Take Two Warns Jack Thompson Over Manhunt 2
Take Two Warns Jack Thompson Over Manhunt 2
August 31, 2007
The legal settlement between Manhunt 2 publisher Take Two Interactive and controversial attorney Jack Thompson continues to erode.In June GamePolitics reported on the first sign of cracks in the April agreement between the parties (see: Take Two-Thompson Settlement Crumbling?). The relationship hasn't gotten any smoother in the interim.
An e-mail exchange between the anti-game activist and Gena Feist, T2's VP and Associate General Counsel, shows that Thompson was warned that the software publisher believed he was violating the terms of settlement. Thompson characterized Take Two's e-mails as "threats", writing:
Take-Two is threatening me because of the exercise of my rights, under our settlement agreement, to criticize the company's practices...
For its part, Take Two declined to comment.
GamePolitics received the following copies of the e-mail exchange from Thompson. For readability and privacy reasons, GP has stripped e-mail addresses, cc's, signatures and the like from the originals.
While they provide a fascinating glimpse into the longstanding struggle between Thompson and Take Two, it's important to remember that there may be additional e-mails which we haven't received. Also, the exchange came to us cut-and-pasted into five e-mails from Thompson, which then had to be re-assembled in proper order. The sequence of time stamps between Thompson and Feist doesn't match up exactly. We're not sure what to make of that, but we've attempted to place the e-mails in what seems to be their correct sequence based on context.
The exchange was triggered by an e-mail Thompson sent to on Monday to Take Two chairman Strauss Zelnick, CEO Ben Feder, the Federal Trade Commission, the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, an attorney for Blank Rome, and GP.
-----------------------------------
From: Jack Thompson
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 4:55 PM
Subject: Letter to Take-Two's Strauss Zelnick, Ben Feder Re Manhunt 2
Dear Mr. Zelnick and Mr. Feder:
Congratulations on receiving a "Mature" rating for Manhunt 2. You'll live to regret it (trust me), so enjoy it while you can.
I want to bring to your attention the fact that at www.rockstargames.com anyone of any age can order Manhunt 2 and receive it, with no age verification whatsoever. Asking a 14-year-old if he's 17 is not age verification, now is it?
You also know that the use of a bank card as an age verifier is a violation of all bank card agreements, right?
Govern yourselves accordingly, if you can.
Regards, Jack Thompson
----------------------------------
From: Gena Feist
To: Jack Thompson
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 2:47 PM
Subject: FW: Letter to Take-Two's Strauss Zelnick, Ben Feder Re Manhunt 2
Mr. Thompson,Your statements regarding our practices are false, as you know or should have known.
The Take Two website verifies age in two ways. First, consumers who purchase M or RP rated games certify that they are at least 17 years of age. Numerous websites use the same method for verifying age in connection with sales of movies and games. Second, we verify age through the use of a credit card number in connection with a transaction. Such transaction based verification is acceptable to both credit card companies and the FTC (see, e.g. http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/coppa.shtm).
We demand that you cease making these false statements about our online sales practices. Your dissemination of knowingly false statements for the purpose of adversely affecting Take-Two's business is actionable and we reserve all of our rights under the settlement agreement and state and federal law.
Not only are your statements clearly false, but they were made in an email publicly disseminated to both the FTC and the press. Please be assured that I am happy to answer any questions you have concerning our practices in a private communications. It is for this very reason that our settlement agreement designates a legal contact for you at Take Two.
If you continue to make false statements to an audience of press and public officials, however, we will have no choice but to take action against you.
Sincerely,
Gena
-----------------------------------
From: Jack Thompson
To: Gena Feist (T2 NY)
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 3:39 PM
Subject: Re: Letter to Take-Two's Strauss Zelnick, Ben Feder Re Manhunt 2
As you should be aware, credit cards cannot be used to verify the age of buyers. Kids have credit cards, and they use parents' credit cards. You have then got to be kidding me.
Take-Two is welcome to use age verification software that is available for on-line alcohol, firearm and other purchases of adult material. Stop lying.
Thanks
Jack Thompson, Attorney
-----------------------------------
From: "Gena Feist (T2 NY)"
To: "Jack Thompson"
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 5:30 PM
Subject: RE: Letter to Take-Two's Strauss Zelnick, Ben Feder Re Manhunt 2
Jack, give it a break. I am happy to answer your questions and correct any misapprehensions that you have but I will not engage in this type of discussion with you. I am not a liar, I didn't threaten you, and I wont get roped into this type of dialogue. Don't bother writing back because I will not answer any further communications along these lines.
------------------------------------
From: Jack Thompson
To: Gena Feist
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 5:28 PM
Subject: Re: Letter to Take-Two's Strauss Zelnick, Ben Feder Re Manhunt 2
Surely you are not taking the position that I am not allowed to communicate with the government about Take-Two's actions, are you? If you are, then please know that that position renders the agreement unenforceable as a matter of public policy, since the law is settled that no agreement that restricts a citizen's petition rights to the government is enforceable.
Are you seriously suggesting that an agreement that does not restrict me in that fashion does restrict me? Becasue [sic] if you are, then I have a new civil rights claim agains [sic] Take-Two.
Jack Thompson
-----------------------------------
From: Gena Feist
To: "Jack Thompson"
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 5:20 PM
Subject: Re: Letter to Take-Two's Strauss Zelnick, Ben Feder Re Manhunt 2
Jack,
I appreciate that you directed this message to me alone. In regards to your comments below, I understand that you disagree with the use of a credit card transaction as age verification but it is accepted by the FTC and the retail industry as verification of age.
You are on notice that we use two industry and government accepted forms of age verification. Please do not repeat your false claims publicly or make claims that I/the company are lying about this matter.
We entered into the settlement agreement because we did not want to engage in unnecessary litigation with you, but I assure you that we will enforce the terms of the agreement if necessary and that any suit will include a claim for our legal fees under paragraph 11.
Sincerely,
Gena
----------------------------------
From: "Jack Thompson"
To: "Gena Feist (T2 NY)"
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 6:17 PM
Subject: Re: Letter to Take-Two's Strauss Zelnick, Ben Feder Re Manhunt 2
What is wrong with you? You threaten me with enforcement of the agreement, and I ask you how I have violated it. Are you nuts?
Jack Thompson, Attorney
-----------------------------------
For all GamePolitics coverage of the Take Two-Thompson settlement, click here. You can also read the terms of the settlement and decide for yourself who's right.
Comments
Wow, real mature....
petty petty jack
angry hatefilled and childish jack
i could go on.........
But seriously, what did jack hope to gain from sending the emails here? Clearly he knows we know he's a jackass, he doesnt need to prove it, his comments are doing that job for him.
WHile I admire your passion ,thats not the best way to present yourself as being rational. I know i'm not always the sainist voice in the crowd, as Dennis has reminded me of before, but thats going a bit towards the whole "Threat" zone.
Now, that being said, I gotta ask Jack thompson something.
Have you lost your mind?
It's bad enough that you act like an infant most of the time, but now, you have the nerve to start arguing about something that you've been proved wrong on, repeatedly?
Are you crazy? If take two wants to, they could likely bury you and end your legal exsistance, don't go starting another war. You've already got multiple bar complaints against you, your in the middle of multiple legal battles with the bar, now you want take 2 hitting you with another lawsuit?
Does the saying "don't bite of more then you can chew" Come to mind?
Back off jack, before you wind up regretting this.
Gena seems to be articulate, reasonable and level-headed throughout this, whilst Jack comes off as some 15 year old flamer. Madness
Jack, take a break and try to think about what fights to pick, she's explained the legalities to you. Go find someone you can actually scare with your vague and unfounded legal inaccuracies.
Mr. Thompson again I feel, as a Christian myself, that we are mandated to not bear (bare?) false witness.
I fail to understand why you seem to think that its alright to lie and diseminate false information about people you don't agree with. Aren't actions like those the very defintion of false witness?
Point taken. Still, i'd rather say it here than on a post that JT actually reads.
And... hold on, I can edit that picture. You know, put a cowboy hat on him and give him a big red moustache..
Guess your right about that one.
This is his ridiculous method of practicing law (no wonder why he lost all his cases and is being disbarred)
He's kicking at hornet's nests so he can point fingers during his disbarment, fortunately this wont work, and the more he does maybe, just maybe he'll look stupid enough that the general public will at last see him for what he is.
Jack is going down kicking and screaming, but he's going down, and thats what matters.
Bye bye jack! whats next for you? flipping patties at McDonalds?
Please, don't waste ammunition. Slow, painful torture will do.
Certainly, Confidentiality Agreements and Non-Disclosure Agreements are such documents. And formal Gag Orders are also among them as well.
I also wonder if Ms. Feist also knows that John Bruce still sent out copies of those emails, even though he made it appear that he was communicating with her privately. So much for the "Trust Me" bit at the beginning of the tirade.
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
You know, I really feel sympathy for his family. I wonder how many fights his kids have gotten into because they were teased about dear old dad?
Thank you Jacko for finding the real problems!
But that looks like a pretty nice computer monitor Jack's got there :)
Come on its obvious, jack has a crush on dennis, its typical schoolyard tactics, he keeps coming back hoping dennis will write something nice about him and prove he loved jack the way jack loves him.
If you think his emails are bad, you should see his legal documents, if you haven't already.
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
Eww.
Okay, we all hate the man, but we don't have to bring his family into it. That's his tactic.
I remember a few of them (made public by Jack himself). Those were a nightmare to decyfer.
Perhaps its an insurance policy of sorts, so that when he gets disbarred (September, right?) he can point to these emails and claim it was TT who did it.
His ability to either fail at reading comprehension, or his apparent blindness to contrary evidence is astounding. If only he was as skilled at truth ...
He intentionally sent inflammatory e-mails to Take Two and to members of the media and government hoping that Take Two would take the bait and blindly come out firing with both barrels.
Had Take Two jumped straight into litigation with Thompson, claiming that he violated the terms of their settlement agreement, Thompson would counter-sue them for curtailing his first amendment right to petition the government and would have sought damages.
It's just a legal game, and Thompson is clearly getting frustrated in later e-mails that Take Two isn't biting. That's why he tries more and more desperately to goad her.
I searched "buy guns" on google. The first site I came to, I put a Glock in the shopping cart and clicked "checkout". Then it asked me for shipping address and credit card number.
Unless there's some magical age-verification step just beyond that page that I don't know about, I think it's safe to assume that a credit card IS the age verification, INCLUDING FOR A FIREARM.
Dumbass.
(a cookie to the person who figures out what games I'm talking about)
I particularly like the part where he says "You'll live to regret it (trust me)"; I didn't know real people talked like that, is Jack Thompson a super-villain (it's not the first time he's said that either)? Then later when he goes on the accuse them of threats was kind of like the punch-line.
I can't wait for next week’s episode.
Where is the line, Jack? Be precise please, and explain why it's not the parent's responsability. Also, please be precise why you're singling out video games and not movies, books, television, etc. Finally, explain how any such laws can apply to video games and NOT to the affore-mentioned types of media without violating equal protection. If you can do this without strawman arguments, personal insults, or other argumentative or logical fallacies, you might actually earn some credibility and respect (the respect you have claimed you deserve, but have never given to the gaming community - hypocrite much??)
also... imo, he's not so much a threat to gamers/ game companies any more, most of the people i know look upon hiim as a comic relief act.
@ Jack
Take Two did not threaten you. Judge yourself first. You threatened them. Then they responded saying
"We entered into the settlement agreement because we did not want to engage in unnecessary litigation with you, but I assure you that we will enforce the terms of the agreement if necessary and that any suit will include a claim for our legal fees under paragraph 11."
That is not a threat, that is just following the law...you know...that thing you, as a lawyer have to follow. This however, is a threat:
"You’ll live to regret it (trust me), so enjoy it while you can."
Yeah, quit threatening people, Jack. You're setting a bad example to your kids, whom I guarantee, will eventually see everything you ever wrote to someone. For example... http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jack_Thompson
inb4 Thompson accuses me of having played Doom, of which I have not.
He has no real legal position for the lack of verification, but a conflicting personal point of view and a lawyer should know that. However the personal attacks against a staff member of Take Two shows just how much of a vendetta JT has against Take Two and will use scare tactics and risk breaking contracts to carry that vendetta out.
(This is all assuming the emails are accurate and JT sent them in so if they were editted to make him look more favorable then...just eep)
A painful tug on the leash
The dog learns it's place
Baiting T2 into falling into a legal trap is pathetic, Jack. Take up a normal hobby - you know, fishing, reading novels, playing video games...just do something! I'm honestly getting tired of watching you continually getting shot down.
And times up on my little contest. Guts-splattering FPS = Metroid Prime (Rated T for Teen). RPG Decapitation of a dark skinned woman = .hack//G.U. Vol. 1 Rebirth (Rated T for Teen). Mandatory crashing race game = Anyone? Anyone? Burnout 3 (Rated, guess what, T for Teen)
Who wants to bet there'll be a flap about the gay marriage in .hack//G.U. Vol 3. Redemption?
Let's settle this to the pain:
To the pain means the first thing you lose will be your feet, below the ankles, then your hands at the wrists, next your nose. The next thing you lose will be your left eye, followed by your right. Your ears you keep, and I'll tell you why:so that every shriek of every child at seeing your hideousness will be yours to cherish -- every babe that weeps at your approach, every woman who cries out, "Dear God, what is that thing?" will echo in your perfect ears. That is what "to the pain" means. It means I leave you in anguish, wallowing in freakish misery forever.
And I'm not bluffing :P
I was thinking that too. I've never tried to buy a firearm online, but I have taken an interest in accessing other *ahem* age-restricted content. I've never, ever seen any "age verification software" that didn't involve credit cards. And anyway, how would that even work? How does one write a program that can tell the biological age of the user? It boggles the mind.
I've heard that at least one bank in America has stated that credit cards are not suitable for age-verification, though it may have meant that it would not verify the age of its cardholders - whereas a third-party might well do that.
Age-verification is a hot topic on Second Life at the moment, and apparently Linden Lab (or the third party that does their verification for them) believes that credit cards are not appropriate for age-verification.
"You also know that the use of a bank card as an age verifier is a violation of all bank card agreements, right?"
Two things spring to mind- the term "bank card agreements" implies that while the FTC might well give the OK for bank cards as age verification, the contract that Take-Two have signed with whomever handles the rockstargames.com store's CC transactions- or the card holder's agreement- might say that you can't do it, which presumably would override the FTC. He also stops short of saying it's illegal. Given that other sites use cards for age verification, this is unlikely, however.
Secondly- a "bank card" might be different to a "credit card", in that a *bank* card might only let you take money out of your account, (or even just use a cashpoint but not buy things directly) while a *credit* card allows you to borrow money from your credit company- and verify your age with it.
The latter is more likely- we have this distinction in the UK, and it would make sense for both cards to have different rules from one another- and there is, of course, an outside chance that Jack's right on this one as the US might have different rules to the UK ones I'm basing this on, but it's still information worth considering.
/b
Ms. Feist did an excellent job of ignoring his BS and staying focused and on message. Really this is a great example of how to maintain control of the conversation when dealing with Jack and I think several of the more excitable posters here would do well to learn from it.
From the FTC:
Access Verification
At a parent's request, operators must disclose the general kinds of personal information they collect online from children (for example, name, address, telephone number, email address, hobbies), as well as the specific information collected from children who visit their sites. Operators must use reasonable procedures to ensure they are dealing with the child's parent before they provide access to the child's specific information.
They can use a variety of methods to verify the parent's identity, including:
*
obtaining a signed form from the parent via postal mail or facsimile;
*
accepting and verifying a credit card number;
*
taking calls from parents on a toll-free telephone number staffed by trained personnel;
*
email accompanied by digital signature;
*
email accompanied by a PIN or password obtained through one of the verification methods above.
Operators who follow one of these procedures acting in good faith to a request for parental access are protected from liability under federal and state law for inadvertent disclosures of a child's information to someone who purports to be a parent.
Sure, some kids might have credit cards. And if a parent is responsible enough, they'll remove the game once they see the credit card bill, the game itself, etc, IF they deem that it's inappropriate for the child. As for using the parents' credit cards, that whole process could stop right there, at the parents' wallets.
The more obvious thing here is that clearly, the parents aren't as concerned as you are, seeing as how video games don't turn people into hardened criminals.
GP: Actually, T2 has set up his own e-mail box to channel his incoming to one person, which, I believe, is Gina Feist. Everyone takes a stab at reasoning with him at some point or another. Sadly, history is the best teacher in that regard.
PS: sorry about the double post, my browser hiccuped
(bleh, doesnt seem to want to let me use html tags to show the pic)
Take 2 is doing nothing wrong here.
Jack needs to learn when to keep his trap shut.
Kudos to Gena for having the patience to deal with this man/boy/baby. I would've got so mad at the computer screen for letting me read such stupidity, I would've kicked my laptop.
I truly wish, for all the past, present, and future gamers, that Take Two takes him on in court, and whoops his ass.
(Jack, in case you read this, that's not a threat.)
Like, say, his disbarment proceedings? His psych eval? A public nuisance hearing? =P
Or, possibly, a firing squad?
Credit cards may be appropriate to ascertain parental consent for a child's actions, or to disclose a child's information to a parent, but that's not quite the same thing as providing unsuitable content or items to a child.
A letter dated November 30, 2001 from Aristotle (the third-party Linden Lab uses to whom I referred before) to the FTC regarding COPPA highlights the inappropriateness of credit cards for this task: http://www.ftc.gov/privacy/coppa2/comments/aristotle.htm
I don't know if the FTC ever took any action in response to that letter; all I know is that COPPA isn't addressing the issue of 'proof of age' specifically; only as regards to gathering parental consent.
I'm British, so maybe my understanding of the US law is a bit hazy: is it legal for a minor to purchase an M-rated game with parental consent?
Even then, it's not 'illegal' for a minor to purchase it. No one's going to go prison for buying or selling it like that, it's just more of a retailer rule. They have the final say on whether they will sell a game to a minor.
@ Chuma
This may sound cruel, but I don't care if his actions eventually lead to his financial ruin that hurts his family. I don't even care if his kid gets beaten up at school because he's a 'Jack' ass. It's not my fault, nor would it be Take Two's. It would be a direct result of Jack's idiocy, so I would blame no one but him. We must be held responsible for our own actions, and that includes the results of bad decisions.
Don't worry, though. I'll bet his wife divorces him when it becomes obvious he's on the verge of losing it all. Then, his fall would be complete. All because he doesn't like a form of media.
By the way. I'm NOT condoning beating up his son. I would still hope that any little hellion that decided to assault him would be punished properly. It's just that I'd realize it was a direct result of his father's actions. Whatcha wanna bet he would, too?
@ WarOtter
That seems a little.... extreme. Even for a guy I hate. ALOT! (see my comments to chuma)
Oh come on! how is that extreme!? True, i'd rather kill him through torture rather than cripple him, but hate is something that should be expressed!
Oh, Jack, you can't sue me for this. You don't know who I am.
"Credit cards may be appropriate to ascertain parental consent for a child’s actions,"
So we agree then? I'm lost as to your issue, I guess. Jack has inadvertently started a good discussion, once again through no fault of his own. Aristotle has sent an letter to the FTC stating valid concerns, but still, the FTC rules are explicit - currently a Credit Card is implied parental consent.
This is by no means fool-proof, and for alcohol, tobacco, or firearms online sales, further age/identity verification is warranted and required under the FTC. But you aren't seriously comparing video game purchases to these things, right? Second Life, or other MMO's are a different issue altogether, having a very real risk of child predators. But buying a rated M game has no such risks.
The real question, and the one Jack with never ask, is: Is stricter regulation of M or R rated content needed for online sales? I say no. For AO or NC-17 or Un-rated or, perhaps, MMO's, maybe.
-P
:)
Found that pic and thought it might be relevant. Who knew?
Wow, that sure sounds like a personal threat to me.
@ BlackIce
Yea, but crippling him financially is so much more rewarding and it avoids all those pesky 'moral' questions. Wouldn't you rather see him destitute waiting for food in line at a soup kitchen?
Besides, WHEN Jack finally crawls out from under his rock all he'll see is some immature gamer wishing him bodily harm. All that does is give him ammo
It would be amazing if gamers would file a class action lawsuit for slander and harrasment against thompson...with all the inflammatory remarks and insults I could see a win.
Mike
Fine, we'll play it your way.
However, the decision to effectively render private communications public by forwarding to Game Politics is reprehensible at best, but also shows which party is making the most effort to abide by their end of the settlement, and that would be Take Two.
These picures are great. You seen the Cowboy Jack one? (tallimar's pic)
I'm saying there's a difference between getting parental consent for some things than others. When I was 10 I went on a school trip to Amsterdam: I needed parental consent for that, but I don't think that parental consent would have covered the school taking us into the sex museum. Likewise, there are things on the internet that are suitable for children that still require parental consent that don't come to the level of supplying 'adult content'.
The issue with Second Life is (ostensibly) about accessing user-created 'adult content', which is pretty much the same thing. Although there is a difference in that the providers don't have direct control over what content is provided, but it's supposed to be the same issue of access to adult content.
jack grow up and face the fact you might need to get a real job.
While I find some of the implications disturbing - and actively agree with others, I must admit that "Jack Thompson, Wal-Mart greeter", would be delicious schadenfreude indeed.
I've also had some concerns for his family after seeing some of the stunts he's pulled. I imagine you're right that his children receieve some real flak over his antics.
@ BlackIce
Nothing disparaging was said about his family; I've no reason to believe they aren't relatively decent human beings. On the contrary, the sentiment expressed was concern for them, considering that their father's words and actions can't be helping their social standing or acceptance in school, or elsewhere.
This whole affair is just JT grasping at straws again- just like his letter to the FTC over BioShock. The only difference is this time he is violationg his TT aggreement which may very well mean more legal trouble for him.
I still believe he is preparing to be disbarred, so he wants to stir things up enough so he can blame a vast conspiracy for it.