Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
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.
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.
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.
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.
Gamertag: WyleType
>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.
My little Linux and tech blog
> 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.
My little Linux and tech blog
Catholic Excommunication. ;)
FTA:
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.
$nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
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?
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?
/* "Specialization is for insects." -Heinlein */
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.
for I too am an asshole that believes freedom ends at the point where I don't like what someone does.
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.
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.
... 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?
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.
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.
The Red Cross is a not a religious organization. Their symbolic cross is simply the reverse of the Swiss flag.
I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing. -- Thomas Jefferson
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.
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!
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
The verdict...
From http://news.com.com/2100-1023-948441.html
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 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
Grr! Arg!
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.
No, and the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of 1988 is quite explicit about this.
++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.