Niantic faces a class action lawsuit for encouraging trespassing on private property:
When Niantic released Pokemon Go, it randomly placed Pokémon, Pokéstops and Pokémon Gyms all over the world. Players of the game wander the real world and use smartphones to capture Pokemon, buy items and fight Pokemon Gym leaders.
"To create that immersive world, Niantic made unauthorized use of Plaintiff's and other Class members' property by placing Pokéstops and Pokémon gyms thereupon or nearby," said Jennifer Pafiti in the lawsuit. "In so doing, Niantic has encouraged Pokémon Go's millions of players to make unwanted incursions onto the properties of plaintiff, and other members of the class, a clear and ongoing invasion of their use and enjoyment of their land from which defendants have profited and continue to profit."
Due to the randomized placement of the Pokémon, Pokéstops and Pokémon Gyms, they have turned up in some unwanted locations such as in houses, cemeteries and museums. According to Jeffrey Marder, a man living in New Jersey, he received at least five unwelcome visitors that wanted access to his backyard to catch Pokémon within the first week of the game's launch.
"Plaintiff and other Class members have all suffered and will continue to suffer harm and damages as a result of Defendants' unlawful and wrongful conduct. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy," said Pafiti.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by seeprime on Wednesday August 03 2016, @01:34PM
Somewhere a redneck is eyeing his bottle of booze. He reaches for it. Meanwhile, a group of restless players approach his propery. They don't see the "No Trespassing" sign. Soon the redneck, who has his loaded rifle next to him to fight off any perceived threats, imaginary or real. The players enter the redneck's forbidden land. Minutes later a branch snaps as a heavy foot lands on it near the unseen redneck, who reaches for his gun. What good can come of sending people onto private land? None.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by mhajicek on Wednesday August 03 2016, @01:53PM
Teen jumps fence on private property to access Pokemon, is injured by dogs and then drowns in private pool. Teen's parents sue homeowner.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Wednesday August 03 2016, @03:06PM
To clarify, the above is hypothetical, not a report of an actual event.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 3, Informative) by Pslytely Psycho on Thursday August 04 2016, @10:14AM
Yet....
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 1, Troll) by VanessaE on Wednesday August 03 2016, @02:44PM
And what good can possibly come from a whack-job, drunk redneck pointing a gun at innocent kids? How about you yell at him instead of blaming the kids who harmlessly trespassed on his oh-so-precious land?
I don't care much for the game, but it definitely does kids more good than harm. Throw his screwball ass in prison for a while, take away his gun rights, etc.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 03 2016, @03:15PM
What is the point of owning property; If anyone anytime can come on it and do whatever they want. Do you know the color purple on a fence post means? Do you understand what Private Property is? The "redneck" has a gun to protect himself from you. You have no respect for him or his property. He should fear you; for you have no respect for civilization. The fact that he is stupid and drunk matters not. He has his own land to be stupid and drunk on. That's why he protects it from others.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by VanessaE on Wednesday August 03 2016, @03:22PM
When did I say "anyone anytime"? I was talking about some kids wandering onto his land, as with the parent, without noticing the sign. That redneck with his gun is not protecting himself against anything. Why should he fear me (or rather, the aforementioned kids)? At what point has anyone shown any intent to cause him any harm?
He's more than welcome to get as drunk as he wants on his land, but HE is the one having no respect for civilization, by pointing a G*d damned gun at some kids. If he's that worried, he can call the cops.
Do YOU understand what "excessive force" means? You should NEVER point a gun at someone unless you intend to KILL, and you sure as hell better be prepared to deal with the consequences of pulling that trigger.
And what's with purple fenceposts? I looked it up, and in my 42 years on this planet, I have never heard of something so utterly ridiculous.
(Score: 2) by n1 on Wednesday August 03 2016, @03:39PM
The theoretical redneck who shoots kids because he got spooked by them wandering onto his land is not in the right, not valid self-defense from my perspective.
However, no one is in the right, if we have respect for private property, the idea of going wandering the labyrinth of privately owned physical property to search for digital widgets without the owners consent is not reasonably expected to happen.
I'll set up a nice sight seeing marathon/cycle race using google maps and an algorithm to generate a nice route and no fucks given about public rights of way or private land. Wont be my fault, or the participants when they are trespassing and damaging crops on farms. They didn't see the signs because they were too busy being social to notice they wern't on a public footpath or public/state park etc.
(Score: 1, Redundant) by VanessaE on Wednesday August 03 2016, @04:22PM
I don't disagree here, there are and ought to be societal norms and laws regulating this on both sides of the conflict, it's just that this whole thing with guns and shoot-to-kill and other forms of excessive force is ridiculous. As one article I read when looking up purple fences states, you're not likely to be harmed by a group of Girl Scouts dropping by to sell you some cookies (and if you force them to leave, you ought to be ashamed - Thin Mints ftw! :-) ).
In my opinion, it would be partially your fault, but only if you have reasonable access to data delineating private vs. public land, and you still allow your software to place objectives and waypoints too far into private land (that is, beyond the game's targeting or capture range when the player's standing on neighboring public land). Good luck to anyone who wants to sue you though, since they still have to prove monetary or other tangible damage. In practice, what's the worst that happens, on average? Some grass or a field trampled down in a few places, right? So, authorities need go after the kids (or parents thereof) to deal with any damage that's been done, just as it's always been. Meanwhile, you should be required (on penalty of a fine or something) to delete or move any offending objectives. If there's really nothing damaged that Mother Nature won't fix in short order, then everyone needs to just walk away after that. All of this applies equally to the Niantic case.
The players are responsible for their own behavior, of course, but kids being "too busy to notice" isn't any different now than it ever was. Kids will be kids, and wandering onto someone else's land while they're playing is nothing unusual in my experience, and has generally never been a cause for any particularly bad punishment. Kids, as a rule, don't care about or pay attention to signs and (open) fences and purple paint; they're focused on their game, and all they want to do at that moment is have fun. I'm pretty sure most kids don't have any particular desire to damage anything or hurt anyone in the process (though there's always that one kid who has to be a prick...).
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 03 2016, @05:17PM
"kids will be kids" - Kids are not the only ones playing this ridiculous game. Hopefully the game is only a fad and will fade away soon.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday August 03 2016, @06:01PM
In my opinion, it would be partially your fault, but only if you have reasonable access to data delineating private vs. public land, and you still allow your software to place objectives and waypoints too far into private land (that is, beyond the game's targeting or capture range when the player's standing on neighboring public land).
This is key.
Clearly these waypoints were placed by some algorithmic method, with no human involvement, and CLEARLY, not much in the way of respect for private property. I suspect they mined Google maps or Google Earth links. Those sources do contain ownership indicators for a large percentage of the world, and public indicators for just about every road and park.
And NO, I disagree with your exemption of responsibility just because the game maker asserts there is no "reasonable access to data delineating private vs public. You've got it exactly backwards. There is no place in any country that isn't owned by somebody, some authority, or some public entity. No place.
GeoCaching, which bills itself as The largest game on Earth, has clear rules [geocaching.com] about the location of a Geocache, and each such cache has a maintainer who is supposed to seek land-owner permission, maintain the cache, etc.
But Niantic took none of these precautions, and probably is liable for damages, actual property damage s, as well as loss of privacy, risk transference, and general nuisance.
Its not the same as some random neighborhood kid retrieving a ball from your flowerbed. Its a steady stream of strangers, (not all of them children) wandering your lawn at all hours for nothing at all.
Why cant Niantic shut down all off-road targets after dark? Why isn't there a "Pokemon go away app" with which you can draw a bubble around your property and push the targets toward the nearest public road or park?
When the Girl Scouts come on my property to sell me cookies, I'll probably buy some. If the set up a table to sell cookies at the end of my driveway, I'll probably let it slide, for an afternoon. When they show up tomorrow with their table and boxes, I'll shoo them away. But I won't have to, because the girl scouts are polite and would ask ahead of time. Niantic, not so much.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 4, Informative) by curunir_wolf on Wednesday August 03 2016, @08:19PM
Clearly these waypoints were placed by some algorithmic method, with no human involvement
That may seem clear to you, but it is, in fact, completely incorrect. Niantic has been collecting those points, and the pictures of them via crowd sourcing (user submissions) through the Ingress game, for many years. When they first released the Ingress game, the vast majority of points (called "portals" in Ingress) were fire stations and libraries (because they were everywhere, in pretty every town, even small ones). Users were encouraged to find other points of interest to submit. Churches, fountains, monuments, stone historical markers and the like were the most likely types of portals to be approved. And that approval process took several weeks, so I'm quite sure they were reviewed by humans before the showed up in the game. They even have a place to appeal their decisions [google.com] if a portal submission is rejected.
In Ingress, there were people submitting portals that were in private property, but they were typically rejected. Some in private property accessible to the public were created (malls, lobbies of office buildings or large hotels, etc.), but it was very rare to see a portal on private property that was not a publicly accessible space.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by frojack on Wednesday August 03 2016, @08:43PM
The fact that pokemon players are darting over private lawns proves the lie in your claim.
What ever method they used, they clearly didn't vet their results against any official source.
Crowdsourced is a cop out. (And probable a false story anyway to avoid having to pay royalties to who ever provided their mapping data.).
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by curunir_wolf on Wednesday August 03 2016, @10:19PM
The fact that pokemon players are darting over private lawns proves the lie in your claim.
No it doesn't, and calling me a liar because of your own soaring ignorance is really rude. I suggest you rethink your response and issue an apology.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 3, Insightful) by art guerrilla on Thursday August 04 2016, @01:01AM
wtf?
um, BECAUSE it was crowdsourced, (OR WHATEVER THE FUCK) *that* makes it 'okay' ?
that makes less than zero sense...
oh, they curated the info... sure they did...
it may very well be it was screwed up before, but only since it was you and your buddy 'playing', nobody noticed...
now that -apparently- half the stupid fucking human race is 'playing' this idiotic thing, it is more noticeable...
and, NO, i DON"T want poketards -OR ANYONE- wandering over our property, up our private road, around our house, FOR ANY OR NO REASON...
EXACTLY why i live in the country, so i don't see my stupid neighbors, i don't hear a million loud nekkid apes, and my dogs have the run of the property...
and YES, in our neck of the woods, basically ALL (non-neighbor) pedestrians ARE suspicious: we live too far out for anyone to just 'wander' by here on a lark, or on the way to someplace else, just don't happen... we are on the way to nowhere, with no through streets, and no businesses or anything of any significance that attracts people to walk around here...
you got a flat tire/whatever, you will get more help than you can use; you lost a dog, we will all look; you need a phone 'cause yours died, of course...
but IF you are a (non-neighbor) walking out here, it is 'unusual' enough to garner automatic and justifiable suspicion you are up to no good...
(bear in mind we -and a LOT of neighbors- leave our houses unlocked when we go away for a week or more...)
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Thursday August 04 2016, @01:37AM
You called me a liar after I proved to you that Niantic staff personally vetting each and every location to ensure it's publicly accessible (among other TOS requirements), and STILL no apology? You're a dick. No wonder you live in the country, nobody would ever want to be around a fucking asshole like you. I feel sorry for the poor sod that has a flat tire near your precious wasteland, as you'll likely treat them like dog shit you scrapped off your shoe, like you have me.
shitass.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday August 04 2016, @05:43PM
You've proved nothing.
You've made a bunch of unsubstantiated claims of vetting, yet players still appear on private property chasing digital apparitions that SHOULD NOT BE THERE.
Where's your vetting now?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Friday August 05 2016, @03:19AM
I am a crackpot
(Score: 2) by art guerrilla on Friday August 19 2016, @01:51AM
wtf? part two
i didn't call you a liar, i don't even know what you are talking about, and i could not care less about the ins-outs of the stupid pokeshit or any other such claptrap, whether it was 'crowdsourced' (why not simply say 'its magic!'), or who vetted what for what...
given how weird you talk, i am perfectly fine with you categorizing me as a 'foe' (whatever that stupid shit means)...
WHOEVER was talking about how harmless it was to have poketards (or anyone, anytime?) wander over your PRIVATE property, whether by 'mistake' or not: THAT is the point i was responding to... peoples' (NOT JUST precious, PRECIOUS ME) PRIVATE property has certain rights over YOUR non-right to wander wherever you fucking feel like it... i respect YOUR right to have your private property respected, why don't you respect mine ? ? ?
AGAIN, someone has vehicle trouble/etc, people (including me, yep, based on a true story) will help them out without a second thought... but 'wandering around' out here just isn't a common phenomenon... we got more livestock than people, more limerock than paved roads, and more unwalkable miles between anywhere, so pedestrians kind of stick out... and if you add on to that insult that they are poketards doing *WHAT* the fuck exactly ? ? ? yeah, then it is just maddening on top of annoying...
and finally, i am glad that you approve of my absenting my asshole self from the asphalt rat's maze you oh-so-kind mammals choose to live in; for myself, i prefer trees and flowers and critters and stars and sun and rain and plants and dogs and wind and NO OTHER stupid shits around honking and yelling and boomboxing and screeching and peeling out and yakking and banging and clanging and sirening and revving and shouting and screaming and driving like they are the only person on the road...
yeah, don't really miss too much of that...
foe on, bitch...
(Score: 2) by cykros on Thursday August 04 2016, @04:25AM
False story? Considering the 3 portals nearest my house are with names I came up with and with pictures I took, I'm going to have to just shake my head over this doubt-for-the-sake-of-doubting claim.
And yea, 2 of the 3 of them are pokestops, the third is a gym. In Ingress, they even have the player name for who submitted them, and there was an achievement badge for approved new portal submissions.
As for Pokemon players darting over private lawns, it's worth noting that Pokemon, unlike Ingress, isn't all about the pokestops and gyms. The pokemon themselves move, for one, which invariably places them at times on private land. Beyond that, FINDING them is something that takes exploration, because unlike in Ingress, where any game object a player interacts with is right on a map for all to see, the Pokemon are only known to be more or less nearby, but any direction or coordinates are left out so as to encourage wandering around to deduce a position. I've personally yet to encounter a portal that cannot be legally accessed in 4 years of play, at least during certain hours (there are definitely some in cemetaries that do close at night, but it's generally understood, at least among Ingress players, that closed means closed. I'm not sure how much that holds true among the often younger demographic that is playing Pokemon Go).
Niantic should probably provide a more clear method for complaints about portals only accessible on private property, because it's unlikely that none slipped through the cracks in their vetting process. However, I'm not sure I'd go so far as to agree that any court should force them to do this, or frankly that they're legally in the wrong here to begin with. They've always been clear that trespassing is not in the spirit of gameplay, going back to Ingress's beta stage, and holding them accountable for what users of the apps they put out do is like holding football manufacturers responsible for the same type of behavior.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DECbot on Wednesday August 03 2016, @08:46PM
You are technically correct. What people don't connect is while the Pokestops and pokemon themselves may be mostly on public property, or publicly accessible property (a few exceptions due to algorithm imperfects), the players in an effort to reduce travel time, or while searching for valuable nearby pokemon, or even because of inaccurate GPS on their devices may deviate from public property and onto private lands.
So, even if Niantic did place all of its digital items perfectly, that doesn't stop the players from disregarding property laws. So, one, Niantic needs an easy means of remediation to remove spawn locations, gyms, and pokestops on the property owner's request; and two, people need to stop freaking out when they see people outside.
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Wednesday August 03 2016, @10:16PM
So, one, Niantic needs an easy means of remediation to remove spawn locations, gyms, and pokestops on the property owner's request
You mean like THIS [nianticlabs.com]? It was the first result on a Google search.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 2) by DECbot on Thursday August 04 2016, @03:08AM
So, myself, the media, and the property owners cited in the dozens of articles out there are uninformed. I wish there was a news outlet that reported links like this to keep the hysteria down. Right now the vibe I'm getting from the regular FUD sources is "The Pokemon Goers, they be walking alls over your private property taking your Pokemon! Think of the sex offenders! Think of the children! Think. of. the. children.... Outside! No body watching them! Getting fresh air and **GASP** ____walking!!! and even liking it!"
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 03 2016, @11:52PM
The kids on private property is the reason that "Rednecks" everywhere have Rock Salt. Good for warding off bad/dumb kids without killing them. Also good to protect the rednecks daughter from soon to be dead beat dads. Shotgun weddings for all! Do you know any "Rednecks?" I doubt it. If you would turn your "Stereo Type" down from 11 you might learn something. Do you know why a man has a Redneck? Do you have a job? Do you work your ass off all day long in the sun? Again; I doubt it. Drop your hate and try to understand people.
#RednecksLivesMatter
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 03 2016, @05:13PM
Frankly if you wander on to someone elses property ignoring no trespassing signs you getting shot it a predictable outcome.
The fact that this included private property at all is a bunch of hooey IMHO. I hope they loose, and loose big. Limit that stuff to parks and public land.
(Score: 3, Informative) by mcgrew on Wednesday August 03 2016, @05:18PM
If he's that worried, he can call the cops.
Gun-toting rednecks say "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away." Have you guys forgotten the unarmed kid shot by a neighborhood watch goon in Florida? Not a damned thing happened to him.
Are the Republicans really in favor of genocide, or are they just cowards terrified of terrorist twit Trump?
(Score: 5, Informative) by frojack on Wednesday August 03 2016, @06:05PM
Said unarmed kid ATTACKED neighborhood watch guy. Nice how you conveniently seem to forget that part when it doesn't fit your narrative.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Wednesday August 03 2016, @10:02PM
Said unarmed kid attacked somebody who was menacing him and wound up paying the price.
The whole thing would never have happened if that idiot watch person hadn't been up to no good. A firearm is not a replacement for a penis or proper common sense.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Thursday August 04 2016, @05:18AM
Said unarmed kid attacked somebody who was menacing him and wound up paying the price.
I wonder why was it that the neighborhood watch man was on the phone with 911 during the incident, but the "unarmed kid", scared out of his wits, if I get the message correctly, continued to talk to his GF all the way until he decided to attack someone who, for all intents and purposes, was just exercising his freedom to walk wherever he wants, just like the kid himself?
For example: both you and I are free to walk in a forest (say, a BLM forest, to be clear.) I follow you everywhere, trailing you by 10 yards. Will you attack me? Note that I have no obligation to even acknowledge your existence, unless you are a credentialed LEO. What would be the right thing to do, outside of [rightfully] declaring the stalker a class A hole? Would calling police be one of the options? Would pointing a gun at the follower be an option? If you shoot, what would be your explanation why you shot and killed an unarmed kid who was just looking at the squirrel?
(Score: 2) by KiloByte on Wednesday August 03 2016, @07:00PM
So you propose letting any "unarmed kid" to a place where only a thief has a reason to come uninvited? And your example of an "innocent" trespasser was, just to prove my point, a thief.
Ceterum censeo systemd esse delendam.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Friday August 05 2016, @05:15PM
No, I'm 100% against the "stand your ground" laws, but they do exist.
Are the Republicans really in favor of genocide, or are they just cowards terrified of terrorist twit Trump?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 10 2016, @07:52AM
Well, he was shot. That counts as something happening.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday August 04 2016, @12:33AM
It's dark, nobody ever comes there unless they mean to steal his weed or shag his girl - and those with that intent usually come armed.
He thought he saw a handgun, they were waving something around that's for sure. Skeered n fearin for his life, he shot in self defense.
🌻🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday August 04 2016, @08:27AM
What makes you think that the only people playing Pokemon are kids? And assuming that they are old enough to be out without their parents, they should also have been taught to respect other people's property.
However, I do think that using firearms to deter people from trespassing is taking the whole thing too far. The firearm should be the last resort and only then to protect life - not the first.
[nostyle RIP 06 May 2025]
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Thursday August 04 2016, @09:35PM
1) This is America we're talking about. He should call the cops...so THEY can come point a gun at the kids and probably shoot them too? What difference does it really make who holds the gun and who pulls the trigger?
2) Police in America have absolutely no obligation to protect any citizen. They are under no obligation to respond even if you've got a court order (such as a restraining order) against the person you feel threatened by. Even if that person threatens your life. In fact, they even have a legal right to stand there and watch while a known, wanted criminal tries to stab you right in front of them. Such cases have gone to court multiple times, and the police always win. They don't ever have to respond, they don't ever have to help you. They don't exist to protect people, they exist to enforce the will of the state. If you need protection that's your own problem as far as they're concerned.
3) As the saying goes -- "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away"
(Score: 1) by Francis on Thursday August 04 2016, @01:25AM
It depends a great deal where you are. Around here you can legally be within the flood plain as the state owns all the bodies of water and as such anybody is allowed in them. It's a bit difficult in some cases like where private owners own all the land around that, but the state does own the lake itself.
Shooting people who are on your property whether or not you're legally entitled to is a really foolish idea if they aren't actually in your home or breaking into your home. How certain are you that your use of force is legally authorized? How certain are you that you understand the applicable laws and case history to make that decision?
Bottom line is that shooting random people who happen to be on your property is a foolish idea and you're likely to be convicted of murder if they're not actively breaking other laws.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Thursday August 04 2016, @04:21AM
Do you know [what] the color purple on a fence post means?
I looked it up: it takes the place of a "no trespassing" sign. What a clever way to mitigate the effects of illiteracy!
http://www.geocachingaustin.com/reference/purplepaint-texasnotrespassingmarking [geocachingaustin.com]
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday August 04 2016, @08:34AM
[nostyle RIP 06 May 2025]
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Thursday August 04 2016, @08:45AM
According to the page I linked,
Purple was chosen due to the fact that even people who are color blind will see it, only will see it as being darker and more visible [...]
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday August 03 2016, @05:14PM
In Texas, Florida, and a few other places it's perfectly legal to shoot trespassers. Only the people who live in those states can affect those laws, unless the feds pass a law that supersedes it.
Are the Republicans really in favor of genocide, or are they just cowards terrified of terrorist twit Trump?
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Wednesday August 03 2016, @06:53PM
Yes, I was helpfully stopped and informed by some hillbilly in Alabama that he was legally permitted to shoot and kill me for turning into his driveway to turn around, but that he decided to only give me a warning instead.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 03 2016, @06:58PM
"In Texas, Florida, and a few other places it's perfectly legal to shoot trespassers."
See how long that lasts after a few kids are shot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 03 2016, @11:14PM
If the "innocent" kids are trespassing then they aren't innocent, they're trespassing. If they trespass in the gun-crazy US, then it's their own fault for ignoring the probability that the owner of the property might be prepared to defend it.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 03 2016, @02:44PM
And the obvious problem in that scenario is people obtuse or unaware of the signage, and not the conception of land rights.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam [wikipedia.org]
To even think one has the right to threaten people with weapons for simply walking across your land is demented and ill.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 03 2016, @03:52PM
I thought I told you before - get off my lawn!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Wierd0n3 on Wednesday August 03 2016, @04:26PM
[quote]However, the right usually does not include any substantial economic exploitation, such as hunting or logging[/quote]
so now the property owners just have to argue the pokemon are hunted, and we are back to start <sarcasm>seriously though, that is a European thing, i notice the article says nothing about Canada, Australia, Asia, and the only pro-wandering bit that's effective in USA is california's beaches easement.
there are VERY good reasons not to let the general public on private land. Littering is a big one. around where i live, we have ATV/Snowmobile Trails, and the people who use these trails are PIGS. 25% of the trail budget is cleanup.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday August 03 2016, @05:21PM
There's also the legal angle.
If you don't take some actions to prevent public use of your lands, say a No Trespassing sign on a snowmobile trail, after a certain period of years, that corridor becomes a public right of way under the law.
I know a business that blockades a driveway across their property for two days out of each year on the advice of their lawyer. The driveway is not covered by any easement, does not constitute the only route and exists only because sometime in the distant past someone dozed a gravel road 50 yards rather than using the existing longer route.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 03 2016, @05:23PM
there are VERY good reasons not to let the general public on private land
Littering? Really? As if that isn't a concern on public and can be addressed in much the same way (fines and civil suits in egregious cases).
And for what benefit? I find it increasingly difficult to justify US style property laws that make the simple act of getting lost a crime.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 03 2016, @06:50PM
Criminal action generally requires intent, dumbass. Most people that get lost don't do it on purpose. You typically don't wander past no trespassing signs whilst lost.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 03 2016, @10:06PM
Mens rea is no longer a component of statutory law. In fact I defy you to find a single trespass statute where that is a requirement instead of an aggravation.
http://www.kcci.com/national/lost-couple-allegedly-breaks-into-nuclear-plant/39802658 [kcci.com]
http://bostinno.streetwise.co/2015/04/21/boston-marathon-arrests-man-charged-with-trespassing-on-marathon-monday/ [streetwise.co]
Your move, Perry Mason.
(Score: 2) by Wierd0n3 on Thursday August 04 2016, @06:52AM
getting lost is one thing, but it doesn't apply when you are playing a game with a active data and gps signal as a requirement.
(Score: 3, Disagree) by Gravis on Wednesday August 03 2016, @04:12PM
population control? darwinism? how are those not good things?
(Score: 1) by redneckmother on Thursday August 04 2016, @06:40PM
Whups - unintended "disagree" moderation - sorry!
Mas cerveza por favor.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday August 03 2016, @05:11PM
This is yet another example of corporate stupidity and lack of empathy.
Are the Republicans really in favor of genocide, or are they just cowards terrified of terrorist twit Trump?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Thursday August 04 2016, @12:29AM
Wisdom seen in a South Carolina flea market:
Nothing past this sign is worth dying for.
🌻🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 04 2016, @03:54AM
He reaches for his gun, but discovers it's been turned into a 🔫, and he sues Apple.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 03 2016, @02:02PM
Niantic did NOT randomly place gyms or pokestops. They leveraged Ingress portals which were crowdsourced over the previous 3 years. All of those were expected to be validated as "public" property by trusted users. Unless the Class members own the pictures and geo-coordinates, Niantic did not make use of any property.
This is a complete waste of time. Property access laws have been on the books for a long time. Just because people are stupid is no excuse for legal action. Remember to grant access for regular trespassers at least once every 10 years. The tends to break the 20 year "open and notorious" provision for obtaining right of way by continuous, unauthorized use.
(Score: 3, Informative) by donkeyhotay on Wednesday August 03 2016, @02:25PM
You say that all of the locations were expected to be validated as "public" property. Here is something to consider: we discovered that our Church was designated a Pokemon Gym. That's fine, though it is a little unnerving to have strangers roaming our unlit parking lot at night. But then it was discovered that our parking lot was NOT where the gym was supposed to be. It was supposed to be in the parking lot of a business across the street. So, it seems like it is possible for private property to be mis-identified.
(Score: 2) by gnampff on Wednesday August 03 2016, @02:29PM
It is possible, probable even, that people did not notice those invisible portals or the vanishingly small number of Ingress people interacting with them.Or they tolerated them because they were a tiny bit less annonying than your average teen pokemon chaser. There is quite a difference in number and type of people involved in pokemon hunting compared to Ingress. I know of one Ingress player, a friend of mine, and I saw maybe 20-30 pokemon go players recently without much traveling or hanging around in public places.
And then there is of course the possibility that they added more than only those validated portals as spawn points. Or maybe they let those creatures wander around. No idea. IANA pokemon go player.
If they really were stupid enough to spawn their pokemons in peoples backyards then I would love to see them pay for it. I cannot think of anything more dumb in the last decade than all those pokemon/digimon/whatever-mon games and shows. Ok, maybe the Teletubbies were worse...
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Wednesday August 03 2016, @08:45PM
All the Pokemon locations (Pokestops and Gyms) came from Ingress portals. And, yes, there is a HUGE difference in the number of players.
But, the Pokemon themselves can show up almost anywhere. I live about 1/2 a block from a Pokestop, and Pokemon show up in my house all the time. Still, there is no reason to wander into private property. That Pokestop is a public accommodation (it's a "Little Free Library"), right next to the road, and just a 1/2 block from a public park (where there are 2 Gyms).
I am a crackpot
(Score: 5, Insightful) by snick on Wednesday August 03 2016, @02:31PM
Nice dodge. Niantic is the sole owner of the crowdsourced data, but has no responsibility for it.
"It was crowdsourced, so I am not responsible" is as reasonable as "I pulled it out of my ass, so I am not responsible"
The key is that Niantic is _publishing_ bad data in a format that is causing real problems. Yes, prosecute the players who are trespassing (or just prosecute all pokemon go players, either way the world would be a better place) But ALSO hold Niantic responsible for posting signs all over the real world that say "come in here" where they shouldn't.
If Niantic posted a physical sign in front of your house that said "free beer inside" and a bunch of people came and trashed your house looking for beer, Niantic would have some shared responsibility for the damage.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 03 2016, @04:35PM
If Niantic posted a physical sign in front of your house that said "free beer inside" and a bunch of people came and trashed your house looking for beer, Niantic would have some shared responsibility for the damage.
Ah but did Niantic actually do that? Your house having a sign saying "free beer inside" is different from your house having beer visible from the outside. I don't play pokemon go but I got the impression that it's more like some creature appears in your garden and a bunch of people came and trashed your house to catch it.
Just because a creature appears in your garden doesn't mean that others are right to trespass to capture it. Niantic is to be blamed if they gave the impression that it was fine to do so. But otherwise the trespassers are the ones who should take the responsibility.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 03 2016, @05:01PM
By putting the pokemon on private property they are telling people to go there. Both players and company are responsible.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 04 2016, @02:23PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 03 2016, @05:31PM
Think in terms of "incitement to riot". "yelling fire in a movie theater" or "fee stuff" on Craig's list.
Yes, the rioters are responsible for damage they do. Just are the fleeing movie watchers, breaking though a wall instead of using a fire exit. Or the guy with pickup truck taking all the stuff in an empty house.
But the person "lighting-the-match" (yes, pun intended) is reason for all too. Maybe even at a higher cost since he is responsible for each of the other acts.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday August 03 2016, @10:06PM
Think in terms of "incitement to riot". "yelling fire in a movie theater"
The "yelling fire in a crowded theater" example first came about in a court case where they convicted war protesters, which shows how broad and authoritarian this concept is. No one has to listen to your speech, and if they do, too bad for them.
But neither are even comparable normally anyway, since there isn't an incitement to imminent lawless action in this case. People could refrain from playing the game, or players could simply not go on property where they aren't allowed. No one is forcing them to do either.
Maybe even at a higher cost since he is responsible for each of the other acts.
No. People are responsible for their own actions. If you choose to react violently or foolishly to someone else's speech, that's on you.
(Score: 5, Informative) by curunir_wolf on Wednesday August 03 2016, @08:57PM
That's not how it works. Yes, Pokemon can "appear" wherever you are when playing the game. But, it's not "over there". You don't have to move to go catch it - you catch it from wherever you're standing. So, while a Pokemon may show up "over the fence" on some private land, there is NO reason to actually trespass to catch it. Players are encouraged to go where the Pokestops and Gyms are, and Niantic has done a lot of work to make sure they are always in publicly accessible places.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Wednesday August 03 2016, @08:51PM
I believe crowdsourcing does give them a defense in the "safe harbor" provisions of the DMCA... They also did quite a bit of due diligence to ensure all locations were publicly accessible, and they have been removing a lot of locations when they get complaints. They also now have a big banner that appears whenever you go into the game that says "Do not trespass while playing."
I really don't think Niantic is going to be held liable. The class would need to prove some sort of intent or negligence, and I just don't see that.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 1) by Francis on Thursday August 04 2016, @01:16AM
I'm not sure how the DMCA applies here, the safe harbor provision applies to copyright material being traded over somebody elses service. Place locations aren't subject to copyright law as of yet, so the idea of being exempted from copyright claims because of crowd-sourcing is nonsensical.
I'm sure they'll try to weasel out of it, but since the property owners in most cases won't have signed up for the game, there's no basis for Niantic claiming to be free and clear for mistaken listings. They've opted to not verify the locations and as such, I'd be surprised if they weren't held liable for that. At some point there has to be a limit to what putting your fingers in your ears and ignoring likely problems can get you out of.
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Thursday August 04 2016, @01:31AM
They've opted to not verify the locations and as such, I'd be surprised if they weren't held liable for that.
This is incorrect, as has been pointed out multiple times. The Niantic staff personally vetted every location, to ensure that it met all of their TOS, which includes that the location is publicly accessible.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 1) by Francis on Thursday August 04 2016, @01:48AM
I hadn't seen that. That's even worse, if they've vetted the locations and the locations themselves turn out to be private property, then what's the point of vetting them at all?
I'd assumed that they hadn't been vetted as it seems absurd for some of those pokemon to be showing up where they are. For example the gas one showing up near and around the Holocaust museum and the ones showing up near cliffs.
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Thursday August 04 2016, @02:29AM
I don't know about the cliff incident. It seems odd, there must be something else to the story. What I found was "... in Encinitas, California. Two men hunting for Pokemon were so engrossed in the Go app that they walked past a No Trespassing sign and then a Do Not Cross sign near a cliff edge." That seems pretty stupid. I really doubt there was anything there that Niantic put in the location. More likely they were just stupid, and didn't know how to use the game. There are roads and public walking paths clearly MARKED on the game map. Obviously those guys were not using them. There is NOTHING in the game far from those paths, even in parks.
As far as the holocaust museum, it's a public place, accessible to the public. Of COURSE it was a location in the game - many tourist attractions are used. I'm sure there were Ingress players using the portals there, but there just weren't as many so it wasn't an issue. But those locations have already been removed [latimes.com].
I am a crackpot
(Score: 1) by Francis on Thursday August 04 2016, @03:47AM
They did remove the pokemon from the Holocaust museum after the complaint, but if they're verifying locations it seems incredibly insensitive to put any pokemon there, especially that one.
I think the deal with the cliff was that the algorithm they're using doesn't do a good job of dealing with the relative inaccuracy of the devices. So, if they put something next to the road, it can appear in the road or over the fence on the other side of the sidewalk.
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Thursday August 04 2016, @04:20AM
I am a crackpot
(Score: 2) by cykros on Friday August 05 2016, @02:46AM
While they're verifying locations for pokestops and gyms, they're not verifying locations for where pokemon spawn, which appears mostly based on cell phone usage density (much the same as where XM spawns in Ingress). Though it wouldn't surprise me if the stops and gyms were at the holocaust memorials as well, because they're literally exactly the same locations as the portals are in. Incidentally, Ingress players making use of these locations has never been disruptive (we tend to travel solo or in particularly small groups), while it doesn't surprise me to hear that the pokemon crowds were less than welcome. Between the average sense of common courtesy being lower as well as the way gameplay actually works, it's a fairly big difference, but otoh it's not surprising to hear that Niantic didn't think about that considering the millions of portals they already had around the world that they were converting to use in a completely different game. That they're quickly responding to complaints in a reasonable manner seems adequate to me.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Zinho on Wednesday August 03 2016, @05:18PM
Niantic did NOT randomly place gyms or pokestops. They leveraged Ingress portals which were crowdsourced over the previous 3 years.
I play Ingress, and if the ingress portals are being leveraged then Pokemon Go is doing it wrong. I've never seen an ingress portal in anyone's backyard, nor at the edge of a crumbling cliff. The rules for portal locations say that they must be publicly accessible (giving tours == accessible, churches with open-door policies are fair game) and SAFE. The private residences and nuclear power plants where people have been led by virtual pocket monsters should never have been there if they were using the Ingress portal list.
All of those were expected to be validated as "public" property by trusted users.
LMFTFY:
All of those were <snip> validated as publicly accessible by Niantic employees.
Yes, portal submissions are crowdsourced. No, it's not only "trusted users" making suggestions, it's open to everyone (although only at limited times; right now submissions are closed). The submission list is scrubbed slowly by an overwork team directly employed by Niantic, so there is no opening for an appeal to "the crowd" to externalize fault.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday August 03 2016, @06:10PM
Precisely what the hell is an Ingress portal? And what standing in law does it have?
Crowdsourced you say? Ooooohhhh, that sounds offcial.
Seriously, you could do better with Google Earth database access.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by darkfeline on Wednesday August 03 2016, @03:21PM
Why is this even a thing? It's not reasonable to expect Niantic to be able to personally vet every single inch of the planet for whether they should be able to spawn Pokemon or whatever there, and there's probably a clause in the license agreement that tells users that THEY are responsible for following any laws while playing the game. All of which is perfectly sensible.
This is even worse than the "don't use hairdryers in the bath" labels, people should be held to a higher standard than this.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 03 2016, @03:32PM
Seriously, where's the flood of "personal responsibility" posts that you'd normally expect when, you know, you think people should be personally responsible to follow their local laws and respect other people's rights and personal space when playing an augmented reality game? Oh yeah, thats right, the phrase "personal responsibility" never gets used except to victim-blame.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by kurenai.tsubasa on Wednesday August 03 2016, @03:57PM
I'm also surprised by the posts so far. It seems there's a lot of hatred out there for this game as some kind of public nuisance, annoyance, eyesore, etc. Or maybe just old people hating anything kids enjoy that they didn't have as kids.
Are there seriously that many players stupid enough to trespass on private property?
According to Jeffrey Marder, a man living in New Jersey, he received at least five unwelcome visitors that wanted access to his backyard to catch Pokémon within the first week of the game's launch.
So did they trespass or not? This just sounds like some asshole who can't handle people asking permission. Every neighborhood has one. That's the yard if you lose a kickball in it's gone for good. Personally I'd probably say go ahead, knock yourself out and what's back there anyway? Anything decent or just more rattatas?
Then again, I can guess what's really going on here. I'd say this is a pretty good example of plaintiffs just looking for an unearned payday. People knocking at your door is part of owning a fucking house. It's not trespassing. Learn to just say no, end the conversation, and move on with your day. You don't have an obligation to entertain every passer-by who knocks.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by looorg on Wednesday August 03 2016, @04:54PM
People knocking at your door is part of owning a fucking house. It's not trespassing.
... until the time there are hundreds of people at your door (or property) every day. Then it's a real nuisance and not normal anymore. How about having a business where people just keep coming in and then just do their pokemon thing and then leave. They are not really potential customers you are missing. Personally I would find it hilarious if some super rare pokemon showed up at the NSA or CIA or someplace similar.
... maybe just old people hating anything kids enjoy that they didn't have as kids. Are there seriously that many players stupid enough to trespass on private property?
You could combine the two. Perhaps there are a lot of kids that are playing. They are not very considerate or think things thru all that well, it's a big part of being kids. Ohh Pikachu on the rail tracks ... Go! Cool stuff behind this 3m high wire fence ...
I don't play, but I am old (or middle aged). I don't find it annoying as a thing or concept - only somewhat flawed. I would probably find it annoying as hell if they randomly had put one of the stops in my yard. Overall I find it somewhat entertaining when I'm out walking to see all the people with their phones walking around like zombies in packs looking for the various spots, they are quite hard to miss. On the other hand it's probably great - they get to be outside, they get a bit of exercise from all the walking. Somehow I see this working out great now in the summer, it will probably be a bit of a bummer in about 4-5 months when it's freezing cold and snowing - but that largely depends on where in the world you are.
(Score: 1) by gmrath on Wednesday August 03 2016, @05:52PM
" Personally I'd probably say go ahead, knock yourself out and what's back there anyway? Anything decent or just more rattatas?"
I'll bet your property insurance underwriter might have something to say about that. Kids asks for permission. You let kids in backyard. Kid gets hurt. Kid's parents sue the crap out of you because you cannot waive liability by giving simple permission; that requires legal agreement between parties such as between you and a contractor doing work on your property who must have surety bonds to post, proof of insurance, et cetera. After the settlement, insurer drops you. Your next homeowners' insurance premium is going to be exorbitantly expensive. No one wins but the attorneys on both sides and the insurance companies. There is a reason not to let folks wander around your backyard or on your property. I mean, other than being a grumpy old fart, that is.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday August 03 2016, @06:23PM
Actually I'm betting kurenai.tsubasa doesn't own ANY property, and holds a certain jealousy or contempt for those that do, and finds it a convenient debating tactic to claim magnanimity in management of said non-existent property.
Five kids poking at their phone standing next to your rose bushes might make you chuckle. Fifty kids a day trampling same roses changes your opinion real fast. But hey, if your rose is plastic and in a pot in your 3rd floor apartment windowsill, who cares what happens to the real bushes.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Wednesday August 03 2016, @10:58PM
Actually I'm betting kurenai.tsubasa does. And I'll bet she enjoys eating hipster kale on her property! She might even be growing fresh, organic hipster kale as we speak! (Ok, I haven't gotten around to starting a veggie garden yet.)
Yeah, that's right. My ex-parents threw me out and cut me off when I was 19-ish, I spent some time homeless, and now I'm a trans fucking gendered millennial property owner. How's that for bootstrappy? It's called living within your means.
GP makes a somewhat valid point. It would suck, but my insurance policy doesn't leave me out to dry last I checked. Now, answer me this: did you or did you not actually have a shed in the 80s that you nailed plastic bags to as part of an 8 year experiment?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by mcgrew on Wednesday August 03 2016, @05:28PM
You've never noticed how incredibly stupid the average human ape is? This is actually a re-run of something that happened in St Louis in 1962.
A pop radio station, WIL (east side of the river, west of the river the call letters start with K) ran a contest where something like a thousand dollars (that would be about $10,000 in today's money) was supposed to be buried in the St Louis area and they gave hints over the air as a way to build listenership; their rival KXOK was much more popular.
People were digging holes in Forest Park, on golf courses, schoolyards, private homes' yards. It was a serious clusterfuck, even worse than the Pokemon thing today. There wasn't just trespass, but vandalism. Digging holes in your neighbor's yard is vandalism, after all.
When it was found that the contest was really a hoax perpetrated by station management and there was really no buried treasure, the FCC yanked their license. WIL was dark for a few years and came back under new ownership as a country music station.
Are the Republicans really in favor of genocide, or are they just cowards terrified of terrorist twit Trump?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by n1 on Wednesday August 03 2016, @03:50PM
If Niantic wants to use the world as their playground, then they should be expected to vet it appropriately.
If businesses want to operate in a jurisdiction, they have to comply with all laws and rules applicable to their business.
You don't get to say "oh it's a lot of work and really complicated, it would get in the way of us making money to comply with regulations and respect peoples privacy and property."
You can have big dreams, high aspirations for creating a global entertainment phenomenon, but that's not a license to do whatever the fuck you want, especially when your digital phenomenon interacts with other people's physical space without consent.
Both Niantic and the players of the game who do not respect other people's privacy and property can share them blame equally in my opinion for being another nail in the coffin of privacy for the general public.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 03 2016, @05:33PM
I hope the local tax authority is requesting their cut from all the in app sales, while in the city's parks, libraries, ...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 03 2016, @05:39PM
The virtual elements don't interact with the physical space. If you never install Pokemon Go then you'll never see the Pokemon. Just because a device says something interesting might be over there doesn't mean you're allowed to go there. Are you really trying to claim property owners own the entire virtual space around their property? They don't own underground nor the airspace, so why virtual space? If in a movie something blows up Ohio should Ohio residents be allowed to sue because the movie creators didn't get everyone's permission to virtually destroy their property?
Pokemon Go is a funner (it should be a word) version of geocaching. Most geocachers are able to respect property boundaries, but it seems like a lot of Go players aren't. The world by default is public and there are ways to opt out: post a no trespassing sign or put a fence around your property. If you want to make money, put up a camera and subpoena Niantic for the identities of all the players who enter your lands, then sue the players.
It was rude of Niantic to not limit the game to public areas (roadways and parks) and provide a way to opt-in, but that shouldn't be illegal. Nothing tangible is being done to any property by the game.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday August 03 2016, @08:09PM
At the same time, you're inventing a new and untested "property right". That is, the right to a geo coordinate. Did you prominently post the coordinates of your virtual fence? In what coordinate system? If Niantic creats a data record where something is virtually located within your virtual fence, is anything actually on your property? Can they pay you in virtual money?
Perhaps it would be better if people could behave like we were taught that adults behave when we were in kindergarten. Just ask them to delete the whatever that's attracting people to your property. Meanwhile, Niantic needs to make that easy to do.
(Score: 2) by Capt. Obvious on Wednesday August 03 2016, @08:14PM
Why isn't it reasonable to expect a company that wants to be worldwide to put up worldwide resources? I mean, yeah it would suck if it was a staged rollout for the people who had to wait, but Niantic is making more money because of the global reach of their data. Expecting that global data to be verified seems like the least you can expect.
Now, in this particular case, you can claim that spawning Pokemon that then migrate around, even on private property, ought be okay. And we can have a fun discussion about that. But I'm just puzzled why this "I cannot grow in scale without adding more data checks" is a legitimate argument.
(Score: 2) by looorg on Wednesday August 03 2016, @03:39PM
This is one of things I have wondered about regarding Pokemon:Go, why isn't there a gps-spawn-blocklist? It's been in the news here for a month or whatever it is now about them showing up on private property or places that are normally out of bound to the public, inside churches and at cemeteries, on roads, really close to (or actually on) rail road tracks and the list just goes on. If they get the map and stuff from the Google Map shouldn't this be quite simple to block?
I'd be quite pissed if I owned a piece of land/store/location that they just randomly willy-nilly decided to put a stop, pet, gym or whatever on and had to deal with people running around it all the time.
(Score: 2) by richtopia on Wednesday August 03 2016, @04:02PM
I was discussing this at dinner last night. This could be a revenue stream for Pokemon! They already sell stuff to attract users, so why not something to repel them?
Granted, this is somewhat like blackmail, but the pokemon are adorable!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 03 2016, @04:20PM
And we'd also get another lawsuit.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 03 2016, @05:22PM
You try to make me pay to get rid of them and I will sue you.
You don't have the right to bait kids to my yard and then offer to make them go away if I pay a fee.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Wednesday August 03 2016, @05:22PM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by looorg on Thursday August 04 2016, @01:54AM
Perhaps one should just turn once store (or whatever kind of property it is) into a Faraday cage. That should kill the signal and disconnect you from the game shouldn't it? Getting a phone jammer would do the trick to I guess (legality of said device not taken into consideration) ... or I guess we could just wait a few months and for most people this fad have probably blown over and they are onto the next new cool thing whatever this is and life goes on.
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Wednesday August 03 2016, @04:40PM
This is a class action suit in the USA, land of shyster lawyers in desperate need of tort reform. In any same country, this suit would be thrown out immediately.
Consider how many books take place in real places. Just as an example, I recall a series about dark and magical events in and around Edinburgh. Is there really a hidden basement under a house on Flibbeldy Street? Maybe so, maybe not - the readers generally do not invite themselves into people's private gardens and living rooms to find out.
I don't really see how Pokemon Go is any different: They've designated some real-world spots as game locations, so what? If it's a private area, you don't invite yourself in. There are plenty of other spots that are accessible.
A lawsuit? Only in the USA...
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 03 2016, @04:43PM
Gotta sue 'em all! Lawyer-man!
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Wednesday August 03 2016, @05:24PM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by WillR on Wednesday August 03 2016, @06:48PM
(Score: 2) by theluggage on Wednesday August 03 2016, @06:48PM
I don't really see how Pokemon Go is any different: They've designated some real-world spots as game locations, so what? If it's a private area, you don't invite yourself in. There are plenty of other spots that are accessible.
Pokemon Go is different because not only does it actively encourage players to visit that place, physically visiting those places is the only way to play the game.
Also - its not just "ooh look - there's a cool pokemon that's randomly appeared just over that fence" - there are "Pokestops" that dispense power-ups every 5 minutes and "Gyms" where you train your Pokemon that take the name of the location - so you'll see a PokeStop called "The Spotted Cow Inn" or "Springfield Baptist Church" shown as a disc with a photo of the building. Naive people (of whom there is a limitless supply) might reasonably think those institutions were somehow willingly participating in the game (and I'm sure part of the business plan is to introduce sponsored pokestops/gyms).
Its very intrusive and the designers would have to be complete morons not to realise that their actions could cause people to congregate & possibly cause trouble at these locations.
(Score: 2) by SecurityGuy on Wednesday August 03 2016, @07:25PM
You answered your own question: "the readers generally do not invite themselves into people's private gardens and living rooms to find out."
If I go home and find one random person wandering in my backyard, I'm not going to think it's anyone's fault but that one random person. If someone creates a game and that kicks off a stream of random people coming to wander your backyard, and there's nothing you can do to stop it short of kicking each one out individually, until the game dies out, then I'd definitely think you'd have legitimate grounds to ask (or make, legally) that company stop. The alternative seems much like the argument children use. "Hey, I'm just swinging my arm. Not my fault your face is in the way!"
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday August 03 2016, @10:18PM
Except that there is no magical force that makes people play this game or trespass on random property. That's not a childish argument; that's the long-lost concept of personal responsibility that very few people seem to care about.
(Score: 2) by Capt. Obvious on Wednesday August 03 2016, @08:22PM
Except, they do. Movie tourism is a real thing, but so is unwanted gawking. People have had to move out of their house because it was in a popular movie. Usually, there is a lag, between when people see the Goonies, and when they are old enough to trek to the house, so sometimes they're not even the people who got paid for the filming.
Things like any area code's 867-5309 get ruined by idiots calling it.
This is why movies/TV shows all use "555" prefixes, because otherwise they risk getting sued for unleashing a bunch of fans calling the number.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 03 2016, @06:44PM
My house gets overflown by planes, trains and automobiles (well, 1 out of 3 aint bad).
And its perfectly legal, although rules abound.
I expect a similar thing for virtual overlays.
And at the end of the day, the individual needs to take responsibility.
Forcing every shitty little (game) company to do whatever post-facto perfection the lawyers can dream up is bureaucratic bull.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 05 2016, @07:08PM
I don't expect it with virtual overlays. I don't care what your phone, your dog or any other imaginary voices tells you. Your video game is not a license to trespass. But if your logic holds up, maybe the police can start using Pokemon as an excuse for "stumbling" into places without a warrant.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by archfeld on Wednesday August 03 2016, @08:15PM
It is illegal to graffiti on someone's walls, but if it is done to a virtual representation of the walls who owns that ? Is it ok to write stuff say directions or a review on the front of a restaurant in a virtual world ? Seems a bit esoteric now, but as virtual and reality come closer to interacting things like this are going to occur more and more often. A case like this is going to set precedent for future interactions that extend far beyond today. I read about a case in the UK in which a man was a gardener and repeated winner growing roses, which had won him money. There are Pokémon appearing in his garden and trespassers have trampled his roses attempting to catch them. He can demonstrate a potential financial loss. I understand the actual trespassers deserve the bulk of the responsibility but does the manufacturer also bear some responsibility for encouraging the gamers to catch them all and failing to respect private property ? Gonna be interesting to see how the courts rule...
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 3, Interesting) by curunir_wolf on Wednesday August 03 2016, @09:10PM
I still don't understand how this happens. There are no Pokestops on private property. When a Pokemon "appears" in the game, you don't have to go anywhere to catch it - you just stand there and hit it with your finger to catch it. I can't imagine why people would be wandering into private property to play the game or to catch Pokemon, it just doesn't make sense.
This story doesn't make sense, and the story above of people asking someone to play in their backyard doesn't make sense, either. I have to think these are made-up stories or rumors that have been altered in the re-telling or there is something else going on. I get that all those people walking around with their phones (in public) gets a little weird. But these types of stories don't fit.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday August 03 2016, @09:58PM
If the player isn't allowed on a particular piece of property, it is entirely their fault for trespassing. The game can't make them do anything. How about blaming people for their own actions?
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday August 04 2016, @12:24AM
Wow, these Pokémon guys are making huge money off this stupid game, how can I get some?
I know I'll sue 'em.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 04 2016, @02:44PM
Niantic's servers spawn pokemon at random, but the app client only shows you pokemon which can be captured from where you currently are. You have no need whatsoever to trespass to catch anything you can see with your client app. You also don't need to trespass to reach any pokestop or gym, since these locations are curated as publicly accessible.
The problem is that some apps are using the Niantic API to search for rare spawns. People find out there's a rare spawn at a particular point which they aren't in capture range for. They go there. They have to trespass to get there. They could have never found these rare spawns using the legitimate game client. They have to use an unauthorized app which Niantic is fighting hard to prevent.
In short, the people causing the issues are the people causing the issues.