the movie industry will likely delay the releases of new films here
Fine with me. I'm sure the movie industry counts me as a "lost sale", and blames it on piracy, or home theatres. Instead, I should be under the "only goes to see 1-2 movies per year because the rest are either not interesting to me, or outright suck"
"You want me to fork out HOW much? This better be f*ing Oscar material, for that price..." (this applies to both theatre prices, and DVD prices)
Yeah, writing to Bev won't get you squat, you might not even get a response. Until Lord Harper lets her, she is supposed to keep her mouth shut on any policy that Harper hasn't already vetted...
The SCC ruled that, but they were basing their decision on the laws of the time (ie fair use and other relevant sections of the Copyright Act). If the government ammends the Copyright Act to remove or restrict fair use, there's not much the SC can do, since media consumption isn't a right mentioned in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms...
If they neglect to remove fair use though, it would be a valid argument against such a law. I'm assuming a DMCA challenge would be easier in Canada, because of that. They can't deny you the tools to be able to exercise your right to fair use, afterall...
I thought the Conservative party was supposed to bring an end to corruption and a new environment of accountability.
But, but, they introduce an Accoutability Act and everything! It even has fancy paper!;)
I find it disenheartening that her response was "it was legal at the time". Shouldn't she be respecting the act NOW, since her government pushed it through? Respect the spririt of the law and all that? It reminded me of contractors who say "what? I did it to code" which basically means "I did the bare minimum to avoid losing my license."
This wouldn't really work against botnets, would it? Because of the fact that they are distributed, you wouldn't really have a source trust issue... Not one that would trip any warning flags, anyway.
I can see it though, be a handy tool to aid against regular spammers, perhaps in analysing traffic to assist in maintaining SBLs...
So if we carefully examine the clues we can be sure it won't happen again? At best we can perhaps learn some warning signs to watch for, although I don't think video games or music are going to be it.
Having a better understanding of them can certainly help us to spot potential warning signs. Better than being completely ignorant of the problem, or attributing false causes.
I agree that there will always be people who will be unbalanced. But at least if we know the flags, we can get help to those who are not fully gone. As M-Manson said in Bowling for Columbine "I would listen to what they had to say, because that's one thing no-one did." The point was that no-one paid attention AT ALL to these boys. Knowing them better might still not have prevented the act, but it's worth it to try talking about it.
I mean, people still get all up in arms about this little Columbine game, but 2 9/11 movies didn't raise nearly as much controversy (that I heard anyway); as far as I heard, the media just went around asking people if it was too soon, there was no banning from theaters.
No one was up in arms about 2 Columbine-themed movies either. Elephant and Zero Day both won acclaimation and indie film festival awards.
To fantasize about committing evil actions is evil.
I'll assume you haven't played SCMRPG. It's not "fun". You can't "fantasize" about it. The graphics are so hokey you'd have to be a real sick bastard to conjure up images that gave you pleasure while playing it.
Instead, I'd call it an interactive documentary on a controversial subject.
It's certainly not the first time an author has tackled a subject from the point of view of the bad guy. Edgar Allan Poe did the same.
The game also makes the point that people are willing to stereotype the game and refuse to look at the issues it discusses (mainly the motivations behind the killers). Which is reflected in the fact that people just assumed they were evil incarnate, and left it at that. Instead of examining all the cues/influences in their lives up to that point. I'm still finding people who just assume they were brainwashed by Doom and M-Manson, and leave it at that, and pretend that if they just ban both, then this will never happen again...
How about "9/11 Survivor". It's an indie project where they tried to recreate what those trapped in the towers were experiencing. Some missions you can't beat because there's no way out. So it's either burn to death or jump.
Games aren't just for fun. Serious games try to convey a message, or pass on info. SCMRPG was like a documentary of the events, in detail. While on the way taking jabs at the gaming industry, the killers themselves, and anyone who might try to think this was somehow a game to train the next round of killers...
A discussion over whether it is playable as opposed to wether or not it should be legal to play.
Wired beat them to it. But it is a welcome addition to the ranks of reviews that actually try to tackle the game on it's own, without dismissing it outright just because it touches on a sensitive subject.
I always assumed that the Vietnam games failed because they sucked. I've talked to WWII vets who were quite comfortable playing WWII games, it was kinda nostalgic for them. All the excitement without the horror or something like that.
http://www.hdtvblogger.com/?p=39
Apparently it might be possible to snag the title/volume keys from a PS3 that has been modded to run linux. So I guess it shouldn't be long before a Blu-Ray copy shows up online as well...
If he's in Canada, he's right. Uploaders are committing a crime. Downloaders are quasi-legal because it's assumed you have a copy of what you're downloading in physical form, you just want the digital form. Until it's proven otherwise that is.
At least you're consistent, I can respect that. Most detractors would have allowed a movie about the same subject, done in the same way, but because it's a "game", they feel it's inherently wrong.
You assume the person(s) playing the game are rational to begin with; to some specific individuals, this could be a fantasy played out. People can come up with some sick "logic" in their minds. And they can come up with equally sick logic after watching an episode of "Friends". Mental instability should never be used as an excuse for saying that some subjects shouldn't be touched on. Where does it end? Is it ok to publish a book documenting a crime? Because you know it might give someone ideas!
Actually the author originally objected to being nominated. Unsure why, probably forsaw the media circus.
The criticism is that the festival first nominated him, persuaded him to change his mind because he'd created "an important work that needed to be acknowledged", and then bowed to sponsor pressure when they figured it would be a PR nightmare. The article mentions that several sponsors had threatened to withhold all funding unless SCMRPG was taken off the list.
So basically a supposedly independant film festival that honors works done by artists no large corporation would touch, were influenced by a large corporation to not touch a work...
Yeah, you get to play 'the killers'. They feed you a lot of crap about them being instrumental in opening the eyes of the world, but it's just sick. How is any movie/book that does the same (tell a story through the eyes of the 'bad guys' in order to show you a different perspective) any different?
Edgar Allan Poe wrote part of The Cask of Amontillado as told through the eyes of the murderer Montresor. Is it ok to do so because Montresor was a fictional character? If SCMRPG had changed a few names, would it have been ok?
This isn't a biography of the Columbine nuts, it's just a dumb game portraying them. If you remove the interactive elements, and make it (effectively) an animation done in the style of a video game, would it have changed your point of view? Zero Day was pretty much just a re-enactment based on the events, and videos the killers made. Was that movie a biography, or just a dumb reenactment?
Sure, but the game did nothing in terms of that. Frankly I think that's probbably an impossible task. What makes the game developer think he understands the motivations of the Columbine nuts? Maybe by some miracle he does.. but I got zero understanding of them from that game. But what makes people think that he is incapable of trying? There's a difference between saying the author didn't succeed, and pre-emptively dismissing him because he tried. What I get from a lot of detractors is that he shouldn't even have tried to understand the motivations, because to do so would somehow be trying to glorify them or insult the victims.
Saying you didn't get the message after experiencing the story, *that* is a valid criticism.
Those are nice ideas, however none of them are addressed in the game. The game wasn't meant to address those ideas. What it was meant to address was the thought process and series of events behind the actions that led to those ideas.
How do you understand the terrorists' perspective if you don't see it through their eyes?
Why is it acceptable to roleplay the bad guy/opposition as a training tool, but not when done through this kind of medium? Is it just the medium that causing all the grief?
I wonder if someone did something similar but relating 9/11.
The commission that made the 9/11 report authorized a comic-book version, because the visual medium made some discussion of timelines and events easier to follow...
There is also a "game" where your job is to try to escape from the Towers after the attack. Some missions you "win" by escaping, others you are forced to either perish in flames, or jump. The idea was to illustrate what people had to go through on that day.
I guess I'm more than a little suspicious of the whole "addressing complex social issue" dodge. Can someone who's actually played the game tell me how exactly it does that?
Did you come away from the game understanding more about what kind of pressures and personal decisions helped shape the events of that day? If so, then the game did it's job.
Simply demonizing the participants does nothing to prevent the next crisis. Understanding the motivations (and remember, that's different from sypathizing with them) helps you to understand WHY. Without WHY, you are only left to guess, and guess motivations leads to solutions that fail to address the actual problem. Solutions like kicking out problem students instead of offering them counseling. Columbine led to a lot of stereotyping and zero-tolerance policies, which completely failed to address the root problems.
but it does show what the general population's consensus is, and all these people get to vote.
But did they? They never even got a chance to vote, because it got pulled from the ballot, essentially by PR departments. Isn't that short-circuiting the voting system, by allowing corporate interests to decide what candidates even get to be heard in the first place? I know it sounds hokey, but it's something to consider. If the population truly rejected the nomination, then it should have gotten to the vote, and lost miserably (granted it would have been judged by judges, not the masses, but still, should every Sundance submission be subject to popularity votes with the general public, or rather judged on artistic merit?)
Slashdot Mirror
Please find me a Conservative poll then that shows they've stayed the same, or have increased in popularity over the past year.
the movie industry will likely delay the releases of new films here
Fine with me. I'm sure the movie industry counts me as a "lost sale", and blames it on piracy, or home theatres. Instead, I should be under the "only goes to see 1-2 movies per year because the rest are either not interesting to me, or outright suck"
"You want me to fork out HOW much? This better be f*ing Oscar material, for that price..." (this applies to both theatre prices, and DVD prices)
Yeah, writing to Bev won't get you squat, you might not even get a response. Until Lord Harper lets her, she is supposed to keep her mouth shut on any policy that Harper hasn't already vetted...
The SCC ruled that, but they were basing their decision on the laws of the time (ie fair use and other relevant sections of the Copyright Act). If the government ammends the Copyright Act to remove or restrict fair use, there's not much the SC can do, since media consumption isn't a right mentioned in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms...
If they neglect to remove fair use though, it would be a valid argument against such a law. I'm assuming a DMCA challenge would be easier in Canada, because of that. They can't deny you the tools to be able to exercise your right to fair use, afterall...
I thought the Conservative party was supposed to bring an end to corruption and a new environment of accountability.
;)
But, but, they introduce an Accoutability Act and everything! It even has fancy paper!
I find it disenheartening that her response was "it was legal at the time". Shouldn't she be respecting the act NOW, since her government pushed it through? Respect the spririt of the law and all that? It reminded me of contractors who say "what? I did it to code" which basically means "I did the bare minimum to avoid losing my license."
This wouldn't really work against botnets, would it? Because of the fact that they are distributed, you wouldn't really have a source trust issue... Not one that would trip any warning flags, anyway.
I can see it though, be a handy tool to aid against regular spammers, perhaps in analysing traffic to assist in maintaining SBLs...
Hmm, I did not know that. Doesn't surprise me though. Any idea what they were on probation for? Something minor? Or something more serious?
So if we carefully examine the clues we can be sure it won't happen again? At best we can perhaps learn some warning signs to watch for, although I don't think video games or music are going to be it.
Having a better understanding of them can certainly help us to spot potential warning signs. Better than being completely ignorant of the problem, or attributing false causes.
I agree that there will always be people who will be unbalanced. But at least if we know the flags, we can get help to those who are not fully gone. As M-Manson said in Bowling for Columbine "I would listen to what they had to say, because that's one thing no-one did." The point was that no-one paid attention AT ALL to these boys. Knowing them better might still not have prevented the act, but it's worth it to try talking about it.
I mean, people still get all up in arms about this little Columbine game, but 2 9/11 movies didn't raise nearly as much controversy (that I heard anyway); as far as I heard, the media just went around asking people if it was too soon, there was no banning from theaters.
No one was up in arms about 2 Columbine-themed movies either. Elephant and Zero Day both won acclaimation and indie film festival awards.
To fantasize about committing evil actions is evil.
I'll assume you haven't played SCMRPG. It's not "fun". You can't "fantasize" about it. The graphics are so hokey you'd have to be a real sick bastard to conjure up images that gave you pleasure while playing it. Instead, I'd call it an interactive documentary on a controversial subject.
It's certainly not the first time an author has tackled a subject from the point of view of the bad guy. Edgar Allan Poe did the same.
The game also makes the point that people are willing to stereotype the game and refuse to look at the issues it discusses (mainly the motivations behind the killers). Which is reflected in the fact that people just assumed they were evil incarnate, and left it at that. Instead of examining all the cues/influences in their lives up to that point. I'm still finding people who just assume they were brainwashed by Doom and M-Manson, and leave it at that, and pretend that if they just ban both, then this will never happen again...
How about "9/11 Survivor". It's an indie project where they tried to recreate what those trapped in the towers were experiencing. Some missions you can't beat because there's no way out. So it's either burn to death or jump.
Games aren't just for fun. Serious games try to convey a message, or pass on info. SCMRPG was like a documentary of the events, in detail. While on the way taking jabs at the gaming industry, the killers themselves, and anyone who might try to think this was somehow a game to train the next round of killers...
A discussion over whether it is playable as opposed to wether or not it should be legal to play.
Wired beat them to it. But it is a welcome addition to the ranks of reviews that actually try to tackle the game on it's own, without dismissing it outright just because it touches on a sensitive subject.
I always assumed that the Vietnam games failed because they sucked. I've talked to WWII vets who were quite comfortable playing WWII games, it was kinda nostalgic for them. All the excitement without the horror or something like that.
http://www.hdtvblogger.com/?p=39 Apparently it might be possible to snag the title/volume keys from a PS3 that has been modded to run linux. So I guess it shouldn't be long before a Blu-Ray copy shows up online as well...
If not, it would certainly give Sony bragging rights.
If he's in Canada, he's right. Uploaders are committing a crime. Downloaders are quasi-legal because it's assumed you have a copy of what you're downloading in physical form, you just want the digital form. Until it's proven otherwise that is.
At least you're consistent, I can respect that. Most detractors would have allowed a movie about the same subject, done in the same way, but because it's a "game", they feel it's inherently wrong.
Actually the author originally objected to being nominated. Unsure why, probably forsaw the media circus.
The criticism is that the festival first nominated him, persuaded him to change his mind because he'd created "an important work that needed to be acknowledged", and then bowed to sponsor pressure when they figured it would be a PR nightmare. The article mentions that several sponsors had threatened to withhold all funding unless SCMRPG was taken off the list.
So basically a supposedly independant film festival that honors works done by artists no large corporation would touch, were influenced by a large corporation to not touch a work...
Edgar Allan Poe wrote part of The Cask of Amontillado as told through the eyes of the murderer Montresor. Is it ok to do so because Montresor was a fictional character? If SCMRPG had changed a few names, would it have been ok?
How do you understand the terrorists' perspective if you don't see it through their eyes?
Why is it acceptable to roleplay the bad guy/opposition as a training tool, but not when done through this kind of medium? Is it just the medium that causing all the grief?
I wonder if someone did something similar but relating 9/11.
The commission that made the 9/11 report authorized a comic-book version, because the visual medium made some discussion of timelines and events easier to follow...
There is also a "game" where your job is to try to escape from the Towers after the attack. Some missions you "win" by escaping, others you are forced to either perish in flames, or jump. The idea was to illustrate what people had to go through on that day.
I guess I'm more than a little suspicious of the whole "addressing complex social issue" dodge. Can someone who's actually played the game tell me how exactly it does that?
Did you come away from the game understanding more about what kind of pressures and personal decisions helped shape the events of that day? If so, then the game did it's job.
Simply demonizing the participants does nothing to prevent the next crisis. Understanding the motivations (and remember, that's different from sypathizing with them) helps you to understand WHY. Without WHY, you are only left to guess, and guess motivations leads to solutions that fail to address the actual problem. Solutions like kicking out problem students instead of offering them counseling. Columbine led to a lot of stereotyping and zero-tolerance policies, which completely failed to address the root problems.
but it does show what the general population's consensus is, and all these people get to vote.
But did they? They never even got a chance to vote, because it got pulled from the ballot, essentially by PR departments. Isn't that short-circuiting the voting system, by allowing corporate interests to decide what candidates even get to be heard in the first place? I know it sounds hokey, but it's something to consider. If the population truly rejected the nomination, then it should have gotten to the vote, and lost miserably (granted it would have been judged by judges, not the masses, but still, should every Sundance submission be subject to popularity votes with the general public, or rather judged on artistic merit?)