What are the legal terms/implications of Pokemon Go?

[hanselthecaretaker]

Because apparently it's drawing in a lot of idiots to do stupid things like walk off of cliffs, crashing their cars into other people, robbing people, lure kids, etc. it's pretty disturbing on several fronts but expected from human nature.

Which begs the question, where does one draw the line when people should be free to play a game, however stupid it may be, but at the same time not be intruding on the rights of non-players around them?

 

[CritialGaming]

You can't protect against stupid. It is not the fault of a game that morons walk into the middle of the street, play while driving, walk off cliffs, etc. That is textbook Darwinism sir.

That being said, Nintendo now owes you, your family, and your soul. Give in and catch them all.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

I've been hearing about little boys and girls being possessed by demons thanks to Pokemon Go. So who knows whats in the Terms and Conditions?!

 

[Erttheking]

It's like earbuds or texting. At the end of the day, the blame lies with the user.

 

[DoPo]

Which begs the question, where does one draw the line when people should be free to play a game, however stupid it may be, but at the same time not be intruding on the rights of non-players around them?

This starts to sound like something Mr Thompson would say. Well, not quite there yet, obviously, but it's on that path.

I'm not really sure the game is that much at fault. OK, perhaps some very small amount of fault could be attributed in that a person (maybe) wouldn't have been in a bad situation without it, but then again, it wasn't really Pokemon GO urging them to get into that situation. The game presented a choice - the problem was not only that the the took it it (that alone wouldn't suffice), but also went about it badly that led to the unfavourable situations.

While I am unsure of the specifics, I'm fairly confident Pokemon GO did not force anybody to walk off cliffs or into trees or whatever else. What, how would that even work?

Pokemon GO: Hey, hey Johnny - walk off that cliff
Johnny: No, don't wanna.
PG: Come on, you know you want to.
J: No.
PG: Come on, kid - if you don't it something bad would happen.
J: But walking of a cliff is bad.
PG: Don't play smart with me, boy - walk off that cliff or else

Which brings me back to Mr. Thompson - that is pretty similar to how he presented video games. Only instead of Johnny being made to walk of cliffs, he was urged to pick up a gun and kill people. Regardless, it was somehow a game's fault[footnote]that apostrophe is in the correct place - usually it was one game. Mostly GTA.[/footnote] that somebody did any sort of illegal activity - from shooting to "merely" stealing cars and attacking others.

Is the nature of what Pokemon GO and games, as portrayed by Jack Thompson, are "promoting" different - yes, it is. However, is the nature of how they are "promoting" it different - no, not necessarily. There is this unspoken assumption that the games are making people act against their wills. That is (at best) borderline "begging the question".

 

[Pirate Of PC Master race]

You can't protect against stupid. It is not the fault of a game that morons walk into the middle of the street, play while driving, walk off cliffs, etc. That is textbook Darwinism sir.

Thank you! I have been trying to make Apps, and this is one thing people don't understand. You always have to assume people are stupid enough to use it wrong.

 

[DoPo]

You always have to assume people are stupid enough to use it wrong.

Yes, users are always morons. ALWAYS. One of the best quotes on this is from Rick Cook: "Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning."

And it still is. You just have to draw the line somewhere. You cannot make people use your software the right way. There are a lot of things to guide them (see, the entirety of UX) but at some point you just have to give up and go "Nope, not dealing with this". You can leave it to documentation[footnote]which users don't read[/footnote], common sense[footnote]of which users seem to not have any[/footnote], training[footnote]which users either skip or try their best to not pay attention to[/footnote] or anything else[footnote]which users will similarly ignore, disregard, forget, overlook, reject and neglect[/footnote] but you really cannot account for all the stupidity your users would do. So yes, at some point you should just go "You know what - I am not going to handle the 'my user walked off a cliff' scenario because that's a stupid thing to do on my part".

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

Which begs the question, where does one draw the line when people should be free to play a game, however stupid it may be, but at the same time not be intruding on the rights of non-players around them?

This starts to sound like something Mr Thompson would say. Well, not quite there yet, obviously, but it's on that path.

I'm not really sure the game is that much at fault. OK, perhaps some very small amount of fault could be attributed in that a person (maybe) wouldn't have been in a bad situation without it, but then again, it wasn't really Pokemon GO urging them to get into that situation. The game presented a choice - the problem was not only that the the took it it (that alone wouldn't suffice), but also went about it badly that led to the unfavourable situations.

While I am unsure of the specifics, I'm fairly confident Pokemon GO did not force anybody to walk off cliffs or into trees or whatever else. What, how would that even work?

Pokemon GO: Hey, hey Johnny - walk off that cliff
Johnny: No, don't wanna.
PG: Come on, you know you want to.
J: No.
PG: Come on, kid - if you don't it something bad would happen.
J: But walking of a cliff is bad.
PG: Don't play smart with me, boy - walk off that cliff or else

Which brings me back to Mr. Thompson - that is pretty similar to how he presented video games. Only instead of Johnny being made to walk of cliffs, he was urged to pick up a gun and kill people. Regardless, it was somehow a game's fault[footnote]that apostrophe is in the correct place - usually it was one game. Mostly GTA.[/footnote] that somebody did any sort of illegal activity - from shooting to "merely" stealing cars and attacking others.

Is the nature of what Pokemon GO and games, as portrayed by Jack Thompson, are "promoting" different - yes, it is. However, is the nature of how they are "promoting" it different - no, not necessarily. There is this unspoken assumption that the games are making people act against their wills. That is (at best) borderline "begging the question".

The difference seems to be that Pokemon Go's design is probable cause for real world distraction and ultimately coaxes an intent to act on its content, as "Augmented Reality" is an inherent part of it. The point of the game is to find and catch Pokemon as they are actively showing up in real world locations, only with fictional buildings/street signs/etc. as a facade on the user's phone, simply to avoid copyright/privacy violations.

Applying this concept to the backlash over Mortal Kombat violence would be like if Player X was waving Player Y over in his phone with a "Finish Him" sign above his head.

Far cry from how it actually played out, because in normal games there is a distinct separation between themselves and the real world. My position is basically these people can do whatever they want as long as it doesn't interfere with someone else's rights and privacy. The worst is when accidents happen as a result though.

I can just see the day when some pregnant woman is hit by a car because some idiot saw a Pokemon hiding behind her.

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

It would be a shame if this gets ruined.

I took a walk today on a boardwalk by the river and through the adjacent park yesterday after dark and felt perfectly safe thanks to the horde of pokemon Go players there as potential witnesses/good samaritans. Since its dark by midway through six pm here the game has a lot of people out after dark now.

It kinda feels like a kinda sorta neighbourhood patrol keeping the streets safe. Only without the targeting of black people.

 

[List]

Pokemon Go is just a game. In the end of the day it's always the user's responsibility to keep him self safe.

Blaming pokemon go for these incidents is like blaming beer for stupid shit people do while under the influence.

 

[EyeReaper]

I do want to reiterate, just in case anyone here (somehow) isn't in the know on Go

But like, on every loading screen, there's

Spoiler: This friendly little warning

So, yeah. Pokemon GO does not force these dummy dumbs to go and dumb themselves. The game actually literally tells you not to do that.

As for the robberies and such... Well, Nintendo is as much at fault as say, craigslist is whenever those shenanigans went down

 

[infohippie]

People need to take responsibility for themselves. If someone's dumb enough to keep their eyes glued to their screen while crossing a highway, then to quote Bill Hicks: "Good! We lost a moron!"
Seriously, people, the world is not going to wrap itself in cotton wool for your benefit.

 

[K12]

If it's purely about players being distracted then I'd be very surprised if "Pokemon Go" can be considered to have any kind of ethical or legal responsibility for these occurrences. It's like blaming a company that makes footballs when some kid gets electrocuted retrieving it from the railway tracks.

It's possible that they could have some liability if they haven't done due diligence to make sure that pokemon don't appear in hazardous areas like the middle of motorways, the edges of unstable cliff edges, minefields or places like Morecombe bay which have very fast and sudden rising tides. There are enough hazards like this that the software couldn't catch 'em all but they'd probably need to have done some work to avoid that kind of thing cropping up regularly.

 

[infohippie]

Perhaps we need more games that will help cull the hard-of-thinking. Games that encourage the player to drink bleach or to loiter in gang neighbourhoods. Over time, these games will help improve the overall intelligence of the human race.

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

Pokemon Go is just a game. In the end of the day it's always the user's responsibility to keep him self safe.

Blaming pokemon go for these incidents is like blaming beer for stupid shit people do while under the influence.

Or maybe blaming guns for killing people?

Im sure theres some old people wagging their fingers at pokemon Go out there you could catch with that!

 

[sXeth]

Some of the distracted driving and similar stuff is down to the users. Not dissimilar from any other cell phone game, or even older stuff like listening to your walkman or reading while walking.

The use of private property, or public property that is unsuitable (whether due to dangers inherent, or cases like memorials) is where the main issue lies. It seems very likely that AR games will get pushed into requiring an opt-in system and/or putting a lot more effort (unless some larger party makes a centralized database for it) effort into mapping out valid locations.

 

[Leg End]

You can't protect against stupid. It is not the fault of a game that morons walk into the middle of the street, play while driving, walk off cliffs, etc. That is textbook Darwinism sir.

/ninja
You can't fix it either.
I hold the user responsible for anything retarded they do, with anything.

Or maybe blaming guns for killing people?

Im sure theres some old people wagging their fingers at pokemon Go out there you could catch with that!

A handful but a lot of the people that would blame an app would blame a firearm as well. Then again they'd also blame Rock and Roll. And the Internet. And Porn.

The last two are the same thing really. But the point is that there are always people that will find blame in an object, a person, and often just both but state the object made them do it while also blaming the person in some strange bout of mental gymnastics. e.g Fundies on crack.

 

[Bobular]

I have heard from some that Nintendo purposely put rare Pokemon in dangerous locations as a way of culling the stupid.
Whilst (probably) untrue, it does make me laugh that I know so many people who know or have witnessed someone hurting themselves using Pokemon Go already.

And in the end, it was not their powerful nuclear weaponry that ended the Human Race. No what finished them off was a 'game' where they would walk off cliffs for no reason.

 

[Areloch]

About as much as scissors making the producing company liable because people continue to run with them and invariable shiv themselves. None.