Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Saturday June 10 2017, @07:55PM   Printer-friendly
from the full-life-consequences dept.

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

In August, Milwaukee's Lake Park saw swarms of Pokémon Go players, some of whom trampled and trashed the area, making a general nuisance of themselves. Not everyone behaved badly, as John Dargle, Jr, director of the Milwaukee County Department of Parks, Recreation & Culture, acknowledged in a letter [PDF] at the time. But a subset of thoughtless gamers created enough of a burden that Milwaukee County Supervisor Sheldon Wasserman proposed an ordinance [PDF] to require augmented reality game makers to obtain a permit to use county parks in their apps.

The ordinance was approved and took effect in January. It has become a solution waiting for a problem – according to a spokesperson for Milwaukee County, no game maker has bothered to apply for a permit since then.

[...] Nonetheless, in April, Candy Lab, a maker of augmented reality games based in Nevada, filed a lawsuit "out of genuine fear and apprehension that this ordinance, conceptually and as written, poses a mortal threat not only to Candy Lab AR's new location-based augmented reality game, but also to its entire business model, and, indeed, to the emerging medium of augmented reality as a whole."

-- submitted from IRC


Original Submission

Related Stories

Judge Halts Wisconsin Money Grab 17 comments

Remember all the handwringing over the fact that games like Pokemon go brought people into their own parks? We covered it just a few weeks ago. Seems a lot of Soylentils were very much in favor of requirements for demanding pre-approval and fees from any company that may someday make any future profit from any citizen who wandered into a city park.

Trial Will Decide Whether Milwaukee Can Require Permits for Using Locations in Augmented Reality

Well it didn't take long for that to be slapped down by the courts.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/07/judge-blocks-law-regulating-where-augmented-reality-games-can-be-played/

A judge on Thursday declared as unconstitutional a local Wisconsin ordinance mandating that the makers of augmented reality games get special use permits if their mobile apps were to be played in county parks. The law—the nation's first of its kind—was challenged on First Amendment grounds amid concerns it amounted to a prior restraint of a game maker's speech. What's more, the law was seemingly impossible to comply with.


Original Submission

Pokémon Go Blamed for Increased Traffic Crashes 7 comments

Two economists are blaming Pokémon Go for causing traffic accidents and likely fatalities:

For a brief, shining period last summer, Pokémon Go reigned supreme. It brought obsession, joy, and, according to a new paper, injuries and death.

This working paper, appropriately and evocatively titled "Death by Pokemon Go," shows the darker side of the massively popular augmented reality game. Purdue University economists Mara Faccio and John McConnell combed through accident reports from Tippecanoe County, Indiana, in the first 148 days after the game was released in July 2016. In that county alone, the total value from injuries, damage, and the two lives lost is between $5.2 million and $25.5 million. If you scale this to cover the entire US, it would suggest that $2 billion to $7.3 billion were lost just in those few months.

The reports showed during those 148 days, 286 additional crashes occurred in the county, compared to the same period before. Of these, 134 were near pokéstops. In this scenario, it's crucial to determine that Pokémon Go caused these damages directly, as opposed to just causing people to be outside more, thus more likely to be hit by cars.

Also at PC Magazine.

Related: Peak Pokémon Go?
No Pokémon Go or Other AR Games in China
Russian Prosecutors Seek 3.5 Years for Blogger Who Played "Pokémon Go" in Church
Trial Will Decide Whether Milwaukee Can Require Permits for Using Locations in Augmented Reality


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Saturday June 10 2017, @08:15PM (31 children)

    by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Saturday June 10 2017, @08:15PM (#523572) Journal

    Once again, this sort of stuff seems to fall under the "just because your business is on the 'internet' doesn't mean you should have different rules." Here's the actual concern from TFA:

    Candy Lab's complaint takes issue with its interpretation of the permitting requirements. These include:

            Assuming liability for the behavior of players.
            Providing $1m in general liability coverage.
            Sending a company representative to areas where the game is being played.
            Providing portable restrooms for every 100 players in an area.
            Parking fees.
            Pre-approval of content and content revisions.
            Taxes on revenue from in-app purchases made in permitted areas.
            Forced display of the Milwaukee County insignia.

    Candy Lab's concern is that rules of this sort, if adopted elsewhere in the US, would bankrupt companies involved in augmented reality games. And legislators have begun paying attention on a national level.

    I agree that this list looks a bit draconian at first glance. But although public parks are for the use of the public, in most municipalities, commercial use can be severely restricted. If you operate a business in the public park that brings in large crowds, how many of these "permitting requirements" would you have to conform to? I'd suspect if you wanted to host a large event as a commercial endeavor (say, a rock concert or something) in a public park, they'd probably make you conform to a lot of these.

    My perspective is the same rules should apply to all commercial endeavors that seek to make use of the public parks. If these sorts of restrictions would be levied against a physical business with a similar amount of "customers," augmented reality apps should conform to them as well. If these restrictions go beyond those made against physical businesses, then some of the permit requirements should be dropped.

    • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Saturday June 10 2017, @08:20PM (17 children)

      by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Saturday June 10 2017, @08:20PM (#523574) Journal

      Oh, to be clear -- I'm not saying that I agree all such restrictions are necessarily a good idea, even for physical businesses operating partly in the park. But I do think the starting place should be equivalence of regulation between online and offline. Uber and Airbnb, etc. have sometimes correctly drawn attention to overly bureaucratic restrictions or even outright corruption. But that's not the argument the plaintiff appears to be making in this lawsuit, which is apparently centered on how this is burdensome on "augmented reality" apps and such.

      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 10 2017, @08:31PM (9 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 10 2017, @08:31PM (#523577)

        But there is no commercial use of the parks in these circumstances. The difference between a person walking through the park sending texts on their phone and looking for Pokémon on their phone is which app is currently the active/front-most app on their phone.

        • (Score: 4, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Saturday June 10 2017, @08:43PM (8 children)

          by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Saturday June 10 2017, @08:43PM (#523579) Journal

          But there is no commercial use of the parks in these circumstances.

          Pokemon Go crossed the billion-dollar revenue threshold earlier this year [techcrunch.com]. An essential feature relies on people exploring locations to generate that revenue.

          The difference between a person walking through the park sending texts on their phone and looking for Pokémon on their phone is which app is currently the active/front-most app on their phone.

          Are you rewarded for sending texts from specific locations in a public park? Does the company earn revenue from your actions happening in a specific location?

          Pokemon Go, as I understand it (I've never been even vaguely interested in playing), made a lot of choices about where to locate various things in real life based on how popular such locations might be with users, etc. I assume that's why it chose to "locate" game features in public parks. When texting companies start encouraging people to congregate and send texts in parks for some reason -- to generate PROFIT -- we can have a discussion about what they're doing with their apps too.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 10 2017, @09:08PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 10 2017, @09:08PM (#523588)

            Some texts still result in a charge per text. If someone sends text from a park bench does the city get a piece of that charge? What about someone sitting under a tree in a park who donates money to a charity because the concert they are watching on their phone prompted them with a short code?

            Since you don't understand how Pokémon works (I have never played it but I have nieces who have) you don't buy anything at a location. You only discover the Pokémon characters running around and you "capture" them (actually capture a token for that particular type of discovery, similar to an electronic version of geocaching).

          • (Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday June 10 2017, @09:11PM (5 children)

            by frojack (1554) on Saturday June 10 2017, @09:11PM (#523589) Journal

            Does the company earn revenue from your actions happening in a specific location?

            The Short answer is NO.
            The almost as short answer is NO. https://techboomers.com/t/pokemon-go-prices [techboomers.com]

            It has nothing to do with WHERE you are when (or if) you decide to spend ANY money in the game. Most players are kids, and most players don't ever spend a single DIME on the game.

            --
            No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
            • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Saturday June 10 2017, @09:26PM (4 children)

              by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Saturday June 10 2017, @09:26PM (#523596) Journal

              Let me rephrase: did the company make choices about where to require key events to take place in order to make its product perform better? Did such design choices cause the product to perform better? I think so. If product performance was improved, did revenues increase? Yes.

              Anyhow, let's take a step back here, because I actually view the taxation aspect of the permit regulations to be the most controversial. Even IF we conclude that there is no commercial interest here, a company encouraging people to go certain places without adequate planning could definitely create a public nuisance or something. Even non-profit organizations are frequently required to obtain permits if they want to use public parks for their activities.

              • (Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Saturday June 10 2017, @09:37PM (3 children)

                by frojack (1554) on Saturday June 10 2017, @09:37PM (#523602) Journal

                a company encouraging people to go certain places without adequate planning could definitely create a public nuisance

                You mean like establishing the park in the first place? Then building parking lots and sidewalks near it? Then licensing vendors and pay toilets to make park use more pleasant? All to build an Attractive Nuisance!!

                So we should prosecute the cities themselves, or the citizens who demanded (and paid for) those parks? Where was their planning? Where was their fences and gates and posted hours and police? How irresponsible!

                --
                No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
                • (Score: 5, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Saturday June 10 2017, @10:42PM (2 children)

                  by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Saturday June 10 2017, @10:42PM (#523616) Journal

                  You seem to be unfamiliar with the notion of the tragedy of the commons [wikipedia.org].

                  As it was once explained by a philosophy professor, let's say you REALLY love to walk around on grass in your bare feet. So you do down to the public park every night, and take off your shoes, and walk around on the grass -- and you enjoy yourself. Fantastic.

                  Now imagine if every single person in the city went to the park and did the same thing every day. After a couple months, there is no grass left, and thus no resource for ANYONE to enjoy.

                  Public parks ARE a public resource. But they are designed with specific use cases in mind, including specific volumes of people, specific kinds of events, perhaps specific design issues to either encourage or discourage crowds in certain locations. If you violate those use cases, you may make the park less valuable as a resource for everyone. People DID complain about the crowds created by Pokemon Go. Are all of their complaints about the use of public resources invalid?

                  So, what does the city have to do if the grass starts to die in the above scenario? It passes regulations over the use of the grass in the parks. That's its right to protect the appropriate use of the park as determined by voters for all citizens of the city. That's what it's doing here. If citizens of the city disagree with the necessity for such permits, let them take that up with their elected representatives.

                  • (Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday June 11 2017, @12:37AM (1 child)

                    by frojack (1554) on Sunday June 11 2017, @12:37AM (#523629) Journal

                    You seem to be unfamiliar with the notion of the tragedy of the commons

                    On the contrary, you are clearly unfamiliar with it. This has NOTHING to do with that.

                    There exists no commons in modern cities. Certainly not American cities. BLM lands are the closest example in the US, but even those lands have usage regulations.

                    The parks are already maintained by city government, with regulations and a budget and a maintenance staff, and hours of operation, and police patrols. NOTHING at all like the tragedy of the commons.

                    Stay in school!

                    --
                    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
          • (Score: 2) by edIII on Saturday June 10 2017, @09:26PM

            by edIII (791) on Saturday June 10 2017, @09:26PM (#523595)

            You've nailed the distinction. Profit.

            There will be some sort of "Fair Use" augmentation to prevent 1st Amendment issues from arising, but any commercial augmentation provider would need to cover the usage fees that their customers cause. No different than parks hosting county fairs and whatnot, or even a private road. If one person starts running a business with 50 people showing up to work each day, they cause 50 more cars to be on the road with the associated wear and tear. Their share of road costs is no longer equal with everyone else.

            Causing hundreds of people to enter the park, running around hysterically like idiots, is in fact a usage and resource issue. Organizers need to play by the rules, and when augmented reality is explicitly designed to interact with reality, there is functionally no difference between a real event hosted on public grounds. If the augmented reality is not designed to host events, play games, or as a matter of design entice and reward people for accessing an area, then it should be free to do whatever it wants.

            I dunno about some of the points. The bathrooms and parking fees seem to be a bit extreme, but again, that should just conform with what any other organizer would experience in an event like a fair where roads and businesses are impacted. Of course, it would be determined on a local basis.

            There is a degree of nuance that is missing here, but the law can evolve to address it. It would be interesting to study it first and determine the impact on public resources before deciding that a law is required. As for the vandalism and other undesirable behavior, enforce existing laws.

            --
            Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by frojack on Saturday June 10 2017, @08:51PM (6 children)

        by frojack (1554) on Saturday June 10 2017, @08:51PM (#523581) Journal

        Oh, to be clear --

        You're very far from clear. I don't believe you've thought this through at all.

        Pokémon Go is world wide in scope, no more focused on this one park than any other location world wide. It does not Schedule events. It does not control where people go. Further more it is statically and dynamically crowd sourced, the more people go someplace the more that place becomes interesting for a period of time.

        Just how many permits should a company have to get for any activity they MAY "generate?" depending on the WHIM of thousands of individuals world wide?. From how many such authorities? How long in advance? At what price?

        Does google maps need to apply for permits to show roads, parks, beaches? What about post cards saying Wish You Were Here, and showing beaches on Waikiki? Does NASA need a permit to publicize a Solar Eclipse on Aug 21 simply because the track of totality is known in advance and every hotel room in that track is already booked?

        This borders on absurdity, and equating it with a scheduled event is not helpful. Neither is being an apologist for yet another government money grab.

        --
        No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
        • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Saturday June 10 2017, @09:32PM (5 children)

          by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Saturday June 10 2017, @09:32PM (#523600) Journal

          I've thought it through a lot.

          Here's the thing: did this company deliberate decide to locate certain "objectives" or whatever at a higher concentration in public parks compared to the distribution across the earth in general? Did it benefit from doing so, directly or indirectly?

          They CAN control where people go to a great extent based on where they place objectives. From my understanding -- and please correct me if I'm wrong -- the game frequently locates objectives in prominent public locations because it's easy to draw crowds there. (My sense is that they've also received some corporate sponsorship for some of the locations, or am I just misremembering a news story about that?)

          IF the designers of Pokemon Go spread their objectives evenly across the face of the Earth, you could legitimately argue that they had no control over where people went -- since a choice to go to a park and look for Pokemon would be just as likely or unlikely to yield "results" for players as anywhere else. IF -- as I sense -- that's NOT true, and they designed the game in such a way that it would draw crowds to certain locations, THEN they ARE to some extent responsible for where people go.

          And yes, this may create a HUGE burden on them. I agree. It may be hard for them to predict crowds, etc. But if they are going to deliberately seek to cause them to promote their product, they should be as responsible as any other company that draws crowds to that location.

          • (Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday June 10 2017, @09:51PM (4 children)

            by frojack (1554) on Saturday June 10 2017, @09:51PM (#523606) Journal

            IF the designers of Pokemon Go spread their objectives evenly across the face of the Earth,

            The spread their objectives WHERE PEOPLE ARE. Its not a driving game.

            And none of their revenue depends on you visiting any specific spot. Furthermore it is dynamically crowd sourced and Niantic does not have total control of the locations. 16 kids sitting around a Dairy Queen looking at the game on their way to their next target will attract more players.

            Most of the players don't pay a cent for the game or the play time.
            Citizens just using their own parks is not a crime or a licensible event. If it were there would be coin operated turnstiles installed.
            Maybe health insurance companies should Pay Niantic.

            Yes, Niantic made money. So what. They already pay taxes on that. You've got a serious case of Tall Poppy syndrome.

            --
            No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
            • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Saturday June 10 2017, @10:22PM (2 children)

              by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Saturday June 10 2017, @10:22PM (#523610) Journal

              And none of their revenue depends on you visiting any specific spot.

              Irrelevant. As I already said above, a non-profit corporation holding an event that drew a crowd to a public park may still be required to obtain permits.

              Furthermore it is dynamically crowd sourced and Niantic does not have total control of the locations.

              I never said it had "total control." But my understanding is that the location of important elements (Pokestops, gyms, spawns, etc.) was at least partly determined by the company, no? If they want to avoid crowds congregating in spaces the city demands permits for, then don't have objectives or major game elements there that will draw crowds. The company has responded to requests to disallow such things in various locations around the world (Auschwitz, Holocaust museums, national cemeteries, etc.). If they don't want to pay for a permit to locate game features within the park, then just disable it.

              You're acting like this company has to actually fork over all the money to pay for the stuff listed in the permit list. They DON'T. They can just choose not to use public parks for their game in this city.

              Yes, Niantic made money. So what. They already pay taxes on that.

              Again, while we could argue the commercial interest, even if there isn't any, there's still statutes about creating a public nuisance, etc. Like it or not, cities do have jurisdiction over city parks and what happens there. If some company is encouraging behavior in the park that the city feels is creating problems, it is well within their rights to address it. I'm NOT saying they're necessarily entitled to a share of revenue or whatever it is you think I'm arguing for. But they do have a right to set conditions for the use of the parks, and if a company doesn't agree to said conditions, the city has a right to say that they can't USE the park resources (which they ARE doing) for the company's endeavor.

              • (Score: 4, Insightful) by frojack on Sunday June 11 2017, @12:54AM

                by frojack (1554) on Sunday June 11 2017, @12:54AM (#523632) Journal

                corporation holding an event

                There is no event.
                There is no schedule.
                Its nothing more than a notation on an electronic map.

                People choose when to go to that notation.
                They do it in their free time.
                The city can choose when to close the park gates.

                It doesn't matter how many bone headed arguments you dream up there is no possible way that any mention of the existence of a park needs a permit from the city with fees paid. There is no possible way that could be enforced, there is no possible way anyone could ever fulfill such a requirement to register and pay fees for every frickin park in the world.

                You are lobbying (with unfathomable pinheadery) for a police state of ridiculous proportions to seize money from any company that so much as mentions a park when the taxpayers who actually own the park, and pay for it's upkeep, actually use the park.

                I suppose I'm going to have to have a corporate sponsor to visit a park now? A badge issued by Pepsi, or Ford?

                --
                No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 11 2017, @03:18AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 11 2017, @03:18AM (#523678)

                You really have no idea about how the game works, or even what the game is about. And the more you post the less you sound like you know what you are saying.

            • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 11 2017, @07:18AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 11 2017, @07:18AM (#523720)

              And the root of the issue is that there are some players that are disrupting the peace and vandalizing/etc. Ie: being assholes.

              There's already laws in place for that. The park is basically looking for a wealthy scapegoat to milk rather than trying to get disruptive people to move on.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday June 10 2017, @08:26PM (11 children)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday June 10 2017, @08:26PM (#523576) Journal

      Your response seems perfectly reasonable. Let me add another thought.

      If the city is "hosting" your "business model" - that is, you are generating revenue through the use of the city's resources, then the city should be reimbursed for the use of those resources. The city should probably be entitled to some portion of the profits, as well, after said reimbursements.

      If this were private property, say, on my own fifteen acres of land, I might be willing to allow hordes of people to access my land, for a fee. And, exactly as you suggest, there would be some restrictions. Stay out of the house, for starters - trespassers will be shot, survivors will be shot again. No lights. When the sun goes down, the property goes dark. Any lights will be shot out - and if your hand happens to be in the way, your hand goes with the light. Bring the porta-potties, you're gonna need them. And, I want a couple dollars per head. I don't know how much, really, that would take some thought. I mean, people are going to be a nuisance, even if they obey my simple rules. I want to be paid for that nuisance.

      The city is entitled to SOMETHING - the questions is, just what are they entitled to?

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 10 2017, @08:44PM (5 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 10 2017, @08:44PM (#523580)

        The city is entitled to SOMETHING - the questions is, just what are they entitled to?

        I disagree. The city is entitled to nothing because the people using the streets, sidewalks, parks, etc already pay taxes. I don't hear any clamoring for map applications or navigation systems having to pay for their users to use city streets.

        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Saturday June 10 2017, @08:59PM (2 children)

          by frojack (1554) on Saturday June 10 2017, @08:59PM (#523584) Journal

          Exactly. People don't drive vary far to Play Pokémon Go. They are all locals. I doubt Niantic made any incremental money because someone visited a park. I suspect the City is entitled to the extra sales tax revenue generated by the run on the concession stands or near by businesses, or the sales tax on RunAway's increased ammunition purchases.

          --
          No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
          • (Score: 2) by VLM on Sunday June 11 2017, @12:14AM (1 child)

            by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Sunday June 11 2017, @12:14AM (#523625)

            They are all locals.

            I grew up in that general area (well, within 200 miles...) and its complicated.

            Ah well, um, in this specific case in a hyper segregated city the locals pay $500K to live in a minority free neighborhood and then because they live in a city instead of a suburb the unwashed masses can walk down the road 10 minutes and discolor their pristine park land.

            Most of the locals complaining are of the extreme leftist variety where holiness is signalled by living in a pure white neighborhood that is holier than us burb-dwellers because they're closer to the hood than we are, and when the hood comes out to say "hi" they kind of flip their shit and freak out.

            What we're witnessing is the phone equivalent of "driving while black".

            You'll note this "problem" isn't happening in Mequon / Brookfield / Chenequa because poor folk can't walk 25 miles but they can walk a couple city blocks. If there were poor people in walking distance of Chenequa... well there aren't so it doesn't matter.

            Milwaukee is a weird city. Theres tons of people and housing stock for incomes below $20K/yr and explosive construction for tens of thousands of people (as if there are that many in Milwaukee) over $500K/yr and there's nothing in between, thats the purpose of the burbs. The burbs are difficult to afford at under $50K/yr or so, which is why there's all the gaslighting about how millennials, who happen to be dirt poor on average, love living is some of the worst parts of the city.

            I lived in a burb named "West Allis" (and yes there is no Allis or East allis, but there used to be an industrial employer named "Allis Chalmers"... ) until 1978 when it started getting really bad. I was just a kid then.

            • (Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday June 11 2017, @12:59AM

              by frojack (1554) on Sunday June 11 2017, @12:59AM (#523636) Journal

              What we're witnessing is the phone equivalent of "driving while black".

              And it seems a lot of people want to justify making that a license-able event.

              --
              No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
        • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Saturday June 10 2017, @10:28PM (1 child)

          by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Saturday June 10 2017, @10:28PM (#523614) Journal

          The city is entitled to nothing because the people using the streets, sidewalks, parks, etc already pay taxes.

          And the official representatives of said taxpayers (the Milwaukee County Board) have determined that this permit system is appropriate. If said taxpayers disagree with the county's response to this, they are welcome to vote for other representation, make objections at council meetings (or whatever), etc.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 11 2017, @03:26AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 11 2017, @03:26AM (#523681)

            I'm not sure you actually understand the subject matter, and as such seem to be proselytising for some bizarre governmental oversight, and special taxation, of companies that mention public spaces in games.

      • (Score: 2) by Whoever on Saturday June 10 2017, @08:58PM (3 children)

        by Whoever (4524) on Saturday June 10 2017, @08:58PM (#523583) Journal

        I can tell you from personal experience that the people behind Pokemon Go will not remove locations even if they are repeatedly told that the location is both private property and dangerous (construction site). Expecting them to pay you? Good luck with that.

        • (Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday June 10 2017, @09:03PM (2 children)

          by frojack (1554) on Saturday June 10 2017, @09:03PM (#523585) Journal

          Its a construction site, and it doesn't already have Fences? It was probably parkland before construction started.

          --
          No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
          • (Score: 3, Informative) by Whoever on Saturday June 10 2017, @09:22PM (1 child)

            by Whoever (4524) on Saturday June 10 2017, @09:22PM (#523593) Journal

            It was always private property (although it will soon be a public park), it was fenced off, but one could still get in. I sent photos showing the fencing, the no entry signs, the private property signs, yet still they would not remove the locations.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 10 2017, @09:40PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 10 2017, @09:40PM (#523604)

              its like when google honors just one request to remove some distasteful content. Suddenly they are responsible for all of it.

              But I agree, there is stuff included in these programs and services that shouldn't be there anyway. Just because I live on the planet doesn't mean I want people's foot traffic as they climb over my fences to get properly geotagged so they can capture an augmented reality figment of a developer's imagination. That is profit driven, and while I wouldn't want to harm anyone to get them off my property, it seems that asking nicely should be more than enough.

              We know it's not, and sometimes the best recourse is not to ask everyone that arrives to leave, but to have the developers remove the signs pointing to my property since I didn't ask for guests.

      • (Score: 2) by deimtee on Sunday June 11 2017, @05:02PM

        by deimtee (3272) on Sunday June 11 2017, @05:02PM (#523869) Journal

        They are entitled to stick turnstiles on the gates and charge admission. That's it. Admission fee may be higher for some uses (ie commercial), but if you don't go in the park, they don't get to chase you down and make you pay for someone who did.
        Suggestion: Issue n tokens to residents, everyone drops a coin/token in a slot to get in. You make enough use of the park that you run out of tokens, you start dropping coins. The city uses the money to maintain/improve the park. Non-residents who use the park but don't pay local taxes are now also paying their share.

        --
        If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday June 10 2017, @09:05PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday June 10 2017, @09:05PM (#523586) Journal

      I agree that this list looks a bit draconian at first glance.

      This list still looks draconian. The whole point of public spaces is to be used. And this seems a normal use of the parks.

  • (Score: 2) by looorg on Saturday June 10 2017, @08:25PM (1 child)

    by looorg (578) on Saturday June 10 2017, @08:25PM (#523575)

    Isn't this what the park has rangers for? Fine people for when they break the rules.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 10 2017, @09:54PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 10 2017, @09:54PM (#523607)

      Fine people for when they break the rules.

      Aren't the ranger guns issued for the park's protection? I say, shoot the fuckrs down, more fertilizer for the trees.

  • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 11 2017, @12:59AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 11 2017, @12:59AM (#523635)

    Every player deserves a skunk to the face.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKMjoZF6DR4 [youtube.com]

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 11 2017, @01:31AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 11 2017, @01:31AM (#523644)

    play pokemon go everywhere [theguardian.com]

  • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Sunday June 11 2017, @01:41AM (4 children)

    by Thexalon (636) on Sunday June 11 2017, @01:41AM (#523646)

    On the one hand, yes, it's a public space, so the public can go there subject to reasonable restrictions (e.g. many public parks are officially closed from something like 11 PM to 6 AM). Since the players have a right to walk through the park, they have a right to play Pokemon Go or some other AR game walking through the park.

    On the other hand, a city that was used to having, say, 10,000 people visit a park over the course of a year all of a sudden has 30,000 people visiting that same park, there's going to be an extra cost to the city in park maintenance. Somebody has to pay that cost. Since the makers of the AR game are the ones making money from those extra 20,000 visitors, there's a reasonable argument that they should be the ones paying the costs.

    So I could see a court reasonably going either way on this.

    --
    The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
    • (Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday June 11 2017, @02:04AM

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Sunday June 11 2017, @02:04AM (#523652) Journal

      Presumably most of the park goers would be locals or maybe tourists. Both could be made to cover the costs by increasing local sales tax by a half-cent per dollar.

      Is a city going to be able to get an injunction against AngryCrush Co. to stop it from selling augmented reality apps on Google Play/Apple Store? I doubt it. This will be unenforceable in the long run. If 1,000 people independently show up at the park for an unofficial and possibly randomly generated AR event, the only way to stop them will be to gun them down.

      With any luck, people will realize that exercise and socialization are bullshit, and the Parks and Recreation department over in Milwaukee will be saved. They'll put their phones in Galaxy Gear/Cardboard holders instead and engage in anti-social and pseudo-social VR.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 11 2017, @02:06AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 11 2017, @02:06AM (#523654)

      Plant durian trees in the park.

      its odor is best described as pig-shit, turpentine and onions, garnished with a gym sock. It can be smelled from yards away. Despite its great local popularity, the raw fruit is forbidden from some establishments such as hotels, subways and airports, including public transportation in Southeast Asia

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 11 2017, @05:30AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 11 2017, @05:30AM (#523699)

        But can it only be smelled by millennials?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 11 2017, @03:36AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 11 2017, @03:36AM (#523682)

      Since the makers of the AR game are the ones making money from those extra 20,000 visitors, there's a reasonable argument that they should be the ones paying the costs.

      The game makers are not making money because people are going to the park. This free game is basically a map application with virtual "critters" that pop up randomly anywhere the player happens to be and can be "captured". The fact that players wander into a park is no different than the players walking into the street or into a mall parking lot or into a corn field.

      The game does not guide them to any specific location. The players are basically holding a virtual divining rod that responds to these randomly appearing characters/tokens.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by leftover on Sunday June 11 2017, @02:02AM (2 children)

    by leftover (2448) on Sunday June 11 2017, @02:02AM (#523650)

    I have become annoyed at how some people refer to their "business model" as though it was a Constitutionally protected entity. Any business model has no better veracity than a fevered daydream, in fact really nothing separates the two. And as for the "tragedy of the commons", the correct term is "travesty of the commons". Robber barons who besmirch the environment for their personal profit need to be fined out of business, at the very least. I might be talked out of burning them at the stake.

    --
    Bent, folded, spindled, and mutilated.
    • (Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday June 11 2017, @02:08AM (1 child)

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Sunday June 11 2017, @02:08AM (#523655) Journal

      Here's a policy that may work for you. Ban people from going to the public park. It's closed forever. We could also try banning people from public sidewalks.

      These AR apps don't even need events to draw people into these locations. Somebody codes up FlowerPower, the game where you use your smartphone camera to harvest flowers for your manure farm. You only have one good park in the area that has flowers maintained there. The game is a runaway success and thousands of people ruin bits of grass in the park. Wow, too bad. Can't be helped. Raise local sales taxes if you can't maintain the park.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 11 2017, @02:19AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 11 2017, @02:19AM (#523659)

        Here's a policy that may work for you. Ban people from going to the public park. It's closed forever. We could also try banning people from public sidewalks.

        There's no need to ban people, just men. Men don't respect public property, private property, or the supremacy of women. All men belong in prison.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by bradley13 on Sunday June 11 2017, @07:11AM (1 child)

    by bradley13 (3053) on Sunday June 11 2017, @07:11AM (#523718) Homepage Journal

    I understand what folks are saying: attract lots of people to a public place, and this can become a problem. However, I think a lot of this is missing the point.

    Consider navigation aids, which have been around for a long time now. Things like TomTom. These place a layer over a real map, the same as VR games like Pokeman Go and Ingress. It has happened - pretty often - that the "shortest" or "fastest" route leads through a neighborhood that the city never intended as a thoroughfare, especially at rush hour. Without the help of the navigation aid, most people would never have used those routes.

    So these ordinary roads turn into public nuisances, because of computer apps. As far as I know, it never occurred to anyone to sue the makers of those apps. Instead, cities realized that this was their responsibility, and altered the rules on those roads to reflect their intended use. There is a one-mile stretch of road that goes in front of my house, and the town has put a speed limit of 20mph on the whole length. That reflects the fact that the road is residential, has three schools on it, and is not intended for through traffic. Navigation apps get updated, suddenly the road isn't so "fast" anymore, problem (mostly) solved. If individual drivers speed through anyway, well, the town gets to write them a fat ticket - holding the individuals responsible for their individual behavior.

    It's really no different with games. If Ingress puts a portal in a park, and people go there and drop trash - ticket them for littering, just like any other park visitor. If too many people are showing up on a spot not designed for that many, then signpost or restrict the area to prevent crowds. The fact that crowds were never a problem before? That doesn't change the fact that the area was inadequately marked and/or restricted - literally anything could have caused a crowd: a school rally, a political speech, a private party, anything. It's a public area, and it is open for public use.

    --
    Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
    • (Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday June 11 2017, @11:36PM

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Sunday June 11 2017, @11:36PM (#524027) Journal

      Navigation apps can also use real-time traffic data in order to influence user decisions about which route to take. And using Google Maps to find a bus route can give you a different route based on having to wait 20 minutes at a certain bus stop vs. only 5 minutes at a stop that is a 2 minute walk away.

      The effect of navigation apps taking traffic data into account could be to distribute traffic over more roads, reducing congestion a bit but causing certain roads to be more heavily traveled. So the completely opaque [kurzweilai.net] and allegedly algorithmic processes [fastcompany.com] that influence the movement of millions of people can absolutely affect town planning and public maintenance of roads.

      At the end of the day, there are just going to be unexpected events that complicate these matters. Back to parks, what if it isn't an augmented reality app that draws crowds in? Maybe someone makes a YouTube video about some flowers [latimes.com]. Or makes a dank meme about some weird rock [blogspot.com] on park property. Suddenly you have thousands of unwanted visitors to the public park. Do you sue somebody? Unlikely.

      Having said all that, we haven't seen the limits of the damage these apps could do. What if, at the height of Pokemon Go's popularity, Niantic had designated one location per U.S. state as a "designated free Pokemon trade zone and Mewtwo catch area". Nothing algorithmic, all hand picked. Suddenly you have tens of thousands of people driving for hours to skulk near the locations. You have a spike in murders near the locations. Maybe some noise complaints and drug dealing. Perhaps there would be an easier case for suing the software company. Here's a better one: free Poke-resurrection at only one place in the United States... Arlington National Cemetery! Let's make this case Pokemon Go federal!

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 11 2017, @03:29PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 11 2017, @03:29PM (#523841)

    If trampling flowers and shit is not already illegal you can make that illegal. It's none of the parasites in government's business why the people are there. People don't need permits to freely associate nor travel. @#%$^ socialist scum. We need a Pokemon Kill game. Kill tyrannical politicians and get virtual prizes.

(1)