

While I agree with the bad publicity is better than no publicity, its extremely unlikely that the hot coffee incident made them more money than they ended up paying because they had to pull everything, reburn everything, and redistribute everything. That's a significant chunk of cash there. If its profitable to do something like that for every game, I'm pretty sure you'd see other game makers following suit. If it makes money, people will do it, but the overall industry reaction was and still is of extreme caution and asset control. If it was profitable, I doubt you'd have had that reaction. The world is full of "thats the cost of doing business 'mistakes'" things like this, but I'm very confident that it was a losing proposition in the long run for Rockstar.

Re:Well is it worth it.

[Anonymous Coward]

How did this get modded insightful when Take2 could legally sell their M rated game to people under 17. There is no law that prevents the sale of M rated video games to people under 17, at least none that will stand up in court. The same goes for R rated movies.

This isn't insightful. The parent is flattly wrong.

$5?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder what % of those collecting 5$ are just retailers and wholesalers.

mcdonald's

[Anonymous Coward]

this lawsuit was just as retarded as that other hot coffee lawsuit
 
and no, you are not smart for regurgitating what the litigation lobby has fed you

Re:mcdonald's

[amRadioHed]

and no, you are not smart for regurgitating what the fast food lobby has fed you.

Re:mcdonald's

[Gewalt]

and no, you are not smart for regurgitating what the fast food lobby has fed you.

Re:mcdonald's

[idlemind]

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.

Re:mcdonald's

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:mcdonald's

[KGIII]

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.

Re:mcdonald's

[Firethorn]

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.

Re:mcdonald's

[idlemind]

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.

Re:mcdonald's

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:mcdonald's

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:mcdonald's

[KGIII]

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.)

Re:mcdonald's

[KGIII]

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.

Re:mcdonald's

[drsmithy]

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.

Re:mcdonald's

[Selicate]

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.

Re:mcdonald's

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:mcdonald's

[stormguard2099]

Maybe (s)he is getting old and his money is starting to slip.

Re:mcdonald's

[Omestes]

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.

Re:mcdonald's

[KGIII]

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.)

Re:mcdonald's

[Omestes]

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.

Re:mcdonald's

[Firethorn]

I need to hire an editor...

Yes, buy memory.

Re:mcdonald's

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:mcdonald's

[Opportunist]

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.

Re:mcdonald's

[not-my-real-name]

Anyone want to give me two tens for a five? I think that's a fair price.

Re:mcdonald's

[steelfood]

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.

Re:mcdonald's

[Anonymous Coward]

(Forgive my attitude - I'm slightly intoxicated at this point.)
You're wasting precious booze on Slashdot?

Re:mcdonald's

[Tjebbe]

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.

Everybody now.....

[Anonymous Coward]

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!?!"

Take Two owes more in legal fees

[mo]

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.

Re:Take Two owes more in legal fees

[Firethorn]

I say we cap the legal fees at 50% of the final settlement - IE for each $5 'settlement' received they get $5.

So instead of $1.3M, at the moment they've 'earned' ~$12k.

It'd stop some of the stupider lawsuits. I still remember getting a settlement offer for some memory I bought from crucial years ago - as far as I was concerned, I paid a fair price for it. Crucial sold me quality memory at a price seen more for shady chips.

Before I ever started going after the profit margin on computer chips I'd take a look at the jewelry industry.

I figure that most of the <3k individuals are just after a buck(five-thirty five).

On my end, if I was the judge or jury(don't know how it was decided), I'd have thrown out the case from the sheer fact that you had to download a mod to enable the content. Might as well sue 3DRealms for the mod to Duke Nukem that put actual porno on the movie screens, made the strippers actually strip(sorta), and all around more explicit. Don't mention the fact that it was a straight image swap with the more explicit stuff.

Heck, 'Hot Coffee' has made the value of the first edition of the game(before new disks were issued) more valuable!

That shows deliberate work on the part of the player. Like others have said, they could have as easily downloaded far more explicit porn, not to mention outright sex games about as easily.

Re:Take Two owes more in legal fees

[Belial6]

I say we cap the legal fees at 50% of the final settlement - IE for each $5 'settlement' received they get $5. Only if each $5 is required to be requested on a hand filled form, and sent in an individual envelope with a self addressed stamped envelope inside for the return check.

Re:Take Two owes more in legal fees

[SengirV]

Before I ever started going after the profit margin on computer chips I'd take a look at the jewelry industry.

They have - https://diamondsclassaction.com/FAQ.htm#16

I also got that crucial class action crap and pitched it as well. Seeing as I paid like $100 for memory at the time, I doubt that the $5 I would have gotten back from that would have been worth it.

Re:Take Two owes more in legal fees

[mrbluze]

I say we cap the legal fees at 50% of the final settlement - IE for each $5 'settlement' received they get $5. How did you manage to weave Microsoft's Internet Explorer into this mess?

Re:Take Two owes more in legal fees

[Firethorn]

It's actually cheaper to not do the self addressed stamped envelope today.

It takes more labor to deal with non standard envelopes* than to simply enter all the information into a computer, print out the checks with the addresses on them and stuff them into envelopes with the clear plastic address section. Or even the ones where you use a pressure/heat/UV printing process on already sealed envelopes that you rip open to expose the checks. I do agree with the hand filled form.

That way you can print them in the presorted order and save all sorts of money on the postage. Enough that, like I said, dealing with the non-standard letters is more expensive even if you don't have to pay postage.

*Yes, I know 95% of them would be one of two sizes, but you still have the fun of dealing with various sealing methods between the two - you have paste, self sealing where you pull the protective cover off to expose the adhesive. Various weights, etc...

Re:Take Two owes more in legal fees

[Firethorn]

Because MSIE is the designated scapegoat on this board? ;)

(In case of true ignorance IE stands for "that is; in other words")

Re:Take Two owes more in legal fees

[Anonymous Coward]

...usually spelt i.e., unless you have a sticky shift key or some kind of brain malfunction.

AEI opposed this??

[religious freak]

American Enterprise Institute seems convinced that the lawsuit was "meritless" and will result in no payment for the legal counsel opposing Take-Two." Interesting that AEI, the epitome of the neo-con agenda didn't like the verdict. Anyone else struck by this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute

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)

Re:AEI opposed this??

[GleeBot]

The AEI is more libertarian than conservative, I'd say. They're all for cutting back on legal protections under the mantra of "frivolous lawsuits". There's a reason why trial lawyers are mainly major donors to the Democratic Party, even though presumably they're the sort of rich, upper class professional that goes for the Republicans. Like doctors.

Re:AEI opposed this??

[religious freak]

Err sorry, to be more accurate I'd say AEI didn't like the case being brought at all. Seems as though they settled and there was no verdict.

Maybe they liked the game?

[xRelisH]

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.

Re:Maybe they liked the game?

[Opportunist]

I'm fairly sure those 3000 that claimed also liked the game, but also liked the idea of getting free money.

I mean, do you really think anyone wanted their money back because they could possibly access some half-assed sex scene with a hack (no chance to see it accidently, you can't just explore the game and stumble upon it, you have to go out of your way, employ out of game means to install a hack, in other words, you had to ACTIVELY do something to gain access to it)? You can't even claim you got the money because you thought the game sucks (wouldn't it be great if that worked? EA would be out of business so fast... ok, I ramble and dream), when you ask for that money, officially you were offended by being able to employ a hack to see a sex scene.

Are there really such people? I mean, imagine this train of thought: "Ok, I buy a game where I can brutally slaughter and kill everything from a ho to a policeman in many creative ways, but being able to hack it to see a softcore sex scene, nooooo, that's where I draw the line..."

Re:Maybe they liked the game?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it interesting how the lawyers don't understand this?

Cheap Marketing

[TornCityVenz]

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 didn't know...

[sdguero]

about the suit until now, and I have that game. Maybe the numbers will go up now that /. is covering it...

Re:I didn't know...

[Opportunist]

I doubt many /. readers are low enough to sell their dignity for five bucks. Would you enjoy the money, knowing you got it for being offended by being able to hack a game to see a sex scene?

I couldn't.

odd

[bigdavex]

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?

Re:odd

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the judge might have bigger issues to discuss with you if you brought a case involving buying porn for your underage kids...

Re:odd

[b4dc0d3r]

Your kids would be taken away because you allowed them to access porn. Thank the puritans.

Re:odd

[Sigma 7]

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? No, since North America treats violence as equivalant to a recommended 17+ 'M' rating, while porn uses a strict 18+ 'AO' rating. Maybe something could happen in another country, but it's doubtful said rating system varies like that.

There would be a case (a minor one) if you include 18+ 'AO' content in the 17+ 'M' game. Aside from breaching the contract with the ESRB, it's also implying that the game itself was safe enough for parents to buy for the children they believed could properly handle the 17+ rating. (Remember: The ESRB states 'M' rated games are suitable for people aged 17+, and does not exclude 16-year-olds. The 'AO' rating is much more strict. )

Re:odd

[wasmoke]

Who exactly is supposed to care about this? Two words: Jack Thompson, keeping red-blooded American children save from the evil videogame-designing villains for..umm...far too long now.

Re:odd

[steelfood]

Not if his kids are 40 years old and still living in his basement.

Seriously...

[Golden_Rider]

"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.

Re:Seriously...

[rhombic]

21,000,000 people bought the game; 3000 have claimed their settlement. So there are more than 20 million rational people left.

Re:Seriously...

[Digital Vomit]

Sometimes I really wonder if there are any normal people left in this world.

Nope, you're the last one.

heheheheheheheeeeeeeeee!

Re:Seriously...

[Anonymous Coward]

If I pay the $5, will they show me what all the fuss is about?

Re:Seriously...

[Wavebreak]

Sure there are. Namely, the ones who didn't cash in.

Re:Seriously...

[Flip-Chip]

No, he's crazy !
We (the so called crazy ones) are the majority.
Thereby setting the new norm. Now WE are normal, and HE is crazy.
:-D

Second Life?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Second Life?

[AioKits]

My bad, I could have sworn they had a PG-sim/auto-hide detection script...

I pirated it

[EmbeddedJanitor]

and I still want my money!

Re:I pirated it

[morgan_greywolf]

Sure, just give us your name and address and we'll send you a check!

Thanks,
Take Two

Re:I pirated it

[tanveer1979]

I bet the "check" you will send him will be for 500,000$ In ROFW its called "Bill" :)

VLAD FARTED LOUDLY AS HE RAPED MARTICOCK

[Anonymous Coward]

sickening

just makes you want to puke

The only people benefiting.

[v(*_*)vvvv]

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.

Re:The only people benefiting.

[Anonymous Psychopath]

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. One can always choose to litigate individually if they do not like the way the class action is handled.

Re:The only people benefiting.

[corsec67]

Easiest solution would be to require lawyers to be paid in the exact same manner as the class in a class action suit.

If they class gets coupons, the lawyers should get coupons.

Re:The only people benefiting.

[v(*_*)vvvv]

Ya, that is what the class action lawsuit pamphlets always say.

"It's taken 5 years and 10 million dollars in lawyer fees to get this far, and good news, we won, and you get free Mortgage coupons! To opt out you may write the court judge at {address}."

Ya, I am going to go after Bank of America individually. That is really a feasible option. Let me look up a lawyer in the phone book.

Hell no.

Class action lawsuits are for lawyers, and the wrong-doers settle to make them go away. It is never about the victims. Ever.

Re:The only people benefiting.

[Fanboys_Suck_Dick]

I remember signing up for the Visa MasterCard Discovery Currency lawsuit. Calculating foreign purchases yourself was one of several options offered. Another option was to claim a default amount of $25. Signing up for $25 took me less than 2 minutes of time.

Re:The only people benefiting.

[maxume]

The opt out usually precedes the case. It gives the people bringing the case more leverage to actually get a settlement.

Take this case for instance, if you wanted to put it to Take Two, would you take the $5, or would you make one of their lawyers spend a couple of hours doing paper work for another case? If the opt out came after the agreement, Take Two would work a lot harder not settling.

Re:The only people benefiting.

[dissy]

Class action lawsuits are for lawyers, and the wrong-doers settle to make them go away. It is never about the victims. Ever. Well, it was in that movie, Erin Brockovich.
Now that was some class action that was easy on the eye!

Re:The only people benefiting.

[Anonymous Coward]

The system isn't designed to compensate victims, it's designed to discourage hurting them in the first place. If lawyers didn't make tons of money on class action suits, no one would litigate them and companies would lose a disincentive to causing small amounts of harm to large amounts of people. Not that this point is relevant to the case in question...

Re:The only people benefiting.

[sjames]

There has to be at least a minimal amount of paperwork. For example, members of the class have the right to refuse to take part in the settlement. They may do that on ethical grounds because they don't agree with the suit or because they prefer to sue individually (perhaps they don't feel that the class-action adequately stated the case or they believe they were harmed to a greater extent than other members of the class.

Meanwhile, accepting the settlement generally requires a formal legal agreement that the settlement closes the matter.

Re:The only people benefiting.

[achurch]

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.

You might not play the same tune if you had over $25k of foreign currency purchases during the relevant period. (And it only took me about 30 minutes to work that out, so filing's a win even under your suggestion.)

Re:The only people benefiting.

[Anonymous Coward]

I spent over 150,000 that I could find and thats because I'm a pack rat with paper bills. There is at least 8 months where I know I had transaction but didn't have any paperwork. It took me several days to get the info together.

Re:The only people benefiting.

[v(*_*)vvvv]

It is the most relevant. Hence... Surprisingly Few People Collect On GTA Hot Coffee. :)

Re:The only people benefiting.

[sweede]

you also forget that the class action suit in that movie had actual merit!!

Re:The only people benefiting.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

You are more than welcome to (a) take $25 without calculating anything, or (b) tell them approximately how long you traveled for and they will reimburse you for "typical" spending. Calculating your foreign purchases is option (c).

This settlement is a perfect example of the way settlements should work. Everybody gets a certain amount of money by filling out a single web form, and you have the option of providing documentation that you deserve more money if you believe you were more adversely affected than average.

Re:The only people benefiting.

[v(*_*)vvvv]

15K minimum, maybe more. Of which 1% would be 150 dollars. But since I don't have records since 1996, it would take me far longer than 30 minutes. I'd have to call banks to retrieve records. If I use my cell I'd be using minutes. I'd probably be on hold for 30 minutes. I'd have to wait for those records to arrive in the mail. I'd have to weed through everything. Heck, it would take 30 minutes just to go the post office and back. Sending it certified is 5 dollars. And once sent, then what? They don't even guarantee a refund at this point. So do I follow up or just forget about it?

My time is worth more than that. My conscience is worth more than that.

I just love how they can claim no liability, yet pay hundreds of millions of dollars. What are they? A charity all of a sudden? Of course they did something wrong. The mere fact that they are cashing out should make that evident. The games these people play in court is beyond me.

If you didn't do anything wrong, then why are you throwing money.

Maybe nobody cares?

[sidragon.net]

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.

Re:Maybe nobody cares?

[drinkypoo]

Speak for yourself. Personally, I prefer my video games to involve human bodies being brutally blown apart than to involve sex, because simulated violence doesn't have to be realistic to be fun but the "uncanny valley" is all the more uncanny when you're talking about that particular valley.

Re:Maybe nobody cares?

[Opportunist]

Simulated sex has to be realistic to be fun?

Ok, you're not into Hentai, I can tell...:)

Re:Maybe nobody cares?

[Opportunist]

The vocal minority on such matters is always smaller than believed. They are just good at shutting everyone up with thinkofthechildren arguments.

You don't want to harm innocent kids with horrible, horrible sex scenes, or do you???

Who'd dare to stand up and go "yes I do"? I mean, outside the anonymity of the internet...

So since everyone is quiet, it seems to those in power that everyone agrees and that this is something the masses want and doesn't really affect their main agendas in any way, so ok, if that's what pleases the mob, let them have it.

Maybe it's time to get up and shout "yes I do. I don't give a fsck about your kids, protect them yourself!"

*less* than 3000?

[Jubilex]

Really, so something like 2676.2732 people collected?

I would pay dearly for a Grand-Theft-Auto Mod that

[ancient_kings]

had Joe Pesci, these stupid lawyers against Take-Two and a big, fat baseball bat....

My hipocracy only goes so far...

[jafo]

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

Re:My hipocracy only goes so far...

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought cool, free money. Although I don't know if I will get it because I got GTA online from EB and the receipt they sent had no cash amount. Most of the offers they had required you to send in your copy of GTA for a new one and money. I'm sure that had something to do with it.

Re:My hipocracy only goes so far...

[Anonymous Coward]

Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Ohio, and Oklahoma? You don't mention Georgia, or South/North Carolina. (NC, proudly living in denial since 1653)

Re:My hipocracy only goes so far...

[Libertarian001]

"I had so much hope for our species."

That's the difference between you and me. As such, I am never disappointed and am occasionally presently surprised.

Re:My hipocracy only goes so far...

[Anonymous Coward]

I saw Janet Jackson's tit on TV and was offended! Where is my money?

Re:My hipocracy only goes so far...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oregon?

Re:My hipocracy only goes so far...

[Koiu Lpoi]

I had so much hope for our species.

Your problem is assuming Western, and specifically US Conservative culture is the norm for humanity.

Re:My hipocracy only goes so far...

[WingedHorse]

While I am all into bashing USA, that doesn't seem right here.

I had so much hope for our species.

Your problem is assuming Western, and specifically US Conservative culture is the norm for humanity. Nope. Even in USA, a LOT more bought the game then 3 000. A lot, lot more. Yet, so few people actually demanded that money. So while that number is still high, saying that this is American culture doesn't quite do the trick. This seems to be the vocal minority of it. However, this case shows that american *justice system* is a joke and on that the rest of the world has agreed on for decades.

Re:My hipocracy only goes so far...

[AioKits]

(except in the states whos names start and end with a vowel) Oklahoma? There wasn't much noise about that here.. I had one coworker who was 'EXTREMELY UPSET!' that they would put porn in a game.. Then we talked about it and I showed him what had to be done just to see it and what it actually looked like and he was like, "They're raising a stink about this?" He's a nice guy, two daughters who play games, somewhat religious (he's not of 'holy roller' status like a few of my coworkers are), and even he thought it was a stupid lawsuit.

Re:My hipocracy only goes so far...

[Anonymous Coward]

... an audience that already knows (except in the states whos names start and end with a vowel) that people have sex.

Hey fuck you buddy, up here in Alaska we start having sex in Middle School. Helps with warmth and boredom...

I live in the GTA...

[camperdave]

I live in the GTA. Where do I get my free coffee?

I don't think it affects me

[Haoie]

This doesn't apply to any versions of the game sold outside of the US, correct?

Re:I don't think it affects me

[julesh]

This doesn't apply to any versions of the game sold outside of the US, correct?

No, it doesn't. Nobody else is quite that stupid.

Duke Nukem

[EEPROMS]

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

Lack of option

[im_thatoneguy]

Could we send in $5 to enable the hot coffee mod?

Re:Lack of option

[Opportunist]

Now THAT would be funny. And great to some extent. If people who actually bought the game sent 5 bucks to Take2 as some sort of token form of thankfulness for the "gratuitous sex scene".

SURPRISED!

[throatmonster]

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.

Re:SURPRISED!

[mrbluze]

I've never seen so much consensus in Slashdot comments! Slashdot prefers to call that redundancy.

Re:SURPRISED!

[Anonymous Coward]

The irony here is that the /. hivemind will tell you that simulated violence is also just fine - saying that it's not will cut into one of our favourite past-times (video gaming). Although I can see how these two beliefs can easily co-exist.

Re:SURPRISED!

[Gazzonyx]

I've never seen so much consensus in Slashdot comments! Slashdot prefers to call that redundancy. Nope. We call 'em dupes.

Re:SURPRISED!

[FatalTourist]

Slashdot prefers to call that redundancy.

Backup in case part of the comments are lost in a crash.

Re:SURPRISED!

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

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. 'Sick' is a bit extreme. I can tell you this: If I ever have a kid, I'm going to be a lot more worried about him/her causing/getting pregnant than I am about him/her getting murdered.

Re:SURPRISED!

[ab0mb88]

I do consider sharing my views with as many other people as possible as a form of redundancy, that way if I suffer a hardware failure my data and objectives continue.

Re:SURPRISED!

[Anonymous Coward]

While I agree with you, I must interject that everyone dies. Not everyone breeds. In this manner, GTA is a nondiscriminatory entity. Thank you for your time and your insight.

Re:SURPRISED!

[rootooftheworld]

im gonna be worried about s/he murdering somone else. also, theres this thing called sex edu., you should try it.

Re:SURPRISED!

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"im gonna be worried about s/he murdering somone else. also, theres this thing called sex edu., you should try it."

We've obviously had different teenage experiences, then. When I was in high school, I knew 7 girls that had gotten pregnant, 2 people that had gotten STDs, and 1 person violently murdered. (Incidently, Mortal Kombat II was incredibly popular during this period.) This was despite having sex ed classes that everybody had to attend.

I don't think acting like sex doesn't exist is the proper way to handle the subject with kids. I don't think Janet Jackson's boob, for example, was a big deal. However, I know a lot of people had the same experience as a teenager as I have. I can totally understand why sex is a hotter topic than violence. It has nothing to do with the masses being stupid, it's just: "based on my own experiences, which is more likely?"

As for your being worried about your kid murdering somebody else... try being a good dad. ;)

Re:SURPRISED!

[rootooftheworld]

not when im liable to kill someone. ;) also, just having something in the schedual saying "sex edu." doesnt make it so, were the isssues and possible complications properly adressed, or whas it an abstinance preaching?did the kids take it seriously? and frankly, teen pregnancy is not that much of an issue per se , as much as moral outrage, i mean, the medical system is quite capable of handling it, and a new child in the household doesn take up resources more than a new little brother, and families routinely cope with those.

Re:SURPRISED!

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"or whas it an abstinance preaching?did the kids take it seriously?"

I went to school before the abstinance nonsense. They taught us about pregnancy, stds, the need to use a condom... actually they even handed out condoms. (Unfortunately that fueled an epic water-balloon fight...) Heh. I don't know what the failure was, though I suspect it was the parents.

"the medical system is quite capable of handling it, and a new child in the household doesn take up resources more than a new little brother, and families routinely cope with those."

Well... the problem is that it ties down the mother during what's supposed to be her 'college years', effectively creating a huge speedbump in her life. That also doesn't cover the STD aspect of it.

In any event, I'd say this conversation's academic. I'm not arguing that those people are right. I'm just saying I'm not surprised sex is much higher on the 'things to worry about' list. Even the older generation, they grew up on Warner Brothers Cartoons and the Three Stooges. But the male ones in particular remember what they did when they saw certain things... Just sayin.

Give me my F*ckin 5 dollars tough guy!

[KozmoKramer]

maybe I'll go to the movies, by myself....

Actually

[bigsexyjoe]

I bought a version that didn't have the sex scene. Can I collect $5 from the people that made them cut it out?

Re:Actually

[Opportunist]

Maybe if you send 5 bucks to Take2 they send you the files necessary to put it back in.

Still waiting.

[Anonymatt]

Whenever I call them about the $5, they always tell me that the check is in the mail.

hmmm

[nomadic]

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?

It doesn't have to make sense

[joekrahn]

Lawsuits are more about money, especially for the lawyers, rather than defending public rights.

That's because it was...

[Schnoogs]

a nonsensical lawsuit to begin with.

How long...

[aussie_a]

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?

What about Judah and Tamar?

[Mathinker]

> 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.

Re:What about Judah and Tamar?

[TheLink]

Anyone who reads the Bible with an open mind understands that the societal norms, and behaviours it reports are not necessary what God wants people to do.

After all the Bible reports that David committed adultery with Bathsheba, and tried to cover it up, and eventually got Bathsheba's husband (Uriah) killed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uriah_the_Hittite

So you get it warts and all. Thus even as just a historical document the Bible is fairly interesting. The records of kings of other countries in that time tend to be a lot more censored or more propaganda (e.g. they never lose any battles etc).

There are some constraints when you are making laws for _people_ to follow, and even when people don't follow them, God often figures out a way to have some good come from it.

FWIW, Jesus was from Bathsheba's line, not the other wives of David.

Re:What about Judah and Tamar?

[pjt33]

Most English translations don't make the subtleties clear enough. Judah thinks she's a normal prostitute (zonah), but when he sends his friend with the payment he enquires for a cult prostitute (kedeshah). Does that mean that sex with a cult prostitute was more socially acceptable than sex with an ordinary prostitute? It's hard to tell, because Genesis reports the facts without commenting on the ethics.

Re:What about Judah and Tamar?

[jeffasselin]

FWIW, Jesus was from Bathsheba's line, not the other wives of David.

Can I see the birth certificates implied?

Legend and mythology is cool. I enjoy studying them, and using myth to explain esoteric matters, ethical conundrums and make thought-experiments has a definite power.

When you start believing that a myth is real, when you actually think madmen heard the voice of their invisible friend who lives in the sky, and when you start killing other people because they won't believe the same myths you believe in, you have a religion instead of a myth. I'm not saying you would kill others. But people believing the similar things you do have done so and still do.

Making laws "for people to follow" is something of the past. Laws nowadays should be something made by people to protect themselves and keep society cohesive and adhering to the principles we choose to base such a society on. Laws don't come from "gods", from "above" but from the people. Laws should change as the society it delineates changes. We don't need mythological constructs of supposed higher beings anymore to make us respect the laws, we have other mechanisms that work much better and don't require any supernaturalism.

Re:What about Judah and Tamar?

[SpiderClan]

When you start believing that a myth is real, when you actually think madmen heard the voice of their invisible friend who lives in the sky, and when you start killing other people because they won't believe the same myths you believe in, you have a religion instead of a myth. I'm not saying you would kill others. But people believing the similar things you do have done so and still do.

Atheists, on the other hand, never kill anybody.

Re:What about Judah and Tamar?

[TheLink]

"Can I see the birth certificates implied?"

Why would birth certificates be implied?

"Laws don't come from "gods", from "above" but from the people"

So, what's your problem with those laws? That people claim they come from God? Or that they aren't from the people and actually come from God?

I've heard politicians claim the laws they pass come from the people. That the people demand those laws. Are those laws from the people or not?

The survival of the fittest meme. I'm not placing bets on your meme doing as well - some of the competitors have endured thousands of years. Like it or not their adherents aren't still stuck in a jungle killing and eating each other. Who knows, some of the God memes might be from God :).

Re:What about Judah and Tamar?

[operagost]

Either you're trolling, or just trying to fill as many ignorant mistakes and logical fallacies as possible into one post.

Can I see the birth certificates implied?

Uriah is mentioned in the lineage starting Matthew's gospel.

If anything I'd send RockStar another $5

[Hackerlish]

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"?

burned a second time?

[someone1234]

Burnt once, ok, might be the fault of McDonalds. But twice?
Some people never learn?
I guess she forgot to take her medication too.

Re:burned a second time?

[KGIII]

Sorry, I'm an American. "Burnt" or "burned" has a few meanings here and this one was meaning she was "hurt" a second time when the McDonald's corporation failed to pay for her medical bills. All she had wanted was them to pay for the medical bills - even after third degree burns and skin grafts and the likes. Sorry but here we don't actually speak English (I do try to do so while online) but rather we speak American. When I say "burned" it needs to be taken in context and I wasn't clear. When I say "dude" I don't mean ladies at a ranch. When I say "ass" I don't mean a donkey normally either. When I use another (is the word?) anachronism (I don't think that's the word I'm looking for actually) I may mean what it means in context with the language I'm using which, as an American, shouldn't be confused with English. Unfortunately I'm not bilingual or anything and so you'll hopefully suffer the Americanisms with an open mind. Again, sorry for explaining ahead of time. Hmm... I think it might have been "colloquialism" that I was going for though I'm not sure there either.

Insane lawsuits in the US

[someone1234]

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.

Re:Insane lawsuits in the US

[Kaenneth]

I really want to see Mr. and Mrs. Pacman getting it on while Inky, Blinky, Pinky and Clyde watch...

Re:Insane lawsuits in the US

[Opportunist]

Can you give me a rational reason why you have to do this to my mind? You are aware that I'll be spending the next hour with the "hippo in tutu" mantra just to make it go away, yes?

Re:Insane lawsuits in the US

[Anonymous Coward]

I really want to see Mr. and Mrs. Pacman getting it on while Inky, Blinky, Pinky and Clyde watch...

Oh no. You do realize you've invoked Rule 34, don't you? There will be a link posted within an hour.

Re:Insane lawsuits in the US

[Anonymous Coward]

(NSFW?) Rule 34. It's always true.

Re:Insane lawsuits in the US

[Anonymous Coward]

I really want to see Mr. and Mrs. Pacman getting it on while Inky, Blinky, Pinky and Clyde watch...

Oh no. You do realize you've invoked Rule 34, don't you? There will be a link posted within an hour. Or within one minute. Wow.

Re:Insane lawsuits in the US

[mscholin]

Rule 34 anybody?

then the class can take some of the risk

[Scudsucker]

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.

Re:then the class can take some of the risk

[eison]

Why should a lawyer be able to do something "on my behalf" without even requiring my discussion or consent? He can publish an ad in a magazine that I don't read, and suddenly he is working for me and I'm bound to whatever agreement he comes up with? No thanks. This should be obviously absurd.

Re:then the class can take some of the risk

[brkello]

Umm, I really don't understand your rant. Are lawyers suffering on the street? Like people said, lawyers (the trial/class action ones) are in it for themselves. I know, I worked for them when I still didn't know what I wanted to do for a living. They don't care how many people dies other than it means a higher chance that they make large bank. The risk is that they don't get paid, the reward is that they become multi-millionaires. The problem is they benefit off the suffering of others and the benefit more than those who suffer. I think it is fine for people to dislike this system and to look down upon the greedy lawyer types.

Re:then the class can take some of the risk

[Scudsucker]

What part of "if you don't like it, hire your own damn attorney and file your own damn lawsuit" did you not understand?

Re:then the class can take some of the risk

[Scudsucker]

The problem is they benefit off the suffering of others and the benefit more than those who suffer.

Which again goes back to the point that many Americans would rather have money stay in the hands of the companies that screwed them over instead of (gasp) lawyers. Take John Edwards, for example. His biggest case was for a girl who had her guts hydraulically sucked out by a faulty pool drain. He got a $25 million settlement from the manufacturer, and took a third of the judgment as his fee. Do you really think the family gives a flying fuck that he got that big a fee? Do you really think they said, "no, we shouldn't give so much money to the lawyer - lets give it back to the country that disemboweled our daughter."

I think it is fine for people to dislike this system and to look down upon the greedy lawyer types.

Yeah, there are a lot of really, really stupid people in this country. If a company rips off a million customers for an average of $10, no individual is going to file a lawsuit over $10, even in small claims court. But a class action lawsuit will punish the company involved and get the customers something despite not having made any effort on their own. Take away class action lawsuits, and companies will happily rip off their customers because they know they wont suffer any legal consequences.

Hot Coffee PG-rated

[Cinnaman]

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.

Re:Hot Coffee PG-rated

[AciDeX]

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.

That was the original "included" content... The "Hot Coffee" controversy is experienced by downloading and installing a patch file that enables the camera an "inside" view of the house and a mini-game that involved moving the analog sticks in a "rythmic" way.

Money, money, money...

[pandrijeczko]

Look, GTA:SA is a great fun game to play but let's be realistic here - on both sides, this is just a marketing exercise in hype and money.

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?

"On DISC" controversy

[DrYak]

There is no nudity in the Hot Coffee minigame as it was on the disc. The whole controversy spanned from the fact that there's still traces of nudity (partially implemented and very buggy) on the disc.
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).

On the other hand

[DrYak]

GRAND THEFT AUTO.... what the fuck do you expect to be going on? A random colorful box on the "video games" shelf that doesn't ring a special and loud "warning boobies inside" alarm when picked up.

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.

Class action question

[Mishra100]

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 Definetely will go and claim my 5$!

[Cumanes-alpha]

I need it to complete the $59.99 for GTA4 !!! Dumb lawyers...Tryin' to make money out of nothing. Good lesson guys!

Ok, i totally misunderstood :)

[someone1234]

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.

Easy pay ment plan for class action lawyers

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Pink Taco, Anyone? NT

[encoderer]

...

They are busy playing GTA4

[dindi]

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.

 

I'm a relatively well plugged-in guy and

[crovira]

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.

What actually happened to the other people...

[ninjapiratemonkey]

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.

Goal was legal fees, not paying actual users

[billstewart]

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.

From a law class

[omfglearntoplay]

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.

Donate my $5

[ezwip]

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 was one of the claimants

[Harlequin]

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.

Oblig family guy ref...

[Anonymous Coward]

...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!

Not that surprising . . .

[GotGame.com]

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)

overturn, based on proof of community standards

[ReedYoung]

The Supreme Court has previously ruled it satisfactory that obscenity be legally "defined," not by a single, universal definition, but by the fallacy "community standards," which, assuming such a thing even exists, obviously varies from community to community. In fact, however, standards of decency vary from person to person, and just law operates on a principle obviously never fathomed by the author of the aforementioned decision, that people have the right to uphold our own standards, not that everybody is held down to the standards of the most prudish.

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.

Not all of us

[celtic_hackr]

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.

Re:Not all of us

[Opportunist]

I don't think violence is sick. I think it's sick that displaying violence is acceptable, but displaying affection is not.

We currently have an issue with an ad displaying soccer fans (there's the european championship in soccer currently running) kissing. No, even a girl and a boy, not even any gay display of affection. Yet some thinkofthechildren groups are going postal over it. You can't show two people frenching on a public ad!

I'm fairly sure the outcry would be far less if you showed them beating each other up to get the last ... well, whatever is advertised on the billboard.

I disagree

[celtic_hackr]

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.

Selective quoting

[celtic_hackr]

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.

Who are you calling sick?

[One Childish N00b]

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.