Tolkien Estate Sues Over Lord of the Rings Slot Machines

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Tolkien Estate Sues Over Lord of the Rings Slot Machines

Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday November 20, 2012 @11:12AM from the tricksy-hobbitses dept.

An anonymous reader writes "The Tolkien Estate has filed an $80 million copyright infringement lawsuit in U.S. District Court over the use of Lord of the Rings slot machines. The complaint hinges on a contract between the estate and Warner Bros. which allows the creation of LotR merchandise but not LotR 'intangibles,' like the experience of playing a slot machine game. According to the estate (PDF), 'Not only does the production of gambling games patently exceed the scope of defendants' rights, but this infringing conduct has outraged Tolkien's devoted fan base, causing irreparable harm to Tolkien's legacy and reputation and the valuable goodwill generated by his works.'"

211 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Doesn't the Tolkien estate... by ShaunC · 2012-11-20 11:16 · Score: 3, Insightful

...have enough FUCKING money yet?

--
Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
1. Re:Doesn't the Tolkien estate... by detritus. · 2012-11-20 11:17 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  They still haven't found the precious.
2. Re:Doesn't the Tolkien estate... by wierd_w · 2012-11-20 11:18 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  No. No "fucking money." They haven't authorized any lord of the rings cockrings yet, though the slogan "one ring to rule them all" would be delightfully appropos.
3. Re:Doesn't the Tolkien estate... by Michael+Woodhams · 2012-11-20 11:20 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Don't Warner Brothers have enough money yet without making LotR slot machines?
  
  --
  Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
4. Re:Doesn't the Tolkien estate... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 11:21 · Score: 0
  
  the answer is a resounding no.
5. Re:Doesn't the Tolkien estate... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 11:21 · Score: 0
  
  No. They didn't throw the Ring into Mount Doom.
6. Re:Doesn't the Tolkien estate... by x4000 · 2012-11-20 11:24 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Sure! It's right next to their regular money.
  
  Oblig: http://xkcd.com/90/
7. Re:Doesn't the Tolkien estate... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 11:24 · Score: 0
  
  That has nothing to do with it. They weren't sitting around waiting for somebody to infringe on their trademarks so that they could sue and make money. They're suing because somebody infringed.
8. Re:Doesn't the Tolkien estate... by niado · 2012-11-20 11:26 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The problem with copyright is that you either defend it or lose it
  No.
9. Re:Doesn't the Tolkien estate... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 11:26 · Score: 1
  
  This isn't about money, I find the concept of a LOTR slot machine repulsive, and can imagine JRR spinning in his grave hearing about his epic fantasy world being used in such a base and disconnected manner.
10. Re:Doesn't the Tolkien estate... by wierd_w · 2012-11-20 11:26 · Score: 1
  
  But I heard it was erupting!
  you mean they DIDN'T throw it in!?
11. Re:Doesn't the Tolkien estate... by mug+funky · 2012-11-20 11:30 · Score: 1
  
  they might be cunts, but i'm on their side on this one.
  pokie machines are a disgusting scourge on society.
12. Re:Doesn't the Tolkien estate... by SJHillman · 2012-11-20 11:31 · Score: 1
  
  That's trademarks, not copyright. Two completely different things.
13. Re:Doesn't the Tolkien estate... by wierd_w · 2012-11-20 11:33 · Score: 1
  
  I'm just curious how they would make that work...
  I mean, I can't imagine how they would structure a slots "game" around the main plot.... the one ring is not a good thing, afterall. What would you use as a bonus token, and how would you structure the reel scoring?
  'Mines of moria" would make more sense for a slot, if more obscure.
14. Re:Doesn't the Tolkien estate... by ColdWetDog · 2012-11-20 11:34 · Score: 1
  
  This isn't about money, I find the concept of a LOTR slot machine repulsive, and can imagine JRR spinning in his grave hearing about his epic fantasy world being used in such a base and disconnected manner.
  I also find LOTR slot machines repulsive as a concept, but make no mistake. This is about money.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
15. Re:Doesn't the Tolkien estate... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 11:34 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  They should have lost it in 1973.
16. Re:Doesn't the Tolkien estate... by Michael+Woodhams · 2012-11-20 11:39 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Taking a flippant comment seriously:
  Ngaruahoe, which played Mt Doom for the distant shots, is not erupting. Ruapehu, an adjacent larger vulcano which played Mt Doom in some of the close ups, has recently had its warning levels upgraded. It also is not erupting, but is considered more likely than normal to erupt in the near future. Nearby Tongariro (opposite side of Ngaruahoe from Ruapehu) had a brief minor eruption in August.
  
  --
  Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
17. Re:Doesn't the Tolkien estate... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 11:40 · Score: 0
  
  What do you care? You're not being deprived of anything in either case. Who gets to decide how much money is enough for the Tolkien estate--you?
18. Re:Doesn't the Tolkien estate... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 11:41 · Score: 0
  
  OK, please tell us ... how much is enough? Really. Enlighten us with your great economic or moral knowledge.
19. Re:Doesn't the Tolkien estate... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 11:42 · Score: 0
  
  I don't know, but if you get an answer, can you forward me the contact info?
  I'm aiming to move to Colorado, and I need the rights to be able to use the words 'Longbottom Leaf' and the phrase, 'Best weed in the Southfarthing'.
20. Re:Doesn't the Tolkien estate... by The+Pirou · 2012-11-20 11:46 · Score: 1
  
  As someone who has spent $$ on the LoTR machine between New Orleans, Las Vegas, Atlantic City, Biloxi and Cherokee, I was outraged that it wasn't nearly as much fun as most of the Monopoly slot games. That said, it had familiar imagery, fun sounds, pretty lights, and multipliers that are saved through progressive play. (That means I can save my multiplier from city to city, with months in between play. When it comes to slot machines, that's pretty fucking awesome.)
  
  I first read The Hobbit more than 25 years ago, and could be considered somewhat a fan of the body of related works since most people have a hard time reading through a book once, much less several times. I didn't enjoy the movies because my imagination is so much more brilliant than Peter Jackson could ever match, but I've no problem with a silly little game. It's a little pricey compared to 'Invaders from Planet Moo-lah,' but I don't mind spending $20 on it when I see it on a Casino floor.
21. Re:Doesn't the Tolkien estate... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 11:53 · Score: 0
  
  This isn't about money, I find the concept of a LOTR slot machine repulsive, and can imagine JRR spinning in his grave hearing about his epic fantasy world being used in such a base and disconnected manner.
  This isn't about money, I find the everything his heirs have done repulsive, and can imagine JRR spinning in his grave hearing about his epic fantasy world being used in such a base and disconnected manner.
  FTFY
22. Re:Doesn't the Tolkien estate... by Firethorn · 2012-11-20 11:58 · Score: 1
  
  can imagine JRR spinning in his grave hearing about his epic fantasy world being used in such a base and disconnected manner.
  Did you know JRR when he was alive in order to accurately predict his views on such a thing?
  
  --
  I don't read AC A human right
23. Re:Doesn't the Tolkien estate... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2012-11-20 12:02 · Score: 1
  
  Do they have the rights to end-user products or also spin-off entertainment commercial products?
  If these were toy slot machines for sale in Toys-R-Us, er, Walmart, they wouldn't have a case. But this is commercial product with derivative, ongoing income. Not only that, but online as well.
  The damaged reputation argument is, of course, laughable given money will, of course, soothe hurt feelings. It's more like creating a ride at Disney World than a toy orc.
  
  --
  (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
24. Re:Doesn't the Tolkien estate... by hairyfeet · 2012-11-20 12:09 · Score: 1
  
  From what I've read its not about the money, its about harming the brand. they think LOTR slots is like putting out LOTR Malt Liquor and don't want to cheapen the brand with tacky shit like that, while the WB says they can do pretty much what they want.
  While i don't really have a horse in this race i can see their point, you have to draw the line somewhere or the WB will be putting out any damned thing they can with the license just to milk those last bucks..like I said imagine limited edition LOTR "Green Dragon" malt liquor and crap like that.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
25. Re:Doesn't the Tolkien estate... by hawguy · 2012-11-20 12:18 · Score: 1
  
  can imagine JRR spinning in his grave hearing about his epic fantasy world being used in such a base and disconnected manner.
  Did you know JRR when he was alive in order to accurately predict his views on such a thing?
  When someone explicitly says that he is making something up from his imagination, why do you think he's making a prediction based on a personal relationship with the author? Do you think that when Tolkien made up the Orcs, he had personally met with an Orc to hear his views?
26. Re:Doesn't the Tolkien estate... by sabt-pestnu · 2012-11-20 12:26 · Score: 1
  
  > They still haven't found the precious.
  I originally read that as:
  They still haven't found the pernicious.
27. Re:Doesn't the Tolkien estate... by Michael+Woodhams · 2012-11-20 12:32 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  None of us know whether WB have the rights to make the slot machines, whether for casinos or Toys-R-Us, as we haven't read the contracts.
  We also don't know that money will soothe the estate's hurt feelings. If the parties settle and the slot machines remain, then it was about the money. If they settle and the machines go, or it goes to trial and the estate insists all along that the machines must go, then it isn't (at least entirely) about the money. It is too soon to rush to judgement on this.
  
  --
  Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
28. Re:Doesn't the Tolkien estate... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 12:43 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I'm more repulsed that LOTR was published over 50 years ago (The Hobbit about 80) and that Tolkien died 39 years ago and yet copyright still goes on. I'm not against copyright. I'd be okay with 20 years but it's de facto perpetual now. I think a slot machine is in bad taste, but that we've decided to create royalty in our society is worse. The human ability to share information and knowledge may be our single largest evolutionary advantage over other species and yet we now hinder it. It is in our nature to create. I'm okay with rewarding that creativity but I'm disgusted that we let it create a royal class. At one point in time, some guy does something great and becomes king. His heirs get the kingdom from there on out. We decided that wasn't a great idea so we renamed it, but it's the same system. Personally, I'd like the story a lot better if it didn't create rich worthless heirs that do nothing to benefit society themselves and reap government enforced income.
29. Re:Doesn't the Tolkien estate... by Oliver+Wendell+Jones · 2012-11-20 12:53 · Score: 2
  
  I was outraged by the fact that it was a penny (1 cent) slot machine, but the lowest possible dollar amount you could play was something like 200x, so even though it's a $0.01 machine, it ends up costing you $2.00 every time you push the Play button... Admittedly, not a lot of money, but you don't sit at the $0.01 machines because you want the pay $2.00 per pull...
  
  --
  A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing -- Emo Phillips
30. Re:Doesn't the Tolkien estate... by viperidaenz · 2012-11-20 13:08 · Score: 1
  
  Tongariro also erupted again 35 minutes ago, just after 1:30pm NZDT
31. Re:Doesn't the Tolkien estate... by s73v3r · 2012-11-20 13:32 · Score: 1
  
  The damaged reputation argument is, of course, laughable given money will, of course, soothe hurt feelings.
  
  If you've got a better way to punish a corporation than by fining it, I'd like to hear it. As it stands, fining a company, and therefore making the bad activities less profitable is about the only thing we have for an entity that cannot be imprisoned nor be killed.
32. Re:Doesn't the Tolkien estate... by TheRedSeven · 2012-11-20 13:32 · Score: 2
  
  Copyright != Patent != Trademark
  
  Patents do not need to be defended in order to be considered valid. It is my understanding that the same holds for Copyright.
  Trademarks, however, are more often deemed to be valid only if they are consistently defended. That is, if your company name is "Slashdot" and you let "Slashdot Wines" exist, but then you decide to go after "Slashdot Fruit Snacks", you will have a much harder time claiming the Slashdot trademark since it can be demonstrated that you failed to defend your trademark.
  
  I am no lawyer. I am certainly not an IP lawyer. And I would NEVER be YOUR lawyer. Go find some expert, and let's all stop trying to be one on teh internet.
33. Re:Doesn't the Tolkien estate... by ikaruga · 2012-11-20 14:01 · Score: 1
  
  As much as I agree with you, as a fan I do not like to see LotR associated with something as pathetic as gambling. If I were a content creator I'd hate to see my IP being used on money stealing machines.
34. Re:Doesn't the Tolkien estate... by Master+Moose · 2012-11-20 14:01 · Score: 1
  
  Those seismologists were playing 3 card monty with us, Telling us to watch Ruapehu, keep your eyes on Ruapehu, and then, Tangariro blows.
  
  --
  . . .gone when the morning comes
35. Re:Doesn't the Tolkien estate... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 14:29 · Score: 0
  
  Lord of the cockrings. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0355701/
36. Re:Doesn't the Tolkien estate... by Sulphur · 2012-11-20 14:36 · Score: 1
  
  They should have lost it in 1973.
  I find your lack of faith in the Schwartz disturbing.
37. Re:Doesn't the Tolkien estate... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 15:16 · Score: 0
  
  So many errors crammed into one short sentence...
  First, that's not copyright, it's trademarks.
  Second: this case isn't about copyright, it's about trademarks. So actually you do have a valid point, but only by accident.
  Third: that's not "the trouble", that's how trademarks are designed and how they should be. The point of a trademark is to protect the public from being confused by products that are named, packaged or presented in such a way as to be confusingly similar with something that's better known/more established. If the trademark owner doesn't protect their mark, then they're failing in their duty to protect the public from that confusion, therefore it makes sense that they don't have that option later.
  Fourth: even if you do want to protect and preserve your trademark, and someone infringes on it, and you don't have a problem with what they're doing - then the simple solution is to give them a license to use your mark. That way you preserve your rights, they get to carry on with their business and everyone is happy.
38. Re:Doesn't the Tolkien estate... by Darinbob · 2012-11-20 15:18 · Score: 2
  
  No, and it's not about money. The primary entity involved with licensing is not the Tolkien Estate but the Saul Zaentz Company. And Saul Zaentz Co. is one the the defendents here! This is actually pretty intersting. For a long time the Tolkien Estate has really been locked out of many decisions involving the Lord of the Rings IP. Tolkien licensed the film and merchandising rights to United Artists in 1969, and eventually ended up in the Saul Zaentz Company.
39. Re:Doesn't the Tolkien estate... by Darinbob · 2012-11-20 15:23 · Score: 1
  
  The two parties are unfriendly towards each other. Remember Tolkien Estate also had a pending lawsuit against Saul Zaentz Company for not paying up the promised percentage from the Lord of the Rings Movies, and this held up the start of The Hobbit filming for some time.
40. Re:Doesn't the Tolkien estate... by R3d+M3rcury · 2012-11-20 15:34 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, but he'd be fine with the Gandalf's Gobble Melt or Frodo's Pot Roast Skillet?
41. Re:Doesn't the Tolkien estate... by ch0knuti · 2012-11-20 15:37 · Score: 1
  
  I could be wrong here but didn't JRR Tolkien sign away the rights to LoTR and The Hobbit movies when he was still alive? Some American company if I remember correctly. Christopher tolkien was against the movies getting made but they still did them despite what he wanted.
  I guess this is why we will never get to see a movie based on the Silmarillion (the Tolkien estate still has the rights to that) :(
42. Re:Doesn't the Tolkien estate... by drkim · 2012-11-20 16:24 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, but he'd be fine with the Gandalf's Gobble Melt or Frodo's Pot Roast Skillet?
  ...but I'm not sure I would want to eat a breakfast that came out of a "Hobbit Hole..."
43. Re:Doesn't the Tolkien estate... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 16:29 · Score: 0
  
  Zanz can't dance but he'll steal your money
44. Re:Doesn't the Tolkien estate... by Grayhand · 2012-11-20 17:13 · Score: 1
  
  ...have enough FUCKING money yet?
  Why is it okay for everyone BUT the family to make money off it????
45. Re:Doesn't the Tolkien estate... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 17:33 · Score: 0
  
  Apparently the submitter, the editor, and the rest of you didn't RTFA (or see it somewhere else with better information this morning). Online slot machine games , not physical machines. That, for some reason, is why they claim it is not merchandise, but rather an experience...or something.....
46. Re:Doesn't the Tolkien estate... by hairyfeet · 2012-11-20 18:22 · Score: 1
  
  No but sadly there is a Lord Of The Cockrings porno out there, I don't know which is worse the mockbusters (although frankly I found "American Battleship" more believable than Battleship) or the porn take offs. Although, just to be fair, you just have to feel sorry for Chyna getting painted completely lime green for the Avengers porno, I don't even wanna know how long it took to paint her head to toe like that. At least with the LOTR porno they just dressed up like a renfair.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
47. Re:Doesn't the Tolkien estate... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 18:38 · Score: 0
  
  ...and can imagine JRR spinning in his grave hearing about his epic fantasy world being used in such a base and disconnected manner.
  Hit Hold....
  JRR Stops spinning face up: jackpot, Zombie JRR rises from the grave to smite the desecrators of his work...
  JRR stops spinning arse up: Zombie JRR apocalypse averted, insert another £2 coin.
48. Re:Doesn't the Tolkien estate... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 19:22 · Score: 0
  
  Well, you could imprison the CEO, after all he is supposed to be ultimately responsible for the actions of the company. CEO also gets paid well to take the responsibility. If company is too large for the CEO to know what the hell is happening, maybe he(or she) should not be trying t osteer a ship that big.
49. Re:Doesn't the Tolkien estate... by beowulfcluster · 2012-11-20 19:54 · Score: 1
  
  The family can make slot machines too if they want. The books were written over 55 years ago by a guy who has been dead for 39 years. It should be ok for everyone to do whatever they want with it by now. The actual creator of the work can't profit from it anymore even if you think he still should. If someone thinks these machines or whatever else people come up with are distasteful they they can just not use them.
50. Re:Doesn't the Tolkien estate... by Tagged_84 · 2012-11-20 20:12 · Score: 1
  
  Or more rather, don't Warner Brothers have enough money from the hollywood accounting of the LoTR trilogy?
51. Re:Doesn't the Tolkien estate... by Intrepid+imaginaut · 2012-11-20 20:58 · Score: 1
  
  I think trademarks work more like stopping people using your expensive work and effort for their own advantage. So while Slashdot wines has no relationship to technology or discussion forums, and so would probably be irrelevant, Slashdot smart phones would have to be challenged or the trademark would be weakened. The reason for the law is sound but like any law can be abused by those with enough money to do so. Also, the internet would be less fun without armchair lawyers.
52. Re:Doesn't the Tolkien estate... by mwvdlee · 2012-11-20 21:07 · Score: 1
  
  As I understand it, $100 is enough money to fuck unless you prefer weird shit.
  So to answer your question; probably "yes".
  
  --
  Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
53. Re:Doesn't the Tolkien estate... by Hal_Porter · 2012-11-20 22:58 · Score: 1
  
  I thought information wanted to be free and intellectual^H^Himaginary property doesn't real because if you had some real property and I took it you no longer had the property. If you had some intellectual property and I made a slot machine themed upon it you have lost nothing. Also violation of intellectual property isn't theft. It's not piracy either unless you do it on ship and only have one leg and a parrot on your shoulder. lol.
  Oh sorry, wrong story. I mean the Tolkien Foundation is totally right to use IP law to protect Tolkien's legacy by demanding massive fees for tawdry merchandise.
  
  --
  echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
54. Re:Doesn't the Tolkien estate... by stranger_to_himself · 2012-11-20 23:22 · Score: 1
  
  The damaged reputation argument is, of course, laughable given money will, of course, soothe hurt feelings.
  If you've got a better way to punish a corporation than by fining it, I'd like to hear it. As it stands, fining a company, and therefore making the bad activities less profitable is about the only thing we have for an entity that cannot be imprisoned nor be killed.
  You could make them post an apology on the front page of their website.
55. Re:Doesn't the Tolkien estate... by niado · 2012-11-21 02:57 · Score: 1
  
  Copyright != Patent != Trademark
  ^This.
  
  I mistakenly linked to patents (instead of trademarks) with my succinct reply previously, but this is precisely the point I was trying to make. :)
56. Re:Doesn't the Tolkien estate... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-21 03:55 · Score: 0
  
  The simple solution is to dissolve all copywright, trademark, IP (patents if there are any) of anything derivative of public domain or what should be in the public domain. For example anything derived from Tolkiens languages, notes, original books.
  For fucking christsakes this shit is ancient. It belongs to all of us.
  Same thing for anything older then 14years. Its time to take control over our shit. Or just get rid of all IP law entirely on the grounds that it has not performed its function in benifiting the public.
  People are still just as stupid as they were many years ago but now the smart ones have to "break the law" to accomplish anything, or compete with the established power elite. This is on purpose. Don't doubt it. And the higher up you get in societies castes the closer you get to the truth, but no one is willing to admit that their "good fortune" is built on anyone elses misfortune.
57. Re:Doesn't the Tolkien estate... by painandgreed · 2012-11-21 05:42 · Score: 1
  
  Admittedly, not a lot of money, but you don't sit at the $0.01 machines because you want the pay $2.00 per pull...
  No, you sit at the one cent machines so you can spend a long time playing slots and getting free drinks by tipping the waitress that two dollars every time she brings you a drink. Since the waitresses typically have their section which would be all the penny slots and the other penny slot players are cheap bastards, she remembers the big tippers and starts bring their drinks much quicker.
58. Re:Doesn't the Tolkien estate... by Hognoxious · 2012-11-21 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  When someone explicitly says that he is making something up from his imagination
  When someone does, let me know.
  The phrase "I can imagine X" is an idiomatic expression which means I think X is likely, or at least fairly possible.
  For example, I can imagine you are not a native English speaker.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
59. Re:Doesn't the Tolkien estate... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-21 08:50 · Score: 0
  
  Seeing one of the previous comments regarding LOTR themed -er- "sexual devices" I'm going to side with the Tolkien Estate on this one. Some crap you don't want your name on, regardless of how much money they pay you for it, because, in the long run, it cheapens the whole product.
60. Re:Doesn't the Tolkien estate... by Maritz · 2012-11-21 09:09 · Score: 1
  
  Who's got time for that? It'd take at least... Jeez... 14 days or so.
  
  --
  I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Sounds like... by xevioso · 2012-11-20 11:20 · Score: 3, Funny

...the Tolkein Estate wants to be Lord of the Blings as well.
1. Re:Sounds like... by xevioso · 2012-11-20 11:21 · Score: 1
  
  Or Kachings. Or Pings. Or whatever. I'll stop now.
2. Re:Sounds like... by MightyMartian · 2012-11-20 11:24 · Score: 1
  
  So far as I understand it, the licensing agreements that JRRT sold did not extend to marketing, so I would imagine that the Estate retains the right of approval for any marketing.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Never sign a contract without an anti-dick clause. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 11:21 · Score: 0

This includes the marriage contract.
But seriously a big corporation will see its way to profit, and the almighty dollar which they worship doesn't let them respect your feelings.
So protect yourself.
You know they've got no shame in screwing you.
Greedy as always I see by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 11:22 · Score: 0

Somehow this makes me not want to go see the hobbit
1. Re:Greedy as always I see by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 19:48 · Score: 0
  
  Naw, you can go see the movie without guilt. The Hollywood accounting will screw the estate again.
How dare they... by BoberFett · 2012-11-20 11:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

How dare they attempt to flagrantly abuse the creative works created by an author 80 years ago, when the great-grandchildren of said author deserve a life of luxury for all of their blood, sweat and tears!
1. Re:How dare they... by westlake · 2012-11-20 13:27 · Score: 1
  
  How dare they attempt to flagrantly abuse the creative works created by an author 80 years ago, when the great-grandchildren of said author deserve a life of luxury for all of their blood, sweat and tears!
  1 The literary estate of an author is often the only thing he has to give to his children --- and that is an incentive to be productive.
  2 The ur-Geek began buying into the LOTR fantasy along about 1957-1965, and "buying," I think, is the right word here.
  3 There has been plenty of borrowing as well. In Infocom's prime the adventure game --- and by extension --- the RPG could draw on any form of genre fiction, pulp fiction, and see some commercial success. It wasn't all elves and orcs, D&D.
  A world of strong copyright is biased in favor of originality, diversity. You are expected to plow your own road. .
2. Re:How dare they... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 13:35 · Score: 0
  
  God forbid they might have to settle for Mercedes-Benz to get around. How pedestrian! Like...everyone should have a chauffeur.
  1st world problems...
3. Re:How dare they... by s73v3r · 2012-11-20 13:35 · Score: 1
  
  That fails to defend why it would be OK for WB to make these slot machines.
4. Re:How dare they... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 15:28 · Score: 0
  
  A world of strong copyright is biased in favor of originality, diversity. You are expected to plow your own road.
  A world of strong copyright is biased in favor of abuse. Remember when they took down NASA's video for copyright violation? Remember when they forced people to pay millions they didn't have because of a few songs? Copyright could've worked for everyone, but it didn't. The companies had their chance and used it to take rights away from us, to destroy people's lives. Copyright must be revoked for the public good. Laws that serve a select few to the detriment of everyone else are bad laws, and anyone who defends such abuse of power is at best ignorant and at worst a leecher.
5. Re:How dare they... by Darinbob · 2012-11-20 15:38 · Score: 1
  
  If the choice was between making it public domain versus an estate clinging to an old work to squeeze money from it, then maybe some people might agree with you. But this is about an estate who has very little actual control over film and merchandising versus Hollywood giants of Warner Brothers and Saul Zaentz Company. These people are vastly more litigious than the Tolkien Estate (it was the Saul Zaentz Company that sued the Hungry Hobbit Cafe in England).
6. Re:How dare they... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 15:41 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  1 The literary estate of an author is often the only thing he has to give to his children --- and that is an incentive to be productive.
  Whereas everybody else only has a small amount of real and personal property to bequeath.
  Property purchased with the money derived from one's life's work.
  I'm failing to understand why authors should get some special deal.
7. Re:How dare they... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 18:55 · Score: 0
  
  Because it should be public domain, and anyone should be free to do so.
8. Re:How dare they... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 19:26 · Score: 1
  
  A world of strong copyright is biased in favor of originality, diversity.
  Not really. Copyright rewards copiers, distributors and middlemen and marketers in other words, not producers or consumers. Thats why for example, the media cartels make gobs of money but most everybody else makes SFA. In particular it's always going to be cheaper for a few creators to be copied many times rather than many creators each be copied a fewer number of times(= diversity) . The number of popular, fully supported artists/creators we have is pathetic compared to the total population, a few thousand compared to billions. It's also an incredibly wasteful world with huge amounts of value being destroyed to benefit a very few.
  You are expected to plow your own road.
  Not really the reality. It's actually pretty much random and usually depends on how willing you are to accept the terms of the entrenched distributors.
9. Re:How dare they... by MarkGriz · 2012-11-21 02:05 · Score: 1
  
  Wow....very little discussion on this thread.
  Perhaps all the nerds heads exploded when they could decide whether to oppose overreaching copyright laws and exploitation of their beloved LOTR.
  
  --
  Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
10. Re:How dare they... by ArsonSmith · 2012-11-21 03:20 · Score: 1
  
  I know many people think inheritance then set you for life, but often it is more difficult to maintain wealth then it is to obtain it. Without a large amount of effort then even moderately large fortunes will disappear within a few years, if the benefactors don't have a vigilant know how to maintain that wealth.
  
  --
  Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
11. Re:How dare they... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-21 05:36 · Score: 0
  
  A world of strong copyright is biased in favor of originality, diversity. You are expected to plow your own road.
  Do you have any evidence to support this? Any data, facts, statistics? Or is your viewpoint merely an expression of conflict of interest?
12. Re:How dare they... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-21 06:00 · Score: 0
  
  How dare they attempt to flagrantly abuse the creative works created by an author 80 years ago, when the great-grandchildren of said author deserve a life of luxury for all of their blood, sweat and tears!
  1 The literary estate of an author is often the only thing he has to give to his children --- and that is an incentive to be productive.
  My ancestor was Sir Francis Bacon. As all of science is descended from his writings, and is therefore a derivative work, I claim copyright over all science publications.
13. Re:How dare they... by Hognoxious · 2012-11-21 07:55 · Score: 1
  
  Whereas everybody else only has a small amount of real and personal property to bequeath.
  Wrong. That hotel dude with the slutty daughter, Elizabetta von Polenuberfallen-Bunterhosen and that birther loon with the cat on his head have lots of it.
  
  I'm failing to understand why authors should get some special deal.
  I'm failing to see that they do. It's just another asset that produces income over time.
  If you inherit a house, you can collect the rent on it. If you inherit IBM stock, you can collect the dividends. So if you inherit the rights to a book why shouldn't you be allowed to collect licensing fees?
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
14. Re:How dare they... by Hognoxious · 2012-11-21 08:00 · Score: 1
  
  You are expected to plow your own road. .
  What? If I wanted to make it difficult for me to drive on (and why in hell would I?) it'd be a lot simpler to let my tyres down, put sugar on the gas tank or throw the keys in a river.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
15. Re:How dare they... by Hognoxious · 2012-11-21 08:40 · Score: 1
  
  I know many people think inheritance then set you for life, but often it is more difficult to maintain wealth then it is to obtain it.
  
  I am intrigued by your ideas and would like to sign up as an experimental subject.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
16. Re:How dare they... by ArsonSmith · 2012-11-26 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  Ok, you go out and make 1 million dollars and we'll time how long it takes. Then we'll give it to someone who's poor and time how long they can maintain it. If they can maintain it longer than it took you to make it then we'll know that maintaining wealth ease much easier than making it.
  
  --
  Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Get some by niado · 2012-11-20 11:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

Though the litigiousness of the Tolkien Estate (via the ancient and gnarled iron grip of J.R.R's son Christopher) usually gives me indigestion, my organs seem unaffected by this case. LOTR-related merchandise is often tacky to a ridiculous level, but it seems WB has gone over the deep end here.
Ex-Parrot much? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 11:23 · Score: 0

How long has that guy been dead? Surely these books are public domain by now.
If not, please let me know. I have been making some cool middle-earth art that is completely unrelated to the movies. I understand that the movies should have their stuff protected for several more years.
1. Re:Ex-Parrot much? by MightyMartian · 2012-11-20 11:27 · Score: 2
  
  There are still questions as to whether HP Lovecraft's later works are public domain, so I think LotR and the Hobbit, both of which had second editions published in the 1960s are very much still under copyright.
  What's more, it seems likely that major elements of this Hobbit "trilogy" are based in part of writings not published until 1980 in Unfinished Tales.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
2. Re:Ex-Parrot much? by niado · 2012-11-20 11:36 · Score: 1
  
  How long has that guy been dead? Surely these books are public domain by now. If not, please let me know. I have been making some cool middle-earth art that is completely unrelated to the movies. I understand that the movies should have their stuff protected for several more years.
  At the risk of feeding the troll, J.R.R. died in 1973. Though, due to the variances of copyright law, it appears that LOTR is protected until 95 years after date of publication, which would be around 2050 (LOTR was published in the UK and US in three volumes in the mid-fifties).
3. Re:Ex-Parrot much? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 11:42 · Score: 0
  
  LotR was first published in the US in 1954-55, which means the first volume comes out of copyright in (I think) 2049. The films are protected until circa the end of this century. If you think any of that is unreasonable, take it up with your elected representatives.
  It's worth noting that Tolkien himself was, if not relaxed, then not exactly vigilant in policing his 'intellectual property'. During the 1960s/70s, people talked about 'hobbits' (et al) quite loosely and freely, and any amount of completely unlicensed art based on the books was widely available, and nobody thought anything of it. The current attitude to intellectual property is completely new since Tolkien's lifetime (he died in 1973).
4. Re:Ex-Parrot much? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 12:27 · Score: 0
  
  I'm no troll, thank you for your answer. At the farmer's market, mall kiosks, and gaming stores there are a lot of Hobbit and Middle-Earth paintings, figurines, etc. that are all individually handmade by local artists (not large scale Chinese manufacturing). My friends showed me several of these and suggested that I could do a bit better than what was available, so I went to work. I could rework them into some generic fantasy world, but it is best to have a story of some kind to develop from and I read the books when I was young so I had a bit of a feeling about them. I was under the impression JRRT died in the early fifties and books published in the forties. Off to the bin they go -- but how is it that everyone else seems to be making them?
5. Re:Ex-Parrot much? by 91degrees · 2012-11-20 20:27 · Score: 1
  
  So why would this be from date of publication rather than from the date of the author's death?
6. Re:Ex-Parrot much? by niado · 2012-11-21 02:55 · Score: 1
  
  Works published before 1978 are protected until 95 years after publication. The "Life+70" only applies to works published post-1978. See the table here.
Surprised to see this the othe night by helixcode123 · 2012-11-20 11:26 · Score: 1

A few nights ago my band was playing at one of the local Casino showrooms, and I noticed these new LOTR machines. I did a double take! Most of you probably do not frequent Casinos (nor would I, except for my gigs there), but they have all these movie-themed slot machines; Wizard Of Oz, Dirty Dancing, etc. But LOTR machines just seem really strange for some reason. Funny.... no Ocean's Eleven ones.

--
In a band? Use WheresTheGig for free.
1. Re:Surprised to see this the othe night by MightyMartian · 2012-11-20 11:30 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think your average business dedicated to parting pathetic gambling addicts and thrill junkies from their cash could stand the deep irony of a series of films based on parting the money of your average business dedicated to parting pathetic gambling addicts and thrill junkies from their money.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Good by SmarterThanMe · 2012-11-20 11:30 · Score: 5, Interesting

Poker machines are morally disgusting. They're basically a way of imposing a tax on people too stupid or hopeful to know better. Here in Australia, there's people who literally bankrupt themselves pouring money into the bloody things. I'm all for individual responsibility, but those bloody things are designed to addict more than cigarettes or crack cocaine.
What's more, venues that have poker machines deliberately target the poor. I've walked into a couple of poker machine venues, they are literally the embodiment of everything that is wrong with modern day society. Pensioners, disabled people, smoking heavily and desperate for, if nothing else, just a near-win.
1. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 11:41 · Score: 0
  
  The stupid will always find a way to rid themselves of wealth. Nature's way of efficiently allocating resources. Slot machines are merely the most efficient.
2. Re:Good by SmarterThanMe · 2012-11-20 11:49 · Score: 2
  
  Yeah, great. But the problem then is that those people are the ones who end up either offing themselves, mugging people at train stations, or sending their families (you know, the partner and 2.3 kids who weren't gambling) bankrupt as well. Yay social Darwinism!
3. Re:Good by nabsltd · 2012-11-20 12:05 · Score: 1
  
  Poker machines are morally disgusting. They're basically a way of imposing a tax on people too stupid or hopeful to know better.
  There's a huge difference between a video poker machine and a slot machine.
  A slot machine is completely random and you have no control over the result. Video poker, on the other hand, can actually be a statistical money maker for the player if they know how to play and the machine has a favorable payout table. Don't quit your day job, though, because even playing at $10/hand you'd only make around $10/hour though perfect play. Between free drinks and comp benefits, you can end up spending only $1-2/hour for entertainment, which isn't bad.
4. Re:Good by DNS-and-BIND · 2012-11-20 12:41 · Score: 1
  
  I've always wanted to tax stupid people. They're idiots and deserve it. Explain to me why this is a bad thing?
  
  --
  Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
5. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 12:49 · Score: 0
  
  A lot of embezzlement stories also start with a gambling addiction. Like you say, when things go bad with gambling they go bad for the bystanders as well.
6. Re:Good by pclminion · 2012-11-20 13:02 · Score: 1
  
  "Somebody is going to take this guy's money anyway, so it might as well be me." Nice.
7. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 13:06 · Score: 0
  
  Yay social Darwinism
  May as well rant about thermodynamics for all the good it will do. They are equally implacable. Attempt to 'fix' either an you merely transpose and amplify the `problem.'
8. Re:Good by c0lo · 2012-11-20 13:14 · Score: 1
  
  Poker machines are morally disgusting. They're basically a way of imposing a tax on people too stupid or hopeful to know better.
  While I agree with most of what you said, imposing is a bit too strong.
  
  --
  Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
9. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 13:24 · Score: 0
  
  Its not a tax on the stupid, its a tax on people who are bad at math.
10. Re:Good by s73v3r · 2012-11-20 13:39 · Score: 1
  
  You could easily be an idiot to someone else. Why shouldn't they tax you?
11. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 13:56 · Score: 0
  
  Just think of it as a slower form of Euthanasia and how much more tax dollars via social programs will be available for your.
12. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 14:00 · Score: 0
  
  Dude, you obviously haven't hit the Balrog Bonus Phase.
  I can't wait to hit the monster porn bonus stage with Galadriel and the Uruk-Hai.
13. Re:Good by roc97007 · 2012-11-20 14:36 · Score: 1
  
  > Poker machines are morally disgusting. They're basically a way of imposing a tax on people too stupid or hopeful to know better.
  You're absolutely right, but we have a choice not to use them. One can't stop people voluntarily destroying themselves, and I'm not sure we even have the moral obligation to try.
  
  --
  Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
14. Re:Good by AK+Marc · 2012-11-20 14:56 · Score: 1
  
  The advent of video poker machines has made it worse. With the mechanical one, if you were "one off" you *really* were "one off" from a win. but with the video ones, they choose the ending when you pull the lever (or hit the button) and they are required to pay out a certain amount. But the adjacent ones are not regulated, so you are almost always "one off" from a win. A psychological lie to make you think the odds are better than they really are. A lie (you weren't really one away) designed to deceive for profit is fraud. But, because it causes a loss through continued action, rather than an actual taking, it isn't considered to meet the legal definition. Personally, I think that (among other things) the rules for viseo poker/slots should require that no winning tokens/cards be displayed on a losing game. That'll help discourage players. There could be many things done to help discourage players that won't "harm" the gambling company.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
15. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 16:17 · Score: 0
  
  The same can be said for alcohol and chocolate...
  Everything in moderation.
16. Re:Good by CodeBuster · 2012-11-20 16:25 · Score: 2
  
  But the problem then is that those people are the ones who end up either offing themselves, mugging people at train stations, or sending their families (you know, the partner and 2.3 kids who weren't gambling) bankrupt as well. Yay social Darwinism!
  So what? If you're an adult do you want to be treated like one or should the namby-pamby big brother government always be holding your little hand? Are we going to force everyone to live like children because a few can't handle adult responsibilities? I didn't have any say in whether or not those people had kids so why should I have less freedom just because they're irresponsible parents?
17. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 16:50 · Score: 0
  
  same can be said for a church, bunch of ignorant fucks giving away their money for the lie of a better life
18. Re:Good by SmarterThanMe · 2012-11-20 18:01 · Score: 0
  
  Regardless of the effects on the individual, one must consider the ramifications on the larger scale. On the family level, there's strain on people who are not involved in the actual gambling (i.e., partners and children of affected individuals). Then there's the social level where gambling leads to increased social costs because of crime and mental health ramifications.
  It's like smoking. Second-hand smoke has been shown to affect children and others in an environment as much if not more than the actual person who is "exercising" his/her rights to smoke. Further, my taxes pay for smokers to get treatment for diseases that they should not have. Is that fair? No.
19. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 18:02 · Score: 0
  
  if you're so fucking stupid that you destroy your life because of a box with flashy lights and funny sounds, then you deserve nothing but contempt. Stop bleeting that everyone should be treated like children because you have less self-control then a twlelve year old.
20. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 18:59 · Score: 0
  
  How about we tax based on idiocy? Pretty simple. Stop protecting people when they are being idiots, and let them deal with the fallout of their flawed decisions.
21. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 19:30 · Score: 1
  
  Videopoker & slots & gambling is great fun once in a while. You just have to have control over yourself. Go in with 100 bucks, come out when you have 0, or when you feel like it. Never go in with the mindset of winning anything. You are buing entertainment, not trying to win. You might occassionally win, that's great, but your chances are you are not going to.
22. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 21:16 · Score: 0
  
  Further, my taxes pay for smokers to get treatment for diseases that they should not have.
  Pretty rarely, in the US. Do you know how hard it is for an adult to get Medicaid?
23. Re:Good by chrismcb · 2012-11-20 22:19 · Score: 2
  
  Poker machines are morally disgusting.
  You don't really know what you are talking about do you?
  Video and slot machines typically have a payout of 98-99% Of course you have to play a lot to hit these numbers, but how long? If you play $10,000 you'll theoretically lose $200. But how much entertainment did you get for that $200? More than 20 movies? Or a dozen concerts? How many liquor would that buy? People spend money on a lot of things. And some choose to spend it entertaining themselves playing video poker. Doesn't mean it is morally disgusting.
24. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 22:50 · Score: 0
  
  Just consider that you'll be supporting those (now poor) people through your tax dollars. So the poker machines are actually taking YOUR money.
25. Re:Good by pla · 2012-11-20 23:41 · Score: 1
  
  They're basically a way of imposing a tax on people too stupid or hopeful to know better.
  
  Wait... I don't quite see the problem there. A voluntary tax... On the stupid! Goodness... We have so much stupid going around here in the US, we could balance the federal budget with something like that!
  
  What's more, venues that have poker machines deliberately target the poor.
  
  I don't know how this works in Australia, but in the US, the poor don't pay income taxes. So if, after getting paid and complaining about whether to pay rent, food, or utility bills, they choose to hit the casino, hey, I have no moral problem with that. Hell, I'd actually consider gambling the moral high-ground over "normal" taxation, since at least those who do it, do so without threat of government force for not forking over their cash.
  
  As for the bigger topic - I generally don't think well of the children of famous authors trying to follow in daddy's footsteps. And when they prove themselves as money-grubbing attention whores, it makes it all the easier. Hey, Chris T - Get a fucking job. Your father did something great for the world. Now learn to dig ditches, you hack.
26. Re:Good by plover · 2012-11-21 00:42 · Score: 1
  
  Only because it's not actually a tax. A real tax would return to the public at large, and do some benefit to society as a whole. This is profit that goes straight into the pockets of a few 1%ers, and at best a portion of it trickles down to someone in the form of labor paid for staining a piece of wood on their yacht.
  Slot machines are a penalty on stupid people. It doesn't make them smarter, it just deprives them of a few of their meager resources in a way they are too stupid to understand.
  Only in a case where the lottery is run by the state, and the proceeds go to benefit the state operating the lottery, is it actually a tax on stupid people (as well as a penalty.)
  
  --
  John
27. Re:Good by Anne_Nonymous · 2012-11-21 00:49 · Score: 1
  
  Change your sentence slightly and see if you feel the same way about it:
  Religion is morally disgusting. It's basically a way of imposing a tax on people too stupid or hopeful to know better.
28. Re:Good by strikethree · 2012-11-21 00:51 · Score: 2
  
  Poker machines are morally disgusting
  Fuck you. Your morals disgust me. If people want to play slots, then it is not your place to judge them. Get over yourself.
  I guess you find crack and cigarettes morally disgusting too? Fuck you again. Grow a spine and let others do what they will. If someone is crying that they chose to be addicted, help them if you want, but it is their fucking choice to do whatever the fuck they want with themselves... even if it leads them into areas that morally disgust you.
  
  --
  "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
29. Re:Good by ArsonSmith · 2012-11-21 03:28 · Score: 1
  
  as long as we can add castration and banishment to the terms of all bankruptcies then I can agree with you 100%
  
  --
  Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
30. Re:Good by kaatochacha · 2012-11-21 04:15 · Score: 1
  
  In Australia, Slot Machines (US Definition) are called Poker machines ( Australian Definition). So he's probably talking about the same machine.
31. Re:Good by Haoie · 2012-11-21 08:21 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not against gambling per se, but slots are the most house friendly form of gambling that can possibly exist. Which is why casino space is more slot space now more than ever.
  
  --
  If each mistake being made is a new one, then progress is being made.
One Copyright to rule them all, by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 11:33 · Score: 0, Funny

One Copyright to find them, One Copyright to bring them all and in the darkness sue them.
Argument seems lame to me by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 11:33 · Score: 1

Everyone here is posting just philosophical ideas an JRR progeny, or sliminess of WB to exploit LotR with slots.
But it says that WB have a contract for merchandise, but not the "experience" of playing a slot machine? The slot
machine itself is merchandise a casino buys. So you could replace this case by complaining about a a LotR cup
because they don't have the rights for an "experience" of drinking a soda. If they want to allow/disallow specific
items the contract should have an explicit list (or lists) in it.
Yes they did but .... by kawabago · 2012-11-20 11:34 · Score: 3, Funny

when you put it on your dick and balls vanish!
1. Re:Yes they did but .... by wierd_w · 2012-11-20 11:40 · Score: 1
  
  No silly! Without it your "dark lord" cannot attain his "full power!"
  (Best when used with a Nazgul(tm) textured black rubber condom.)
2. Re:Yes they did but .... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2012-11-20 12:22 · Score: 1
  
  when you put it on your dick and balls vanish!
  They won't if your name is Tom Bombadil. (Uhm, crap, how does one go about un-imagining something like that?)
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
3. Re:Yes they did but .... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 12:25 · Score: 0
  
  If it disappeared, you could tell her any size you choose.
4. Re:Yes they did but .... by OldSport · 2012-11-20 12:37 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Goldberry is waiting... for her Tom Bomba-dildo.
5. Re:Yes they did but .... by aiht · 2012-11-20 15:16 · Score: 1
  
  Goldberry is waiting... for her Tom Bomba-dildo.
  That may be the best off-colour reference ever! My hat goes off to you, sir.
6. Re:Yes they did but .... by Myria · 2012-11-20 16:32 · Score: 1
  
  when you put it on your dick and balls vanish!
  Now I want one =(
  
  --
  "Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
Glad to see someone is protecting Tolkien's legacy by Holladon · 2012-11-20 11:34 · Score: 1

"this infringing conduct has outraged Tolkien's devoted fan base, causing irreparable harm to Tolkien's legacy and reputation and the valuable goodwill generated by his works."
"... unlike the highly-tasteful and not-at-all-kitschy official licensed merchandise we already signed off on!"
Christopher next up to be sued? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 11:37 · Score: 0

FTS: "causing irreparable harm to Tolkien's legacy and reputation and the valuable goodwill generated by his works" So the Tolkien estate will be suing Christopher Tolkien next? Because his actions over the years have done exactly this... I am thinking the ICE, MERP, MECG debacle specifically.
I hope the Tolkien estate wins by Presto+Vivace · 2012-11-20 11:38 · Score: 1

slot machines are totally against the spirit of the books.
1. Re:I hope the Tolkien estate wins by roc97007 · 2012-11-20 14:37 · Score: 1
  
  slot machines are totally against the spirit of the books.
  So is any form of film or video, if you listen to the purists in the Tolkien Usenet groups.
  (And yes, Usenet does still exist.)
  
  --
  Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Yes, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 11:38 · Score: 0

[They have] outraged Tolkien's devoted fan base, causing irreparable harm to Tolkien's legacy and reputation and the valuable goodwill generated by his works.
Yes, Tolkein's estate has done awful, oppressive things; but what about Warner Bros.?
Goodwill by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 11:38 · Score: 0

I'm sure a large cash payment will rectify any damaged goodwill.
Did It Really??? by organgtool · 2012-11-20 11:47 · Score: 2

Not only does the production of gambling games patently exceed the scope of defendants' rights, but this infringing conduct has outraged Tolkien's devoted fan base, causing irreparable harm to Tolkien's legacy and reputation and the valuable goodwill generated by his works
I can't claim to be the biggest fan of Tolkien novels, but does anyone believe for a second that there are a significant number of fans that are outraged over the release of a LotR slot machine to the point of causing "irreparable harm to Tolkien's legacy"? I would say that the greed of the owners of the Tolkien estate is doing more irreparable harm to the Tolkien legacy than the release of a fucking slot machine. After this, I would rather put $10 into a LotR slot machine than towards a ticket to see the upcoming Hobbit movie.
1. Re:Did It Really??? by Firethorn · 2012-11-20 12:03 · Score: 2
  
  If nothing else, I figure the only people seeing them will be adults who frequent casinos. IE they can't have a real beef with slot machines and gambling in the first place. The only 'damage' would come from anti-gambling Tolkien fans, which would be a tiny fraction of the fans who just don't care either way, and a good chance of being outnumbered by the Tolkien fans who like gambling.
  
  --
  I don't read AC A human right
2. Re:Did It Really??? by roc97007 · 2012-11-20 14:39 · Score: 1
  
  > I can't claim to be the biggest fan of Tolkien novels, but does anyone believe for a second that there are a significant number of fans that are outraged over the release of a LotR slot machine to the point of causing "irreparable harm to Tolkien's legacy"?
  Good point. I wasn't. I probably wouldn't ever have even known about it had it not been for this article. And I'm really having a hard time... caring.
  
  --
  Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
3. Re:Did It Really??? by pantaril · 2012-11-21 02:33 · Score: 1
  
  I can't claim to be the biggest fan of Tolkien novels, but does anyone believe for a second that there are a significant number of fans that are outraged over the release of a LotR slot machine to the point of causing "irreparable harm to Tolkien's legacy"? I would say that the greed of the owners of the Tolkien estate is doing more irreparable harm to the Tolkien legacy than the release of a fucking slot machine. After this, I would rather put $10 into a LotR slot machine than towards a ticket to see the upcoming Hobbit movie.
  Dunno if LOTR slot gambling machines would harm sales of Tolkien novels (i doubt it). The issue here is, how much control does the estate have over the derived works. In my opinion, when i see a movie or read a book, the ideas, persons etc. become part of my thoughts and i should be free to use them in any derivative work i please as long as i'm not pretenting to be original author.
  This blatant censorship, which copyright enables, is IMO wrong and it is often abused to suppress works based on moral belives of the original author or his estate. For example i visited movie festival few years ago, where movie Bibliothèque Pascal was screened and the director himself had a talk with the audience after the movie. He said, he had to take out one complete part of the movie, because he used some well-known quotes from Saint-Exuperys Little Prince in it and the estate was against it, because the movie was about prostitute and they didn't want the name 'little prince' associated with it.
  The problem is, that well known works of art are becoming part of our collective consciousness long before the copyright on them expires. It is IMO wrong to forbid the society to build upon and extend those ideas by some rigid copyright holders.
the pinball game has structure around the plot by Joe_Dragon · 2012-11-20 11:48 · Score: 1

the pinball game has structure around the plot and it's better then in the slot games.
1. Re:the pinball game has structure around the plot by keytoe · 2012-11-20 12:00 · Score: 1
  
  the pinball game has structure around the plot and it's better then in the slot games.
  That pin is by far my favorite. I've spent hours at it, and was extremely sad when the local pub that had it decided it wasn't worth the maintenance cost any more and replaced it with something terrible.
  
  --
  Culture is more than commerce
2. Re:the pinball game has structure around the plot by Joe_Dragon · 2012-11-20 15:56 · Score: 1
  
  Need to play it with rom ver 10 and cave trolls turned on.
3. Re:the pinball game has structure around the plot by Dahamma · 2012-11-20 16:15 · Score: 1
  
  And that pinball game was probably licensed by the Estate and not WB.
  In fact that might be a good piece of evidence for the case. The question will be is a slot machine merchandise or a gaming/entertainment experience? Since I'm pretty sure the point of using that wording is that they were NOT giving the rights to make video games, etc to WB as well...
4. Re:the pinball game has structure around the plot by drkim · 2012-11-20 17:11 · Score: 2
  
  I regret to inform members of this forum that, due to recent litigation, the term 'troll' can no longer be used in these forums.
  Persons using said term, and all variants thereof, are subject to liability for copyright or trademark infringement involves the potential for significant civil damages, including in particular cases, statutory damages, liability for up to three times actual damages, and attorneys fees.
5. Re:the pinball game has structure around the plot by Joe_Dragon · 2012-11-21 02:41 · Score: 1
  
  cave trolls is a mode in the pinball game that in older roms is turned off by default.
6. Re:the pinball game has structure around the plot by keytoe · 2012-11-21 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  And that pinball game was probably licensed by the Estate and not WB.
  I doubt it - it was plastered with images from the movies.
  
  --
  Culture is more than commerce
7. Re:the pinball game has structure around the plot by keytoe · 2012-11-21 05:29 · Score: 1
  
  Need to play it with rom ver 10 and cave trolls turned on.
  I fully intend to own it some day, so thanks for the tip!
  
  --
  Culture is more than commerce
8. Re:the pinball game has structure around the plot by Dahamma · 2012-11-21 07:34 · Score: 1
  
  Then still a good piece of evidence - just for the opposite side. If they didn't object to a pinball machine it's going to be pretty hard to convince anyone a slot machine isn't a similar product.
  Not to mention apparently WB re-licensed the rights to video games (which EA had for a while) - so their argument that "they did not include any grant of exploitations such as electronic or digital rights, rights in media yet to be devised or other intangibles such as rights in services" is already bogus. Sounds like WB is going to win this one...
Some LOTR Better Than None by d'baba · 2012-11-20 11:50 · Score: 1

Maybe 20th Century Fox should come out with a "Bender's Game" themed slot. It's got some LOTR in it.
I'm afraid someone took... by shentino · 2012-11-20 12:03 · Score: 1

...A real gamble.
1. Re:I'm afraid someone took... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 12:17 · Score: 0
  
  sunglasses!
  ...A real gamble.
  YEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!
  
  ftfy
2. Re:I'm afraid someone took... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-21 02:08 · Score: 0
  
  and nothing...
  you forgot to put on your to deliver the line...
Gameplay? by hawguy · 2012-11-20 12:07 · Score: 2

From the summary:

which allows the creation of LotR merchandise but not LotR 'intangibles,' like the experience of playing a slot machine game.
I haven't played (or seen) the LotR slot machines, but is the gameplay really themed to LotR? Most themed slot machines I've played are slot machines with themed graphics, but the gameplay is pretty much like every other slot machine out there. Does the gameplay of these slots have anything to do with the books? (aside from something like needing to roll 3 Gandalfs to hit the jackpot with a 3X The One Ring multiplier.

this infringing conduct has outraged Tolkien's devoted fan base,
I'd consider myself a Tolkien fan, but the only thing I'm outraged about is that his estate is still able to make money from the books 40 years after his death. It should have fallen out of copyright long ago and we should be seeing lots of derivative works building upon the stories.
1. Re:Gameplay? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 14:37 · Score: 0
  
  I haven't played (or seen) the LotR slot machines, but is the gameplay really themed to LotR? Most themed slot machines I've played are slot machines with themed graphics, but the gameplay is pretty much like every other slot machine out there. Does the gameplay of these slots have anything to do with the books? (aside from something like needing to roll 3 Gandalfs to hit the jackpot with a 3X The One Ring multiplier.
  It's like LOTR - you start in Hobbiton and, if you play long enough (like many many hours and thousands of dollars), you might reach mount doom. There's video mini games for each major event. Standard 100-line video reels game otherwise.
  Pretty awesome if you ask me. Last time I was in Vegas I dropped some cash into those
2. Re:Gameplay? by roc97007 · 2012-11-20 14:46 · Score: 1
  
  You play a character. Try not to get Boromir.
  
  --
  Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
There's prolly some fraudo going on, too :( by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2012-11-20 12:08 · Score: 1

Ca-ching ca-ching, klunk klunkklunk.
Damn. Ca-ching ca-ching Klunk klunk klunk. Damn.
"Something to drink, sir?"
"Ya. I'll have a vodka Gimli. Oh, and a Legolamb, too."
Ca-ching ching ching Klunk klunkunk. Damn.

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Say no to merchandise the gives money to the fans? by Press2ToContinue · 2012-11-20 12:10 · Score: 1

I smell a hypocrisy. I am not a proponent of gambling machines; I find them a tax on the poor. But you're going to rape the legacy for all its worth through the miracle of crass commercialism, and yet put the kybosh on machines with the potential to let a fan share in some of the winfall, methinks you are blind to your own sins, Sir

--
Sent from my ENIAC
Time is running out. by viperidaenz · 2012-11-20 12:16 · Score: 1

They have to milk it now while they can. Copyright expires 70 years after the authors death, which was 2nd September 1973. All J.R.R Tolkien works are public domain in the UK where they were published on 3rd September 2043. They still have 31 years to milk it.

It's pretty sad that a book written in 1937, The Hobbit, will be under copyright for 106 years. Their 1842 law was much better, 42 years or 7 years after death, which ever was longer.
1. Re:Time is running out. by roc97007 · 2012-11-20 14:41 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, Christopher and his kids will probably never have to work for a living, but his grandchildren may have to get a job.
  
  --
  Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
2. Re:Time is running out. by KiloByte · 2012-11-20 15:22 · Score: 1
  
  I prefer the length of copyright in Roman, Ur-Nammu's or Hammurabi's law.
  
  --
  The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
3. Re:Time is running out. by viperidaenz · 2012-11-20 15:34 · Score: 1
  
  It doesn't matter what you prefer, Tolkiens books were published in the UK by a UK citizen so fall under UK copyright laws.
4. Re:Time is running out. by chrismcb · 2012-11-20 22:21 · Score: 1
  
  Christopher worked pretty hard.
  But what is this jealousy over the children getting a free ride? Are parents not allowed to try to leave their children with money?
Is there a LotR breakfast cereal? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 12:20 · Score: 2, Funny

There should be a spaceballs like parody with Gandalf selling merchandise.
There goes my idea by slashmydots · 2012-11-20 12:30 · Score: 4, Funny

Damn, now I had to cancel my plans to make a LOTR craps table with "you shall not bet the pass" written on it :(
write your own stuff by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 13:10 · Score: 0

Don't like Lord of the Circular Metal Bands is managed?
Then write your own fantasy world.
LOTR Pinball by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 13:12 · Score: 0

These machines are well designed and fun to play.
You fucking hypocrites by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 13:25 · Score: 1

You go batshit crazy when some commercial entity misuses the GPL and takes advantage of it, but you think that the Tolkien estate doesn't have the right to enforce protection of their brand?
This are slot machines... not exactly noble. If it were LOTR medical supplies or Mouth of Sauron Toothpaste, or even a free MMORPG, you might have an argument asking the Tolkien estate to back off... but fucking SLOT machines and you rush to defend the slot machine company? Ridiculous
IP Rights by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 13:56 · Score: 0

*Disclaimer - I work in the industry, so posting anon
The LOTR slot machine is one of a proliferation of "licensed product" slot machines available. These are popular for two reasons - firstly on the consumer side, they offer safe & familiar brands (often incorporating extensive audio and video grabs) so they are popular (and make plenty). Secondly, from manufacturers, they have to spend a lot of money on the IP, so they only offer these into venues on a 'participation' basis. This means that the manufacturer does not sell the machines to the venues, but instead participates in the revenue (gets a share of the money into the machines). Consequently, these make manufacturers an order of magnitude more from "licenced products" than from "standard" machine sales, so are putting more and more resources into it.
As a secondary consequence, there is now a massive market and competition between (10+) slot manufacturers for ip rights. Some are extremely active and successful, with literally hundreds of brands signed up (WMS & IGT), others put all their eggs in a few baskets so only have a handful of brands, but make them big names (see Bally with Michael Jackson). The Global Gaming Expo (in Vegas a couple of months ago) is somewhat an exercise in seeing who got what IP.
The LOTR slots in question have all had IP purchased (for significant dollars) from Warner. The slots all use signficant audio & visual FROM THE MOVIES. I would suggest that Tolkien Estate is going to have a tough time proving that Warner does not own IP from it's own movies!!
Enough ranting from me, but expect to see plenty more IP litigation in the slot machine space - it is an absolute gold mine
Despised groups; quarter finals by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 14:29 · Score: 0

Warner Bros.
Tolkien Estate
Facebook
Sony
**AA
Apple
Facebook
Monsanto
The only non-company left in the tournament, Tolkien Estate, seems to be winning this round. I wonder how they'll do against Sony in the semis.
So what about... by roc97007 · 2012-11-20 14:40 · Score: 1

...the lord of the rings pinball machines? Are purists up in arms about that too?

--
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
1. Re:So what about... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 15:45 · Score: 0
  
  Depends. Did they pay another license fee?
2. Re:So what about... by roc97007 · 2012-11-20 19:38 · Score: 1
  
  Wrong purists...
  
  --
  Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Re:Glad to see someone is protecting Tolkien's leg by AK+Marc · 2012-11-20 15:15 · Score: 1

Don't those hobbits ever clean their toenails?

--
Learn to love Alaska
I had to laugh by sortius_nod · 2012-11-20 15:39 · Score: 2

"this infringing conduct has outraged Tolkien's devoted fan base, causing irreparable harm to Tolkien's legacy and reputation and the valuable goodwill generated by his works."
Yeh, because Peter Jackson's atrocities didn't do this already?
1. Re:I had to laugh by HonIsCool · 2012-11-21 01:29 · Score: 1
  
  I agree with your opinion on Jackson's films, but the deal with the films were actually struck with Tolkien himself who, as I recall from Letters, saw two paths to making films out of the books: artistic integrity...or money. And he decided to go with the money. This produced the bad cartoon film (which strangely enough I actually recall more fondly than the Jackson's films but I think that might just be my rose-tinted spectacles.)
  
  --
  "Give me six lines of C++ code written by the most competent programmer, and I will find enough in there to hang him."
2. Re:I had to laugh by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-21 04:18 · Score: 0
  
  The Peter Jackson movies were fucking awesome.
  Books don't translate directly to film; but apparently your too much of a snob to realize that.
3. Re:I had to laugh by GiganticLyingMouth · 2012-11-21 06:32 · Score: 1
  
  What was wrong with the Peter Jackson LotR movies? They were far better than many had dared to hope for. Sure it would have been nice to have have some things that weren't included (i.e. Tom Bombadil, Scouring of the Shire) and some parts were rather silly (Gandalf being unable to perform a pull up in Moria, or the deus ex machina they turned the Dead Men of Dunharrow into, etc), but all in all they were quite good. Not like the previous attempts at LotR movies (1978 animated film. As someone who has read the book (and the Silmarillion) multiple times, I think the Jackson films did quite well.
I don't know, by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 16:07 · Score: 0

has Warner Brothers paid them for Peter Jackson's first trilogy yet?
On the other hand..... by Grayhand · 2012-11-20 17:15 · Score: 3, Funny

I thought the Hobbit all you can eat buffets were very appropriate.
1. Re:On the other hand..... by kaulike · 2012-11-21 09:36 · Score: 1
  
  +1
Damage by CanEHdian · 2012-11-20 17:16 · Score: 1

causing irreparable harm to Tolkien's legacy and reputation and the valuable goodwill generated by his works
You know WHAT is causing irreparable harm to Tolkien's legacy and reputation and the valuable goodwill generated by his works? The Tolkien Estate sueing the crap out of everyone, even Sauron (tm) in his Dark Tower of Barad-dûr (tm) would be ashamed of them.

--
When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
1. Re:Damage by HonIsCool · 2012-11-21 01:31 · Score: 1
  
  I actually doubt JRR Tolkien would disagree with what the estate does...
  
  --
  "Give me six lines of C++ code written by the most competent programmer, and I will find enough in there to hang him."
Because by ElusiveJoe · 2012-11-20 18:35 · Score: 1

It's already done.
This does suck by davmoo · 2012-11-20 21:12 · Score: 1

Okay, yeah, a LotR slot machine may be repulsive.
But I find the fact that Tolkien has been dead just shy of 40 years but we're still dealing with rights on his work to be even more repulsive.
I can understand why his estate works so hard to protect the rights. If they didn't have them, they'd have to get real jobs instead of leaching off of an ancestor.

--
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
1. Re:This does suck by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-21 08:21 · Score: 0
  
  Leeching, you moron.
But LoTR Pinball is A-OK? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 21:34 · Score: 0

http://www.sternpinball.com/lord-of-the-rings.shtml
Translation by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 22:37 · Score: 0

We're a whore, but we're not *that* kind of whore.
LotR Pinball by rodrigoandrade · 2012-11-20 22:45 · Score: 1

How's this any different tha the LotR Pinball machine?
http://www.ipdb.org/machine.cgi?gid=4858
"intangibles" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 23:42 · Score: 0

Could it be that while my LotR collectible action figures were legally licensed for production, the experience of looking at them and playing with them is not allowed by the Tolkien Estate?
Merchandise vs. Intangibles by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 23:52 · Score: 1

So, they can sell "merchandise" that is designed and manufactured and sold for the express purpose of creating an "intangible" experience, but skipping directly to the intangible experience is verboten.
Gotcha.
Idiots.
It's all about the intangible experience. None of the LOTR bullshit has any value outside of the "intangibles."
Where's this outraged fan base? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-21 01:25 · Score: 0

As a fan of Tolkien's work myself, I could give a shit if there's a LotR slot machine.
These Tolkien kids are really fighting for every penny. They signed away their rights for money, they shall reap what they have sown.
Manufactuer's Website by genx88 · 2012-11-21 02:04 · Score: 1

I'm surprised this hasn't been posted yet. Here's the link to the slot machine via the manufacturer's website: http://www.wms.com/Games/AdaptiveGaming/Pages/TheLordoftheRings.aspx The machine has fixed betting amounts but can also save your progress if you let it. You start in the Shire and gradually gain miles as you go. (When I played the miles seemed to be granted manually but there might have been some metric I wasn't aware of.) The reels themselves are about what you'd expect, random symbols and face portraits. The big appeal is ultimately the themed mini games (which you can view on the site). It's more enjoyable than some of the older generically themed slot machines but the preset bets weren't my thing. On the whole, it's not really different from the Star Trek/Stargate/Princess Bride/Ghostbusters/any other licensed slot machine. At the end of the day, it's just there to take your money. :)
1. Re:Manufactuer's Website by genx88 · 2012-11-21 02:14 · Score: 1
  
  Mergh. Granted randomly, not manually.
  
  This is what I get for posting before coffee.
Re:Say no to merchandise the gives money to the fa by JustNiz · 2012-11-21 03:11 · Score: 1

>> I find them a tax on the poor.
I think you're confusing cause and effect. Actually they are a tax on those too stupid to understand probability.
Cheap Gucci Shoes,handbags,sunglasses sale by dsangdhw · 2012-11-21 04:57 · Score: 0

Hello!! Fashion,low price,the good shopping places, Cheap wholesale and retail Gucci/Shoes , ( Discount UGG/Boots ) LV Shoes , DG Shoes , BURBERRY Shoes , LACOSTE Shoes , Women Boots , handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g/Gucci) , Sunglasses(Oakey,coach/Gucci,Armaini) , free shipping and quantity discount, Accept credit card and PAYPAL ==== http://www.cbssbase.com/ ==== ==== http://www.cbssbase.com/ ====
Cheap LV shoes,sunglasses,handbags sale by dsangdhw · 2012-11-21 05:04 · Score: 0

Hello!! Fashion,low price,the good shopping places, Cheap wholesale and retail Gucci/Shoes , ( Discount UGG/Boots ) LV Shoes , DG Shoes , BURBERRY Shoes , LACOSTE Shoes , Women Boots , handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g/Gucci) , Sunglasses(Oakey,coach/Gucci,Armaini) , free shipping and quantity discount, Accept credit card and PAYPAL ====w/w/w.cbssbase.c/o/m ==== ====w/w/w.cbssbase.c/o/m ====
Cheap Gucci Shoes,handbags,sunglasses sale by dsangdhw · 2012-11-21 05:10 · Score: 0

Good news: this website ==== http://www.cbssbase.com/ === we has been updated and add products and many things they abandoned their increases are welcome to visit our website. Accept cash or credit card payments, free transport. You can try oh, will make you satisfied. ==== http://www.cbssbase.com/ ====
Correct statement....? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-21 18:22 · Score: 0

From TFA is Galadriel (Cate Blancehett) putting up her middle finger in response to this....
Re:Say no to merchandise the gives money to the fa by Press2ToContinue · 2012-11-23 07:23 · Score: 1

I probably am. However, I'm sorry to say I can't verify or refute your assertion because I'm too busy playing LOTR slot machines and hoping for the big win to calculate the probability of your statement being true.

--
Sent from my ENIAC
Re:Say no to merchandise the gives money to the fa by JustNiz · 2012-11-23 13:54 · Score: 1

Good for you. Thats exactly the kind of thinking that casinos count on.
Come on big money!!! by Press2ToContinue · 2012-11-23 14:44 · Score: 1

Probability is for other people. I feel lucky!! ;)

--
Sent from my ENIAC