Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government News Entertainment Games

Guy Game Results in Lawsuits and Injunction 111

Posted by Zonk from the stupidity-beyond-my-comprehension dept.
Several readers have written in to report on Tuesday's lawsuit regarding 'The Guy Game'. The PC/console offering, which strings a weak trivia game around footage of naked college age girls, has come under fire after the revelation that a woman featured prominently in the game was under the age of 18 at the time the footage was taken. The lawsuit names Sony (PS2), Microsoft (Xbox), Take-Two Interactive (Publisher), and Top Heavy Studios (Developer) as defendants. Commentary available on GamesIndustry.biz.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Guy Game Results in Lawsuits and Injunction More

Guy Game Results in Lawsuits and Injunction

Comments Filter:
  • After Traci Lords....???

  • Well... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by th1ckasabr1ck ( 752151 ) on Wednesday December 22, 2004 @04:48PM (#11162774)
    According to the Cox News Service, the lawsuit explains: "Plaintiff is still a teenager and wishes to attend college, develop her career and be active in her community and church."

    I wonder what the church thinks of the game. Maybe if she wants to be such a model citizen, she should start out by not running around topless during spring break.

    • be active in her community and church

      That's a typo, it's really supposed to say "be attractive in her community and church"

      But honestly, any time you hear some person trying to act holier then thou and bragging about how the go to church and have a personal relationship with Jesus, it's because they are lying.

    • Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by thefirelane ( 586885 ) on Wednesday December 22, 2004 @05:17PM (#11163055)
      Maybe if she wants to be such a model citizen, she should start out by not running around topless during spring break.

      Insightful? You realize that's why we have the concept of 'a minor' right? So that dumb youthful indiscretions do not tarnish one's life for ever?

      • Re:Well... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by ivan256 ( 17499 ) * on Wednesday December 22, 2004 @05:39PM (#11163269)
        You realize that's why we have the concept of 'a minor' right? So that dumb youthful indiscretions do not tarnish one's life for ever?

        That's also why you have parents. Why did they let her run around topless for spring break in the first place if it was going to be such an issue? As for "tarnishing one's life", well, you're born topless. I don't understand why being seen with your shirt off is such a big deal anyway. Hell, until you hit the teenage years, lots of parents think little girls running around on the beach with no shirt on is "cute". As soon as they have breasts, though, everybody's sexual insecurities make them all uncomfortable about it. People like that need to grow up.

        To top it off, it's not like somebody forced her to do this, or paid her to do it. It's something that happened in a public place, and as such it shouldn't be any less legal to photograph it than it is to witness it. If having a photograph of a naked person in public who happens to be a minor is a crime, it should be the guardian of that minor who allowed them to be naked in public who should be held responsible. That assumes that the real goal here is to protect minors though, and not to make people feel all warm and fuzzy inside because they don't have to be embarresed that they're aroused by sexually mature women.

        Since we're on slashdot I guess I should throw out a strawman here. What happens if a 17 year old streaks past the camera in a live newscast? Should the news outlet be prosecuted for child pornography, or be disallowed to keep that footage in their archive?
        • Since we're on slashdot I guess I should throw out a strawman here. What happens if a 17 year old streaks past the camera in a live newscast? Should the news outlet be prosecuted for child pornography, or be disallowed to keep that footage in their archive?

          In that case, Sony, RCA, and Tivo get sued, because their TV's and DVR's showed the event. It's all nonsense.

          • That'd be like suing a telephone company for making a product that allows someone to harass you. They provide the medium but can't be responsible for the content.

        • Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Romeozulu ( 248240 ) on Wednesday December 22, 2004 @06:39PM (#11163655)
          It's something that happened in a public place, and as such it shouldn't be any less legal to photograph it than it is to witness it.

          It's perfectly legal to photograph someone in a public place, but it is not legal to use that image for commerical purposes. This is a issues that photographers deal wih everyday.

          • Isn't that what the news is? I mean they use public footage and make a profit on it?

            • Re:Well... (Score:4, Informative)

              by taustin ( 171655 ) on Wednesday December 22, 2004 @07:42PM (#11164132) Homepage Journal
              News is a rather large exception. And even in the news, the image must be newsworthy.

              Plus, news organizations routinely pay for such rights anyway, whether they have to or not.

              A video game, however, is not news. This situation is pretty clear cut. Commercial exploitation of someone's image without persmission is illegal. And someone under 18 cannot legally give permission.

              Plus, technically (stupid as the law is), her being under 18 makes it child porn.

              • News is a rather large exception. And even in the news, the image must be newsworthy.

                Show me the law that says that. If it's done in public, it's fair game, regardless of whether it is "newsworthy" or not. I don't recall any newsworthiness standards, so I think that you're completely wrong.

                • Re:Well... (Score:3, Interesting)

                  by badasscat ( 563442 )
                  News is a rather large exception. And even in the news, the image must be newsworthy.

                  Show me the law that says that. If it's done in public, it's fair game, regardless of whether it is "newsworthy" or not. I don't recall any newsworthiness standards, so I think that you're completely wrong.

                  Bzzzt. He's completely right. You're not.

                  Specifically what's wrong is your idea that "if it's done in public, it's fair game" - no, it isn't, and I want to put a stop to this myth right now.

                  Read this [stanford.edu] to learn the

                  • Re:Well... (Score:3, Insightful)

                    by BenEnglishAtHome ( 449670 )

                    ...depictions of underage nudity in this country are illegal in their own right.

                    Uh, no.

                    Go to your local, large, well-stocked bookstore. Ask to see all the books by David Hamilton (or any of a dozen other artists who do similar work). Browse for a while. Report your findings back here.

                    Yes, I'll grant you that in this instance a case could be made for criminal prosecution and that underage nudity is usually prosecutable. Your blanket statement, however, overstates the situation rather badly.

                  • Thanks very much for the excellent links.

                    I run a small, inconsequential website. And I've been wondering what might require a release, and what wouldn't. The links you provided pretty much spelled it out for me, in a fairly clear manner. (I don't need a release, because my site is non-commercial, and any negative comments are used as parody)

                  • What some people are doing in this thread right now is defending child porn, whether or not they think that's what it is. Legally, that is what it is.

                    I'm not debating the legality of underage nudity, but since you're throwing the term "child porn" around, I thought I would point out that the government apparently thinks there should be a gray area where the death penalty is concerned. You can receive the death penalty even if you're 15. But since that's just death, and nobody is seeing any boobies, I

                    • You can receive the death penalty even if you're 15. But since that's just death, and nobody is seeing any boobies, I guess they figure it's ok.

                      The minimum age is sixteen (fourteen states.) No juvenile younger than seventeen at the time his crime was committed has been executed in the United States in over thirty years. Age Requirements for the Death Penalty and the Execution of Juveniles [deathpenaltyinfo.org]

                      Is...showing a video clip of her in a game considered commercial use?..Her image is...being used as a minor reward i

                    • The minimum age is sixteen (fourteen states.) No juvenile younger than seventeen at the time his crime was committed has been executed in the United States in over thirty years. Age Requirements for the Death Penalty and the Execution of Juveniles

                      Ok, 16 then. That's still under 18. How does that change my point?

                      I think you have answered your own question.

                      No, if you read the links you posted, all of the examples are of someone's image being used in advertisements or endorsements. This is neither.

      • Re:Well... (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Babbster ( 107076 )
        Yeah, that works out really well for kids over around 14 who commit SERIOUS crimes and are tried as adults.

        There's a point at which even a teenager should know the difference between right and wrong - wrong including posing nude and then signing papers claiming to be 18 years old (unless it was the stupidest company on the planet that had the releases drawn up, said releases would have a statement of age and would include her birthdate).

        Bottom line: The game is most likely crap (I've never heard a good

      • Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by JuggleGeek ( 665620 ) on Wednesday December 22, 2004 @06:31PM (#11163569)
        Yeah right. And when a minor kills someone and the courts let them off easy 'cause their only 15, it's OK. They shouldn't be responsible for stealing the gun, shooting the victim, etc - they are just a minor.

        She was 17 years old running around topless on a beach because she wanted people to look at her cute little titties. And now she's bitching and whining and suing over it.

        You may believe that people should be able to do any damn fool thing they want with no repercussions, but that's an unreasonable belief. Real life doesn't work that way.

        The very idea that one would be "tarnished forever" for running around partially nude is nonsense in and of itself.

        • Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by arkanes ( 521690 ) <arkanes.gmail@com> on Wednesday December 22, 2004 @07:09PM (#11163883) Homepage
          I have to agree with the stupid whiny thing, but on the other hand, it's not like it's well known what you have to do as far as release forms goes for crowd footage. And if the crowd footage happens to be of very young college girls with thier tops off, then anyone with half a brain should realize they need to go the extra mile to make 100% certain than they aren't shipping anything with underage girls in it. If she was an out of focus background character cause she streaked by while they were filming someone else, that'd be a different story.
          • Well, we're not talking about some "blurry background chick" here. They got good enough pics of this dumb slut that she's on the website, according to the lawsuit. Too bad the fucking site is down, or I would wank off to it because of its illicit appeal.
      • "So that dumb youthful indiscretions do not tarnish one's life for ever?"

        So should you have to send high school records to colleges you apply to?

        The concept of legal minority is more an exception than a rule. Children are expected to be model citizens at younger and younger ages.
      • That's a stupid comment! Minor's will always stay minor in mind if they don't face the consequences every once in a while.

    • Re:Well... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by acousticiris ( 656375 ) * on Wednesday December 22, 2004 @05:37PM (#11163249)
      Lets be realistic here... if the lawsuit explained that "Plaintiff is still a teenager and wishes to operate as a high-priced hooker to the stars but now cannot because everyone can get a look at the goods..." it probably wouldn't go over very well with a jury.
      It's most likely something along the lines of "Mom and Dad found out I was in the game so now we all have to act like good Christians and sue the world over to prevent the tarnishing of our reputation."
      It does irritate me when people try to make themselves look better by professing that they attend church, and it's ironic (in a very disturbing way) when it is used as part of a lawsuit who's purpose is to prove that the individual at hand should not be held accountable for their actions.
      I understand the LAW protects a 17 year old from being an idiot, but lets not kid ourselves and assume that a 17 year old girl didn't know flashing your breasts around town (or in a video game) was probably not a very good idea. And if she was worried about tarnishing her reputation, it seems that bringing a very high-profile lawsuit against some very high-profile companies is going to make this whole thing quite public and will probably cause the game to be far more successful than it otherwise would have been...even if it only gets to exist on the black market from here on out.
      • It's most likely something along the lines of "Mom and Dad found out I was in the game so now we all have to act like good Christians and sue the world over to prevent the tarnishing of our reputation."
        It does irritate me when people try to make themselves look better by professing that they attend church...

        Most churches profess forgiveness, so it's a lame excuse anyway. They shouldn't need to hide this to be good Christians in the future, and hiding it won't undo her actions anyway. Not only that, but nu

        • Re:Well... (Score:2, Offtopic)

          by ivan256 ( 17499 )
          I should have read that before posting. I used the word 'anyway' three too many times in that post. :)

        • Most churches profess forgiveness, so it's a lame excuse anyway. They shouldn't need to hide this to be good Christians in the future, and hiding it won't undo her actions anyway.

          What you say is true. The churches that truly try to follow Jesus should be the first ones to forgive. Everybody screws up. The pastor at a former church of mine had a hobby of breaking and entering when he was a teenager.

          Not only that, but nudity isn't a sin in most Christian religions anyway.

          This depends upon the conte

      • Re:Well... (Score:1, Flamebait)

        by JuggleGeek ( 665620 )
        It does irritate me when people try to make themselves look better by professing that they attend church

        Attending church just makes them look like bigotted idiots. Look at what the church does.

        After attending Trinity Christian Academy from kindergarten,making good grades, doing well in every way, and paying a lot in tuition to go to private school, the school kicked him out [washingtontimes.com] just before graduation because they found out he was gay. That's your christian values.

        Of course, the catholics are no better.

        • Re:Well... (Score:1, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward
          I can't help but notice an incredible amount of anger in your post.

          I'm sad that you view the faith this way. I'm also sad for the 18,000 members of my Christian non-catholic church who donate well over nine million dollars a year, 92% of which ends up in community housing projects (of which the participating members do not get paid to participate), drug rehabilitation, counseling and support for the sexually abused, couselling and support for inner city kids to prevent gang violence. 7% goes to actually

          • Re:Well... (Score:1, Troll)

            by JuggleGeek ( 665620 )
            I'm praying for your salvation.

            That's your prerogative. Feel free to waste time in any way you see fit.

          • I thought the same thing - a bit angry.

            However, I agree with him. The majority of religious catholics I've met (and I was raised in religious school until college) are just horrible people. Holier than thou pukes, if I can be so blunt.

            However, the true majority of that religion are the sheep. The ones that show up every Sunday, sit in church for an hour and get thier golden ticket into heaven, and then leave and do whatever they want, irrespective of thier "beliefs".

            You will undoubtably see the worst

        • After attending Trinity Christian Academy from kindergarten,making good grades, doing well in every way, and paying a lot in tuition to go to private school, the school kicked him out just before graduation because they found out he was gay. That's your christian values.

          Did you even read the article? First sentence:

          A top student and varsity athlete at a Texas Christian school was forced out after administrators found he was running a Web site about homosexuality.

          It's not just "because he's gay."

        • Re:Well... (Score:1, Flamebait)

          by dasunt ( 249686 )

          [ Snip anti-religous ranting... ]

          All churches are evil. (Sorry mom - it's true. Yours is no exception.)

          Your post is a great example how you don't need to go to church to be bigotted.

          PS: Muslims attend a mosque. Christians attend a church. According to tradition, the split between those-who-would-become Muslims and those-who-would-become Christians would have taken place over 3500 years ago, so there has been plenty of time to figure out that Christians and Muslims aren't the same religion. It

  • The cynical/conspiracy theorist... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by the Man in Black ( 102634 ) <jasonrashaad@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday December 22, 2004 @04:49PM (#11162783) Homepage
    ...yes, I'm certain this won't hurt sales at all. Kinda like Traci Lords "leaking" the fact that she was underage in order to get all her old movies pulled (and turned into hot collector's items) with the fringe benefit of making her last and only "adult age" porno flick sell like gangbusters.

    What? So I'm a pervert. At least I'm open about it.

  • Lawers are so short-sighted... (Score:5, Funny)

    by acousticiris ( 656375 ) * on Wednesday December 22, 2004 @04:56PM (#11162862)
    So sue Sony because a playstation can play a game that features content that breaks the law.

    I'm surprised they were so short-sighted:
    They should sue the maker of the digital camera used to take the picture of the girl.
    If they used a scanner and a traditional camera, they should sue both the maker of the scanner and the camera. Double the dollars!
    How about suing the DVD Consortium because they produced the scandard by which the disc used to distribute the content contained the illegal picture.

    Too much? More realistic:
    Jail all of the end-users because they now possess child-pornography.
    Sue the ESRB ... which arguably operates as a clearing-house when they choose to slap a rating on a game.

    One can argue that because MS, Sony et. al. have put controls on their console allowing them to essentially declare what can and cannot run on it (without a mod-chip of course), that they "sanctioned" rather than just simply "allowed" this to take place...
    Of course, we can expect that Sony, MS et. al. will probably be far more conservative in deciding what is or isn't allowed to operate on their systems from here on out. I may not agree with the content of the game, but it'll shame when all of the software is dumbed down so as not to offend even the most conservative among us.

    But the cynic in me has to ask the question...if this succeeds: What happens when a slick lawyer is able to confuse a judge and a jury into drawing the conclusion that the OS/product not only "is" a clearing-house, but legally "must operate as" a clearing-house for the applications running on it. Do they sue all of the Linux programmers when Linux fails to block something illegal or offensive?
    • Sorry, you seem a bit short-sighted:

      Sony was not sued because a Playstation can play this game.

      Sony was sued because they published the game, and the game developer contracted for them. They are thus technically the representative of a child pornographer and publishers of child pornography.

      Frankly, I'm surprised Sony was willing to publish so stupid a game. Anyway, they should know you have to be extra careful with releases on content like this. Sony wouldn't've had legal liability if they didn't act as
      • Sony was not sued because a Playstation can play this game.

        You may be right. That still doesn't exactly explain what role (other than the aforementioned) Microsoft played in this.

        The article states: "developer Top Heavy Studios, and platform holders Sony and Microsoft, for whose PS2 and Xbox consoles the game is available"
        So if the article is correct (and at this point I can't find anything that defines the situation differently), it seems pretty clear that they are being sued as platform holders re
        • That still doesn't exactly explain what role (other than the aforementioned) Microsoft played in this.

          The same. All major game console makers have a policy of licensing, authorizing, and publishing games for their consoles. The PS2 versions were published by Sony, the Xbox versions by Microsoft. The publishers had the option to go the PC route - open up the programming interface and make their platform simply a tool. But no, they had to approve it, mint it, market it...and they thus took responsibility fo
          • not all games for the consoles are published by the creators of the console. All three have a large publishing base, but they don't mint and market it as you put it. They do approve everything that gets published on the consoles. So they did say it was ok for whoever it was to sell the game on their console. The Gathering published the Guy Game. I doubt if a publisher went to both of them asking to be published, if both would agree to it, as they would then be directly marketing for each other, and that
        • Of course, no doubt it is a crap game. I don't think anybody disagrees with that. If you're looking for entertainment, you're not going to play a game with such a stupid theme. If you're looking for porn, a few pairs of breasts probably aren't going to cut it either.

          Except now it'll be a collector's item!

      • Re:Lawers are so short-sighted... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Khuffie ( 818093 ) on Wednesday December 22, 2004 @07:52PM (#11164203) Homepage
        Sony was sued because they published the game

        RTA. Neither Sony nor Microsoft published the game. Take-Two's The Gathering publishes the game. The role Sony and Microsoft have is basically to see if the game is essentially 'bug free', ie it won't cause their console to burst into flames. They usually don't care about the content or the quality of the game itself, just whether or not it'll destroy their hardware.

        Suing Sony and Microsoft here is like me suing a sports store where I bought those Adidas sneakers who got tangled up and caused me to fall, and scar my knees.

        From the article: Why? Because the woman in question was only 17 at the time, and therefore legally incapable of giving her consent to be in The Guy Game, let alone half naked.

        If she was a minor, what the frig' was she doing there, naked? I'm sure whoever was shooting checked their ages at the time (no one's going to be stupid enough NOT to). She must have had an illegal ID at hand (probably, its spring break, she was probably there drinking too). Being 17 doesn't make you stupid.

        • That's a darn good point. It's certainly not "child pornography" if she's misrepresenting her age. I should sue her ass for lying to us.

        • Re:Lawers are so short-sighted... (Score:1, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
          Neither Sony nor Microsoft published the game. Take-Two's The Gathering publishes the game. The role Sony and Microsoft have is basically to see if the game is essentially 'bug free', ie it won't cause their console to burst into flames. They usually don't care about the content or the quality of the game itself, just whether or not it'll destroy their hardware.

          Both Sony and Microsoft have to approve the content of the game first before it receives their approvals. First when the game is submited (general

        • The role Sony and Microsoft have is basically to see if the game is essentially 'bug free', ie it won't cause their console to burst into flames. They usually don't care about the content or the quality of the game itself, just whether or not it'll destroy their hardware.

          I also kinda take issue with Sony and Microsoft being sued, though they're doing a tiny bit more than you suggest. A license with either one comes with (at least): A development kit, development samples (so you have a place to start), t

  • "This thread is worthless without pics..." Whoops... wrong forum...

    But seriously, the game description of half naked spring breakers that reward you by showing you their boobs for answering trivia questions reminds me of those tetris clones (porntris?) where the filled rows became part of a hardocore image.

    No thank you. If I want to see "Girls Gone Wild", I'll just check out the latest video and save myself the trouble.
    • In fact Porntris was created by Image-Line, the company that now makes FL Studio (a music sequencer). Though by "company" they really just mean "two dudes in Belgium."

  • Ah, the irony (Score:5, Interesting)

    by chrisbtoo ( 41029 ) on Wednesday December 22, 2004 @05:05PM (#11162941) Journal
    So she's old enough to be in college, she's happy to run around topless while at college, and she's smart enough to sue - but unable to give (or, indeed, not give) her consent to appear in the game.

    Hurrah! for the law.
    • Now the real question, was she in a public place where you would only expect to see naked adults?
    • Land of the free means you are free to sue anyone. Of course you have to prove they are guilty because that brings justice while at the same time wasting everyone's time and money if the claim is complete crap. I think they need to have a system where if someone is wrong and it isn't proven then they have to pay some of the legal fees. I mean if you have to waste thousands of dollars to protect yourself from a moron that moron should pay you back for your troubles.
    • So she's old enough to be in college, ...

      Not necessarily. 17 at the time, in the spring. She started college way early, then.
      Lots of high school kids go to spring break

      she's smart enough to sue

      She, and her parents.

  • Curious - if she was allowed to go to Spring Break in the first place, and flash her breasts around to anyone and everyone, what makes you think her incapable of making an informed (or ill-formed) decision?

  • I am suing (Score:5, Funny)

    by MyLongNickName ( 822545 ) on Wednesday December 22, 2004 @05:08PM (#11162975) Journal
    I was pictured topless in the game here:
    http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2004/reviews/ 919657_20040901_thumb008.jpg [com.com]

    (Remove stupid spacing)

  • too bad so sad... yeah, right (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ChipMonk ( 711367 ) on Wednesday December 22, 2004 @05:08PM (#11162980) Journal
    Maybe someone should charge her parents with contributing to the corruption of a minor by allowing her to go there unsupervised.
  • If the location the videos/photos were taken was public property, can't they legally photograph anyone they please?

    I know with personal security cameras you can't have their view extend onto another persons private property, but if it gets the street in front of your house then that's ok. Say there was a naked 17 year old girl standing there in the street... I'd say it's obvious that the person who owns the camera (and thus took the picture) wouldn't be in trouble, but someone who took that tape and tried
    • In the US, a photograph of a topless (or bottomless) woman under 18 is child pornography. (In theory, this is true only if the minor is presented in a sexual context. In practice, that distinction means little to prosecutors or juries. And, the context of this game is definitely sexual anyway. Somebody could do prison time out of this.)

      (Aside from that, while you can take pictures of people in public places, you cannot commercially exploit them outside of a news context without that person's permission. An
    • If the location the videos/photos were taken was public property, can't they legally photograph anyone they please?

      NO...at least not any more. Recently I went to the local rollercade and a TV show was being shot there that night (it happens on occasion). It is a public place, and the shoot was happening during regular business activity. During the shoot and for about an hour afterwards one of the production crew was cheasing down EACH AND EVERY PERSON who was not part of the cast to sign a release form
  • I wish people would get over it. They're boobs. That's all. Just a couple blobs of fat and skin.

    Everyone else has already made the comment, if she was only 17 why was she there? Wouldn't it be nice if she was drunk in the game? Because God knows how much harm comes to girls that show nipples versus girls who drink too much.
  • Anyone have a link to the screenshots?!? This reply was computer generated and no humans were involved in processing this request Of course I'm joking, kind of.....
  • Does anyone have a link to some screenshots?

  • The only person who should get in trouble is the girl! She's the one who did it, was probably drinking (underage as well), and probably thought no one would ever see it. Now Joe-Blow at her High School pirated the game from the, enter-net, and saw her and recognized her from his Bioligy class. Then he proceeds to tell people, and she proceeds to take the defensive and say she's a good christian girl who has real morals and is underage and doesn't want this to ruin her future. Family sues game company, game
    • You mean to tell me if I cut my arm off with a Craftsmen Saw, I can sue Craftsmen for cutting off my arm? Sweeeeeeeet! Lets all go out and make bad decisions, and then get defensive, and sue everyone!

      You can sue anyone you want.

      Winning is a different story.
    • You mean to tell me if I cut my arm off with a Craftsmen Saw, I can sue Craftsmen for cutting off my arm?

      Why do you think new power tools--and some non-power tools, look at a hammer in the hardware store sometime--come with warning labels about safe operation? It's precisely so someone doesn't go and cut their arm off and sue, saying "It doesn't say in the manual not to cut my arm off!"
  • Well, it's a Thursday before Christmas Shutdown, nobody is here except us few poor souls with no vacation time left, and I happened upon this post on /.

    SO - Because im bored, I decided to take a look at the website (pointed out in the website) that supposedly showcases this teenage girl along with her real name. Any speculation on which one she is? I think the blond, second from the left, is a good candidate.

    Maybe this should be a poll for the week? =)
    http://www.theguygame.com/index-enter.htm [theguygame.com]
  • The State of P2P: Analysis Shows "Guy Game" Is Half of All Traffic

  • Pics and video (Score:4, Informative)

    by Alsee ( 515537 ) on Thursday December 23, 2004 @09:53AM (#11167788) Homepage
    Well here's the Guy Game website, [theguygame.com]
    and here's the Gamespot pics, [gamespot.com]
    and here's PS2 pics, [gamespy.com]
    and here's XBOX pics, [ign.com]
    and here's XBOX videos, [ign.com]
    and here's PS2 videos. [gamespy.com]

    Can anyone figure out who's the girl in question? Or I guess we can just download it all, and then see what pics and vids mysteriously vanish from the websites in the next day or two. heh.

    -
  • Something like this happen to girls gone wild, There was a girl flashing the camera that was underage and sued. The case was won by GGW because the girl was doing it in public of her own free will. So if this game is done the same way using girls from the public then it should not be an issue for them.

    Also someone else said they are just boobs...
  • There's simply no way this girl got up there without a very convincing fake ID. None. They have a whole crew of people dedicated to verifying ID's and signing waivers in these kinds of productions. She falsified her age because she was hammered, no doubt about it.

    So now the question is, does the crew have a scanned copy of her license(most likely) and what does this do for their defense in regards to contractual law and their responsiblity to obey criminal law? Too bad we'll never really know the outcome a

Slashdot Top Deals

Technology is dominated by those who manage what they do not understand.

Close