PETA supports copyright cruelty
by Alisha Karabinus 
{ Aug 22nd 2007 at 6:00PM }
So what is Super Chick Sisters? It's a blatant Mario clone (even down to some sound effects!) that features a pair of chick sisters who step in to save the Peach-like Pam Anderson from the evil KFC monsters when Mario and Luigi come down with a bad case of Wiitis. Nugget and Chickette are even decked out in little hats, just like their plumber counterparts, though their Chicken Kingdom is populated not with Goombas and coins, but other chicks, boiling oil, and 1-up tofu boxes. There are also lots of helpful people with scary messages about the horrors of chicken slaughter who encourage you to speed up and save the chickens. Oh, and that princess, too.
Our only real question is this: if you lose, does that make you the enemy, an evil chicken-killer yourself? Chilling.
[Via Infendo]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Nushio @ Aug 22nd 2007 6:06PM
I found the game quite insulting. I hope they get sued into oblivion.
Meanwhile, I'll go grab a bucket for KFC. Thanks for the advertising, PETA!
As a member of the PETA (People Eating Tasty Animals), all I can say is "Secret Recipe please"
Psycho300x @ Aug 22nd 2007 6:26PM
This makes me want to begin clubbing baby seals to teach them a lesson, while eating some KFC, fuck peta
People
Eating
Tasty
Animals
Chris @ Aug 22nd 2007 7:10PM
Heres a lmao fact (thanks to penn and teller)
PETA are against animal slaughter and testing right but get this...
PETA chief/president has to take insoline, and that was devloped through (drum roll plz) animal testing and insoline has saved more than a millions lives to date globally, so PETA are againt saving peoples lives through medicines !
ZR @ Aug 22nd 2007 7:44PM
I can't wait until someone wises up and nukes the living fuck out of this planet with all of you idiots on it.
JC Fletcher @ Aug 22nd 2007 7:55PM
Can I come stay on your planet, then? If there's room?
Do you mind if I bring my cats?
Chris @ Aug 22nd 2007 8:36PM
I cant die before fletcher, can I come with you all I can take with me is my DS and can we stop at KFC along the way XD
hvnlysoldr @ Aug 22nd 2007 8:57PM
Hey don't blame me for making five Mario edited avatars Miss Pac-Man Mario. And I hope Nintendo ceases and desists this mockery.
bender @ Aug 22nd 2007 9:13PM
I hope Nintendo sues the hell out of PETA. I hope they sue them right to the penny.
Nica @ Aug 22nd 2007 9:28PM
hm, nintendo wont be happy...
hahaha at Chris' comment, oh the irony.
i eat meat, but i do respect other people's opinions and lifestyles. i wish we lived like the native americans, they never took from the earth without the NEED for it, and they respected all animals, even the ones they ate. we make the animals we eat suffer, it's a sad truth of life, it's so cruel, yet I do it anyways... it's hard not to though, meat's delicious. buuuuttttt wishing death on humankind is a million times worse, ZR. just my opinion.
anyways, back to the topic. i don't think nintendo wants their name or intellectual properties associated with an organization such as PETA. they've probably already sent out a cease and desist notice.
Alisha Karabinus @ Aug 22nd 2007 9:37PM
I'm with you, Nica -- I think there are certainly a lot of practices that could be improved, but PETA takes things to such insane extremes that it's hard to agree with anything they say.
And hey, hvnlysoldr -- it's not a Pac-Man! It's this guy:
http://www.squeezygel.de/index.php?id=260
As to the why... well, that's a long story.
snkngshps @ Aug 22nd 2007 11:10PM
Why would Nintendo sue them? This only the 1 billionth mario-copy game in the world. I doubt ninty is losing any profit because of it. If you don't like it, don't play it.
Funran @ Aug 22nd 2007 11:54PM
Why is this just now being posted here when it appeared on the main site 6 days ago?
Carl @ Aug 23rd 2007 6:20PM
@ Funran.
I think many people were like me. When it was on the main site, I just read, PETA makes game with chickens Mario style. I saw the picture, and the hats with the Mario Bros. font, and didn't think twice about it. That is acceptable parody. Visiting the PETA site beyond that article did not warrant my time.
It wasn't until this article however when you see the actual likenesses and names of characters being used. That is beyond parody and is infringing.
Seeing the game, did make me hungry for some chicken, but I do agree with Nica. The system could be improved upon like the whole red chicken / didn't kill them before we burned them deal.
I also was laughing at some of the propaganda comments thrown in the game.
"Did you know KFC often kills chickens at a young age."
My reaction: Popcorn Chicken!
"Did you know KFC forces so many chickens together that they can't move!"
My reaction: Fit as many as you want in there so they can fit more in my bucket.
Kincyr @ Aug 23rd 2007 12:39AM
KFC doesn't raise their chicken, they buy it. PETA is stupid, they don't go after Taco Bell and Pizza Hut, who also get their chicken from the same source (seeing as all 3 are owned by Yum! Brands)
sweet @ Aug 23rd 2007 6:02AM
After just finishing Ian Bogost's book Persuasive Games and given that I'm vegan, I couldn't resist commenting on this article.
First of all I find this game offending. In my opinion it trivialises the issues surrounding the meat industry (although judging from my experience and even from the comments here this is a widespead activity).
Secondly, this game falls into what Ian Bogost would call nothing more than a 'visual skin' on a game and its procedures which have more or less nothing to do with the points trying to be made, save for a loose tie about rescuing chickens - which has more ties to animal rights extremism rather than veganism (and yes the 2 are different).
And finally, I'm not a particularly big fan of PETA anyway for various reasons, which isn't uncommon among people who share my opinions.
A much better example of a successful game about the fast food meat industry in the mcdonalds video game. While it contains some parody, it portrays its opinions through the actual processes in the game. Even though it simplifies the procedures (as any game must do), it actually made me sympathise to an extent with the people running corporations like McDonalds and gave me at least a little more explanation as to why they make the decisions they do.
Doggalina @ Aug 23rd 2007 8:14AM
If Nintendo sues PETA, then they have to sue every other site that hosts a Flash game/animation with Mario & company in it.
mool @ Aug 23rd 2007 10:31AM
Wow. I actualy downloaded this game and it is bad... rrl rrl bad. You actually see mario and luigi in the game, it doesnt even count as a rip off. dont download this game.
icicle0424 @ Aug 23rd 2007 11:59AM
I don't think I could comfortably eat a meal without knowing that something somewhere had to die so I could eat it... but that's just me...
KFC is delicious, I don't care about the chicken... PETA funds animal rights terrorist groups and kills 2/3 of the animals they "save". PETA is against using animals to save human lives, against owning pets, etc. I guess I'm a bit more allied with my own species than some other one...
If it took 100 cows to make one decent hamburger, it'd still be worth it. Meat FTW! I think I'll go out and stomp some baby chicks now... (kidding)
Abscissa @ Aug 23rd 2007 2:12PM
"which has more ties to animal rights extremism rather than veganism (and yes the 2 are different)."
Ah ha ha ha ha!!!
Abscissa @ Aug 23rd 2007 2:12PM
My only complaint about KFC is the lousy service (And the greasiness). The people there make McDonalds clerks look like theoretical physicists.
Abscissa @ Aug 23rd 2007 2:16PM
Ah ha ha! Just noticed the devil horns and funny face on Cl. Sanders while he's strangling a chicken. I don't know about anyone else, but that's so funny it makes me love the Cl. even that much more :)
Sirielia @ Aug 23rd 2007 3:24PM
I don't think Nintendo would sue them, since there are several flash movies/games that even go as far to use the actual sprites. However, I wouldn't doubt if they ask them to remove it. Not for copyright infringement, but probably more because I doubt they would want their characters affiliated with any activist organization.
Bloopoo @ Aug 23rd 2007 5:03PM
Wow it's so easy to bash PETA, but it's harder to come up with actual credible sources to support how PETA is supposedly evil or corrupt.
The problem is that you're all so unwillingly to accept that animal cruelty occurs because it would mean that you would have to take some responsibility when you eat at KFC.
Ignorance is BLISS, and it's the root causes of your own oppression.
It's far easier to pass off a serious issue that involves you giving up your comfort, then to actually deal with it. Forget the Organization, Look at the Cause!
Insperauts @ Aug 23rd 2007 8:07PM
Wow. Bashing PETA is pretty ignorant. Then again so is not understanding or caring about the suffering of a creature other than yourself.
Copyright? Who gives a flying fuck about copyright other than lawyers? $$$ I wait for the day copyright is no more. Or course your world will collapse by then but it'll be an improvement. Assholes.
James Lewis @ Aug 23rd 2007 8:24PM
How do you know this was ripped off? What is the evidence that there as no licensing agreement from Nintendo?
beans @ Aug 23rd 2007 10:09PM
This is similiar to when PETA "ripped off" the infamous Badgers animation, only to be threatened with a lawsuit by the creator (weebl).
Jase @ Aug 23rd 2007 10:38PM
It is a known fact PETA can't comment, after all that's why sites like http://www.petakillsanimals.com/ are showing up their corrupt nature.
Many people will ignore PETA for their stupid extremism. Nature depends on animals been eaten / killed by other animals. It's evolution's way to ensure life is recycled. Animal "Rights" groups are wrong at every level because they are unable to accept that nature needs things to be killed for food (and to a lesser degree clothing).
People need to be environmentally aware and educated into the right choices. Rather stop buying animal products, consumers should be educated into using meat, egg, dairy, leather/fur that has been reared in a humane and environmentally friendly way (i.e. free range). This does not just apply to meat, but arable crops as well. Growing soya, coffee and bananas has destroyed the rain forests and ironically that very soya is feeding vegetarians.
sweet @ Aug 24th 2007 6:05AM
Jase. Although I'm sure your sentiments are in the right place, I feel I should make you aware of a few things. Most of the soya grown in South American rainforests is not grown to feed vegans/vegetarians and people who choose to eat soya. Rather it is mainly used as a food source for animals, due to it being a cheap source of protein and carbohydrate. It is used commonly in the Cattle industry (which again is a big contributor to deforestation in South America) and the poultry industry.
Also free range does not equal environmentally friendly. If anything, the free range label has been provided to ensure that animals don't spend their whole lives inside being fed until they're ready for slaughter. The free range label in the UK is also contentious given that it means chickens only need to be outside for 1 hour a day.
The animal rights movement fully accepts that the death of animals is a big factor in nature. However, the vast majority of human food hasn't come from a particularly natural source since the popularisation of agriculture. This is true of arable and animal farming and has led to the elimination of many species from their natural ecology.
And if you're going to talk about nature, don't bring up the dairy industry. After all what could be less natural than drinking the milk of another mammal, that has been kept in almost constant pregnancy? Not to mention mammals generally stop drinking milk fairly early on in their life.
Including meat and dairy in your diet is inherently more energy consuming, given that animals need to eat plants (this does not just include grass) in order to grow to be used for human consumption. Cutting out the middle man (i.e. farmed animals) ensures that this energy loss doesn't occur.
I admit this is getting off topic and their are plenty of websites and forums that discuss the effect of the meat and dairy industry on the environment.
Shaun @ Aug 24th 2007 9:37AM
@sweet.
Would you mind showing me the research that helped you so easily extrapolate the idea of "freedom" to chickens and other livestock? I mean, honestly... how do we even know that chickens have the ability to understand or appreciate being free range or not? I hate when people so easily compare human emotions to animals. It's like when PETArroists used to say that "boiling lobsters" was wrong because you could hear them "scream"... then it was found that the sound was actually coming from steam escaping the shell, and several studies confirmed that lobsters simply don't have a sophisticated enough nervous system to be able to sense "pain" as we know it. This is similar to PETArrorists claiming "de-beaking" is bad. I've read many studies that have reported no difference between the attitudes of de-beaked chickens compared to normal chickens. In fact, I read that the "pain" the chicken feels is likely equivalent to the feeling of cutting your fingernail too short. So please... show me how you have so easily extrapolated.
As for your comments regarding milk... you're absolutely right... I can't think of a single animal that drinks milk after it has matured. Then again... I can't really think of any other animals that have mastered the ability to turn honey into beverages... or create alcohol... or do any other the many things humans have been able to do when it comes to various drinks. I do, however, know of many types of animals that live by drinking other animals' blood. See what happens when you extrapolate?
Finally... I think your comment about us keeping cows in "constant pregnancy" is a bit over the top. The same technique to keep a cow giving milk can be done with just about any female mammal... including humans. It's just a matter of continuing to extract milk, which allows the cow to continue producing milk. In this day and age, it is done with extreme precision, care, and standards. Some milking plants even allow the cow to decide when it wants to be milked.
So please, just stop. It's fine if you don't eat meat, or whatever... but if you want to convince others that your beliefs are right... don't use the same tired tactics used by PETArrorists.
Matt @ Aug 24th 2007 11:19AM
Nintendo won't end up taking any sort of legal action. This because they wouldn't want all of those idiots that support PETA to get on them about it.
sweet @ Aug 25th 2007 8:09AM
@Shaun
Although, this isn't really the place for it, I do enjoy a good debate on animal welfare and related issues. I don't want to come across as belittling or knowing it all. Certainly some of the comments you gave are intelligent and fairly well researched. As far as providing sources goes, this definitely isn't the place for it - both yours and mine - as they can be found fairly readily on the internet from both sides of the argument.
The issue of pain in animals is far from proven and it is an issue I try to follow fairly frequently. Given what we know about our own subjective world from a scientific stance is very unclear, I find it slightly incredulous to assume that we can so easily prove anything about the subjective life of another animal.
I have also read articles suggesting that it is unlikely that lobsters and many other animals with 'simpler' nervous systems can't feel pain, or at least not to the level we can. Until studies become a lot more definitive, I personally believe that there is no reason to make a distinction between humans and animals in terms of how they can feel pain. There just doesn't seem like a suitable evolutionary reason why such a distinction would exist. This isn't a light issue we're dealing with here - as long as there is still doubt I will always side with vegans, as the implications for not doing so are far more grave.
However, pain isn't the only issue at hand. In my opinion, I don't want to support the UNNECESSARY exploitation of any organism. This ties in with your point about animals that drink blood. The point is humans have come to be so adept at agriculture that we have a choice about what we can eat. Not only are we exploiting animals individually, but also from an evolutionary point of view, due to a history of in breeding (this is the case for plants as well).
You see, I do make a distinction between humans and animals to some extent, but I would make similar distinctions between other animals as well. It is obviously easier for humans to empathise and sympathise with other humans easier than it is with animals. Animal empathy is made even harder by the way in which the full effects of animal agriculture are hidden away (particularly from children).
Thanks for addressing my points (some of which were a little over the top, I do get carried away occasionally) and I hope you can address some of the environmental concerns in a similar way. Remember, it is healthy to challenge your own point of view once in a while, so I won't just stop as requested - although I do refrain from preaching as much as possible and usually only get into a debate when provoked.
sweet @ Aug 25th 2007 8:18AM
By the way, those will probably be my last comments on this, so don't expect another reply. I'm sure you can find other like-minded individuals to discuss the matter with. The important thing is you've actually thought about the matter in some detail, which, I'm sure you'd have to admit, something alot of world's population don't necessarily do (and yes this may include some animal rights extremists).