Slashdot Mirror


Tolkien Estate Sues Over Lord of the Rings Slot Machines

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.'"

33 of 211 comments (clear)

  1. Doesn't the Tolkien estate... by ShaunC · · 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. · · Score: 5, Funny

      They still haven't found the precious.

    2. Re:Doesn't the Tolkien estate... by wierd_w · · 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 · · 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 x4000 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Sure! It's right next to their regular money.

      Oblig: http://xkcd.com/90/

    5. Re:Doesn't the Tolkien estate... by niado · · Score: 4, Informative

      The problem with copyright is that you either defend it or lose it

      No.

    6. Re:Doesn't the Tolkien estate... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      They should have lost it in 1973.

    7. Re:Doesn't the Tolkien estate... by Michael+Woodhams · · 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.
    8. Re:Doesn't the Tolkien estate... by Michael+Woodhams · · 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.
    9. Re:Doesn't the Tolkien estate... by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    10. Re:Doesn't the Tolkien estate... by Oliver+Wendell+Jones · · 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
    11. Re:Doesn't the Tolkien estate... by TheRedSeven · · 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.

    12. Re:Doesn't the Tolkien estate... by Darinbob · · 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.

  2. Sounds like... by xevioso · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...the Tolkein Estate wants to be Lord of the Blings as well.

  3. How dare they... by BoberFett · · 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 Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  4. Get some by niado · · 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.

  5. Re:Ex-Parrot much? by MightyMartian · · 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.
  6. Good by SmarterThanMe · · 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 SmarterThanMe · · 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!

    2. Re:Good by CodeBuster · · 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?

    3. Re:Good by chrismcb · · 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.

    4. Re:Good by strikethree · · 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
  7. Yes they did but .... by kawabago · · Score: 3, Funny

    when you put it on your dick and balls vanish!

    1. Re:Yes they did but .... by OldSport · · Score: 4, Funny

      Goldberry is waiting... for her Tom Bomba-dildo.

  8. Did It Really??? by organgtool · · 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 · · 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
  9. Gameplay? by hawguy · · 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.

  10. Is there a LotR breakfast cereal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    There should be a spaceballs like parody with Gandalf selling merchandise.

  11. There goes my idea by slashmydots · · 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 :(

  12. I had to laugh by sortius_nod · · 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?

  13. Re:the pinball game has structure around the plot by drkim · · 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.

  14. On the other hand..... by Grayhand · · Score: 3, Funny

    I thought the Hobbit all you can eat buffets were very appropriate.