Slashdot Mirror
Judge Trips Up Settlement In Hot Coffee Class-Action
GamePolitics is reporting that a judge has put another substantial hurdle in the Hot Coffee class-action case. Claiming that individuals involved in the suit could be affected differently by laws in their respective states, Judge Shirley Wohl Kram declared that this case could not be resolved by a single proceeding. "'Accordingly, the court decertifies the settlement class on the grounds that common issues do not predominate over individualized issues,' the judge wrote. The judge's latest decision undermines a settlement agreement reached between lawyers for purchasers of the game who contended they were offended by the hidden scenes, on the one hand, and lawyers for the game's makers, Take-Two Interactive Software and Rockstar Games."
After all, judging from the very low number of people who actually filed a complaint, 2,676 at the last count, it wasn't really an issue anyway. The Hot Coffee mod was difficult to install and, while it was stupid to leave it in the game, the company has been punished enough.
Didn't the players need to go out of their way to find the offensive material? No wonder the case was thrown out on the grounds of there not being a "class" for this class-action suit. Otherwise, we could all use torrents to download porn and then sue the entire internet for offending us.
... you can find a G-rated MPEG2 of a movie distributed by NetFlix (ignore DRM for now) or some other source, and demonstrate a patch, which when applied to the movie file, inserts an X-Rated scene, you can sue the makers of the original movie, for making that possible?
SWEET!
In Liberty, Rene
The raw absurdity of this case has already been stated many times over, but to restate: people who played a violent, aggressive game took the time and effort to seek out a bad "sex" scene, and are seeking cash to solve their irreparably damages.
But what really gets me is the fact that the 3,000 people, and the theoretical defendants, have to pay legal fees. TFA says that the fees over this case have already gone into the millions! That is money wasted. Literally thrown down the drain. Not wasted like "I want to light cigars with 100 dollar bills," (which is a waste but looks PIMP) but literally millions of dollars have disappeared into an already overly rich system.
They should have just walked in and said "Alright, look - this case is dumb. How about this: We donate half of our theoretical legal fees to Child's Play, which will help young children who actually need it, and you GTA-players can enjoy our product and, by not taking our money, ensure you continue getting the titles you love so much."
I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
So fucking what! If I pay money and walk into a clearly marked XXX movie theater, should I be able to sue them because I was offended by raunchy sex scenes?
While I think this suit is ridiculous, that's not a very good example. XXX Movie theaters clearly show X rated movies. San Andreas was rated M, not AO.
Further on that topic, and to play Devil's Advocate a little more, I can envision a scenario where a parent allows his/her teen to buy a game because it's rated 'M'. Then their teen goes on the Internet and downloads a patch, without the parent's knowledge or consent, that unlocks some stuff which in effect turns the 'M' rated game into an 'AO'. In this specific case we all feel it's absurd because the game contains pretty graphic material and the 'AO' stuff is sex. It's obvious that many slashdotters (myself included) feel that sex should warrant a milder rating than graphic violence. Yet that's kind of besides the point. The point is that the game was advertised as one thing and certain people were ok with that. At least, they knew what they were paying for. Then their kids or spouse or kids friends etc. go and download some free patch that turns it into something they didn't pay for. Should those people get money in court ? IMO no, but my opinion only really matters to me. This is an interesting case in that I can't think of any similar.
While this is completely ludicrous, I think I have an analogy that might make sense in terms of why the case was allowed to proceed.
Let's say you buy a house from a builder, but he leaves behind a bomb inside a bombproof shelter in the basement hidden under the foundation. If the bomb goes off, it won't hurt anyone or damage property. You can only find the bomb if you dig to it and drill through the thick retainer walls. There are warning signs on the outside of the shelter telling not to open it because there is a bomb inside. If you open it and it blows up, who was responsible?