News

Comment by: Earlacey (Jul 29, 2005 13:39)

Yup, it's all going to hell in a hand basket.

Man Google the lawyer, he is sue-happy mofo. Makes his living off rolling the dice with law suits.

It's like gambling, sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. But it looks like he is the used car salesman of lawyers. There is no suit he will turn away for a buck.

Comment by: mystic (Jul 29, 2005 13:52)

the worst part is that no matter what Rockstar does or dosnt do about this mini game they lose(big time). yes we all know that the mini game cant be acxessed with out the patch but it shouldnt have been there on the pc ver. anyway ps2 or any of the sealed concells would have had no way of addind the patch but the pc is a diffrent animal all together. we all know some will hack and mode what ever they can to extend the game play . no grandma with half a brain would give her grandson a game where he can kill people and run down the cops. unless(her name was Gotti) sorry but her misstake and she should ask for a refund and buy him a nis "barney game " or something with the rugrats in it... the only thing this will do is make less games for the PC and or Rockstar will fold and close its doors... not good so what granny needs to do is hold on to the game and give it to him when he turns 21...

Comment by: thelox714 (Jul 29, 2005 13:52)

as said before.. this lady is just dumb.. it makes no sense why she would give this game to a 14 yr old...

besides... parents are always complaining about the violence in video games... i've got a simple suggestion... pay attention to them... actually do something with your kids. i think that some parents buy kids all these toys and video games because they dont spend very much time with them... they're looking for a way to get away from their kids...

dont get me wrong... i understand parents need to work... parents are not always able to... but there's parents that just dont care... they dont pay attention to what their kids are doing.

chris rock said it best in his show... that if the kids are calling: grandma and grandpa - mom and dad... and calling mom and dad by their first names... you need to spend more time with the kids.

hope i didnt tick off too many ppl off today..

Comment by: ratbastid (Jul 29, 2005 13:56)

Something you all may have missed: The woman purchased the PLAYSTATION2 version of the game, which doesn't have the mod. That fact alone should put this case to rest, but that the courts have to waste time even looking into it is damn shameful. It boggles my mind that it's ok for your kids to see things you never want them to do (violence) but heaven forbid they see SEX, something most all of them WILL do at some point. Effing ridiculous.

Comment by: Toiletman (Jul 29, 2005 14:00)

Everyone needs to read Maddox's take on this. Maybe then they'll stop suing and start cracking up.

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

Comment by: mystic (Jul 29, 2005 14:10)

also might I add it was that ungreatfull grandson of hers who isnt supervised who added the mode to see something he'll never see again... once this gets out that his grandma is sueing a company everyone will know hes nothing more then a little PERVERT who beats to his own drum or is that with his own drum anyway no prom date for him and let all the world point at him and say shame on him and thats grandma for pointing this out so we can lock or daughter away from this little perv.... so whats his name? and where does he live.......

Comment by: christ93 (Jul 29, 2005 16:25)

As a parent and a gamer I take very seriously what my daughter sees and hears. I agree with Earlacy, mom and dad didnt want to get it for him and grandma did. She gave the game to a minor. I have the game and find it a bit raw. Raw to the point that I make my daughter leave the room when I am playing it. I am doing what a parent should do, protecting her from stuff that I dont think that she should see or hear. The grand parent f'ed up this one and she is trying to shift blame to rockstar. Why cant she just take responsibility for her mistake. The comment of the lawyer really pi$$es me off. The final protector of the child is the parent. Who ever said that the world is going to hell in a handbasket is right.

Comment by: pro`noob (Jul 29, 2005 16:29)

I think this is all about money!

Also I presume it is against the games licence agreement to allow anybody to chage modify or alter the games content is it?

If so how can you file a law suit about something you did that was illgeal?

Comment by: Earlacey (Jul 29, 2005 22:12)

Of course it is all about money.

Rockstar is making it and someone else wants a piece of it. I mean that is what litigation lawyers do. They sue. I imagine this getting thrown out of court but you never know.

I have said it before, I don't think the GTA series is that good. But oh well, if someone has a finger they need to point it somewhere, right? Me, my finger is on my mouse clicking away. (Please resist and finger-stuck-someplace jokes, if you can...if not fire away...)

It will go away. Will GTA stand the test of time? Who can say for sure, does anyoen know where 2LIVE Crew is there days? Heh heh heh...

Comment by: christ93 (Jul 29, 2005 23:10)

Toiletman

Funnier than hell!!!!!!!

ROTFLMAO

Comment by: GeorgiaBo (Jul 30, 2005 11:55)

There are several issues here, and all of them point to one thing...lack of responsibility. Grandma and every other person who purchased this game has a responsibility to review the product they are purchasing e.g. the M rating plainly states that violence, strong language and mature sexual themes may be present throughout the game.

That fact pretty much should rule out any court win.

Rockstar has a right as the creator of the game to include, exclude, or patch any part of thier game. Another fact is the "sex mini-game" is not accessible in any officially released edition from Rockstar. You literally must download a patch to unlock this "aborted" part of probably many beta versions of GTA: San Andreas. Rockstar, as far as I know, has never made mention of this "mini-game" before the unauthorised patch was created. I say Rockstar and its creation team should not be targeted based off those facts.

Now I do believe the guy who found the disabled content in the game should be held responsible for tampering with copyrighted material. He solely and deliberately created a patch to unlock the "mini-game" even though Rockstar had chosen to release the game without the possibility to ever play this part. As I said it was basically aborted. I do not however think any person who bought the game and downloaded the patch should be able to sue the patch creator. He has only an issue with Rockstar, not any consumer. His patch was not an official release and therefore is not supported by Rockstar. Moreover, I am sure when he uploaded the patch on the web, he never implied or expressed any liabilty. So I say Rockstar should be filing lawsuits against him; but they probably won't.

So who is to blame? I'll tell you who, all the people who have tried thier hardest to find something to sue ROckstar for since Grand Theft AUto 3 was released. Back then the game was targeted by politicians and parent groups to name but a few, all seeking to "ban" this game and take down Rockstar for releasing in effect an "mature rated"(based off ESRB) title that is protected under the Freedom Of Speech guarantee. If the ESRB needs to be redifined then so be it, but to blame a company for releasing a game of thier creation and claims of misrepresentation and deceit is just plain absurd. America is slowly becoming a country which controls every citizen from not doing anything which "they" deem bad for you. Does not matter what you think is bad, "they" can see something effect one person adversely and make it "bad" for everyone.

Parent groups are the worst of all. Made up of some of the most underhanded, manipulative, cowardly bastards you will ever come across, these "saints" are the gerd of society. They get up in your throat and make you want to vomit. Thier idea is that if they believe it is bad then by God it is; and you are a slime-ball parent if you don't agree. They will stop at nothing to get thier point through. I have a 6 year old son, and it is my responsibilty to determine within legal parameters, what he does and does not do. Not some stuck-up Dr. Spock wannabe who thinks he/she is the epitomy of parenting. To hell with them all.

I'll end by referring to a very fine film starring Robin Williams, Dead Poets Society. As most of you have probably seen this film you can probably remember the scene where Robin WIlliams chracter is talking to the Head Master of the school. Robin Williams character says that he always thought the idea of education was to teach each person how to free think. The Head Master returns sharply that, "these boys are too young to know what they need. They must be taught discipline and traditional ideas." I may be off with the exact phrase but you get the meaning. Free thinking and being responsible for ones self is slowly becoming a thing of the past.

Comment by: Achilles3 (Jul 30, 2005 17:21)

It goes to show that it's OK to shoot people in the head, beat them up with a bat, burn down their houses, steal their car and run them over with it, commit robbery, etc etc... But it is not OK to have a little sex scene? So let's say the little kid is too dumb to tell that it's a game and not real.. say he goes out and mimic what he's been seeing in the game, what do you think of those activities I listed above: which is the most dangerous one for him to re-enact?

Comment by: pro`noob (Jul 30, 2005 17:47)

depends.... is he using a condom? :)

Comment by: Mik3h (Jul 31, 2005 04:31)

The Mod can infact be unlocked on the PS2 version with the help of Action Replay.

The code is on the internet.

-Mike

Comment by: Reasons? (Jul 31, 2005 18:53)

Greedy old bag.

Comment by: m_towell (Jul 31, 2005 23:08)

IF she is successful, and the game is removed from the shelves altogether, can we all sue this lil old granny for removing our civil liberty rights? (or what ever it's called?)

After all, she would be restricting everyone's right to choose for themselves what they, legally, want to do.

And good point pro`noob - I believe it's a condition in all licences I've seen that says you're not allowed to modify the code in any way unless you've been given permission to do so. So Rockstar Games should counter sue, for at least three times as much as she's sueing for, this granny for breach of the licence agreement!

Comment by: forteagle (Aug 01, 2005 00:05)

The code should not have been in there in the first place. The code should not have been written.

The blame is on the company for putting it in the game in the first place. They knew that somebody would find the hidden stuff and write a patch for it.

How many more games did they sell since they get so much free publicity. Come on guys don't be that stupid you know they did it on purpose - look at the game it only makes sense for them to do that.

Comment by: jimmer (Aug 01, 2005 00:34)

So according to this old bag, the coffee mod is wrong but killing officers is ok?? As well as carjacking and running over old lady's like herself?? gimme a break, even if this coffee mod never existed, granny still should not have bought this game for a 14 year old. She fucked up and she wants rockstar to pay for her fuckup??? Somebody should call Dr. Kevorkian and put this old bag out of her misery

Comment by: whoozhe (Aug 01, 2005 03:26)

I wonder if Granny has paid her annual ARA (American Rifle Ass) subscription yet.

Comment by: GeorgiaBo (Aug 01, 2005 06:57)

"The code should not have been in there in the first place. The code should not have been written.

The blame is on the company for putting it in the game in the first place. They knew that somebody would find the hidden stuff and write a patch for it."

I disagree to a point. Maybe it was strategic marketing; maybe the developers refused to extract thta part. Whatever the reason was, Rockstar has every right to leave any dormant material in the game. Yes we all know someone would find it; yes Rockstar may have more sells now. But if even one old lady wins a lawsuit then they have loss money. GTA has become one of the biggest francises in video games. It clearly was hailed and praised by millions as a great game, so I don't think Rockstar needed to add more controversy. As i said, since GTA 3 was released every do-gooder out there has been trying to have the games banned.

Back to the code. Here is a good example. Look at dvds. If it was not for being able to read the key codes; we would not have the ability to make back-ups of dvds. No dvd is intended for copying as it plainly states that on the disk. But someone wrote the code to "unlock" the decryption keys and viola! we can now copy them. You want to blame the dvd distributor for the keys being so easy to decrypt?

Satellite TV is another great example. Access cards are the property of each company e.g. Dish/Directv. It plainly states that no one is authorized to tamper with these cards. But again, someone broke the code and used it to view every channel availible. And there are many channels that were never intended for the public to view e.g. test channels, corporate, and product testing. So I guess we blame the satellite companies for leaving the code on the cards? Give me a break. These companies may know people are going to hack thier software, but to say they are at fault? Plainly stated, YOU HAVE TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR ACTIONS. No one forced granny to buy the game and no one held a gun to the guy's head that found the code and developed the patch.

I wish I was a lawyer. I'd call up Rockstar right now and take the case for free!

Comment by: hypes057 (Aug 01, 2005 10:11)

omfg how lame can u be! this shouldnt even be a thought on any legal professional's mind. clearly, the game is rated "M" for mature. it does not belong in the hands of a 14 yr old. the fact that this lady buys the game, gives it to her minor grandson w/ out being aware of its rating or its content is bs. ignorance is no excuse....period. what needs to be asked is - if this case is allowed to proceed, and if these people win, (which, IMO, is another great example of how the US's lawsuit cases are poorly executed and handeled) then that just opens the door to many many many other frivulous cases. hell, whos to say she didnt hear bout hot coffee last week, went and bought it and gave it to her grandson w/ the intention of suing? sweet lil old lady my ass.........

Comment by: daredevl (Aug 01, 2005 13:03)

I hope that this Granny loses her house and all her money by paying Rockstar for there counter sue ! This is the biggest load if shit that I have seen in a while. Someone just put her out of her misery !

Comment by: SgtSpanky (Aug 01, 2005 17:54)

Ok first of all here's a link to all the lawsuits this lawyer has been linked to.

http://www.classactionsonline.com/headlines.htm#Conseco%20$120%20Million%20Cash%20Settlement

Second of all, even though I'm a Democratic Liberal who's almost considering joining the Socialist Party. I hate the court system and here is the email I sent to this lawyer.

Hello,

My name is Spencer, I am 27, married and I have a 2 year old kid. I must ask you to stop this ridiculous lawsuit against rockstar inc.'s Grand Theft Auto San Andreas. What the hell is your 80+ year old client doing purchasing a game that is already mature in the first place for her 14 year old grandson. Any sales person who sold it to her should have told her it wasn't a game for kids, but im sure her grandson through a whinining nagging fit like most spoiled brats are nowadays until she caved.

I know I did the same thing to my grandmother when I was a kid and mortal kombat hit the shelves. The violence are why people buy games always will be. I used to play the most violent games I could fine, because it's things that a normal person wouldn't do in reality, it gives you a break. Now being a gamer with a kid if my kid was 14 would I buy Grand Theft Auto San Andreas for him. Of course I would, even now that the pc version is rated AO because the the adult content is not unlockable without a hack that you download off the net. That reason alone is why you will lose this case, im praying for it. The company took it out a hack put it back in.

Why would I let my kid play GTA: S A? Because parents coddle their kids to much anymore, they want to protect them from everything bad. When in truth, it doesn't help them get to know what the real world is like. I would be shocked to find a teenager who didn't know any bad words or never played a violent video game.Trust me im a democrat and after googling your name, I sure as hell can tell that you are. Looks like you've made your entire living by finding some ridiculous lawsuits that tie up our courts for real cases. GET A REAL FUCKING JOB!!!! AND STOP THESE PETTY CIVIL SUITS NOW YOU FUCKING MORON!!!!

I THINK YOU SHOULD DIE AND BURN IN HELL!!!

P.S.

GO AHEAD AND SUE ME FOR THINKING ABOUT IT.

THERE IS STILL SOMETHING CALLED FREEDOM OF SPEECH. AND LAST TIME I LOOKED THERE WAS NO LAW AGAINST THINKING!!!!!

Comment by: whoozhe (Aug 01, 2005 20:48)

Once upon a time there was the land of the Souix now there is a land of the suit created by the suits to suit them and their lifestyle.

Law is now suet mixing with sewerage.

Comment by: hypes057 (Aug 02, 2005 09:31)

Hey Sgt. Spanky- let me get his email address! I thought u had written a pretty decent letter there. however, couldve gone w/o the profanity. but still thanks for sayin what most of us here would like to do. *bravo*

now if we could just get that grannys email.....LOL

u think the grandson is hated on at skool?