Trademark trolling at its best
January 22, 2014 3:44 AM   Subscribe

King, developers of Bejeweled clone Candy Crush Saga, have trademarked the word "candy" and are attempting to use this to take down other developers' games that have the word "candy" in their names. Also, despite their thus-far failure to trademark the word "saga", they're already trying to prevent other games from having the word "saga" in their titles.
posted by Pope Guilty (90 comments total) 9 users marked this as a favorite

 
As the last living descendant of Leif Erikson, I would like to file suit on behalf of King's appropriation of the Vinlandsaga.
posted by Avenger at 3:48 AM on January 22 [11 favorites]


I could maybe see a case that something like "Confection Crush" or "Carrot Cake Smash" would be infringing on their trademark, but the idea that a single, ordinary word can or should be protected seems risible.
posted by thelonius at 3:48 AM on January 22


Amatures. Lucasfilm trademarked "Nazi" back in the 80s, for use in a tabletop Indiana Jones game.
posted by radwolf76 at 3:51 AM on January 22 [5 favorites]


Well, I guess I'll have to restart development on my long-shelved philosopher-heroine racing game, Cindy Crash Sage.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 3:53 AM on January 22 [25 favorites]


I could sort of understand this on mobile, as there are a load of me-too lookalike apps of similar name and appearance. However, Candy Crush is just stolen from various other games anyway, so fuck them on that count.

Going after The Banner Saga is just petty.
posted by GallonOfAlan at 3:55 AM on January 22 [3 favorites]


Sounds kind of Edgy to me.
posted by ardgedee at 3:59 AM on January 22 [1 favorite]


OK, as I have not played Candy Crush, can someone explain to me why it's better or more addictive than the various other iterations of Columns/Panel de Pon?
posted by kewb at 4:00 AM on January 22 [2 favorites]


Amatures. Lucasfilm trademarked "Nazi" back in the 80s, for use in a tabletop Indiana Jones game.

So did TSR, but it was in a specific context.

Also, won't someone think of Candyland? Or the inevitable Saga RPG?
posted by Mezentian at 4:03 AM on January 22 [3 favorites]


Somewhere Candyland is looking in the mirror wondering how so much time passed so quickly.
posted by milarepa at 4:10 AM on January 22 [16 favorites]


I can still launch Kandy Krush right?
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 4:11 AM on January 22 [1 favorite]


Amatures. Lucasfilm trademarked "Nazi" back in the 80s, for use in a tabletop Indiana Jones game.

I remember some Star Wars board game back in the day where I'm sure 50% of the rules were 'TM's and '(C)'s
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 4:13 AM on January 22 [1 favorite]


@kewb

It isn't better. However - it *has* gotten in front of millions of phone/tablet users who have never played anything like Columns/Panel de Pon, and it also has an extremely well tuned and cynical pay-to-win strategy.
posted by GallonOfAlan at 4:14 AM on January 22 [1 favorite]


Look, Icelanders gave up vikinging Hel of a long time ago but if anybody messes with our sagas we're building new fucking longboats and coming for them.

We're a bit short of money these days so if you could spare a few medieval chalices or crucifixes to get us started that would be great. We can repay you in... uh... *looks at clipboard* ...candies or crushing.
posted by Kattullus at 4:15 AM on January 22 [16 favorites]


As the last living descendant of Leif Garrett, I would like to state that I was made for dancin'
posted by stinkfoot at 4:19 AM on January 22 [7 favorites]


As a documented descendant so long as you believe the documents of Sigurd Snake-in-the-Eye (and I actually do have a "snake in the eye", a gold ring amongst green-blue... like loads of other people but anyhoo), which makes me a descendant of his great-great-great-grandfather – mainly through women of renown such as Aslaug and Brunhilda – Völsung of the eponymous saga... well, King Games, perhaps y'all had better read that. As you can see, in writing, it makes me a greatnth-granddaughter of Odin.
/taps toe on ground, crosses arms, raises eyebrow

I had to stop playing Candy Crush, they really are good at making it addictive and friend-involved enough that you kinda sorta want to pay, only a few cents! just the one time! once you reach the really tricky levels... No thanks.
posted by fraula at 4:34 AM on January 22 [6 favorites]


Jas Purewal at Gamerlaw looks at the legal case.
posted by running order squabble fest at 4:46 AM on January 22


As a descendent of Orcadians, I just want to say that we have a saga too.




It's not a very good one- its mostly about burning people's longhouses at Christmas, and how St. Magnus was basically martyred for doing the Viking equivalent of showing up with a knife for a gun fight, but it's ours goddammit.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 4:47 AM on January 22 [1 favorite]


yeah well we wrote it nana nana boo boo

actually the beginning of Orkneyinga saga is really cool and I don't just say it because it mentions a prince I share a name with

posted by Kattullus at 4:55 AM on January 22


No concern for the word "Crush"? Great, I'll keep working on my game, Son, I Crush. And by "keep working on," I mean "idle dream up more story line, because I can't code at all, and I don't have the patience to animate the 8-bit sprites required to make my dream a reality."
posted by filthy light thief at 5:04 AM on January 22 [2 favorites]


filthy light thief: "Great, I'll keep working on my game, Son, I Crush."

Mine is called "Can Deek Rush" and is in the same phase of progress as yours.
posted by chavenet at 5:19 AM on January 22 [8 favorites]


What about Aga Sagas? Can people no longer have illicit sex with their gardener down in the ha-ha without slapping ® and © all over the place?
posted by mippy at 5:19 AM on January 22 [3 favorites]


It seems like letting them trademark any of these words is just an opportunity to let them blow all their money defending something that was already unquestionably generic, a way for the trademark office to troll them. It might be funny if it didn't involve them going after smaller companies who just want to use, you know, words that belong to everyone.
posted by bile and syntax at 5:33 AM on January 22


So they want to trollmark a published novel. Interesting.
posted by adamvasco at 5:37 AM on January 22 [1 favorite]


I would mind this a lot less if, as indicated in the post, the game they'd created weren't a blatant ripoff of a ton of other games that came before them, just with a different money-making strategy. And now apparently they don't even have any more unoriginal ideas, so this is what they're going to do with themselves.
posted by Sequence at 5:56 AM on January 22 [3 favorites]


I think they should be forced to prove that their game is, actually a saga, with all the elements of familial history and so on. If they cannot do this, they should have to turn over all profits and copyrights to the Nordic countries on pain of axe. Basically, if the decedent of one of those candies isn't a bishop by the end of the story, they lose.
posted by GenjiandProust at 6:03 AM on January 22 [12 favorites]


If direct action (and game development) is more your style, you can pop over to The Candy Jam and make a game that uses the word "candy" (plus "scroll," "memory," "saga," "apple," and "edge") by February 4th.
posted by GameDesignerBen at 6:03 AM on January 22 [4 favorites]


Is this the same company that buys ads that automatically open the App Store to download the app? Because if it is, fuck those guys.
posted by birdherder at 6:04 AM on January 22 [3 favorites]


This sounds like Bethesda trying to trademark "Scrolls". What ever happened with that?
posted by Joe Chip at 6:25 AM on January 22 [1 favorite]


Philosophers through the ages have pondered the merits of candy.
posted by asok at 6:28 AM on January 22


Amatures. Lucasfilm trademarked "Nazi" back in the 80s, for use in a tabletop Indiana Jones game.

So did TSR, but it was in a specific context.


Yes, that specific context being TSR published said tabletop Indiana Jones game for Lucasfilm, and Lucasfilm told them all the cardboard character chits that came with the set were trademarked. We're talking about the same thing, but it was Lucasfilm's trademark, not TSR. TSR was only doing what the licenseholder's legal department requested.
posted by radwolf76 at 6:41 AM on January 22


you can pop over to The Candy Jam and make a game that uses the word "candy" (plus "scroll," "memory," "saga," "apple," and "edge") by February 4th.

Scrolls of the Candy Saga I: Memories of Apples on the Edge
posted by nubs at 6:41 AM on January 22 [3 favorites]


Don't forget to add Superhero® and Billy Joel® to the list too.

Billy Joel's Scroll-Edge AppleSaga IX-2: Candy Superhero Memories
posted by Strange Interlude at 7:04 AM on January 22 [2 favorites]


This is fun.TM
posted by vapidave at 7:11 AM on January 22


I would totally play Billy Joel's Scroll-Edge AppleSaga IX-2: Candy Superhero Memories
posted by GallonOfAlan at 7:34 AM on January 22 [3 favorites]


Someone's created a game called Clash of Clowns
posted by DanCall at 7:39 AM on January 22


TSR was only doing what the licenseholder's legal department requested.

Just following orders?
posted by ODiV at 7:46 AM on January 22 [5 favorites]


Someone's created a game called Clash of Clowns

I call shenanigans. With comments like these, this cannot be real:

+++++ "Cool clowns!! - Fantastic game!! Love it!" - latme

No real person has ever used the words "cool clowns" in the history of English. The only phrase even close was "cool it, clowns," and the intent is very different.
posted by GenjiandProust at 8:04 AM on January 22 [8 favorites]


OK, as I have not played Candy Crush, can someone explain to me why it's better or more addictive than the various other iterations of Columns/Panel de Pon?

In Defence of Candy Crush

So a few neat mechanics that are kind of interesting, on the other hand it's extremely evil in terms to its F2P gouging.

I hope whoever came up with it gets fed into a bar of protein slurry like a used-up Zynga employee.
posted by Artw at 8:10 AM on January 22 [2 favorites]


TSR was only doing what the licenseholder's legal department requested.
You mean I got into a usenet Battle of the Somme with a TSR person on a lie?
posted by Mezentian at 8:19 AM on January 22


Has anyone done a videogame of corporate lawyers? I do not play videogames, most certainly not ones that involve savagery, destruction or wanton violence.

But I would play that one.

(Note to lawyers reading: yes, I know. The sins of the few, the inhuman outcomes of a gameable system, the affairs of men are not to be lightly regulated. But hell.)
posted by Devonian at 8:23 AM on January 22 [1 favorite]


I can still launch Kandy Krush right?

Kandy Krush Kapers.
posted by dirigibleman at 8:48 AM on January 22 [2 favorites]


Has anyone done a videogame of corporate lawyers? I do not play videogames, most certainly not ones that involve savagery, destruction or wanton violence.

But I would play that one.


These statements are logically incompatible, surely?
posted by running order squabble fest at 8:59 AM on January 22


What I'd like to know is how this squares with the rpg series SaGa that has been running since 1989. Also why the latter isn't more successful.
posted by ersatz at 9:04 AM on January 22 [1 favorite]


Guessing they're not going to go after LEGO Star Wars: The Complete Saga lest they fancy their heads mounted on stakes at the entrance to Epcot.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 9:11 AM on January 22 [8 favorites]


I am currently struggling with level 208. Perhaps this will give me the push I need to knock the damned game on the head.
posted by Decani at 9:11 AM on January 22


Running order squabble fest - by some strange quirk of the universe, I'm involved in just that right at the moment. Eerie. - yes, they are completely incompatible. Only one be true.
posted by Devonian at 9:12 AM on January 22


Anyway, I trust this will have no impact on my games "Pet Risk: you", "Pap Appear" and "Bub
Elwitch".
posted by Decani at 9:17 AM on January 22 [1 favorite]


OK, as I have not played Candy Crush, can someone explain to me why it's better or more addictive than the various other iterations of Columns/Panel de Pon?

I have a theory.

It's because the pieces have a very pleasant snap-and-bounce "feel" when you move them.

Contrast with Bejeweled or Jewel Mania, where the jewels slide around with a charmless, businesslike precision, and new pieces slam down artlessly from the top of the screen. In Candy Crush everything moves around as if suspended in a sugary, viscous substrate. Pieces clear with a satisfying pop instead of being roughly sheared away. The motions of the game pieces provide a rhythmic structure that lends itself perfectly to the kind of repetitive, fiddly gameplay that games like this are all about.

It's the little things that kill.
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:19 AM on January 22 [9 favorites]


"I can still launch Kandy Krush right?"
Only if you call it a Krusade!
posted by Blasdelb at 9:34 AM on January 22


In Candy Crush everything moves around as if suspended in a sugary, viscous substrate.

The addiction metaphors keep piling up.
posted by naju at 9:44 AM on January 22 [2 favorites]


OK, as I have not played Candy Crush, can someone explain to me why it's better or more addictive than the various other iterations of Columns/Panel de Pon?

It's certainly not the music in the game. I had to turn off that mournful, trancelike dirge almost immediately.
posted by Thorzdad at 10:05 AM on January 22


I think prize bull octorok has it - all the visuals, sounds, and animations are super satisfying especially on a table instead of a phone. My wife and I are both playing it.

She calls me "candy crush wizard" because I'm on level 400-and-something and have not ever added any friends (which helps you somehow) or even used any of the free power-ups (hammers etc.) that they give you. Basically I'm trying to do as pure of a run through the game as I can. There's a lot of luck but you can definitely look ahead at least a few moves and create a lot more of the special candies than someone who's just blindly matching sets can.

I have done the 99-cent-for-next-15-levels thing though once I finish an episode. I'm getting enough enjoyment out of it that it's worth it. Also it doesn't affect the gameplay at all unlike the stuff where you pay for power-ups.

And they introduce cool mechanics as you go (licorice, chocolate, etc). The tornadoes are super annoying.
posted by freecellwizard at 10:10 AM on January 22


Umm, and... Panzer Dragoon Saga? 1998? Yeah, fuck you King.

CHOCOMURDEREPIC!
posted by symbioid at 10:10 AM on January 22


I'd like to think PopCap could take them on with a super-duper bells and whistles upgrade to bejeweled, but let's face it after PvZ2 it would be an even worse kind of super-monetized F2P hell.
posted by Artw at 10:15 AM on January 22 [2 favorites]


Baba Yaga Saga? A cross between Hansl/Gretl and Baba Yaga?
posted by symbioid at 10:15 AM on January 22


naju: "In Candy Crush everything moves around as if suspended in a sugary, viscous substrate.

The addiction metaphors keep piling up.
"

I get a sugar rush, thinking of you too much...
posted by symbioid at 10:17 AM on January 22


It's because the pieces have a very pleasant snap-and-bounce "feel" when you move them.

I played Candy Crush (then got to levels that were too irritating ("make these combinations of special candies with lots of chocolate irritation") and got bored and mostly quit, I pick it up once a month or so), and I played the games it has copied, and Candy Crush is just prettier and the movements are nicer.
posted by jeather at 10:18 AM on January 22


It's the little things that kill.

Yeah, but the iOS version of Bejeweled can show you subliminal weight-loss messages while you play (not making this up)
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 10:29 AM on January 22


thelonius: "but the idea that a single, ordinary word can or should be protected seems risible."

It's pretty well established. See for example Word or Windows. Heck Apple went crazy tossing out C&Ds for words matching the pattern i$FOO. There is a lot of suckage in Trademark law because it so often comes down to who has the most money going in.
posted by Mitheral at 10:31 AM on January 22


I'd mark it down to a combination of getting a little power rush from the various combo effects and power-ups, and just barely not making it through a level.
posted by Halloween Jack at 11:30 AM on January 22


Everyone's painting King as the villains here, but if weren't for them I might never have heard the most amazing game name ever: All Candy Casino Slots - Jewels Craze Connect: Big Blast Mania Land
posted by straight at 11:44 AM on January 22 [4 favorites]


Some other possible names for Bejeweled knock-off games if they succeed:
posted by NoraReed at 11:50 AM on January 22 [4 favorites]


the idea that a single, ordinary word can or should be protected seems risible

Yeah, this is a common misunderstanding, to the point that I can't tell whether adamvasco is teasing or sincere when he says "So they want to trollmark a published novel. Interesting." (Not to mention perhaps confusing trademark and copyright, as so many also do.)

It's easy to oversimplify here because IP law can get pretty complex, but to make a point, let's say you make hammers. Well, you will not be able to trademark the brand name "Hammer" and prevent anyone else from calling their hammers, hammers. It is the case that ordinary words cannot be trademarked, but only in the context of their own definition. On the other hand let's say you make films. You can certainly trademark the name "Hammer Films" and prevent anyone else from using the name "Hammer Films" (or variations, like "Hammer Productions" or "Hammer Studios"), to also make movies, because the test here is consumer confusion.

The classic real-world case is Apple Corps, Ltd. vs. Apple Computer. The former famously sued the latter for trademark infringement, but eventually they settled because there really wasn't a direct consumer confusion issue and they were in different industries. When, however, Apple Computer began building Macintoshes that had, for the time (ca. 1990), the ability to play "real" music and not just computer beeps and boops, the case got re-opened, and then re-opened again when Apple began making the iPod. In those cases the cause of action, the tort, was that Apple Computer was infringing on the Apple Corps mark because the latter was associated with music many years prior to the former.

So they will not be able to trademark the name Candy for any and everything in the universe, just for the area in which they have an active business, computer games.

There's also a bit of public distance from trademark law in that it's not often understood that if you fail to protect your trademark properly, courts can then rule that you've abandoned it and even that you've allowed it to become generic (e.g. "escalator", a real such case). Thus companies are essentially required to send out cease and desist orders for things that seem inconsequential or only distantly related.
posted by dhartung at 12:00 PM on January 22 [5 favorites]


It would be a shame if King let "saga" become just a generic term for any video game based on Norse Mythology.
posted by straight at 12:07 PM on January 22


So they will not be able to trademark the name... for any and everything in the universe, just for the area in which they have an active business, computer games.

Catherine DeVore breathes a sigh of relief.
posted by naju at 12:17 PM on January 22


Weasels. Weasels and shysters. © ® ™
posted by Splunge at 12:35 PM on January 22 [1 favorite]


I'm trademarking "mental" and "wimp." Beware, suckers!

Intellectual property law is broken. Please fix.
posted by Mental Wimp at 12:55 PM on January 22


Trademark law is about the only bit of IP I don't have a problem with. I mean money still drives the winner more than a perfect ideal. But it is narrowly focused, time limited, requires active protection by the holder, and actually protects consumers rather than taking advantage of them.
posted by Mitheral at 1:21 PM on January 22


I'm trademarking "Guilty". I'll make billions in use fees from judicial systems worldwide!
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:33 PM on January 22


I find the defense that they need to protect their trademarks unconvincing. The problem is that trademark authorities should be intelligent and reject attempts to register marks on single, common words. "Candy" by itself shouldn't be a trademark, and King shouldn't be able to take action against companies using it. Pointing out that they need to sue or lose the mark doesn't make a good argument if the problem is that they shouldn't have the mark to begin with.

Trademarks ought to be for consumer protection - so someone doesn't buy a product that misrepresents itself as another product. "Candy Slots" or "Banner Saga" aren't going to be mistakenly downloaded by reasonable people thinking they are "Candy Crush Saga." The word "Candy" is not indicative of only King games, nor is "Saga," so no trademarks should be granted.
posted by graymouser at 2:25 PM on January 22 [3 favorites]


http://thecandyjam.com/
posted by hellojed at 2:39 PM on January 22


I'm removing all King games from my various devices. I was at level 421 in Candy crush and enjoying it while sometimes hating it, as is often the case with a good game.
I feel sorry for their clearly excellent designers and developers, who took basic copycat game mechanics and raised the bar to great heights of truly enjoyable and challenging gameplay in every case; the backlash is undoubtedly going to hit their pockets, not those of the greedy fucks pulling this crap.

Also, a big fuck you to whoever is actually accepting these ridiculous fucking trademark applications. Fuck you, broken legal and trademark and copyright system!
posted by L'Estrange Fruit at 3:08 PM on January 22


Candy Crush earns King 3.5 million dollars per day (3/4 down, under "Mobile").
posted by Sibrax at 4:18 PM on January 22


There's also a bit of public distance from trademark law in that it's not often understood that if you fail to protect your trademark properly, courts can then rule that you've abandoned it and even that you've allowed it to become generic (e.g. "escalator", a real such case). Thus companies are essentially required to send out cease and desist orders for things that seem inconsequential or only distantly related.

Trademark Law Does Not Require Companies To Tirelessly Censor the Internet

"Importantly, failure to enforce a mark against every potential infringer does not show abandonment. As one court explained:

'The owner of a mark is not required to constantly monitor every nook and cranny of the entire nation and to fire both barrels of his shotgun instantly upon spotting a possible infringer.'"
posted by parallellines at 4:53 PM on January 22 [3 favorites]


RPS: Stoic responds.
posted by Pope Guilty at 5:39 PM on January 22 [1 favorite]


Coincidentally, I just finished listening to the episode on In Our Time - Icelandic Sagas. Very good it was too.
posted by unliteral at 5:48 PM on January 22 [1 favorite]


"Too Much Coffee Man vs. Trademark Copyright Man"
posted by ob1quixote at 8:48 PM on January 22 [1 favorite]


dhartung: So they will not be able to trademark the name Candy for any and everything in the universe, just for the area in which they have an active business, computer games.

The difference between this and typical trademark cases like Apple v Apple is that a trademark like "Apple" for a computer or music company is just a business name that identifies the trader but doesn't describe its products in any way (which is pretty much ideal for a trademark), while a trademark like "candy" for a work like a computer game effectively claims exclusive rights to a particular theme and directly constrains the creative choices of other game developers.

If I wrote a book called "Candy Crush", trademarked the word "candy" for books and started threatening anyone who used the word in their own book titles, other writers would be pissed off. And rightly so, because decisions about the use of common words to express a theme or stand as a metaphor in the title of a creative work is the kind of thing that, generally speaking, the law keeps out of. It's possible to trademark a more complex expression like "Harry Potter", and I don't think anyone would have a problem with King trademarking "Candy Crush", but claiming exclusive rights to "candy"? No.

That said, there are so many other games around with "candy" in their name (see e.g.) that I can't see this trademark standing up to serious challenge. My guess is that King will mostly go after small developers who don't have the resources to fight a court case - and if they do, yes, that makes them an IP troll.
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 1:36 AM on January 23 [2 favorites]


I sure don't love Too Much Coffee Man like I did when I was 17, but goddamn if it isn't still pretty damned amusing.
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:39 AM on January 23 [2 favorites]


Oh, looks like there is a "Bejewelled Blitz" now. Top in-app purchase is "coins", of course.
posted by Artw at 8:51 AM on January 23


Bejeweled Blitz has been around for a few years at least -- it used to be pretty good, but they added so many ridiculous special features (buyable with real money, or with luck/grinding/help from friends) that any sense of fair competition is long since shot, and none of the people I knew who were playing it when it was more vanilla still bother.

Bejeweled 3, which is a regular ol' game you just buy, has a blitz mode that provides the gameplay the old-style Bejeweled Blitz did, in case anybody misses it. No weekly leaderboard with your friends, though, and that part really was kinda fun.
posted by asperity at 10:47 AM on January 23


Heh, my point remains: Fuck coins.
posted by Artw at 10:51 AM on January 23 [2 favorites]


Yeah. I think when they first put the game out they saw it as a marketing tool for the desktop game, then shifted to a model where it's making money on its own with little to no connection to the stand-alone game. Disappointing.
posted by asperity at 11:00 AM on January 23


Oh, and while I'm on the subject of Bejeweled spin-offs, Bejeweled: The Board Game is a thing that exists.
posted by asperity at 11:03 AM on January 23 [2 favorites]


"It's ironic that King.com is concerned about intellectual property when they so blatantly copied our game Scamperghost with their game "Pac-Avoid" in late 2009. In fact, using "Pac" from Namco's Pac-Man is exactly the same thing they're trying to stop people from doing with their "Candy" trademark!"
posted by Pope Guilty at 2:33 AM on January 24 [1 favorite]


No way! Scummy company is scummy?
posted by Mezentian at 3:54 AM on January 24


Oh, and while I'm on the subject of Bejeweled spin-offs, Bejeweled: The Board Game is a thing that exists.

Which does a surprisingly good job of giving you game pieces that reproduce those ridiculously, deliciously shiny gems which are maybe 70% of what makes Bejeweled so appealing.

(Like those wonderful shiny gems in the original PS1 Spyro games which were the most enticing collectables ever.)
posted by straight at 10:33 AM on January 24 [1 favorite]


Candy Crunch done and submitted!
posted by RobotHero at 1:00 PM on February 3 [1 favorite]


Anyone who thinks Candy Crush Saga has even the slightest bit of moral justification in defending "their" trademark needs to read this documenting that King cloned another game, CandySwipe, to create Candy Crush Saga and then had the gall to send a cease-and-desist to the maker of the game they cloned.
posted by straight at 9:19 AM on February 12 [1 favorite]


The best part is that they bought another unrelated game with "Candy" in the title that was released a couple of years before either CandySwipe or Candy Crush Saga and then based their new takedown on that. Not on anything they had an actual right to.

Vermin.
posted by Pope Guilty at 4:29 PM on February 12 [1 favorite]


« Older VFX artist Richard Trammell presents: Fight Club m...  |  The Verge examine the reasons ... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments