June 15, 2007 -
The furor surrounding Sony's use of Manchester Cathedral in PS3 hit Resistance: Fall of Man continues to build.
In the latest bad news for Sony, Labour MP Keith Vaz, a frequent critic of video game violence, has raised the issue in the House of Commons, saying:
My right honourable Friend will know that I have raised the issue of violent video games on a number of occasions. Will he join me in condemning Sony for the publication of a new video game that depicts scenes of Manchester cathedral, without the permission of the Church authorities, in a game that is very violent and bloody?
Will he join the Prime Minister in stating clearly that there is a responsibility beyond profit on those who produce such games? Can we ask Sony at least to withdraw the game and pay compensation to a Church charity, and may we have a debate on that important matter?
Jack Straw, Lord Privy Seal, leader of the House of Commons (left), agreed, saying:
My right honourable Friend is right about the issue, and there has been totally unacceptable practice on Sony's part. It has a moral duty to withdraw the game and make reparation to a Church charity, but it ought also to have some enlightened self-interest about the damage that it is doing to what was a reputable brand.
Comments
That's it. Gamers unite ! Petitions will fly ! Re-elections shall be demanded ! We shall persevere ! They shall not take our games, and we shall protect our FREEEEEDOM ! *Mel Gibson mode off*
Ahem.
"Will he join me in condemning Sony for the publication of a new video game that depicts scenes of Manchester cathedral"
By new he means 6 mos ago, and who cares what building it is in. To any non anglican that cathedral is just interesting architecture.
They cannot see the big picture. They cannot see that the real version of that cathedral is all fine and dandy.
They're panicstruck.
They're about to do what they think is the only right thing to do! Which is to exorcise Sony and ban that ... that ... that ... game.
We have to wake them, slap them awake, take them to the cathedral, have them breathe some fresh air, sit them in the church, have them pick their noses there for a while, let them see the people that come and go as if NOTHING had happend.
As if NOTHING had happened? ...
That's right. NOTHING happend. It was just a game. A bad dream. Welcome, to the real world.
"My right honourable Friend is right about the issue, and there has been totally unacceptable practice on Sony’s part. It has a moral duty to withdraw the game and make reparation to a Church charity, but it ought also to have some enlightened self-interest about the damage that it is doing to what was a reputable brand."
1. His right honourable friend is WRONG about the issue! There has been no unacceptablepractice on Sony's part. If there was a legal issue, this would already be in the courts or Sony would be admitting wrongdoing and be involved in damage limitation/reparation.
2. Sony does not have a moral duty to withdraw the game, nor to give any money to this opportunistic charity.
3. Sony is not the one doing damage to their reputable brand, the Church of England is damaging Sony's image with these ridiculous accusations. Sony weren't damaging their image when the game was released several months ago, the only damage has appeared when this silly money and headline grabbing accusation was levelled toward them.
If people don't approve of the game or it's content, then that's fine. You are free to complain/whinge/moan to anyone who will listen. You are not free to demand money or an apology just because you do not approve of someone elses creation or expression when it does not break any laws.
Still, at least Keith Vaz did not try and dredge up Manchester's gun crime problem in connection with the game. That has been the most irresponsible part of this whole debacle.
How long is new? Sony stand strong. Most smart people in the UK will stand by you, we are not all idiots, like the people complning about the game.
I'd rather not believe the church would stoop to extortion, but this seems to be the case. They are just fishing for the right amount of leverage.
This gets more humorous to me each day. First they said they wanted money, now they want a donation?
I bet you its all pocket money for them in the end or they spend hours squabbling over who gets the bigger share for making the most noise.
I wish Sony wouldn't respond to them anymore and not take them seriously. They are just trying to get their names on the newspaper now. It be more refreshing to see "CoE actually helps several people by providing food and shelter" rather than some "CoE attempting to remove game from shelves."
you can't buy exposure like this! Having your title discussed in the house of commons?!?!?!? Cha-Ching!
The lesson to be learned is to feature some sort of religious building in your game - the word of mouth and notoriety is well worth it!
The single greatest reason to have term limits in British Parliament (and by extension, most legislatures).
There remains no such thing as bad press.
Yeah, because the Rainbow 6 thing with Vegas never happened :)
http://gamepolitics.livejournal.com/323342.html
This is only being done to make themselves (the politicians) look like they're standing up for something. Bloody hypocrites.
I love how he considers recalling the game a small measure. Sony can't pay "compensation" if you stop them from selling their products.
Hmm well there goes that idea for a war ending with massive nuclear devices being detonated over the Vatican, Jerusalem, Mecca , and Medina and leaving the earth in burning ruin.
God that would be a fun shit storm to deal with.
I've no respect for the CoE, not that I've much respect for any governing Authority at all, but ... Yeah, Vaz and Straw and very likely not honorable. I think we should stage a world-wide coup. God knows (ha!) gamers have all the best strategists in the world, cause well, it's what we do ...
annnd, I'll stop rambling now.
Second, they're trying to go after Sony using the precedent of how they deal with film crews but any reasonable person can see that there are major differences. It could (and likely will) be argued that the payment given by a film crew is done as a means of compensation for having temporary exclusive use of the location during the shoot. The developers didn't do that. The "shoot" so to speak was done off location and without disturbing the church in any way.
Sony created a derivative work based on the cathedral and if the CoE is going to go after Sony for that then they need to go after anyone who takes or paints pictures of the church. You can't just pick and choose who you go after - you either go after everyone or you go after no one. It's been six months - if the CoE didn't realize that they were offended and that their copyright was being violated by a piece of widely distributed pop culture for a six month period then they're not performing their own due diligence in maintaining the copyright.
My gut says this, though: It's not their church. Something like that is a cultural landmark and the rights associated with it are not the same as a truly private building. If somebody recreated my apartment for use in a game then I would have a valid reason to go after them, but if my apartment was open to all comers and considered a DC landmark then I couldn't go after someone who used it in a game set in DC.
very good points
@ CoE,
Oh come on, Sony didn't MAKE the game, they just allowed it on their console. Hell, they might not have even known that this church scene was in there
Relevent. So it was used as a field hospital??? Wouldn't that be depicting the church in a positive light???
Not that most people don't think that religion has become quite retarded as it is.. but this is just pure greed right now. There's nothing for the church to gain here but money and I assume that because the church has tax-exempt status for being a church that they don't necessarily need all that much money. I'd assume they'd buy a new rug or something and the rest of the money would conveniently disappear into the pockets of the clergy therein... or robes.. or what ever the hell they wear.
The thing that gets me, though, is that these people can't possibly be going home at night and think what they've done that day is a logical and well meaning. I can't even understand the logic of them considering all games "extremely violent and sexually explicit!" but that's something else entirely.
Fact of the matter is, right now CoE and british parliment are trying to pick a fight with a game they know nothing about. I can only assume they think it's a GTA clone where you go around and defile famous churches.
I guess in that case the same could be done for books, movies, and every other form of fiction. In other words, everyone will soon be able to sue everyone else. Greeeaaaaat.
the number one preaching of most christian churches (especially the anglican) is forgiveness. Lead by example, reverend?
Personally, i'm sitting on the fence on this one. I don't think sony need to worry about sales of PS3s in britian. so far 3 people in the entire country have earned enough money to buy one, and only one of them actually saved up enough for a game too. So sales I think can be described as 'steady'. Morally, sony didn't have any obligation to seek permision, but then morally, the church has no obligation to start a s**t throwing contest. the difference that sony have never once laid claim to any moral high ground, whereas the church is pretty much founded on the consept of 'holier than thou'. Personally, I think they're both as bad as each other, so i'll sit on the fence. I'll continue to sit on the fence even after someone makes a graphic depiction of said fence in a violent shooter.
my 2 uh.... pence.
About this mess, there are two things:
1) The church officials are complaining because they want cold, hard CASH. And to get it, they scream about morals.
2) I always knew what this battle against video games is all about. Religious zealots want them banned because children prefer to play than to go to boring rituals in churches. So if the games don't exist anymore, children have more time to go to church. At least I get this much from the statement "We are fighting for the minds of our children". Not to save their minds, but to OWN their minds. It's so stupid that it borders on the insane.
"Can we ask Sony at least to withdraw the game and pay compensation to a Church charity, and may we have a debate on that important matter?"
I like how withdrawing the game from sale is "at least"
Argh, this guy always gets my blood boiling, more so than that US lawyer.
Why is it that politicians focus on nonexistant problems instead of genuine ones? Hey Parliament, you're worried about the kids? You've got a missing four-year-old girl in freaking Portugal! Worry about that!
Does Sony really need the church's permission to use it in a fictional story? Real world locations have been used for ages in books and movies, though in the case of movies, it may have been a replica and not "on location". Unless any and every image of the church is copyrighted, there's no real wrong doing here.
If you feel that it's wrong on moral grounds, then that's your personal belief, and I don't mean to knock it. But if this really does all come down to personal moral beliefs, the church should be asking it's faithful to boycott the game, instead of calling for Sony to vonluntarily remove it from stores. That's never gonna happen.
I think what pix is saying is that it would have been a good gesture for Sony to have asked the CoE first, however there was no obligation to do so.
In all honesty if Sony, or anyone for that matter, was obligated to get the CoE's permission then official action would have already been taken. It wouldn't be this, "Oh we don't like it and we're a Church! A Church, for Christ's sake! Give us reper... donations and you'll be good with the big guy." Rather, it would be, "This is our lawyer, Mr. Yousoscrewed. He'll be in touch."
If the British Parliament shortsightedly decides to make a law that would somehow retroactively force Sony to do anything then that same law would have a massive chilling effect on art throughout the UK. Everybody involved knows this and all you're hearing now is, to quote another famous Brit, "sound and fury, signifying nothing."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/6758381.stm
And if you know a little bit about your Bible history Jesus witnessed such dissent by the Pharisees. Whom charged people money to use "free" church services.
Fucking churches. They tend to fuck everything up for a penny.
yea they "apologized" but it really was kinda a back handed apology, they basically said that they were sorry that the church was upset they they got confused between the real church of the 21st century, and the 1950's era church that is being besieged by aliens
Ouch.
Slightly OT Department: How does one get to be "Very Reverend"?
...and it possible to be upgraded to "Extremely"?