11–20 of 40 posts
The very first point mentioned in the article is that pokemon go requests access to too much data. This was a bug that has been (or is being?) addressed by the developers [0]. I believe this is usually the occasion to cite Hanlons razor[1]. [0] https://support.pokemongo.nianticlabs.com/hc/en-us/articles/... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
Does it really matter if they are using an app on their phone instead of reading Yelp or listening to a podcast while they crash into someone, act like an idiot, etc? If I put out a podcast that is meant to be listened to as a walking tour of somewhere do I have these same liability concerns since I'm suggesting locations to the user?
How random would an app maker have to make their AR game to make it clear they just want to make a game that people can play by moving around, without being liable for everything stupid people do in public while they happen to be running the app?
I think things will get interesting when augmented reality becomes so ingrained in our society that it becomes difficult to separate it from what is real. As virtual entities take over the mindshare of 'real entities' in our lives, we might start integrating the virtual entities more into our thought processes and into our artworks - Which would increase the frequency of copyright infringement. So basically, as the v…
B) This isn't much different than headphones, just for your eyes. Temper your fears with what being able to take music everywhere did to make a dystopia.
I'm curious why so many of these issues seem to differ so greatly from any other reason people may be doing something in public. Does it really matter if they are using an app on their phone instead of reading Yelp or listening to a podcast while they crash into someone, act like an idiot, etc? If I put out a podcast that is meant to be listened to as a walking tour of somewhere do I have these same liability concern…
I'm hedging, because I think this is likely to be a fluke event and be a non-issue for a long time. Even if AR games become big, this is probably the first and last time we're all playing the exact same one. Plus over time this sort of thin connectivity to the real world may be seen as a fluke; AR may require much stronger computer vision and real-world understanding to take off in a non-fluke way.
Pokemon Go reminds me a lot of the GPS unit my father had 20 years ago, where all it knew about was cities. I'm not even sure why he bought it, the most interesting thing you could do is zoom out in the Chicago area and roughly see Lake Michigan. Prior to GPS units being hooked up to road databases and able to give directions, they were not that useful. Similarly, for all the flash and pizzaz Pokemon Go may superficially seem to have, all it really has is your coordinates.
This doesn't make it "bad" but it's not clear to me this is going to be a new genre. It may just be one cool fad game, with the "real" stuff still to come in what could even be another 10 years.
It seems crazy to me that a developer can put a pokestop(or w/e) inside of a store with no notification or permission from the property owner, but the property owner can't put up a sign indicating that a pokestop has been created inside of their store without getting a license. If that's really how the law works we've already reached the dystopian future.
> But now, the XYZ Candy Company building also has become a Pokémon Gym. Players from miles around aggregate to that location because the name and logo are depicted in the app as a Pokémon Gym location. At what point does this mean the app is using the copyrighted design in violation of the copyright registration? All the pictures used are taken from public property iirc. Wouldn't the copyright for the picture taken…
the bigger concern is the possibility of violating a trademark. If a McDonalds is a pokestop and the image is the golden arches logo that is a trademarked logo that you are now associating with your game. The average person can be confused and think there is some association between pokemon and mcdonalds. That mcdonalds is sponsoring pokemon in someway and hurt their brand
On the other hand, there is a spot right in the middle of an airport close to me. I mean right on the runway. It's been claimed and remained uncontested for a very long time and I suspect the person who claimed it works at the airport. I don't see how it shows me anything novel about the world around me, since I can't really reach it and it's a bit hard to miss an entire airport. If the airport building itself was a spot that might be ok - it is a point of interest and is reachable by public road, but it makes no sense to put the spot in the middle of the runway.
In the end, Niantic needed better moderation of player suggestions for spots. That didn't happen and now we have spots in the middle of the runway and gyms around Area 51. Hopefully they'll open up counter-suggestions for spots to be moved or deleted if they don't make sense.
you are all idiots.
> But now, the XYZ Candy Company building also has become a Pokémon Gym. Players from miles around aggregate to that location because the name and logo are depicted in the app as a Pokémon Gym location. At what point does this mean the app is using the copyrighted design in violation of the copyright registration? All the pictures used are taken from public property iirc. Wouldn't the copyright for the picture taken…
> Let’s take the example of a restaurant that advertises itself as a “Poké Stop” and utilizes a game image in connection with the stylized “Poké Stop” mark in its store window. That is arguably an instance of both copyright and trademark infringement. It seems crazy to me that a developer can put a pokestop(or w/e) inside of a store with no notification or permission from the property owner, but the property owner ca…