Church Threatens Legal Action Over Sony Game

An anonymous reader writes "The Church of England is threatening legal action against Sony over the game Resistance: Fall of Man. The game features a shootout in Manchester Cathedral, and the Church claims that Sony did not ask permission to use the interior of the Cathedral in the game. The Bishop of Manchester called the game 'highly irresponsible' due to the history of gun crime in the city. Sony denies the charge — a spokesman said 'We believe we have sought and received all permissions necessary for the creation of the game.'"

Comments

Better submission

[Anonymous Coward]

here

Re:Better submission

[danielk82]

You mean horrible submission. It said "The bishop of Manchester has stated that violence shouldn't be associated with the church, a view which may come as a shock to history students and those who've actually read the bible." First, according to the article the bishop said he didn't like the association with guns and gun crime. And those aren't in the bible. That submission looks more like an excuse to bash the church, and has little to do with the article.

Re:Better submission

[Anonymous Coward]

> First, according to the article...

Did you watch the report? There was also an interview with Arlene McCarthy on the BBC news24 TV channel earlier.

Re:Better submission

[Anonymous Coward]

When it comes to opposing gun safety laws or gun control, the Bible is invoked without hesitation.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Re:Better submission

[Marcion]

>When it comes to opposing gun safety laws or gun control, the Bible is invoked without hesitation.

You are mixing up your countries. This is not America, this is a Church of England Cathedral. The Church of England is very much in favour of gun control, indeed as an Anglican myself I think one of the few great things Tony Blair did was outlaw handguns entirely (even the Olympic shooting team have to train abroad). Those who live by the gun, die by the gun.

Re:Better submission

[mobby_6kl]

In Blair's UK, only outlaws have guns!

Re:Better submission

[Anonymous Coward]

The Church of England is very much in favour of gun control

...and they use the Bible to support that view, despite guns not being mentioned in it.

They're right to do so, of course. Guns are ONLY used to commit violence, and I doubt the Church would be any more in favour of the game if characters were stoned to death en masse inside of it rather than shot.

Really, the distinction was petty and meaningless.

Re:Better submission

[idonthack]

Those who live by the gun, die by the gun.

A point I like to make is that people who don't live by the gun, still die by the gun.

Re:Better submission

[ls -la]

In Blair's UK, only outlaws have guns! And is that a bad thing?
How many school shootings have you heard about in the US? And how many school shootings have you heard of in countries where handguns are banned?

Re:Better submission

[Vulturejoe]

Taken from here

Erfurt, Germany, April 26, 2002: 19-year-old expelled student shoots and kills 13 teachers, two students and a police officer.

Ruzhou, China, November 26, 2004: Intruder stabs eight students to death and injured four others at a high school - the sixth such incident in China in four months.

Ruzhou, China, 2004: Man with a knife and homemade explosives attacks 28 children at a kindergarten.

Osaka, Japan, June 8, 2001: Intruder stabs 13 elementary school students and two teachers.

Carmen de Patagones, Argentina, September 28, 2004: 15-year-old boy fatally shoots three classmates and wounds five others.

Re:Better submission

[Nephilium]

And is that a bad thing? How many school shootings have you heard about in the US? And how many school shootings have you heard of in countries where handguns are banned?

Yes... it is a bad thing...

I've heard about one maybe two school shootings a year... now... considering that the UK is about a fiftieth of the size of the US... in the next 20 years or so, I'm sure I'll hear about a school shooting in the UK.

How many crimes could have gotten stopped in the UK if the person attacked had a gun? How many crimes in the US are stopped because the person attacked had a gun?

Nephilium

Re:Better submission

[jx100]

Spoken like someone without a true understanding of the U.S. Second Amendment.

Any government has the potential for corruption on a level that can't be undone through avenues made legal by itself. The entire point of the second amendment is to give the society at large the ability to fix this. Our founding fathers recognized this and added the second amendment to the bill of rights for this very reason. They had, in fact, *just* done this with the then-sovereign government.

Re:Better submission

[Lehk228]

nah, the guy with the gun pulls his knife on them, to save bullets.

Re:Better submission

[ls -la]

A few things:
1. Thanks for doing the research, I hadn't actually looked into it, but I hadn't heard of any school shootings.
2. Only 2 of those are shootings, it would be unreasonable to ban knives, and the explosives were probably illegal anyway.
3. Are there more, or were there only 9 incidents in the last 7 years outside the US? I believe there have been more school shootings within the US during that time frame.
The article seems say that because violence exists where guns are banned, we shouldn't ban guns. That's a ridiculous and valid argument. Banning guns obviously wouldn't stop all violence, but it would likely reduce weapon-based violence and fatalities.

I would guess that a statistical analysis would show a reduction in the number of injuries and fatalities per student where gun control is much more strict.

Re:Better submission

[feepness]

Guns are ONLY used to commit violence,

That's silly. Guns are used for all sorts of things (none of which I do) but target shooting for entertainment comes into mind. I did that once (only time I've ever held or fired a gun) and it was fun and not remotely violent.

Re:Better submission

[91degrees]

So, given Bush's complete disregard for the constitution, and the lack on interest in Congress for getting rid of him, why haven't americans rvolted yet?

And what makes you think the Second Amendment is about that, as opposed to, say, a perceived need for a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State or something.

Re:Better submission

[91degrees]

Which is useful. If someone has a gun, we can deduce that they intend to commit other crimes. So if anyone has a gun, it's well worth the time of the police to do a little more investigation to see what else he's been planning.

Re:Better submission

[Anonymous Coward]

... considering that the UK is about a fiftieth of the size of the US... in the next 20 years or so, I'm sure I'll hear about a school shooting in the UK.

Are you seriuously suggesting that the population of the US is 3 billion!?

How many crimes could have gotten stopped in the UK if the person attacked had a gun?

None. As a crime prevention measure they're about as much use as those cameras.

How many crimes in the US are stopped because the person attacked had a gun?

I don't know. What are the statistics for gun related crime prevention in the US?

Re:Better submission

[LKM]

Dunno about China, Japan and Argentina, but hand guns are not banned in Germany.

Re:Better submission

[LKM]

This is such a tired, stupid cliché that I do not even know anymore whether people who say it are serious.

Anyway, since most gun injuries are inflicted by non-outlaws, only outlaws - and the police, obviously - having guns would probably be a good thing.

Re:Better submission

[jx100]

So, given Bush's complete disregard for the constitution, and the lack on interest in Congress for getting rid of him, why haven't americans rvolted yet? Laziness and complacency. Most people simply don't care about the very real problems our government is having, and are simply happy to live their lives.

Please note that an unwillingness to use a right is no reason to abolish that right.

And what makes you think the Second Amendment is about that, as opposed to, say, a perceived need for a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State or something. Well, it does say the *people's* right to arms shall not be abridged..

The bit about the militia is only the reason for the right. The specific right actually granted is the second part of the sentence, and it does not state a limit to a militia.

Re:Better submission

[denttford]

And what makes you think the Second Amendment is about that, as opposed to, say, a perceived need for a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State or something.

Um, cause they said so, maybe?

Fed #46:
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.

Or, Fed #28?

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of the territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular or systematic plan of opposition, and the more easy will it be to defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily obtained of their preparations and movements, and the military force in the possession of the usurpers can be more rapidly directed against the part where the opposition has begun. In this situation there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to insure success to the popular resistance.


Christ, even liberal jurists, who once maintained that the 2nd amendment is a collective right fulfilled by the existence of state police and militias, have begun to concede that it is an individual right. This was the reasoning behind the recent overturning of the DC gun ban.

And no, despite your immediate assumptions, I own no guns nor am I (or have I ever been) a Christian.

Re:Better submission

[donaldm]

We are getting a bit off-topic here.

If you have a person who wants to kill then it is very easy for them to come up with some weapon be it guns, knives or explosive. A gun is the easiest to use in that you just point and pull the trigger, however a gun/rifle can be much harder to get hold of in some many countries but it is not impossible. A knife or just about any hand weapon is very easy to obtain and use however its potential killing power is limited to a few victims. Explosives are very easy to use and their killing potential is huge but fortunately they are much harder to obtain but if you know a little about chemistry they are not that difficult to make. The major problem with explosive is that it can kill the user as well but if you have a fanatic who is not afraid to die then then you are going to have a massacre on your hands that makes a shootout looks like a family picnic. Lets not go in the potential of poison and germ warfare.

Unfortunately killers can be quite ingenious in their chose of weapons and it is very difficult to stop them until they are committing or have committed the crime.

Re:Better submission

[91degrees]

It is an indivudal right. "the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" makes it pretty clear. But the reasons for the second amendment are many and varied, and those who approved of it approved for a number of reasons of which protection from the government was just one, not shared by all of them.

People have a right to bear arms that cannot be infringed because the constitution says they have. That was the reasoning behind the overturning of the DC gun ban. You can argue about the reasoning behind it, but it's still a matter of some debate what the intent was. It also doesn't matter. The wording is clear.

Of course, the letter of the law also allows the ownership of weapons of mass destruction. Rather than work around the constitution with handwaving about what the clause actually means, the US should ratify an amendment making it clear.

Re:Better submission

[91degrees]

Well, it does say the *people's* right to arms shall not be abridged..

I know. I didn;t say it didn't.

The bit about the militia is only the reason for the right. The specific right actually granted is the second part of the sentence, and it does not state a limit to a militia

Yes, but where does it say that it is to "[fix] corruption on a level that can't be undone through avenues made legal by itself"?

Re:Better submission

[SethraLavode]

Three of your examples involve knives and the two gun-related incidents are not in countries where guns are banned. Yes, school violence is everywhere, but the GP asked about school shootings.

Re:Better submission

[iapetus]

All of which is pretty much a moot point given the tools that the US government has at its disposal. I demand the right to bear concealed nukes. That'll even things up.

Re:Better submission

[adamofgreyskull]

Yeah, how's that working out for us again?
So the handgun ban was introduced in 1997.
"The number of crimes in which a handgun was reported increased from 2,648 in 1997/98 to 3,685 in 1999/2000."
"Gun crime is contributing to a higher number of murders in key areas, even though the national rate of killings this year has fallen. The rate in Scotland has jumped by 20 per cent."
"There has been a 3% climb in gun crime, following a 2% rise the previous year, the figures show."
"GUN crime has almost trebled in London during the past year and is soaring in other British cities, according to Home Office figures"

Since 1998 number of people injured by firearms in England and Wales has more than doubled[24] from 2,378 in 1998/99 to 4,001 in 2005/06. "Injury" in this context means by being fired, used a blunt instrument, or as a threat. In 2005/06, 87% of such injuries were defined as "slight," which includes the use of firearms as a threat only. The number of homicides committed with firearms has remained between a range of 46 and 97 for the past decade, standing at 50 in 2005/06 (a fall from 75 the previous year). Between 1998/99 and 2005/06, there have been only two fatal shootings of police officers in England and Wales. Over the same period there were 107 non-fatal shootings of police officers - an average of just 9.7 per year.[25](PDF - Page 36)

Source: Wikipedia

Scotland Yard blamed the rise in gun crime not only on the fact that criminals, some as young as 16, are now more willing than ever to settle "trivial disputes" with a gun, but also on the belief that carrying firearms was fashionable..

So, much like the ban on fox hunting ban that Blair's government has rushed and pushed and forced upon us, it has been completely ineffectual. This comes from someone who has never really felt the desire to own a handgun or hunt foxes with dogs but who knows a colossal screw up when he sees it. I look forward to the abortion that is the NHS's new computer system and the complete and utter failure of the proposed ID card, I'm never really happy until my taxes are being spent on things that will never ever work!

Re:Better submission

[Anonymous Coward]

True. There is nothing remotely violent about firing a gun at a target that is deliberately made to have a head and a torso.

Whenever someone makes a statement like "nothing remotely violent" or "that's impossible", you have to expect the exaggeration police to step in.

Re:Better submission

[Shipwack]

I agree entirely... so what's taken them so long to "...water the tree of Liberty"?

The answer: the majority of people (not necessarily yourself) who loudly champion the Second Amendment don't give a damn about the rest of the Bill of Rights.

Failure to enforce separation of Church and State? "Those godless commies are trying to ban God!"

Unreasonable search and seizure? "Well it's only dug dealers, or people accused of being drug dealers, or brown people that had cash on them and -could- have been drug dealers..."

Freedom to assemble? "Why should those gutless protesters be allowed within a mile of the President? They can say whatever they want in the "Free Speech Zone" that's set up for them, far from where anyone can see or hear them so they don't bother anyone."

Free speech? "Seeing my country's flag burned makes me feel bad. We have to outlaw it!"

Habeous Corpus? "Huh?" or "Well, if the government has to take away a little freedom in order to keep me safer, I'm all for it!"

While there are probably ardent supporters of the second amendment that don't echo these beliefs, personal experience and online reading tend to make me believe that as long as it's the freedoms of minorities that are being endangered, or you chant "terror", 9/11, and "everything changed on September 11th", you can do whatever you want and the majority of vocal Second Amendment supports won't care one bit... as long as they get to keep their guns.

I'm not even asking them to literally take up arms; I just want to see one of these "cold dead fingers" types stand up and speak up when they see our liberties being eroded.

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis

Re:Better submission

[feepness]

I honestly can't remember whether the targets had torsos or were round... but you're right... let me put it this way:

.... significantly less violent than most modern professional sporting events.

Re:Better submission

[Anonymous Coward]

Any government has the potential for corruption on a level that can't be undone through avenues made legal by itself. The entire point of the second amendment is to give the society at large the ability to fix this. Our founding fathers recognized this and added the second amendment to the bill of rights for this very reason.

No, the entire point of the second amendment is to ensure that the state is able to defend itself against aggressors even if its professional army is too small for the job.

It's easy to tell why the amendment is there because it kind of says so in the text: it's so that there will be a well-regulated militia to maintain the security of a free state. Note that it says nothing about "an armed populace being essential to overthrow a tyrannical state".

The militia is there to support the state, not to threaten it, and if a breakaway group were to rise up against the democratically elected government of the United States of America, the only constitutional action would be to take up the arms the Constitution guarantees you the right to bear, and defend the government against the rebels.

Re:Better submission

[jx100]

My assertion does not come from the text itself, but from the history surrounding it. I say that this right exists for violent, forced overthrow of the sovereign government largely because that's exactly what they did right before creating the document. This *was* an armed populace overthrowing a tyrannical state.

How would it not be obvious to these people that the ability to do so is essential, as there is no reason a government can't get to that level of corruption?

Re:Better submission

[thegnu]

Banning guns obviously wouldn't stop all violence, but it would likely reduce weapon-based violence and fatalities.

It would also greatly reduce weapon-based math. You don't want us to be even further behind the Chinese, do you?

Re:Better submission

[thegnu]

or is that farther?
*snortle*

Re:Better submission

[Anonymous Coward]

"I just want to see one of these "cold dead fingers" types stand up and speak up when they see our liberties being eroded."

Here's one.

I like the Bill of Rights. *All* of the Bill of Rights.

Some of us have lawfully spoken up.

The Congress is still working on getting Habeas Corpus back.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeus_corpus#Suspens ion_in_the_United_States_during_the_War_on_Terror

Re:Better submission

[Anonymous Coward]

Sources?

Those committing gun crimes are by definition criminals. Are you referring to negligent discharges / "accidents"?

On one side you have gun crime, which we punish and should punish more. On the other side you have crimes adverted by legal carry. Carry stems from the right to self defense. That is an individual responsibility with individual liability. The police keep the peace and investigate after the fact.

Re:Better submission

[LKM]

Those committing gun crimes are by definition criminals.

Injuries != crimes. For example, in Switzerland, there is a direct correlation between availability of handguns and male suicides. Whether there is a causation is anyone's guess, but the correlation is there (sorry, source is in german).

Another example to consider: Break-ins in occupied homes are rare, but a family member unexpectedly coming home late at night is not. I doubt having a gun at home makes your family saver.

On one side you have gun crime, which we punish and should punish more. On the other side you have crimes adverted by legal carry. Carry stems from the right to self defense. That is an individual responsibility with individual liability. The police keep the peace and investigate after the fact.

I'm sceptical about the crimes adverted by gun owners. Frankly, I'd prefer not to have wannabe cowboys without proper gun training running around protecting me. Doesn't really make me feel saver.

I have insurances for such things. If somebody wants to rob me, don't risk my life, thank you.

Re:Better submission

[Anonymous Coward]

(AC from above)

By and large I agree with you. I'll leave the causation bit alone - that would definitely be a good area for study.

As far as break ins, it seems that particular concern would be more location dependent. Certainly family member s coming home at night happen more frequently. I would suspect a difference in profile between someone unlocking a door and entering and someone forcing entry. Regardless, one has the responsibility and liability of identifying both the target and backdrop.

As far as wannabe cowboys, those types make the rest of us nervous. In this state (TN) those who carry legally, with a permit, receive training and complete exams before receiving the permit.

The idea is not to protect you, but to provide a means of personal defense. If insurance fits your needs, more power to you.

Re:Better submission

[rtechie]

Gun violence in the USA is not due to the availablity of handguns. That is a fact. Handguns are widely available in Canada, Germany, and many other Westrn nations with far lower rate of handgun violence than the United States. Again, handgun violence in the United States is NOT caused by the availablity of handguns.

Now WHY there is so much violence in the USA is an interesting question. Many people think it is due largely to ethnic tensions within the USA. Think about this for a second: In the UK, most people slavishly trust the police. In the USA, the police have a long history of terrorizing and murdering ethnic minorities. Now if you're a ethnic minority in the USA, why should you give up your firearms and rely on the "protection" of the police?

Which illustrates the point of many other posters. In the USA, the primary reason for owning firearms is not hunting or personal defense against criminals. In the USA, the primary reason for owning firearms is protection from the government, specifically the police. This is why police are so big on banning firearms ownership in America.

As quick pre-counter: Many people say that this function is irrelavent because the US military is so powerful that they could easily crush lightly armed opposition. Tell this to the insurgents in Iraq. Or to the street protestors that successfully stopped the coup in Venezuela. Or recent opposition in Nepal. History and reality strongly support the view that an armed population is far better equipped to resist tyranny.

Re:Better submission

[BgJonson79]

Who are we to prevent someone from offing themselves if they really want?

Sounds like restricting freedom to me.

Re:Better submission

[LKM]

I don't say that often, especially not to people I have never met in real life, but it seems quite clear to me that you're an insensitive asshole.

I happen to know people who suffer or have suffered from mental problems. A former girlfriend of mine tried to kill herself twice. She's no longer ill, and she's glad she wasn't able to do it.

Even if you think "preventing" somebody from committing suicide is "restricting their freedom," that doesn't mean that you have to supply them with everything they need if it comes to it.

Re:Better submission

[BgJonson79]

Actually, I just wanted to see what you'd say.

It's just that the Libertarian in me hates telling people what do to.

I Hope They Win

[Anonymous Coward]

That's horribly sick and seems pretty threatening to me. I too would sue if they decided to use my house as the setting for a violent video game. You might say, "a church is not a private home" but I don't really see a difference. It's private property and simulating violence against its residents against their wishes should not be allowed.

Re:I hope they win

[Anonymous Coward]

> Sony does not have the right to do this

So what right did the Christian church ever have to do these acts?

Re:I hope they win

[Anonymous Coward]

One look at your post history is all we need to see what a piece of shit you are.

Go fuck yourself you human turd.

Re:I hope they win

[Anonymous Coward]

DISCLAIMER: Posting AC for obvious reasons of potential for being flamed at...

Ummm... You know its not like they have you defiling the church itself painting grafitti and shooting up the cross or stained glass windows or anything like that?

Perhaps this is too touchy of a subject for some people (hence my AC post) who just don't care no matter what, and that no means no, but really in the game its basically just another place to pass through - it makes some nice historic scenery to run through and see what the world would look like if mutants or aliens invaded and fought against mainly with foot-soldiers/grunts...

If anything, the game's setting has the player "saving" the church by "cleansing" it of evil monsters...

Re:I hope they win

[Anonymous Coward]

It's interesting that some consider the official organization of an organized state "private property". Outta my national park, ya commie.

Re:I hope they win

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not "interesting", it's just the truth. And just because you think you're smarter than all of the world's religious people doesn't mean that you should be allowed to publish and promote graphic violence in their buildings. Or would you agree that I'm free to set a murder simulation inside of your house, and publish it along with the address and your name?

Re:I hope they win

[Homburg]

"Simulating violence against its residents against their wishes should not be allowed."

Resistance: Fall of Man is a game about aliens taking over Europe. Unless you're saying that the Anglicans of Manchester are aliens, it doesn't make much sense to describe the game as "simulating violence" against the residents of the Cathedral.

bang bang

[Anonymous Coward]

First off, I am Christian and do not care for Sony.

The game is art. There should be no legal repercussions for Sony choosing to tell a story a certain way. If you do not like it, do not buy it. Protest if you want, so others know you do not like it. But, every adult should be free to choose for themselves if shooting in a church is inappropriate in a game.

Re:bang bang

[Teifion]

First off, I am Christian and do not care for Sony.

The game is art. There should be no legal repercussions for Sony choosing to tell a story a certain way. If you do not like it, do not buy it. Protest if you want, so others know you do not like it. But, every adult should be free to choose for themselves if shooting in a church is inappropriate in a game. I also am a Christian but I'm pretty Neutral on the matter of Sony. I agree with the following comment

The Bishop of Manchester called the game 'highly irresponsible' due to the history of gun crime in the city. But feel that there is no harm in using a Church building in a game, for a start, it is just a Building and secondly, if the game isn't saying that Christianity promotes gun crime then I fail to see how it's a problem for the Church.

Re:bang bang

[Jarjarthejedi]

You have a point however, unless I'm mistaken, a Church is private property and there are some laws having to deal with using private property items without the owners permission in a video/game.

Either way Sony really should have asked for permission, if only to be kind. You can be sure that, if any game included a model of, say, the White House, without permission it would be attacked venomously. Why should a church be denied that? I'm not saying that Sony should pull the game back or that churches should have special rights in cases like this, only that, if you're going to use a famous religious site in your violent FPS, you should at least ask for permission.

- Plays lots of FPSes and is religious, also doesn't care for Sony, has nothing against violent ones, recognizes that many people, and even more religious people, do have something against them.

Re:bang bang

[Anonymous Coward]

But feel that there is no harm in using a Church building in a game, for a start, it is just a Building and secondly, if the game isn't saying that Christianity promotes gun crime then I fail to see how it's a problem for the Church.

The church does promote gun crime. Some asshat pastor knocked on my door at the ass crack of dawn this morning, blatantly ignoring the "No Soliciting" sign, trying to hand out leaflets or some shit. Factor in my hangover and 3 hours of sleep, and I wasn't too happy about it. I wouldn't shoot him myself, but if somebody else did, I wouldn't mind.

Re:bang bang

[Anonymous Coward]

How old is this church? Odds are it's imagery is public domain. Besides, it's the Lord's house, let him go down to the courthouse and file Himself if he cares so much.

Re:bang bang

[westlake]

But, every adult should be free to choose for themselves if shooting in a church is inappropriate in a game.

You might usefully begin by asking why the Lancaster County Amish tore down the school where their children were murdered. If you want to use a church as a stage-set in your game then build a goddamn model.

Re:bang bang

[cpt kangarooski]

The church is private property. That doesn't necessarily mean that every mention or depiction of the church follows it.

And also, no, you don't need permission from anyone to use a model of the White House. The best imaginable argument against it would be security concerns (which wouldn't apply for the church), but that argument falls flat: the interior organization of the White House isn't a secret. Hell, the thing's been there for over two hundred years. I suppose that you could argue that it is in bad taste, but that's not a good enough reason to force people to stop. (And besides, what if it was the FPS version of Bad Dudes?)

Re:bang bang

[despisethesun]

A church in a video game is a model. In this case it's a 3D model of a real place, but it's not quite in the same league as, say, someone shooting a violent scene for a movie in the actual church.

Re:bang bang

[Original Replica]

The Bishop of Manchester called the game 'highly irresponsible' due to the history of gun crime in the city.

I call the Church of England "highly irresponsible" due to the history of gun crime in the city. After all which entity has had a greater influence ove rthe citizens of Manchester, this video game which has been out of less than a year, or the Church of England which traces roots back to the 3rd century at least. Maybe the Bishop should tend to his violent flock instead of abdicating responsiblity to a video game.

Re:bang bang

[skogs]

3rd Century? Like 200s....

I do believe you made a typo and meant 13th century...

If not, you are a bafoon indeed. The roman catholic church cannot even trace it's origins beyond 400 ad without cheating. Considering the church of england had to be 'birthed' by the roman catholic...wow. There was no 'King of England' in the 3rd century...hence no real need to bend Christendom to advance their political agendas.

Re:bang bang

[Mathonwy]

I, for one, relish the thought of being a bad enough dude to save 3D Ronnie.

But yeah, seriously. Ask permission to use the white house in a game? Who exactly would you ask? I'm pretty sure that an argument could be made that it belongs to all americans, as its continued upkeep is, as far as I know, taxpayer funded... (Much as that thought pains me, as of late...)

Re:bang bang

[ls -la]

How old is this church? Odds are it's imagery is public domain. Not if Walt Disney has anything to say about it.

Re:bang bang

[PorkNutz]

I don't know what is funnier. That you're too daft to understand that the church in the game is a model, or that you are so hypocritical as to use the lords name in vain while making a pro-religious bible thumpin' type argument.

Re:bang bang

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Either way Sony really should have asked for permission, if only to be kind. You can be sure that, if any game included a model of, say, the White House, without permission it would be attacked venomously.

Let's explore that a bit. Is a video game different from a movie? Did 20th Century Fox get permission to simulate the destruction of the White House for Independence Day? I think the White House was "destroyed" in Amerika too, but I don't remember any legal wrangling. One key difference is that the White House is government property, and government property is often not given intellectual property rights in the same way private enterprise might. Intellectual property of a centuries-old building basically doesn't exist that I'm aware.

I can see why people don't like it and might complain about it, but it sounds to me that the validity of a legal case is shaky. I think it's possible to derive the interior of a building from photographs without any sort of invasive acquisition methods, and as far as I know, in most cases, the photo belongs to the photographer.

Re:bang bang

[teridon]

Why do you feel you have to state your religion? Do you think that somehow it makes your point more valid? Or is it to demonstrate how fearless you are to state an opinion that might appear to go against your chosen faith?

Re:bang bang

[blahplusplus]

"Either way Sony really should have asked for permission, if only to be kind. You can be sure that, if any game included a model of, say, the White House, without permission it would be attacked venomously."

Wrong games *have modelled the whitehouse* and many other landmarks (or pieces of them) without reprocussions, even if only in parts or in 2D, take the old 2D game "Bad dudes" for instance, the whitehoue was featured there. I think people take the whole "private (and/or) intellectual property" law regarding monuments and such way too seriously.

Are we goingto start to sue for road modelling textures, some random pictures of someones house or cities downtown skyscrapers and trees? At some point the whole property thing is out of control, private property is there for convenience of solving complex problems, it's not there to abuse the public with silly crap like this.

Re:bang bang

[Belacgod]

It is a common rhetorical tactic to brand everyone holding particular opinions anti-religious, etc, especially in America. Declaring one's faith before arguing against a fellow believer's religious arguments is a way of precluding such allegations.

Re:bang bang

[KDR_11k]

I really think "using His name in vain" applies to things like declaring a war "in God's name" or an Emperor "chosen by God" and crap like that.

Re:bang bang

[westlake]

That you're too daft to understand that the church in the game is a model, or that you are so hypocritical as to use the lords name in vain while making a pro-religious bible thumpin' type argument.

Let me put this in language even you may understand: We did not build our church - our school - as a stage set for your video game. You do not have the legal or the moral right to use this setting without our permission.

Re:bang bang

[Anonymous Coward]

The first Archbishop of Canterbury was installed in 597. This is traditionally considered the start of the history of the Church of England. While it was not referred to by that name until the split from the Roman Catholic church in 1534, the organization as a whole has existed since then.

Then again, you're advertising a church founded by a virulent anti-Semite who advocated burning down the homes of Jews and confiscating their property. An admirable man, Martin Luther.

Re:bang bang

[unapersson]

What if you asked God and he said it was OK? I'm pretty sure you can use the interiors without restriction then. I'm not sure even the supreme court can override one of his decisions.

Re:bang bang

[ultranova]

Let me put this in language even you may understand: We did not build our church - our school - as a stage set for your video game. You do not have the legal or the moral right to use this setting without our permission.

According to Wikipedia, the church was built in the Middle Ages. Given this, I find it highly unlikely that you had anything to do with it, and are simply trying to assert rights to other people's hard work - hardly a moral thing to do.

Besides, I find it highly likely that the original architecht has been dead for more than 70 years (or however long copyright has been extended at this point), and as such any and all copyrights to the church's design has long since ended, so would you please explain what legal monopoly of yours prevents anyone from making a model of the church for any reason ?

Re:bang bang

[jacobw]

Doesn't copyright expire a certain number of years after the death of the creator? If you want to claim the religious imagery of the church is in the public domain, I think you'll need to call Nietzche as an expert witness.

Re:bang bang

[donaldm]

The Church of England was actually started between 1330 and 1340 when Henry the VIII of England was excommunicated by the Pope. See the following URL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VIII_of_England #Major_Acts_in_the_Kingdom. You are spot on when you state "Maybe the Bishop should tend to his violent flock instead of abdicating responsibility to a video game".

It is very sad that after the game has been out over seven months that the Bishop of Manchester Cathedral is now upset using words such as "highly irresponsible" because virtual weapons using virtual bullets were used in a virtual cathedral that looks like Manchester Cathedral against virtual creatures which are basically trying to virtually kill you.

While I don't normally play FPS and tactical shooters (eg Medal of Honor ...) I don't think it will be long before other people start pointing out important landmarks and shouting "Heresy!". I hate to think what will happen if Grand Theft auto had a recognisable virtual Church and while we are at it I guess all RPG's games will now have to take out those churches as well.

Re:bang bang

[vertinox]

There should be no legal repercussions for Sony choosing to tell a story a certain way.

This would be akin to Germany suing video game makers for showing the Brandenburg gates in a WWII game.

Otherwise it appears that the Church has so little faith in their own message that they have to use a secular government to enforce their views.

Re:bang bang

[adamofgreyskull]

Same should apply to Walt Disney:

(...)let him go down to the courthouse and file Himself if he cares so much.

Re:bang bang

[ucblockhead]

There was a Duke Nuk'em add-on pack called "Duke it out in DC" which took place among many DC landmarks, including a fully modeled White House.

Re:bang bang

[AvitarX]

Inronically, by delcaring his/herself a Christian I am assuming the have less synpathy to the Church.

Most people I know that identify as "Cristian" are strongly against organzed religion. Of course the Church of England is probably higher on their list of acceptable than the Catholics though.

Re:bang bang

[PorkNutz]

1. You had nothing to do with building the church.

2. The church is a protected landmark. A work of art. Public funds are used to protect it.

3. The game designers did not use "your church" in their video game. They used a model of "your church" that they built inside a computer system. It is not "your church" any more than a drawing of the structure is "your church".

Re:bang bang

[Tim C]

Did 20th Century Fox get permission to simulate the destruction of the White House for Independence Day?

I don't know. Did they? I actually wouldn't be at all surprised if they did run the idea past the White House press office.

On the other hand though it doesn't really matter, as the White House is most definitely a public building. I suspect Manchester Cathedrel is actually owned by the church, and therefore private. (Remember that just because a building is open to the public, doesn't make it a public building - shops being the obvious example) Whether or not that gives the church the legal grounds to complain I don't know.

I can see why people don't like it and might complain about it, but it sounds to me that the validity of a legal case is shaky.

Fine, so they sue and lose. If this was the church against a private individual I might be a little more concerned, but it isn't, and Sony has plenty enough resources to defend itself. If nothing else, this might at least create precedence to guide people in similar situations in the future (whichever way it goes).

Re:bang bang

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup. Everybody has problems. Including Luther. Thank you for the history lesson, I was too lazy...16th century sounds right. 1534. Catholicism definitely reached it beforehand, but it was definitely not 'THE' church of england until the split.

Re:bang bang

[Original Replica]

http://www.cofe.anglican.org/about/history/

"The early Christian writers Tertullian and Origen metion the existence of a British church in the third century AD and in the fourth century British bishops attended a number of the great concils of the Church such as the Council of Arles in 314 and the Council of Rimini in 359."

No it wasn't titled "The Church of England" but they claim their roots go back that far. Maybe the Archbishop of Manchester would like to edit the Church of England website while he's rethinking his responsibilty in influencing the social standards of Manchester.

Re:bang bang

[vux984]

Otherwise it appears that the Church has so little faith in their own message that they have to use a secular government to enforce their views.

I'm sorry, which government would you have them use?

And what's the issue here anyway? The desire not to have violent video games set inside their private property without their permission? Is that really unreasonable?

Property owners have a long history of suing when pornographers and moviemakers in general set their unsavory 'stories' in their properties without permission. Why should the church be any different?

Re:bang bang

[Derekloffin]

The desire not to have violent video games set inside their private property without their permission?

So, the church is a virtual construct then? My god, we really are in the Matrix!

Please, this is beyond pathetic. The actually church was not used, so all property arguments are useless. Repeat it with me, 'this is a virtual model of the church'. It is not the actual church. There is no physical property right that protects against any use of the model, or likenesses in general. The only rights you could claim are intellectual properties rights, but the church is too old to be protected by any of them as they have all long since expired.

Re:bang bang

[sesshomaru]

Otherwise it appears that the Church has so little faith in their own message that they have to use a secular government to enforce their views.

Ok, this is possibly a hard concept for an American to grasp, but the British government is not secular. The Church of England is essentially a branch of the British Government. Bishops of the Church get seats in the House of Lords (see Lords Spiritual. Here's more information, take special note of their finances (Church of England and this article on State Religion.)

Now, I don't know about anyone else, but as an American schoolchild I was taught from an early age that this was wicked, evil and one of the main motivating factors for the American Revolution. Honestly, it's an alien concept over here. Imagine if George W. Bush were not just president but had as one of his titles "Defender of the Faith" as head of state. Note that in the U.S. we call parts of government "Departments" while in England they are called "Ministries."

So, actually, Sony is in luck in this case. Th CoE is pretty decadent, and has to resort to suing in court like a common nobody, instead of just ordering the Sony people to be drawn and quartered for treason, blasphemy and whatever other crimes they could come up with.

Penny for the Guy?

Oh, and I really wonder if using an artistic recreation of a state building could ever be forbidden in the U. S. under the First Amendment... but England has no such Amendment or indeed, a Constitution.

I leave you with this quote:

The decapitated colossus reeled like a drunken giant; but it did not fall over. It recovered its balance by a miracle, and, no longer heeding its steps and with the camera that fired the Heat-Ray now rigidly upheld, it reeled swiftly upon Shepperton. The living intelligence, the Martian within the hood, was slain and splashed to the four winds of heaven, and the Thing was now but a mere intricate device of metal whirling to destruction. It drove along in a straight line, incapable of guidance. It struck the tower of Shepperton Church, smashing it down as the impact of a battering ram might have done, swerved aside, blundered on and collapsed with tremendous force into the river out of my sight. -- The War of the Worlds by Herbert George Wells

What say you, Bishop of Manchester, to Wells depiction of violence in English churches in The War of the Worlds? It's the same damned story, basically....

Re:bang bang

[vux984]

Please, this is beyond pathetic. The actually church was not used...

Gotcha, its just a virtual replica by accident. /sarcasm

So what if its legal? Is still impolite to take someone elses private property and use images of it in a work they are going to find offensive. Its not illegal, and it shouldn't be illegal, because we need to be able to do things like this to make documentaries, report news, and so forth.

But that doesn't make it right to be a jerk about it. Suppose I were to make a CGI movie featuring a 'faceless individual' who works at your companies address, in a building modeled after your workplace, drives the same type of car as you, and wears a name tag with your initials on it.

It would all be legal. After all I'm not actually using your image, so I don't need a model release. And since your actual workplace and car were not used all property arguments are useless. Repeat it with me, 'this is a virtual model of your environment'.

That the faceless individual in my CGI movie happens to be a pedophile who films rape scenes in the office after hours is no biggie right? Its not you. I'm sure you wouldn't be offended, or try to take steps to protect your companies reputation.

Re:bang bang

[toriver]

You are 200 years off - try the 1500s not the 1300s.

Re:bang bang

[real gumby]

...unless I'm mistaken, a Church is private property ... In fact, in this case you are mistaken, as the CoE is an established church and as such its land and the like cannot be, by definition, "private property." Now in England (at least) copyright is a little strange in that the crown can hold copyright, so its possible that CoE could get away with this claim, but it's pretty damned (as it were) unlikely.

More likely this lawsuit is an attempt to exploit the Streisand Effect since the CoE has become so uninteresting to most people that people are starting to forget it's even around.

Re:bang bang

[Derekloffin]

Actually, in that case I could argue defamation of character. But, you can't defame a building by having a gun battle in a replica of it. The better analogy would be a replica of the building where I worked used in an ad for guns, something we don't support. There is no claim in the ad that we support guns. There is no person from our work, real or otherwise, depicted as endorsing the guns. Only the building is used as a setting. I can be slightly mad about it and voice that opinion, but to get bent out of shape and start threatening legal action over it is silly, especially as said location is a historical land mark that is hundreds of years old.

Re:bang bang

[metamatic]

The church is private property.

The church is owned by the Church of England, which is ruled by Her Majesty the Queen, who is the head of the UK government. Therefore, the church is owned by the government. Therefore it's public, in much the same way as Buckingham Palace (which is paid for by taxpayers).

Re:bang bang

[metamatic]

I suspect Manchester Cathedrel is actually owned by the church, and therefore private.

Right premise, wrong conclusion. The head of the Church of England is the monarch. She owns it, like she owns Buckingham Palace.

If the church wants private rights over buildings it owns, it needs to become disestablished from the government.

Re:bang bang

[StikyPad]

I suspect Manchester Cathedrel is actually owned by the church, and therefore private.

Manchester Cathedral is part of the Church of England, which is (according to Wikipedia) actually subject to and part of the state. I believe that means it's public property.

Re:bang bang

[Kooshman]

unless I'm mistaken, a Church is private property and there are some laws having to deal with using private property items without the owners permission in a video/game.

I do believe you are quite mistaken. There may be some trickiness here I'm not aware of-- as the Anglican church has odd interactions with the government of England, I am not entirely sure what additional protections, rights, or even limitations it has garnered. However, you are painting the church with the brush of general private property rights. So let's look at the church and what rights it should have as private property.

The church as it stands today appears to have been started in the 1300's, with many additions over the intervening hundreds of years. The portions in question most likely were built by the 1500's, though they could have been later. (The Wikipedia entry isn't entirely illuminating.) So, the church has had control over the property of the church for quite a long time. Thus, if you were to criminally trespass into the church, their rights of private property would protect them. However, this appears to be a case of intellectual property rights. These are entirely different. Copyright didn't even work its way into English law until the early 1700's. Thus, even if there is some kind of extra-special perpetual copyright granted to the church's current endeavors, the fundamental structure of the building has been around for too long to call dibs on its appearance. Note also that they had to specifically cite the interior, rather than exterior, appearance, as public exteriors are pretty hard to keep in exclusivity.

Also, given the context of "ruined city" that the game is shooting for, I would have to guess that it most likely has not directly copied any current copyrightable works remaining in the church that may be protected. Thus, I see no reason for the claim. Now, as for the politeness, I can't really understand that, either. They are not portraying the church as an entity, only as a physical location. As another poster mentioned, the building has been a symbol of the area, and creating a convincing environment would basically require using a reasonbly close facsimilie. Now, if the game were using Anglican church as an entity in the game, I could see the argument about being polite (even if it didn't step on some kind of trademark issue). As other posters have mentioned, popular landmarks have been used in games and other media continuously. Did Independence Day have to get permission for every famous building it showed getting blown up? I would certainly hope not. They simply used those edifices as the well-accepted symbols of the cities being shown.

Re:bang bang

[Obsi]

No more : Hidden Forbidden Holy Ground?!

Re:bang bang

[TaylorTAP]

Try to look at as it as, at least Sony is losing money by going to court.

Re:bang bang

[donaldm]

Thanks for the correction, you are right it was 1530 to 1540. I must have been tired because the first line was "Henry VIII (28 June 1491 - 28 January 1547)".

Re:bang bang

[donaldm]

Now thats funny. Hack does look good on the PS3 with V1.8 firmware and connected to a HDTV though.

I don't know if anyone has played Nintendo's Eternal Darkness there is a Cathedral where you get to kill monsters and possessed humans. I guess that will have to be removed now since the inside looks similar to the inside of many Cathedrals.

Re:bang bang

[LordSnooty]

The Queen might be head of government but she isn't part of it. Church of England owns its churches and pays for upkeep (thus, collection plates at every event). Government, state & church are quite separate for obvious reasons.

Re:bang bang

[metamatic]

The Church of England is an established church ruled by the head of state. The archbishop is appointed by the government. The church is managed via legislation which is drafted by the General Synod, but passed by Parliament.

It's therefore laughable to claim that the C of E is separate from government.

Re:bang bang

[Rasgueado]

From my understanding, Sony did not design this game. Everyone likes to blame Sony for all the problems in the world (including myself), but this game was made by Insomniac. Sony did approve of the game for distribution, but they certainly had nothing to do with the creative process. Comments such as "What were Sony thinking when they made this" are quite irresponsibe in my opinion...

Re:bang bang

[steveo777]

The references to the White House that you make show the exterior, which IIRC courts have established that the image of a building can be used in this manner without permission. The reason that the Church of England is getting angry is because the game uses the interior. I don't know how many games or movies specifically show the interior of the White House layout and/or offices, but I think there is a very viable difference here.

Personally, I think Sony or whomever published the game should have looked for the nod, before making the project. They can always 'create' a cathedral for a shootout.

Re:bang bang

[Guppy06]

"You have a point however, unless I'm mistaken, a Church is private property"

If this were in the United States, I'd agree with you and probably side with the Church, but the Church of England has historically been the officially sanctioned religion of the United Kingdom, and as such there's an argument to be made that the structure is, if only in a sense, public property.

Re:bang bang

[DRAGONWEEZEL]

Command and Conquer

Nod Side.

First target most americans choose to blow.

(hint, it's not Hasselhoff)

Re:bang bang

[Some_Llama]

I know, you would think a Lord would know this.. tsk tsk. What was the reason for the colonies again?

Re:bang bang

[Anonymous Coward]

This is completely irrelevant. Just like Sony holds us fully responsible when we distribute their works, they themselves are fully responsible for what they distribute even when they have outsourced production to someone else.

Really, "we did not make it, we bought it" gives them no protection at all. They distribute it so it should be considered their product.
Just as with the rootkit.

Re:bang bang

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that what the world has come to...

A place where a decision by court is preferable to just being polite?

Re:bang bang

[LordVader717]

UK =! USA

Get the facts right. Works created by UK government are very well copyrighted, and there are some quite obscure examples of extended copyright.

Re:bang bang

[metamatic]

I'm English. And I didn't say anything about copyright, so stop trying to change the subject.

I was responding to the claim that the church was a private organization. It clearly isn't.

Re:bang bang

[blahplusplus]

"but I think there is a very viable difference here."

There is no viable difference. It's a public building/landmark and many games have used illustrations or pictures of landmarks *both inside and out* to help art teams make level art, etc. I used bad dudes because it was just the one that stuck out with a very visible landmark that I recognized, I'm sure other games have had other not-so-famous landmarks which not enough people know about to be widespread. Next, it sounds like you have *never* played the game that feature's the building so in my opinion are speaking without context. The people are just being trivial and anal retentive. If it was some other landmark it would not even get a mention.

Re:bang bang

[unlametheweak]

Just an addendum:

If you start asking for permission to use publicly available images for artwork then people will want to start negotiating, or just outright denying for whatever self-righteous (or selfish) reason they may have.

It is the problem with the concept of property that arises when it deals with the metaphysical.
Just like with Intellectual Property laws, it is unnatural and unintuitive outside of a legal paradigm. And just like IP and patent laws, it will stifle innovation and creativity.

Ask them for permission, and you are asking for trouble. It sets up the wrong mindset.

It's natural!

[erroneus]

We believe we have sought and received all permissions necessary for the creation of the game. That's where they got it wrong. I believe the game's development was the result of natural selection!

Best Online FPS On Any Console Ever

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14065 7

No Lag
Dedicated Servers
Clans
Huge Maps (that can adjust to team size)
Ranked Team Play - PARTIES!!
Variety of Game Modes
Rankings - Higher Ranking = More Skins
Medals
Stats GALORE
MyResistance website
Squads with squad chat or team chat if you press L3. And Icons to let you know who is chatting.
Weapons with great secondary functions
'Two different races with different play styles and racial skills.'

Free 40 player dedicated servers for the win!

And the Church of England doesn't like it!

Wii online is a disaster, and the 360 is a joke with no dedicated servers, low player counts(8 for Gears of War, 16 for Halo 3(and it looks like a last gen game)), laggy online play, 50 dollars every year to play. The PS3 has turned out to be the online gaming console of choice this gen:

* Free online play for all games.
* Dedicated servers
* Lag free games
* High player counts - Resistance 40, Warhawk 32
* Custom clan spaces in Home for before and after matches

Re:Best Online FPS On Any Console Ever

[Anonymous Coward]

Wii online isn't a disaster. There are online games for the Wii now.

Re:Best Online FPS On Any Console Ever

[Broken scope]

sigh, there are games with dedicated servers on the 360. I hate to break it to you sony fuckers but its purely based on developer choice and a publishers willingness to provide them or allow players to host them. Then again people scream there fools heads off before release claiming that its going to allow some people to rig the game and that the stats will be a fraud despite the fact they don't have a clue in hell what they are talking about.

Before someone accuses me of sony hate or being a 360 fanboy I hold the same contempt for xbox 360 fanboys who claim that dedicated servers are somehow inferior to client servers. They have there places, not every game needs dedicated servers however.

Re:Best Online FPS On Any Console Ever

[RogueyWon]

Ok, first of all, no argument on the low-quality of Wii online play. It sucks, pure and simple. However, this post raises a point that keeps coming up in irritating-fanboy posts like this one and annoying the hell out of me.

Why does it matter how many players an online fps supports? I mean, do you honestly expect reviewers to say "ok, this game has 8 player support, so only 2/5 for it. This game has 32 player support, so it can have 4/5"?

The entire "serious" online competitive fps gaming scene is based around small teams. 1v1, 2v2, 5v5 and so on. The Counter-Strike scene shifted from being 6v6 down to 5v5 because, quite frankly, the smaller matches were more fun. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed Tribes 2 and the original BF1942, both of which were large team games, for a while, but ultimately they get very boring quite quickly. The reason? Simple. Getting together an organised team that large is nigh impossible. This means you either content yourself with playing once per month, when you can actually get 16+ people's schedules to align, or else you either play with a team you don't particularly know, or you just play random public games. In which case, you put up with all the tedious crap that comes with it, like half your team camping the B-17 spawn all map so they can fly it round for 2 minutes before crashing while the opposing team completely over-runs you, or shit-heads on your team who break cover so they can hump the face of an enemy corpse. No thanks.

You mention the small team sizes in Gears of War. Fine. It suits Gears perfectly. Gears is a relatively slow-moving, rather "intimate" fps, heavily based around use of cover. If you had 32 people all running around in every direction, the game would rapidly become a big ball of suck. For Gears , 4v4 is more or less exactly right (although the option of 5v5 might have been nice, just because this is fairly standard in many other games and would interfere with teams who usually play other games less).

In short, bigger does not necessarily equal better. After all, remember how much Planetside sucked?

I hope they win

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

That's horribly sick and seems pretty threatening to me. I too would sue if they decided to use my house as the setting for a violent video game. You might say, "a church is not a private home" but I don't really see a difference. It's private property and simulating violence against its residents against their wishes should not be allowed.

(this plagiarism is just to show my support for the "trolls". Sony does not have the right to do this. Point)

Manchester Cathedral

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure the teeth of The Great Behemoth that is Sony are chattering in fear at the thought of a lawsuit from the C of E...
But seriously, if it makes anyone want to experience this amazing building IRL then great. Shame that only people rich enough and daft enough to buy a PS3 will have the opportunity to see its in-game representation though.

Re:Manchester Cathedral

[Marcion]

> Sony are chattering in fear at the thought of ... the C of E

I am not sure, the C of E could threaten to show off the Nintendo Wii in 27,000 churches next Sunday.

Re:Manchester Cathedral

[GammaKitsune]

Amen and pass the nunchucks.

Bah

[Anonymous Coward]

God dammit, why'd the church have to go and do this, now I actually have to side with Sony for once! Perhaps the church would've preferred it if instead of gun battles they allowed you to do something more in line with what some members of the church all too often get upto, such as indoctrination or molestation of children, slapping down homosexuals and so forth?

Re:Bah

[Yahweh Doesn't Exist]

at least they're still better than the Catholics who force you to side with terrorism if you like free speech:
http://www.google.com/search?q=church+terrorist+ri vera

This story is going to destroy slashdot

[Xest]

Seriously, asking slashdot users to make a choice between Sony or religion?

It's just not a choice you can ask slashdot users to make, it's like one of those "If you had two kids and they were in a burning building and could only save one, which would you save?" kind of questions.

Re:This story is going to destroy slashdot

[GammaKitsune]

It should really be more like, "If you had two kids and you hate them both and want them to burn and they were in a burning building and you had to save one or else you would get arrested and tossed in with Bubba, which would you save?"

Re:This story is going to destroy slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Aww, look at the liddle fanboy trying to be funny.

The fucking piece of shit losers like you who sit around posting in the daily Zonk FUDfests are so fucking pathetic. Love it!

Re:This story is going to destroy slashdot

[the_arrow]

Seriously, asking slashdot users to make a choice between Sony or religion?

Well, it isn't. It's about Sony showing pictures of the interior of a house, and the owner says Sony didn't have permission to do that.
It just so happens that the house in question is a church.

Re:This story is going to destroy slashdot

[Wog]

I'd save the oldest, since I would have had more invested in him/her by then than the other.

It's really such a no-win situation, that even the smallest factor could make the decision simple, if not easy.

So THAT is what happens when you ask slashdot to make a hard decision. :)

Re:This story is going to destroy slashdot

[normuser]

"If you had two kids and they were in a burning building and could only save one, which would you save?"

The one that's more likely to panic. seeing as that one would be less likely to get out on his own.
DISCLAIMER: I AM NOT A PARANT

Re:This story is going to destroy slashdot

[jollyreaper]

Seriously, asking slashdot users to make a choice between Sony or religion? Tell me about it. Both demand a ton of money from you with promises of how what they're selling will change your life and make you a better person but, at the end of the day, you're still the same schlub and are left feeling like a tool.

Re:This story is going to destroy slashdot

[seebs]

More like "if you had two kids you really hated, and a burning building, and could only push one in..."

Re:This story is going to destroy slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd save the oldest, since I would have had more invested in him/her by then than the other. *Checks the Holy Bible* Hmm...

*Checks the Sony Bible* Ah, I'm sorry, Sony.

Re:This story is going to destroy slashdot

[Drey]

By convention, churches are public places that rarely ever lock out the public. Your house is private property unless you hang out a sign, "open to the public". I don't believe the Church has a legitimate complaint about them using the interior's of a location open to the public.

Also, the game's graphics are likely a recreation of the church's interior and not actual photos. If so, almost any house in the world has, at one time or another, been modeled inside of a game. How many quaint European villages might have a gripe against Half-Life 2?

Re:This story is going to destroy slashdot

[Creepyguywithastick]

More like "If you had two retarded children and you can only pretend to mistakenly abandon one in a burning building, who would you abandon?"

This is a major news story in the UK

[Gossi]

I've no idea why, but this is the lead front page story on news.bbc.co.uk, and was the lead news story on the last summary I saw on TV! I can't even figure what what law the church could sue Sony with in the UK.

Re:This is a major news story in the UK

[CriminalNerd]

They could go for copyright infringement. They seem to be the norm these days.

(Of course I'm joking, but something tells me that they might consider it seriously).

Re:This is a major news story in the UK

[Marcion]

Well the C of E is still a massive shareholder, so it could start by dumping the Sony stock and encouraging members to do the same. The remaining few million active members of the national church are relatively wealthy, so consumer boycotts could be devastating if 3 million rich people avoided the PS3, Blue-ray, Vaio etc. However, I doubt the C of E would be that bothered, there will probably be a compromise by this time next week.

Re:This is a major news story in the UK

[CastrTroy]

so consumer boycotts could be devastating if 3 million rich people avoided the PS3, Blue-ray, Vaio

I thought people were already avoided those products. They don't need religion as a reason to avoid them.

Re:This is a major news story in the UK

[arkhan_jg]

If we assume that Sony went inside the church to film/photo it for the modellers to use, they could be charged with trespass on private property if they didn't have permission to film, or if they were misleading about what the footage would be used for. Most churches are private property open to the public - they generally allow photography freely by individuals for personal use (sans flash in some cases), but commercial photography is generally a no-no without explicit permission.

If the filming took shots of people that ended up in the game, that would possible also violate data protection policies the churches generally have these days, but that's a bit of a stretch.

Re:This is a major news story in the UK

[joe 155]

you are right about trespass because even if they were given permission to enter the church can still argue that the permission which was given did not extend to that activity (and most judges follow the C of E anyway, so there is probably a bias...). A guy was arrested for a "9(1)a" and "b" burglary when he went into his fathers house and nicked the TV - this rested on the idea that he was a trespasser because his father would not have wanted him to do that, and as such he didn't have real permission to enter.

Another option is blasphemous liable, that might be a bit harder to argue though because the House of Lords just made that up in the "Lemon and gay news" case (if I remember correctly). It might be possible to say that they implied that shooting in a church was something which wasn't wrong under all circumstances...

Or the House of Lords could just make another law...

Re:This is a major news story in the UK

[bateleur]

Three million?!

That sounds to me like the approximate number of people who self-identify as Anglican via the census. How many of those do you think actually go near a church more than twice a year? (Hint: in the same census, 390000 people self-identified as Jedi!)

Actually likely impact of Anglican wrath on Sony sales: approximately zero.

Re:This is a major news story in the UK

[Marcion]

3 million is C of E Sunday attendance. If you go by the 2001 Census then you get this: "Just over 37 million people (72%) gave their religion as Christian", http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2756993.stm

Re:This is a major news story in the UK

[bateleur]

That's Christian, not C of E. Even the C of E's own figures don't claim anything like that many.

Re:This is a major news story in the UK

[Marcion]

Well you can shout me the extra 200,000.

Re:This is a major news story in the UK

[glesga_kiss]

Well the C of E is still a massive shareholder, so it could start by dumping the Sony stock and encouraging members to do the same.

Oh yes, the Church of Englands investments. I'd forgotten about them. They are fully behind the arms industry on that front, huge investments in multiple arms manufactures. So, we have a group that supports real war crying about a fake war on their own doorstep?

It's a tough choice, Church of England vs Sony, but I'm behind the new guys on this one; just how many people died in the DRM crusades?

Re:This is a major news story in the UK

[MysteriousPreacher]

If the game depicts Christianity in a bad light, they could try the UK blasphemy law.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3753408.stm

Just to get a word in...

[GammaKitsune]

This is one article in which I'll be irritated if someone tries to make it a religious thing. IANAC (I am not a Christian), but this is really no different than any other, non-Christian group complaining about the use of their building for an ostensibly violent purpose. Whether or not it's right for this Church to go after Sony, it would be nice if this weren't turned into a religious issue.

I'm not holding my breath, though.

Re:Just to get a word in...

[Marcion]

Well don't forget that this is the Church of England, so it has a slightly different view of sacred space than an evangelical church or whatever.

Re:Just to get a word in...

[AdamWeeden]

IAAC, and I agree. This isn't about religion at all.

Re:Just to get a word in...

[JonathanBoyd]

To be fair now, there CoE is a pretty broad church, so you'd get a range of views on 'sacred space,' with quite a few vicars (including most of the ones I know) saying there's so no such thing as sacred space since we worship the person of Jesus, rather than having to to a temple to worship God.

WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

The church made it a religious issue which is amazingly hypocritical considering their history and gospel.

Guns in Church

[clachaig]

From the article:

Patsy McKie, from Mothers Against Violence, whose son Dorrie was killed in Manchester, said it was time to stand up to the makers of violent games.

"I believe it's something that needs to be taken seriously first by the Church but also by parents.

What needs to be taken seriously by parents is the duty they have to educate their children in what the difference is between game and reality. I agree with the Dean's claim that "for many young people these games offer a different sort of reality" but with parents influence, this reality he speaks of will be seen only on their playstations, where the developers intended it to be seen.

Re:Guns in Church

[westlake]

What needs to be taken seriously by parents is the duty they have to educate their children in what the difference is between game and reality.

In the real world you ask permission before you draw others into your own dark fantasies. If the Bishop doesn't want his church used as a stage-set in their game then Sony should respect that decision.

Re:Guns in Church

[Derekloffin]

n the real world you ask permission before you draw others into your own dark fantasies. If the Bishop doesn't want his church used as a stage-set in their game then Sony should respect that decision. Such permission is nice-ity, NOT a requirement here. They did no filming within the actual church. They modeled a virtual set on the real church and all activity occurred to and within the virtual copy. The Cathedral is now WAY past any copyrights that can protect it's architectural design, so really they have no case. They might have a case if this was a film set within the church, as that would be use of the private property, but obviously being a video game it isn't.

Re:Guns in Church

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a sad reflection on the level of respect there is for the church these days. I don't go but I certainly wouldn't be so disrepectful.

You know if it were a mosque Sony wouldn't have dared even ask for permission, let alone go ahead and do it but that's another story.

Re:Guns in Church

[westlake]

They did no filming within the actual church. They modeled a virtual set on the real church and all activity occurred to and within the virtual copy.

That is not a distinction the church is willing to make. It is a distinction that only the Geek is willing to make. Take the argument one step further and imagine that recognizable 3-D models of the parishioners were created for use as targets.

Re:Guns in Church

[Derekloffin]

That is not a distinction the church is willing to make.

Doesn't matter whether they are willing to make it or not. It's the very important legal distinction as this isn't a physical property right, it's a intellectual property right which they don't have, pure and simple. The church is simply too old to be covered by copyrights or patents and ineligible to be covered by trademark, and even if it wasn't that would be an extremely shaky case, but again they don't even have that going for them. They can complain, but to threaten legal action is just silly. It has about as much possibility of not getting laughed out of court as the owners of the Louvre have of suing the hundreds of movies and television shows depicting copies of the Mona Lisa.

Wrong on so many counts...

[Aphrika]

There are a number of problems here that Sony just haven't thought about:

1. Why use a real church?
2. Why use a real church in a city with a high gun crime problem?
3 .Why use a real church in a city with a high gun crime problem, in a FPS?
4. Why use a real church in a city with a high gun crime problem, in a FPS, without asking permission?

Obviously they just aren't thinking straight. I'm quite amazed that a big company like Sony just didn't think things through. What did they expect to happen? The church to welcome virtual gunmen through their doors with open arms after they've spent so many years dealing with real gun-related deaths?

Get real Sony, we all know exactly how it would've played out if a game went on a spree round your offices...

Re:Wrong on so many counts...

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at the dumbshit who is actually taking the story seriously...

Way to go moron!

Re:Wrong on so many counts...

[Broken scope]

Well damn I guess we should never use landmarks or other remarkable structures in alternate reality fiction ever again....

You are kidding me right? Please tell me you are joking.

Re:Wrong on so many counts...

[westlake]

People like you are the first ones up against the wall when the revolution comes.

in the world beyond Slashdot a signature line like this doesn't inspire confidence in a post defending the first-person shooter.

Re:Wrong on so many counts...

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking as a level designer, I'd be surprised if such a lawsuit ultimately had any legal merit. I'm sure Resistance: Fall of Man is not the first piece of art to depict the interior of the church. As a matter of fact, here's a photograph of the interior of this church released under the GNU Free Documentation License.

Did the photographer need permission to take that photograph? Does he/she have the right to release it under such a license?

Being under the GNU Free Documentation License, I could lay an image of a gun over this photograph and redistribute it. I could go a step further and depict science-fiction gun violence in this photograph. My god, we could go even a step further and depict a completely senseless killing of the clergy, then redistribute for all to see. I'm sure the Church of England would dislike such a depiction far more than Resistance: Fall of Man.

Is there a U.K. law violated in any of that? Can Sony really be brought before a court because someone doesn't like one of their works? That'd be really interesting. Hell that would make S.O.E. one hell of a legal liability.

Oh well. Either way I'm going to go get an exterior photo released under a free license and photoshop an "I (heart) Evolution" sign on their lawn.

Re:Wrong on so many counts...

[nschubach]

Have you ever just thought that maybe nobody thought twice about it? You make it sound like it was an intentional move to undermine the foundation of the church by placing a cathedral in a game.

Using your logic, it would be wrong to put the GM building in a game. Detroit has the second worse crime rate in America. Does that mean the GM building is off limits to anyone to use in anything? (including movies, books, photos, etc.)

Re:Wrong on so many counts...

[Broken scope]

Well it was a mild rewrite of how the complaints department of the Sirius robotics cybernetics division were a bunch of jerks who should be the first ones against the wall when the revolution comes and then a freak accident involving a encyclopedia galatica fell back in time proving the were... oh fuck it Im not in the mood to go look it all up again.

Re:Wrong on so many counts...

[Anonymous Coward]

>>Oh well. Either way I'm going to go get an exterior photo released under a free license and photoshop an "I (heart) Evolution" sign on their lawn.

This is the Curch of England we're talking about here. Most of them don't even believe in God, let alone creationism.

Re:Wrong on so many counts...

[vertinox]

4. Why use a real church in a city with a high gun crime problem, in a FPS, without asking permission?

Gun problem? Did Manchester have over 300 murders last year like many of our cities have in the US?

I seriously doubt that.

Secondly, the FPS was about a war in which the battle was waged through the church and not a murder sim like GTA.

I can't tell you how many Churches were used as key battle points in WWII on both West and Eastern fronts. Churches usually provided good places for covering fire and observation points for artillery spotters. And although this is a sort of fictional futuristic sci-fi war FPS, I could realistically see a church being fought over by troops.

Lastly, there is no scientific evidence (or logical common sense evidence) that links video game violence with real life violence.

Re:Wrong on so many counts...

[Zelos]

You're talking like this is a bad story for Sony. As it is, it's excellent PR - all these mentions of the PS3 and Resistance on the news, talking heads mentioning how realistic the graphics are and how violent the game is, minutes of gameplay footage being shown on primetime TV. I wouldn't be surprised if a Sony agency stirred the thing up, or at the very least is happy to have it happen. It's not like the target market for Resistance is going to care about offending the Church of England.

Re:Wrong on so many counts...

[Ren.Tamek]

"Get real Sony, we all know exactly how it would've played out if a game went on [allowed people to go on?] a spree round your offices..."

You can actually test that theory, if you like. Insomniac Studios (the makers of Resistance) actually modelled the complete layout of their California offices, which was included as a playable level in Ratchet and Clank!

Re:Wrong on so many counts...

[Anonymous Coward]

OMG this wasn't a joke? ROFL, dude dip your head in water and leave it there for 10 minutes.

Re:Wrong on so many counts...

[iainl]

Others have dealt with the question of why a church - apart from anything else, I've seen enough fictional and real ones used in WWII FPS games to see them as a standard of the genre.

Why use a real one? Resistance is set in the UK, because the developers live here. They're modelling real cities (well, condensed ones, anyway) for a game set in the 50s.

Why in a city with a high gun crime (for the UK, you Americans can go argue about 'high' if you want, however)? Manchester is one of the UK's best-known cities. To exclude it as a level seems perverse.

Why an FPS? Because that's the genre of the game.

Why without asking permission? Sony's statement suggests they thought they had permission. I think there's been some sort of cock-up, and either the wrong person gave it, or the right person gave permission for something other than what they now think Resistance is.

For a start, the spokesbishop was going on about how disgusting it is to have a game where you shoot people set there. But Resistance is about shooting 6-limbed bug-eyed Martians, not people.

Re:Wrong on so many counts...

[iapetus]

Did the photographer need permission to take that photograph? Does he/she have the right to release it under such a license?

No. The church has the right to make agreement not to take photographs a condition of entry to the cathedral, but as far as I know it doesn't, which means there's no restriction on taking such photographs. Even if it did, photographs could be taken from outside the private area.

Is there a U.K. law violated in any of that?

No, and the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of 1988 is quite explicit about this.

Re:Wrong on so many counts...

[bWareiWare.co.uk]

1. Use a location which a vocal group will strenuously object to in your latest game.
2. Wait for someone to notice (might need to tip them off).
3. Get loads of free publicity.
4. Profit!

Re:Wrong on so many counts...

[Anonymous Coward]

I take it you don't often play games. I guess you watch films and/or read books though; don't you like seeing a location you know in a film, or reading a fantasy set in a place you know (makes it much easier to imagine for me)?

Well, it's the same with games. I don't like racing games, but I loved it when a friend showed me a race through Paris going back and forth over the bridges on the Seine. Using real world locations just makes games more interesting. I'm not Sony, but if someone made a game set in my office building I would be absolutely thrilled.

Nobody expects the...

[dclozier]

Catholic Excommunication. ;)

Re:Nobody expects the...

[despisethesun]

I'm not entirely clear on why this was modded funny. What do Catholics have to do with this story?

Re:Nobody expects the...

[dclozier]

It was to take the place of "Spanish" in "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition". :(

Re:Nobody expects the...

[Macthorpe]

I think the point was more that this is the Anglican church, not the Catholic church.

Re:Nobody expects the...

[Anonymous Coward]

And in sectarian 'Pool to boot :/ Not that you can easily mistake one cathedral for the other either :)

Private property?

[Dekortage]

FTA:

David Wilson, a Sony spokesman, told The Times newspaper: "It is game-created footage, it is not video or photography. "It is entertainment, like Doctor Who or any other science fiction. It is not based on reality at all. Throughout the whole process we have sought permission where necessary."

Manchester Cathedral is private property, correct? It belongs to the Church of England? If so, and if you were going to show the interior of Manchester Cathedral (or any private property) in Doctor Who (or any television show or movie) I believe you have to seek permission of the property owner. Of course, if Sony were publishing a novel about it, I doubt the Church of England would care much -- but Sony has specifically aligned the game with video-based works rather than written fiction.

Re:Private property?

[Sean D. Solle]

> Denied the use of a real London Underground station and tunnels,
> designer David Myerscough-Jones created his own highly convincing replica.
> Indeed a letter of complaint was apparently later received from London Underground
> alleging that filming had taken place on their property without permission
> - a true testament to the merits of Myerscough-Jones's work ...

... on a 1968 Dr. Who episode ;-)

Re:Private property?

[ultracool]

But it's not the interior of the Manchester Cathedral. It's a model of the cathedral. How is that different from a painting or some such? Is it really illegal?

Re:Private property?

[vertinox]

Manchester Cathedral is private property, correct? It belongs to the Church of England? If so, and if you were going to show the interior of Manchester Cathedral (or any private property) in Doctor Who (or any television show or movie) I believe you have to seek permission of the property owner.

IANAL but I'm pretty sure that requires a trademark or a copyright.

And I seriously doubt the church has either of those.

What's to like about Sony anymore?

[alienuforia]

The church will likely win the lawsuit if it presses forward. SONY sold themselves out by using a house of worship in such a depraved fashion to reap the financial windfall without even consulting the building's owners first. Any atheist programmer on the planet could have come up with that concept, but leave it to a SONY developer to actually implement the idea. They knew the church would object to the radical idea of violence in a church sanctuary, but they decided to press ahead anyway at their own risk. Sony must be in bad shape when they are more concerned with shooting up churches and the legal recourse than actually programming their games worth a damn. The company execs need to realize that the world doesn't revolve around them like it did in 1996. Those days are over.

As a Freethinking Atheist

[Anonymous Coward]

I must say this is the finest example of why we must get beyond silly little superstitions such as religion. Throught the ages religion has caused nothing but problems. The sooner we get past superstitions the quicker we can acheive permanent world peace.

Apt Metaphore...

[Anonymous Coward]

... as they will both have lots of flames!

(Captcha = pastors, coincidence?)

What!?! :)

[PaulBu]

In the real world you ask permission before you draw others into your own dark fantasies.

Ever played with yourself thinking all the *inappropriate* thoughts about that girl (boy) in your class? ... ...

Ever asked them if you can do "it" beforehand? ;)

I guess the definition of "dark" is left to be decided, but it is not as clear-cut as you are suggesting...

Paul B.

Good think it's not Mickey!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is private property protected from use in a video game? I assume they either used pictures or some means to determine what the interior looked like, it's not like they actually filmed anything in the cathedral without permission (a fairly safe assumption).

The church is over 600 years old. No one should have to ask permission to use a depiction of the interior (although I do believe the Church should have the right to restrict interior photography). If the game had used some 70 year old depiction of Mickey Mouse, all we would hear from the Slashdot community is about how copyright should only be for a limited time, yadda yadda. Is there really a difference between a drawing of a mouse and the interior of a building?

How did Sony "use" the Cathedral?

[Daneboy]

I haven't played R:FoM, but it's a FPS game, yes? In which you run around a virtual world shooting various critters and such, yes? The key word here is "virtual" -- Unless Sony went through the Cathedral with a camcorder and actually used real footage of the real cathedral in the game, I don't see how they're "using" the cathedral for anything at all.

Would it be illegal if I drew a picture of the inside of the cathedral and posted it online? How 'bout if I carefully modelled in in 3D? And did an animated walkthrough?

The Church of England may own the Cathedral, but do they own the rights to the *appearance* of the Cathedral?

Re:How did Sony "use" the Cathedral?

[vigmeister]

I believe the word you are looking for is 'likeness'?
Cheers!

Re:How did Sony "use" the Cathedral?

[hazee]

You try using some imagery from the latest Spiderman film then, and see how far you get...

I hope the church really sticks it to Sony on this one. Sony, along with all the other movie studios, has made such a huge fuss about "image rights" and the like, that they really deserve to have the book thrown at them when they decide they shouldn't be bound by the same rules.

The hypocrisy stinks.

Re:How did Sony "use" the Cathedral?

[iainl]

The rather crucial difference, however, is that even most Slashdotters would grant copyright that lasts the month or so since Spidey 3 came out. Manchester Cathedral has existed in roughly that form since 1215; well before Sonny Bono and the Perpetual Copyright.

Re:How did Sony "use" the Cathedral?

[Daneboy]

But Sony creating and using their own images of a cathedral is not at all similar to the case you describe, with me using actual scenes taken from a copyrighted work such as the Spidey movie.

Sony did not use anyone else's images -- they made a 3D model of a building that has been open to the public for hundreds of years. If I use a 3D modelling tool to make a model of the Washington Monument, or the Eiffel Tower, or some other famous landmark building and then use that as part of a game I'm making, have I violated anyone's copyright or intellectual property? If so, how?

Re:How did Sony "use" the Cathedral?

[LordVader717]

So you're suggesting that if someone would carefully analyse the rendered footage of Spiderman to model a public building, Sony would come and sue?

As a Freethinking Christian

[hasbeard]

I will only speak for myself as a Christian but let's say you got your wish and Christianity had never arisen. The world would be without a lot of hospitals and institutions of higher learning. A lot of hungry people would not have been fed. There would not have been a Mother Teresa. William Wilberforce would probably not have led the fight against slavery in England. Just something to think about.

Re:As a Freethinking Christian

[Anonymous Coward]

Christianity tortured and killed far more people than it saved. Christianity is probably the greatest success of the devil. You are blinded.

Re:As a Freethinking Christian

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually the brightest, most caritable people are Atheists. Albert Einstein, George Carlin, Bill Gates and Mark Twain are all Atheists. America's founding fathers are all agnostic. If they would have had the same information that we do today then they would be Atheists as well. Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, Don Fancisco Pizarro, David Koresh, and Milosivic were or are Christians like you.

As amatter of fact, Atheists have a better moral and ethical track record. When have you ever heard of Atheists starting wars? It is always by someone that is religious. Slavery was also started by religions.

But I have great news for you, you are not lowly and weak and a sinner and unable to accomplish anything on your own. You do not have to pay a price for a supposed crime that two mythical ancestors committed (seeking knowledge isn't even a crime by freethinker's standards...you don't need to fear it), and you don't need to ask for forgiveness... you were innocent all the time.

http://www.myspace.com/kevinshelley

Re:As a Freethinking Christian

[Liquidrage]

Yes, because no other culture in the history of the world could have done a fucking thing if it wasn't for the Xian beliefs.
*rolleyes*

Re:As a Freethinking Christian

[hasbeard]

My point is that there are Christians who have done a lot of good in this world, and the world would have been a far worse place without them.

Re:As a Freethinking Christian

[Lehk228]

how can you know that nobody else would have stepped in and built those hospitals, perhaps even someone with the human decency to allow a rape victim to get the morning after pill.

Re:As a Freethinking Christian

[Lehk228]

those people would have still existed, and still been good people willing to help others.

Re:As a Freethinking Christian

[Yahweh Doesn't Exist]

How many books have been burned or banned by Christians?

How many hospitals have been attacked by anti-abortionists? How many people died by praying instead of seeking help? How many people dying in Africa from AIDS because Christians tell them condoms don't prevent the spread of disease, God does? How many people killed in the various inquistitions and crusades?

More people have been fed by a single scientist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug) than the entire history of religious charity.

Mother Teresa was an evil bitch. It's well documented that she thought ill people SHOULD suffer as a means of getting closer to Christ. And she took money from murderers.

No Christianity, no KKK.

Just something to think about.

Re:As a Freethinking Christian

[Anonymous Coward]

Mother Teresa was an evil bitch. It's well documented that she thought ill people SHOULD suffer as a means of getting closer to Christ. And she took money from murderers.

Come on, you're clearly twisting her beliefs. Mother Theresa was a Catholic(shock, horror), thus, she thought that, as a part of the divinely created world, suffering is not meaningless.

You seem to imply that this meant that she intentionally allowed people to suffer or even caused suffering to "bring people closer to Christ". (If this is "very well documented", please demonstrate.)

It's very well documented that she helped a lot of suffering people. The fact that she thought their suffering had a religious significance doesn't make her evil.

Re:As a Freethinking Christian

[vertinox]

The world would be without a lot of hospitals and institutions of higher learning.

Oh, so you mean the ancient Romans and Greeks never did anything like that?

Actually, from my understanding one of the reasons for the Dark Ages was because of Christianity. Not until the Church lost its dominance did things such as higher education, scientific, and modern medicine emerge during the renaissance.

And to be fair, they had a great helping hand from the Roman and Greek texts that the Church had simply stashed away ignored for almost a 1,000 years.

And to also be fair, I'm strictly talking about the Catholic church central powers and authority. It is interesting to note that the re-emergence of science and higher learning did coincide with the Protestant reformation and that Islamic scholars did also acheive similar results in their eras way before this.

I'm just saying Christianity isn't required for the things you talk of as example of ancient Romans and Greeks.

Oh... And let's not forget ancient China!

Re:As a Freethinking Christian

[Yahweh Doesn't Exist]

no I'm not twisting anything. spend 15 mins on google.

a good start might be the penn and teller episode on her where you hear it from her own mouth that she likes it when people suffer.

she did not help anyone with their suffering. she provided a roof to die under and that's all.

Re:As a Freethinking Pastafarian

[teridon]

Riiiiight, because human moral behavior arises from Christianity, doesn't it?

I guess I'll go back to eating babies now...

Re:As a Freethinker

[ChromeAeonium]

The Cuban Missile Crises was quite possibly the closest we've ever come to a nuclear war. If religion truly is the only thing stopping world peace, tell me, just how did religion cause the Cuban Missile Crises, or the Cold War in general? Or would you like to add economic systems (Capitalism vs. Communism) to another silly little thing you'd like to be a thought crime?

Question for Sony

[mad zambian]

Well then Sony, how would Japan react if you included Kiyomizu Temple in Kyoto in your game?
Or a game mission involved the Yasukuni shrine?
Or the Golden Temple of Amritsar?
No wait, how about Resistance: Mission to Mecca? That'll be a good one to do. Think of the potential market in the Islamic world.
Going to do that in the next version?
Nah, didn't think so.

This is not about IP rights to the images of the building. This is not about freedom of expression for the game designers. This is not about the freedom of players being able to shoot the (virtual) shit out of alien nasties in whatever way seems most appropriate / effective / satisfying / amusing. This is not about censorship. This simply shows a sad lack or respect.

Sony's and the Developer's lack of respect.
A complete lack of respect for an entire religion is a step up.
Their rootkit fiasco only showed contempt for their customers.

Somehow I doubt that the Anglicans or Manchester citizens will be the only ones getting annoyed over this one. I suspect that this might be seized by the religious conservatives who don't like video games as something of a cause célèbre.

Nice work Sony.

Re:Question for Sony

[bakana]

How is Sony's recreation of the church in a game disrespectful? Is there an option to take a shit on the altar? No really, help me to understand how using a virtual image of a building which holds no power disrespectful? Just because someone recreates a location in a virtual world, it doesn't mean it is disrespectful. Example, I build a building where I hold my wedding ceremony, someone likes it and recreates it in a virtual world. Are they disrespecting my marriage? No! You want disrespect? Imagine someone creating a character named GOD and having another character named Satan rape him. NOW THAT IS DISRESPECT! LOL!!!!!

Re:Question for Sony

[vertinox]

This simply shows a sad lack or respect.

Or rather a Church that has so little faith in its message that it has to use a secular governmental court to enforce its views.

Seriously, no one has the right to earn automatic respect. You have the right to freedom of speech and the right to not by physically harmed.

But you do not have the right to not be disrespected.

Otherwise we end up with situations of death threats against Danish newspapers for cartoons of Mohamed.

Freedom of speech means being able to disrespect anyone or anything and be free from harm or punishment by the government. Otherwise many people will use "anti-disrespect laws" to enforce their political views and or religious views onto people who disagree with them.

Re:Question for Sony

[MysteriousPreacher]

I don't know about the Japanese shrine but it's pretty obvious why Sony wouldn't make an alien blasting game set in Mecca; Muslims would be in the streets burning flags and killing each other in riots. It's simply not worth the hassle. Christians tend to be a bit more civilised, even so it's not like the game is set in the vatican is it? There's a big difference between a cathedral and Mecca. How many Anglicans even know much about this cathedral anyway?

The principle is the same though. You can't give something special status simply because some people consider it sacred. Create the game, release it and let the market decide whether or not it's a good idea. There's absolutely no reason why a church be given special status. It's a lovely building but nothing more.

Re:Question for Sony

[rtechie]

Well then Sony, how would Japan react if you included Kiyomizu Temple in Kyoto in your game?
Or a game mission involved the Yasukuni shrine? Fictionalized versions of these temples appear in anime and various video games. At least the Yasukuni shrine, I'm not sure about the Kiyomizo Temple.

No wait, how about Resistance: Mission to Mecca? That'll be a good one to do. Think of the potential market in the Islamic world. Would Muslims buy a FPS with a level that takes place in Mecca? Absolutely, as long as they did not find it offensive. For example, a game that depicted pious religous soldiers defending Mecca from foreign invaders might do well. The "alien science fiction" genre has less play in the Muslim world, so a fantasy scenario with invading djinn (demons) might do better than Resistance. But the Muslim world simply isn't a big market for video games, yet.

This simply shows a sad lack or respect. Most of the people who wrote the game are Christians. This particular priest does not set religious standards for all Christians. This isn't offensive to the vast majority to Christians, just this one greedy priest looking for a handout and maybe a little attention.

I can understand the church on this one

[Liquidrage]

for I too am an asshole that believes freedom ends at the point where I don't like what someone does.

May want to rethink your rant

[SuperKendall]

Take a look at Stalin and Christianity sometime. I'd say Stalin, who stamped out all religion in Russia, and killed tens of millions of people, caused a lot more harm than most wars.

Re:May want to rethink your rant

[Anonymous Coward]

Stalin was raised a Catholic so he was a Christian like you, not an Atheist. Show me where he actually stated "I am an Atheist"

Bottom line, the most ethical, moral, and intellegent people were and are Atheists. The least ethical, moral, and intellegent people were and are believers like you.

Organization

[SuperKendall]

Riiiiight, because human moral behavior arises from Christianity, doesn't it?

No, but in the early days religion was the only group who could or would organize mass humanitarian efforts. Do the words "Red Cross" mean anything to you?

Re:Organization

[teridon]

The Red Cross is a not a religious organization. Their symbolic cross is simply the reverse of the Swiss flag.

Are there any niggers in the game?

[Anonymous Coward]

Manchester may have a gun crime problem, but only because of the niggers in Moss Side. White people shooting each other isn't realistic.

I've played Resistance

[RogueyWon]

This story becomes even more ridiculous once you've played Resistance. And I'm from Manchester, originally (although I moved out of the hell-hole to London as soon as I was old enough to get a job). I therefore feel I'm fairly well qualified to comment on this.

From the article, you would guess that Resistance is some kind of GTA game. You know, one of those where you sleep with a hooker then run her over (yes, yes, I know that this isn't how most people play GTA). If this were the case, I could possibly, just about, see where the Church was coming from here, even if I wouldn't agree with them. After all, Manchester does have a fairly serious guns and gangs problem, particularly around the Moss Side area (arguably even worse than London's from the guns point of view, although I understand things have improved somewhat in the last few years). Hell, the school I went to was about a mile from Moss Side, and while the school itself was pretty civilised, being private, you saw some pretty shocking things in the streets around it.

However, Resistance is nothing like GTA. The best description I could come up with would be a blend of a WW2 shooter and Halo. The setting is essentially alternate-world WW2, with many of the human weapons feeling relevant to the period, while the "alien" weapons are deeply Halo-inspired. Most of the game is spent playing through blasted and burned-out city-scapes. This includes the Manchester section, which pops up about 1/4 of the way through the game. For any Englishman with even an ounce of historical knowledge, the appropriate context for the game is obvious; the Blitz (yes, I know Manchester wasn't heavily hit, but I feel the point still stands). If the game is basing itself on any cultural reference points, they aren't the "cruisin' the hood, pimpin' my hoes, shootin' da pigs" cliches of modern gang life, but rather the fear of invasion and the shock of seeing familiar land-marks destroyed that characterised life in the UK's cities during WW2. So while there is still an outstanding question regarding taste, it is a question that could be levelled against every other WW2 shooter out there and a question which seems to have been conclusively answered by now with a resounding "meh".

It's disapppointing that nobody talking about this in the issue appears to have actually played the bloody game. Personally, I loved the UK setting (and very much enjoyed the game itself), particularly as some of the final missions in London see the player passing not a million miles from where I live now.

Please...

[Cheezymadman]

This is the most publicity Manchester has gotten since the Hammers came to town and blanked the Red Devils at Old Trafford.

ONLY ONE CARLOS TEVEZ, THERE'S ONLY ONE CARLOS TEVEZ!

So the church wants to be a business...

[nanowired]

Since the church was built for public use, and not private... Someone's getting a little tired of being tax exempt , apparently.

Mother Teresa

[The Rizz]

There would not have been a Mother Teresa. That could only have been a good thing, considering that she and her order often blackmailed starving children ("convert to Catholicism and abandon your heathen ways or we will give you no food"). Also, she is known to have taken millions of dollars donated to her order and used almost none of it to help the poor; she instead used it to build a whole bunch of nunneries bearing her name and various other religious buildings.

I am all for real charities and people who actually want to help others, but Mother Teresa purposely expanded suffering and poverty while at the same time hoarding money in order to spend it in ways that glorified herself and her organization. I really wish people would try to find a real altruist to glorify rather than that frightening bitch of a woman.

Re:Mother Teresa

[Anonymous Coward]

You make this ridiculous claim about Mother Teresa and the only piece of evidence you could find was a goddamn Penn and Teller episode on Youtube? And this is despite and mountain of evidence that she actually did help all those people. This woman devotes her entire life to helping these people and these two stupid assholes enjoying a life of wealth and modest celebrity think they've got her scam all figured out.

She has this funeral procession in Calcutta with tens of thousands of mourners. But you're trying to tell me the people she supposedly abused felt compelled to mourn her anyway.

And before you remark about her comments on suffering I think you should inform yourself first. She wasn't saying it was good for people to suffer. A big part of what she was doing was trying to alleviate that suffering. However, Christians believe that a life of suffering and denial makes getting into heaven easier. This belief, at it's core, is no different than what most other religions believe. Only and idiot, however, would believe that she somehow relished suffering in the people she cared for.

I wonder if you're so free with your criticism when it comes to other groups who actually do real harm to people. You're willing to believe anything anyone tells you provided it jives with your own opinions. Truth be damned!

Re:Mother Teresa

[The Rizz]

You're willing to believe anything anyone tells you provided it jives with your own opinions. Truth be damned! This from someone who offhandedly decrees that if it's from Penn & Teller it's not really evidence, and should be ignored. Even if there's other evidence backing it up, and these reports have been around for many, many years before P&T:B!, it has to be wrong since you don't like those two.

I wonder if you're so free with your criticism when it comes to other groups who actually do real harm to people. Definitely. For example, I generally support PETA's goals. However, they're a bunch of idiots when you look at how they go about things, and notice the hypocracy of their organization. In general, they cause more harm than good to society, and I would be happy to see them go. In fact, over half the organizations I would like to support have some major problem with them that makes me not support them.

She has this funeral procession in Calcutta with tens of thousands of mourners. But you're trying to tell me the people she supposedly abused felt compelled to mourn her anyway. Arafat had a lot of mourners, so I assume that elevates him to sainthood in your opinion? I believe even Stalin had thousands of mourners, and I think we can pretty damn well agree that the populous was abused by him.

The key term here is "cult of personality" - i.e., what the person actually does is not as important was what they claim to do. How people perceive the person is more important than who the person actually is. This is the danger of the cult of personality, and Mother Teresa is a prime example of it in action.

CoE is the State Church

[Anonymous Coward]

Is the Church of England really a private entity? It's still the established state church of England. The PM appoints its leader, the Archbishop of Canturbury and the Monarch is still the official head of the church.
Does anyone know if it still gets tax money from the government?

At any rate, I doubt anyone has to seek permission from the British government to film or model Westminster, so the same principle should apply here.

Most of you...

[Nappa48]

fuckers don't even know what this game is about and you are commenting on it as if you know what you are talking about.
In the game, you are bloody defending the church from the Chimera, not blowing the fuck out of the place!

What i find even funnier is all the idiots who actually attack Sony when it was fucking Insomniac who made the god damn game, NOT Sony.

Why not attack every other game thats done things like this in the past, why not attack films, TV programmes and every other damn bit of media thats done something like this before? Oh yeh, thats right, this stupid Bishop twat is just looking for attention, just like EVERY other damn religious leader, MOVE along, nothing to see here, same old same old!

I almost wish the story for Resistance was real, some people really do deserve to not live. (and i know this would effectively wipe me out, but fuck it)

Shoot the Aliens!

[Anonymous Coward]

Resistance : Fall of Man is the game we are talking about.

Alien invaders

I believe that everyone should be pro gun-violence when it comes to HOSTILE ALIEN INVADERS, regardless of where they are at the time. If this game teaches our youths to shoot at large slimy laser weapon carrying badguys, good!

Re:As a Freethinker

[vertinox]

If religion truly is the only thing stopping world peace, tell me, just how did religion cause the Cuban Missile Crises, or the Cold War in general?

To be fair, the Russian revolution would have never happened if Tsar had not placed so much belief in his faith with God in the war and kept Rasputin around to faith heal his son. I could go on about the intracity of the Russian Orthodox church and Russian Feudalism which again lead to the Russian Revolution of 1917.

Secondly, without Hitler's campaign into Russia, there might have never been a Russian superpower as we know it. And Hitler's success in Germany was due to a long standing historical anti-semitic view by the German people.

Take the 1096AD German Crusade which rather than going all the way to the Holy Lands to fight infidels, Germans stayed at home and attacked Jewish communities. Although this was not directly a part of the Papacies doing, it was defiantly a part of the German people religious attitudes towards non-Christians that caused this issue.

Not to mention the historical political situation in Germany would have never come about had the religious wars of the 1600-1700s between the Protestants and Catholics which latter resulted in a rather unified Prussia who later became the German empire and lost WWI which later gave rise to Hitler and WWII.

Yes, this is all 6th person removed what if scenarios, but religion is a part of our world and is responsibile for our political situation today. (Especially in the mid-east)

We'd still have a great deal of problems with Nationalism wars, but otherwise we wouldn't see the issues we are in the middle east if everyone just up and stopped believed in their particular man in the sky.

Sony used Times Square too...

[Mr_Blank]

Sony has been sued for similar things before, and won. Remember the Times Square was used in the first Spiderman flick? http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/04/14/203207

The verdict...

From http://news.com.com/2100-1023-948441.html

"Spider-Man" can alter Times Square
By Lisa M. Bowman
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
Published: August 5, 2002, 12:28 PM PDT

Upholding the rights of filmmakers to superimpose digital images on real-life buildings in their movies, a federal judge in New York has thrown out a suit filed by billboard and building owners against the creators of the "Spider-Man" movie.

In a three-page ruling issued last week, Judge Richard Owen questioned claims that altering the billboards in the movies violated trademarks and amounted to trespassing.

Several billboard and building owners, including Sherwood 48 Associates and Super Sign, filed suit in April against Sony and other companies involved in making and distributing "Spider-Man," claiming their prime Times Square space becomes less valuable if they can't guarantee customers exclusive rights both on and off screen. In the "Spider-Man" movie and trailers, ads for companies such as Cingular Wireless and USA Today have been superimposed over those of Samsung and NBC.

The judge disagreed with the billboard owners' claims, however, saying the digital alterations are protected free speech. "What exists here is for artistic purposes a mixture of a fictionally and actually depicted Times Square...this has First Amendment protection," Owen wrote.

Err Wait, I'm confused now

[SQLz]

I thought Christians == NRA? You don't see many jewish members of the NRA. Not only that, isn't it Christians that would use a preemptive nuclear strike against Iran? (from Republican debates) Aren't those Christians that are responsible for over 1mil+ Iraqi deaths? Christians, please go fuck yourselves.

Re:Err Wait, I'm confused now

[JonathanBoyd]

I doubt there are many CoE members of the NRA. OR in favour of pre-emptive nuclear strikes against Iran. In fact, they were pretty vocally opposed to the war with Iraq. But why let facts get in the way of a chance to attack Christians.

Re:Err Wait, I'm confused now

[ctid]

You do understand that this is Manchester in the UK, don't you? Hardly anyone in the UK has views similar to the NRA, so your comment is way off...

Re:Err Wait, I'm confused now

[Anonymous Coward]

Aren't those Christians that are responsible for over 1mil+ Iraqi deaths? Christians, please go fuck yourselves.

Actually, if you weren't so ignorant you'd know that the Catholic Church is completely opposed to the war in Iraq. Just because Bush happens to be a Christians doesn't mean Christians are responsible for the war. By your rationale every Muslim is a suicide bomber. I suspect, however, you wouldn't ever make that claim.

So how about you go and do to yourself what you suggest Christians do?

Sony? Church of England?

[morari]

What exactly happens in this level? Do you go in and kill all of the theists? I might just change my dim views on Sony...

Wrong POV

[Timotheus04]

Does anyone else realize the motives in game for "shooting in the church" in the Manchester level? You are wiping out the aliens that had taken the church and were using it as a stronghold to launch attacks against the human race. The player character is sent in to kill all of the alien troops so the surviving humans (esp. local English troops) could take cover there and set up a base of operations. Sony was using that particular church in that particular location as a bastion of safety for a mostly English group of survivors. It would become and icon of protection and victory in the storyline of the game! If anything, I'd think the Church would be proud to have their building defended from harm . . to have civilians and troops rallying within . . . just my opinion, but it sounds like the Church is pointing their finger at Sony for designing a level in which their church was destroyed or sacked or desecrated, but it's the exact opposite!

Compare...

[MutantEnemy]

Compare and contrast with this story. There are some conceptual similarities, at least: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/02/18 39251&from=rss

Re:Compare...

[sesshomaru]

Hmm... Thanks for reminding me. I've done some digging to see how that turned out. Seems the school district is unrepentant, but they gave just enough to get the kids parents off their backs.

See this link... Gamer To Attend Graduation; FBISD Records Cite 'Terroristic Threat'

Don't send your kids to public school. I'm serious. They are snakepits. Worse now than ever.

However, they could have prevailed in this (if the courts followed the Constitution and they could afford the legal fees), but it wasn't worth it for them to fight.

Oops...

[SuperKendall]

Good point there, however my original point still stands as it was more historical (I honesty did not know the Red Cross was in no way from a religous background, I guess the Salvation Army is a better modern example).

Re:Oops...

[MysteriousPreacher]

As an avid Old Testament reader, I'd also have to ask where we would be without incest, mass-murder and rape?

Religious people have done some good but that doesn't mean that religion itself should be thanked for this. Religion is just a tool, it's entirely down to people how they ues it.

The fact that religion has given us some benefits does not mean that we need it to continue. By the way, Mother Theresa is a piss-poor example of a good person.

Crazy, but just across the channel...

[Anonymous Coward]

In general I find this as ridiculous as the next person, but in France, the Eiffel Tower name and image must be "licensed" for use on postcards and other merchandise. How they managed to enforce this, I don't know, but it would be worth looking into, as it has very broad implications.

Re:Crazy, but just across the channel...

[Firefly1]

...in France, the Eiffel Tower name and image must be "licensed" for use on postcards and other merchandise.

I can only imagine what the folks behind that would say about a certain mission in the RA2 Soviet campaign. You know, the one that ends with the Eiffel Tower being used as an uber-Tesla Coil...

MOD PARENT UP!!

[geekyMD]

This is exactly why the story is newsworthy.

Sony, who has in part championed DRM and even installed rootkits to protect their IP now blatantly appropriates someone else's without even so much as a letter asking permission?! Even if you don't belive in copyrights of likeness, Sony clearly does.

Thats the story.

Plain and simple...

[Anonymous Coward]

The church should shut it's god damned mouth.

Re:MOD PARENT AND GRANDPARENT UP!!

[Anonymous Coward]

No text, other than what is necessary to get around the lameness filter. Posting AC so I don't damage my Karma either.

Greedy Church Pigs..

[rtechie]

It looks like the CoE have seen that Sony is making a few bucks and want to extract their pound of flesh. Hopefully Sony will stand up to this coercion and refuse to give the CoE any "donations" to curb their "outrage".

Greedy Church Pigs

[rtechie]

It looks like the CoE has realized video gams make money and want their pound of flesh. Hopefully Sony will recognize this as the coercion that it is and will refuse to play along.

Resistance Fall Of Man

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear all Resistance Fall Of Man may become illegal if the synod of Manchester cathreadal get their way and anyone caught with the game will have it confascated, you have been warned.
yours faithfully gregory