
Pokémon Go maker taken to court over players on beaches - dustinmoris
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/sep/29/niantic-labs-dutch-pokemon-go
======
bargl
Where does personal responsibility come in to play? Seriously? Why does
Niantic need to tell me not to trespass?

I could see this being a problem if pokemon ONLY spawned on these beaches that
would be targeted sending of players to restricted zones. I just don't get how
it's the Niantic's responsibility to control their users.

Lawsuits like this just bug me, I do recognize that this is what courts are
for. AKA filing a law suit when you feel like you've been wronged to get a
judgment from a third party. Hopefully the court will not place liability on
Niantic because that could set a bad precedent.

~~~
iaw
I think there's some twisted analogue to the concept of an attractive nuisance
here. Pokemon GO is creating an incentive for more people to goto that beach
for something that wouldn't be exclusive to the beach. So people that want to
utilize the beach as a beach are being hit by the negative externality created
by Pokemon GO players being drawn to the area.

In this scenario it seems like any solution not implemented by Niantic will
cost the municipality money/time. Reframed: why should this city have to
subsidize Niantic's game?

What's funny is that the American concept around personal responsibility (or
lack thereof) is less prevalent in Europe making me think that this is just
the most expedient action the Netherlands could identify.

I'm against lawsuits blaming companies for others behaviors in general but
this one is a bit more complex in my mind.

~~~
bargl
I would agree if it was the case that Niantic was targeting this specific
beach, but instead it's all beaches because the algorithm distributes Pokemon
evenly throughout the world regardless of location (this isn't the actual case
but it's still an algorithm that chooses most spawning of Pokemon).

Niantic created a game that incentives people to go to anywhere in the world
and get Pokemon. They don't have to go to this beach, and if it's trespassing
then it's still an illegal action. Very similar to driving while texting. Is
that the driver's fault or the phones fault? What if the phone company could
stop alerts if the phone is going over 60 mph?

My spin is Why should Niantic subsidize the players poor choices? Or why
should Niantic subsidize the government more than it already does through tax
revenue?

In this case, if I were running Niantic, I would remove the game from the
country in question. My game is the way it is, if it is illegal to operate in
your country that is perfectly fine. Let me know and I'll go somewhere else.
That is all assuming one big thing, I can afford to be harsh about this. If so
(which Niantic can) then that is probably what I'd do. It's perfectly fine for
you to make laws that don't enable games like PokemonGo, and a verdict against
Niantic could be interpreted like that. How could I know that I wouldn't be
sued again in that country?

Of course Niantic will just black out this beach and problem solved, but hey
that's what I'd do.

Edit: I appreciated your answer and perspective though. I just wanted to say
thanks for the well thought out reply.

~~~
khedoros
I don't think it's trespassing for the players to be at Kijkduin, just
problematic to have people there in those numbers. The players may be making
individually-acceptable choices, and it's just the collective behavior that's
a problem. It's easy to say that people should have the judgement not to do
some individually-harmful thing. It's harder to argue that individuals should
have the judgement not to partake in a harmful collective behavior (humans
just aren't generally good at considering things like that).

Niantic's algorithms are sending people around in a pattern that is causing
damage. Since they've been made aware of that, and it's difficult to blame the
individual players, it's reasonable to ask the company itself to make a
change. Niantic's the only one in a position to solve the problem quickly and
cheaply.

------
cloudjacker
> The Hague authorities said they had been trying to contact Niantic since
> mid-August but without success. “We had no other choice” but to go to court,
> they said.

Well, alright then. I've had a lot of luck influencing outcomes by sending
legal sounding cease and desist letters from legal sounding domain names I
own.

But that was last decade, now I just complain on twitter. Super effective.

~~~
jotato
`now I just complain on twitter. Super effective.`

I still find twitter the best way to get comcast to lower my bill :D

------
dkokelley
_" The volume of players roaming the beaches in the so-called Pokémon capital
of the Netherlands have prompted concern over the potential damage being done
to the protected dunes surrounding the area.

The authorities now “want to ban these small virtual animals in protected
areas and in the streets from 11:00 pm to 7:00 am,” the municipality said in a
statement."_

Why not ban visitors in these areas and during these times instead? Is it a
matter of managing the volume of people? Why not issue limited quantities of
walking permits in these areas? Going after a game maker seems like the wrong
approach to addressing the problem.

~~~
dustinmoris
If I set up a game on your street which attracts 100s of players and you and
your neighbors struggle to find a parking on your street and get home then
what would you do? Would your solution be to set up complex rules for visitors
and parking tickets, or would you just tell the players to go and play
somewhere else because they actually don't care if they play on your street or
in the park? Sometimes its better so keep it to simple solutions, don't you
think so?

------
bitmapbrother
Land of the frivolous lawsuits, indeed. I wonder how many there would be if
the loser paid the defendant's court costs.

