Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Take-Two sues Chicago Transit

7 replies to this topic
The Killa
  • The Killa

    Diet Water Please

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 22 Dec 2002

#1

Posted 06 May 2008 - 02:14 AM

QUOTE
Reuters is reporting that Grand Theft Auto IV publisher Take Two Interactive is suing the Chicago Transit Authority over the CTA’s recent decision to remove ads for the game from its vehicles and facilities.

As reported by GamePolitics, the CTA pulled the ads about a week before GTA IV launched. The move followed a sensationalistic Fox News report which seemed to draw a linkage between GTA and a rash of local shootings. From Reuters:

    Take Two accused the authority and its sales agent, Titan Outdoor LLC, of violating a $300,000… ad campaign agreement that included running “Grand Theft Auto 4″ poster ads on the sides of buses and transit display spaces throughout the Chicago transit system scheduled for six weeks between April and June.

The suit seeks an order for the transit authority to run the ads as well as monetary damages of at least $300,000.



http://gamepolitics.com/

Thanks T-2 for actually standing up for yourselves

JordanMillward_1
  • JordanMillward_1

    Crackhead

  • Members
  • Joined: 28 Apr 2008

#2

Posted 06 May 2008 - 02:15 AM

Nice one T-2! Show them who's boss!

SP1LL3R
  • SP1LL3R

    Beast

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2008

#3

Posted 06 May 2008 - 02:16 AM

QUOTE
GP: Congrats to Take Two for standing up for its rights. Let’s hope they sue the Miami-Dade Transit as well. GP readers will recall that Jack Thompson pressured the MDT into removing ads from Miami bus shelters.


What a fag.

Nem_Wan
  • Nem_Wan

    The Artist Formerly Known As Magic_Al

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Aug 2006
  • United-States

#4

Posted 06 May 2008 - 02:24 AM

As soon as someone asks whether R-rated movies can be advertised in the same locations as the GTA IV ads, someone will have to concoct a crackpot theory explaining how a video game for ages 17 and up is different than a movie for ages 17 and up. This should be good.

GTA3Freak-2001
  • GTA3Freak-2001

    Run out of Cake.

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Nov 2001

#5

Posted 06 May 2008 - 02:40 AM

Yeah that's entirely fair, if Take 2 paid for the advertisements and those advertisements never went out then they have every right. The Transit Authority should of compensated Take 2 when the ads were pulled.

Greg-J
  • Greg-J

    GTA:VC on the GTA IV engine? We can only hope.

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2005

#6

Posted 06 May 2008 - 02:48 AM

QUOTE (Magic_Al @ May 6 2008, 02:24)
As soon as someone asks whether R-rated movies can be advertised in the same locations as the GTA IV ads, someone will have to concoct a crackpot theory explaining how a video game for ages 17 and up is different than a movie for ages 17 and up. This should be good.

That's a pretty easy argument to make actually.




This isn't about Take-Two standing up for their rights either. It's about publicity and numbers, nothing more.

As a hardcore GTA fan I think they should respect the transit systems right to choose who they represent on their property. Take-Two doesn't have a right to put their poster wherever the hell they want simply because they feel like it.

That said... If they initially agreed to display the adverts - which they obviously did - they need to maintain their contractual obligation to do so. We don't know what their agreement was, so we can't intelligently speculate on the matter one way or another.



As for Jack Thompson, that guy is such a f*cking tool.

Nem_Wan
  • Nem_Wan

    The Artist Formerly Known As Magic_Al

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Aug 2006
  • United-States

#7

Posted 07 May 2008 - 12:42 AM

QUOTE (Greg-J @ May 5 2008, 21:48)
QUOTE (Magic_Al @ May 6 2008, 02:24)
As soon as someone asks whether R-rated movies can be advertised in the same locations as the GTA IV ads, someone will have to concoct a crackpot theory explaining how a video game for ages 17 and up is different than a movie for ages 17 and up.  This should be good.

That's a pretty easy argument to make actually.

Pretty easy? I'm not asserting that the content of an R-rated movie is the same as an M-rated video game. Clearly, they're not. (An R-rated movie can have full nudity, which gets rated AO in a video game. The ESRB pins the "partial nudity" descriptor on very skimpy attire that would technically comply with typical indecent exposure laws. In movies "partial nudity" means fully exposed breasts. And ESRB is rating relatively low-res animation while movies are mostly live-action.) Rather, R and M have the same age restriction and intended audience. The differences between watching and doing are factored into the two rating systems. Allowing the movie ad and but not the video game ad would be nothing but unfounded bias.

Slamman
  • Slamman

    Smote

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 29 Nov 2003
  • United-States

#8

Posted 07 May 2008 - 12:48 AM

I assumed it was going to fall by the wayside, but they should at least get money back.. The ads running would be a perk. You have to differentiate between what is real cause, and real effect. GTA is not harmful to anyone.... unless you're forced to endure it with no moral guidance.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users