- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Is PokemonGo Illegal?
Posted on 7/12/16 at 8:02 pm
Posted on 7/12/16 at 8:02 pm
This has caused quite the dust up in the legal/tech industries I follow on Twitter.
Associate's Mind
Not to mention some legitimate criminals capitalizing on the game's popularity.
Robbery motive for playing PokemonGo
Associate's Mind
Not to mention some legitimate criminals capitalizing on the game's popularity.
Robbery motive for playing PokemonGo
5
Posted on 7/12/16 at 8:16 pm to Five0
It's just software
All laws to private property still apply.
People setting lures to rob people would rob people no matter what. They probably use guns and cars too. Are those illegal?
I'm most worried about Idiots playing this shite while driving.
All laws to private property still apply.
People setting lures to rob people would rob people no matter what. They probably use guns and cars too. Are those illegal?
I'm most worried about Idiots playing this shite while driving.
This post was edited on 7/12/16 at 8:17 pm
Posted on 7/12/16 at 8:16 pm to Five0
I'm tired of this fear mongering bs. Yes there are going to be a few cases where bad things will happen, but pokemon go is doing a lot of positive things as well. It's helping people get out of the house and associate with other people in a positive manner. As long as people use an ounce of common sense they'll be fine.
Posted on 7/12/16 at 8:18 pm to Five0
I can definitely seeing someone setting a lure to actually IRL lure people there to rob them.
Someone set a lure on campus and tons of people showed up.
Someone set a lure on campus and tons of people showed up.
Posted on 7/12/16 at 8:18 pm to KingwoodLsuFan
positives outweigh the negatives
Posted on 7/12/16 at 8:19 pm to KingwoodLsuFan
That plane crashed that one time and killed people. We should make planes illegal.
Posted on 7/12/16 at 8:26 pm to Five0
People harping on the robbery is idiotic.
Mine as well get rid of banks, they can be robbed.
Time to get rid of cars, too dangerous.
Mine as well get rid of banks, they can be robbed.
Time to get rid of cars, too dangerous.
Posted on 7/12/16 at 8:28 pm to CBandits82
Such a great thing for the health of millions of people and some people STILL find something to bitch about. I hate the human race.
Posted on 7/12/16 at 8:29 pm to The Boat
I've seen stories on reddit of retarded kids going to parks late at night because of lures and getting chased or being suspicious of some creeper.
Also fights breaking over gyms bring taken
Sad reality we live in. They may think they are going to make a friend....
Teaches lessons for the real world at least.
Also fights breaking over gyms bring taken
Sad reality we live in. They may think they are going to make a friend....
Teaches lessons for the real world at least.
This post was edited on 7/12/16 at 8:31 pm
Posted on 7/12/16 at 8:33 pm to jefforize
Yeah, just because you're playing a game doesn't change the rules for being out late. Go with a group, stay together, no dark alleys. It's not rocket science.
Posted on 7/12/16 at 9:02 pm to Drewbie
quote:
Yeah, just because you're playing a game doesn't change the rules for being out late. Go with a group, stay together, no dark alleys. It's not rocket science.
Agree with this.
Posted on 7/12/16 at 9:19 pm to Five0
quote:
Is PokemonGo Illegal?
I've been reading Tigerdroppings for over 6 years and this is one of the dumbest questions I've ever seen on here. Congratulations.
Posted on 7/12/16 at 9:27 pm to Jon Ham
You bet. There is world outside of TD. I brought another discussion in regarding a popular topic here. There is a very easy way to avoid conversations you are not fond of on a message board. 
Posted on 7/12/16 at 9:43 pm to Five0
quote:It's not a conversation. It's a stupid question that deserves nothing but dumbass remarks.
There is a very easy way to avoid conversations you are not fond of on a message board.
Posted on 7/12/16 at 10:03 pm to Five0
Sorry, I didn't click the first link. I thought you were asking this question yourself. Allow me to respond to the article...
What a dumb fricking question. I could place 100 pokestops on your house and it would have no effect on your right to exclude others from physically entering your property. You can put a fence up, sell it, guard it, it's yours. That's like saying "is jacking off a sexual assault on a pornstar?"
Terribly worded question. Are they asking if owning property means you have discretion over whether someone may use it to create a reference point on a map or GPS type device? If that is the question and the answer is "yes," then every property owner should get a royalty from every map maker that uses their location, including Google. The answer is obviously "no." The world needs maps and that need far outweighs property owners' interest in profiting off any and all potential uses of their property's location and physical appearance.
"The attractive nuisance doctrine...states that a landowner may be held liable for injuries to children trespassing on the land if the injury is caused by an object on the land that is likely to attract children." ( LINK).
So the "object on the land" would be the Pokestop, for example. A Pokestop does not cause injury and it is not foreseeable that a pokestop would cause an injury. The attractive nuissance doctrine does not mean "If there's an unnatural object on your land that attracts children and they are injured in any way while visiting your property then you're liable." The injury would have to be foreseeable and the landowner would have had to fail to take reasonable preventative measures in order for the landowner to be liable. It's not even close.
quote:
Does placing an AR object on a person’s property, without their permission, affect their interest in exclusive possession of property?
What a dumb fricking question. I could place 100 pokestops on your house and it would have no effect on your right to exclude others from physically entering your property. You can put a fence up, sell it, guard it, it's yours. That's like saying "is jacking off a sexual assault on a pornstar?"
quote:
Does owning property in “the real world” extend property rights to any geo-locative, intellectual property elements that may be placed on it?
Terribly worded question. Are they asking if owning property means you have discretion over whether someone may use it to create a reference point on a map or GPS type device? If that is the question and the answer is "yes," then every property owner should get a royalty from every map maker that uses their location, including Google. The answer is obviously "no." The world needs maps and that need far outweighs property owners' interest in profiting off any and all potential uses of their property's location and physical appearance.
quote:
Is placing an AR object on a person’s private property, without their permission, a creation of an attractive nuisance?
"The attractive nuisance doctrine...states that a landowner may be held liable for injuries to children trespassing on the land if the injury is caused by an object on the land that is likely to attract children." ( LINK).
So the "object on the land" would be the Pokestop, for example. A Pokestop does not cause injury and it is not foreseeable that a pokestop would cause an injury. The attractive nuissance doctrine does not mean "If there's an unnatural object on your land that attracts children and they are injured in any way while visiting your property then you're liable." The injury would have to be foreseeable and the landowner would have had to fail to take reasonable preventative measures in order for the landowner to be liable. It's not even close.
This post was edited on 7/13/16 at 9:25 am
Posted on 7/13/16 at 2:32 am to Jon Ham
quote:
"The attractive nuisance doctrine...states that a landowner may be held liable for injuries to children trespassing on the land if the injury is caused by an object on the land that is likely to attract children." ( LINK).
So the "object on the land" would be the Pokestop, for example. A Pokestop does not cause injury and it is not foreseeable that a pokestop would cause an injury. The attractive nuissance doctrine does not mean "If there's an unnatural object on your land that attracts children and they are injured in an way while visiting your property then you're liable." The injury would have to be foreseeable and the landowner would have had to fail to take reasonable preventative measures in order for the landowner to be liable. It's not even close.
Now we are conversing. I do not think the author of the piece is calling the pokestop the cause or any injury. If I understood him correctly, he is saying if someone gets injured on private property because they were enticed to collect a pokestop could their be possible liability. What about pokestops on public memorial grounds that is also stirring controversy. LINK
Now, do I wish there was a simple straight forward answer? Yes. Do I think their will be a simple straight forward answer? Depends on arguments presented by creative plaintiff's attorneys. The author is exactly right on one aspect. The flesh eating plaintiff's attorneys see one thing right now and that is deep pockets. Some states will be more attractive to plaintiffs over other due to their existing tort and property law. At the very least we can agree that the advancement of technology in general (and now gaming) is affecting change in the legal arenas. As we as a society use technology for more and more things, this is a welcome revelation. Just see the issues of searching electronic devices by state agents in recent cases.
Posted on 7/13/16 at 8:18 am to jefforize
Usually if you're going too fast, the game will register that and not spawn anything. So you don't have to worry about that too much on the highway. Now in residential areas, I've seen it a good bit.
Not sure if they were playing Pokemon or not, but some dumbass was going 15-20 mph over the speed limit and were on their phone. Well they were driving and hit my driveway before they realized they were drifting over while not paying attention.
One day they're gonna hit my dog and I'll gladly go to prison for killing them.
Not sure if they were playing Pokemon or not, but some dumbass was going 15-20 mph over the speed limit and were on their phone. Well they were driving and hit my driveway before they realized they were drifting over while not paying attention.
One day they're gonna hit my dog and I'll gladly go to prison for killing them.
This post was edited on 7/13/16 at 8:20 am
Posted on 7/13/16 at 4:17 pm to SmoothOperator96
Posted on 7/13/16 at 4:45 pm to Five0
good.
Page 1 of 1
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News