Controversy over Sony video Game...Church of England sues

[demagogic_schizoid]

Cathedral row over video war game


http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/43028000/jpg/_43028413_cathedral203280.jpg The game sees a shoot-out take place in the Cathedral's nave

The Church of England is considering legal action against entertainment firm Sony for featuring Manchester Cathedral in a violent PlayStation video game.


The Church says Sony did not obtain permission to use the interior in the war game Resistance: Fall of Man.
The game, which has sold more than one million copies, shows a virtual shoot-out in the cathedral's nave in which hundreds of enemies are killed.
Sony said it believed it had sought all necessary permission for the game.

'Not reality'
The company said in a statement: "Sony Computer Entertainment Europe is aware of the concerns expressed by the Bishop of Manchester and the cathedral authorities... and we naturally take the concerns very seriously.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/o.gifhttp://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/start_quote_rb.gif We believe we have sought and received all permissions necessary for the creation of the game http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/end_quote_rb.gif

Sony Computer Entertainment Europe


"Resistance: Fall of Man is a fantasy science fiction game and is not based on reality.
"We believe we have sought and received all permissions necessary for the creation of the game," the statement added.

The firm said it would be contacting the cathedral authorities on Monday "to understand their concerns in more detail".

'Beyond belief'
But the Church said Sony did not ask for permission to use the cathedral and has demanded an apology and the removal of the game from shop shelves - otherwise it would consider legal action.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/43029000/jpg/_43029163_cathedralshootout203.jpg Sony said the game was not based on reality


The Bishop of Manchester, the Rt Revd Nigel McCulloch, described the decision to feature the city's cathedral as "highly irresponsible" - especially in the light of Manchester's history of gun crime.

"It is well known that Manchester has a gun crime problem," he said.
"For a global manufacturer to re-create one of our great cathedrals with photo-realistic quality and then encourage people to have guns battles in the building is beyond belief and highly irresponsible.

"Here in Manchester we do all we can to support communities through our parish clergy. We know the reality of gun crime and the devastating effects it can have on lives. It is not a trivial matter."

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/o.gifhttp://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/start_quote_rb.gif We are shocked to see a place of learning, prayer and heritage being presented to the youth market as a location where guns can be fired http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/end_quote_rb.gif

The Very Reverend Rogers Govender,
Dean of Manchester Cathedral


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.

"There's a war going on - not just in Iraq, but right here on our doorstep."
The Dean of Manchester Cathedral, The Very Reverend Rogers Govender, also hit out at Sony's decision to feature the cathedral, claiming it was "undermining" the work of the church.

"We are shocked to see a place of learning, prayer and heritage being presented to the youth market as a location where guns can be fired.

"This is an important issue. For many young people these games offer a different sort of reality and seeing guns in Manchester Cathedral is not the sort of connection we want to make.

"Every year we invite hundreds of teenagers to come and see the cathedral and it is a shame to have Sony undermining our work."

'Mythical'
Sony described the game as being set "in an alternate and mythical version of Europe in the 1950's, in which the enemy are strange looking alien invaders seeking to destroy humanity".

Earlier, 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."



I believe many INTP's will not agree with censorship or religious "prudery" or the belief that computer games cause vioelnce, probably seeing this as a conservative reaction which helps them blame artists and ignore social causes. Let me play devils advocate. I wrote this on another forum as a response to the "church should STFU!" comments. :

Art affects mood. If it didn't, there would be little point in it. People watch porn to sexually arouse themselves. Why wouldn't they watch violence to prepare themselves for violence also?

Does art reflect reality or does reality reflect art? both. I feel differently if I listen to rap or metal than if I listen to country or pop. So if exposed to one set of values, feelings etc. constantly, I believe the vast majority of people will absorb these values to some extent. Hence the reason why Buddhist societies are different to Christian or Islamic societies. The role models, the art, the culture, the ideals people are exposed to differ greatly.

I don't know if we should ban newspapers or computer games or not, I just acknowledged the fact that watching or reading or listening to something affects ones state of mind. If that clashes uncomfortably with a dislike for government interference then I apologise. But if Rupert Murdoch became a Nazi or a Communist tomorrow, I don't doubt that we'd see an upswing in pogroms or class war as a result. People become what they think, and they think not only what they experience first-hand, but also what they hear, listen to, read about, play at, etc.

Banning one game will change very little.

Changing a culture will change a lot.

If you want to change a culture, you have to start somewhere. If you don't, then realise that people do, and argue on that level, rather than on whether one song or computer game is "evil".

What do you think?

[V Profane]

I was going to post this earlier, but it pissed me off.

"For many young people these games offer a different sort of reality"

You mean distinct from consensus reality? Like virgin pregnancies and re-animations? Where does he get this from? "Hay Rev pleying PS$ is liek a diferent realnes fo mea!!!111!!"

I've lived in one of the gun crime 'hotspots' of Manchester, and from what I could tell; that shit is down to poverty, ignorance, and illegalised drugs. Religion actively perpetuates ignorance, so STFU Churcy la femme, you're part of the problem. Religion is demonstrably a much more devastating 'call to arms' than popular media. If you're mentally unstable and ethically feeble, somebody telling you that "god" demands x, y and contradictory z is just as likely to provoke violence as a video game, if not more so.

<chris rock>What ever happened to crazy<chris rock/>

demagogic_schizoid, do you read http://melonfarmers.com/?

[LongSilence]

Hey, if they didn't get the proper permission, they didn't get the proper permission. The courts will hopefully decide whether that's true or not without getting too wrapped up in the sensationalist ideas of whether video games promote violence or not.

The Church has just as much right to not 'STFU' as any corporation that feels its trademarks and property have been misused. And as for Religion actively perpuating ignorance, it doesn't really. Religions don't really remonstrate with those who are curious about theoretical knowledge; the most they do is suggest that people don't practice certain acts. Besides, The Church of England as a body hasn't really 'demanded' anything from the general public for years now. They may arguably be part of the problem but then again it could be said that they are part of the solution.

[Huston]

Hey, if they didn't get the proper permission, they didn't get the proper permission. The courts will hopefully decide whether that's true or not without getting too wrapped up in the sensationalist ideas of whether video games promote violence or not.

Yeah pretty much. The church does not even need to give a reason. Racing games need licences to use cars, that same is true for other games. Although typically they change them enough so they don't need to obtain any licence or persmission. Same goes for the buildings in simcity, a lot reflect real life ones (not talking about the landmarks), but they are still significantly different.

But yeah, the rest is just whah whah.

[V Profane]

Hey, if they didn't get the proper permission, they didn't get the proper permission. The courts will hopefully decide whether that's true or not without getting too wrapped up in the sensationalist ideas of whether video games promote violence or not.

That part is actually kind of interesting; how the Sony guy was pointing out no photo or video footage was used.


The Church has just as much right to not 'STFU' as any corporation that feels its trademarks and property have been misused.

Well of course they do, on any subject. What is said in that article clearly goes beyond 'intellectual property', if you can really apply that to the architecture of a Cathedral.


And as for Religion actively perpetuating ignorance, it doesn't really. Religions don't really remonstrate with those who are curious about theoretical knowledge; the most they do is suggest that people don't practice certain acts. Besides, The Church of England as a body hasn't really 'demanded' anything from the general public for years now.

The specific impotence of The Church of England aside, religion encourages, indeed demands of it's adherents, the suspension of rational, critical, thought and the unconditional acceptance of divisive and destructive ideas.


it could be said that they are part of the solution.

I don't understand.

[demagogic_schizoid]

I don't understand.

If the Church of England could dissuade just one deprived young person from entering a life of violence, then they would be part of the solution to that persons particular problem. Likewise, a campaign by a rap artist could do the same.

Rap music and religion can both encourage violence and intolerance. They can also preach it. Unless you say that no religion can persuade people to treat each other better in any situation.

[V Profane]

If the Church of England could dissuade just one deprived young person from entering a life of violence, then they would be part of the solution to that persons particular problem. Likewise, a campaign by a rap artist could do the same.

Rap music and religion can both encourage violence and intolerance. They can also preach it. Unless you say that no religion can persuade people to treat each other better in any situation.

I understand.

[LongSilence]

That part is actually kind of interesting; how the Sony guy was pointing out no photo or video footage was used.


He was trying to emphasize that its not reality, it's just polygons. But that's irrelevant. Apparently it looks close enough to the real thing as to warrant needing permission, permission which it seems Sony didn't conclusively get [if they had they wouldn't even need to make weak back-pedaling assertions that 'it's just a game' and 'we thought everything was ok']. The developers could have a problem on their hands here.



The specific impotence of The Church of England aside, religion encourages, indeed demands of it's adherents, the suspension of rational, critical, thought and the unconditional acceptance of divisive and destructive ideas.


Like I have said, no religion actually says 'Thou shalt not consider the possibilities' and it should not be used as an excuse not to exercise imaginative thought. Adhering to a religion relies only on what you do and what you believe. A follower can think whatever they like- its only if their beliefs and actions err 'from the path' that they might cease to be a follower. And though I don't really want this to become another lengthy discourse on religion you could say that those 'ideas' are as unifying and creative as they are 'divisive and destructive'.

[sorabji_66]

wow, i always was worried the CoE would never again find reason to make a moral judgment for the next 1,000 years.

only took a video game to show they have SOME standards.

[demagogic_schizoid]

Like I have said, no religion actually says 'Thou shalt not consider the possibilities'

but a lot of religious schools and parents don't present their kids with many possibilities to consider.

[LongSilence]

but a lot of religious schools and parents don't present their kids with many possibilities to consider.

There are often other avenues for the curious to explore. Just as there are religious ones for those children blessed with less spiritual parents and upbringings. And any parent or institution that nowadays punishes or threatens a child with damnation for just asking questions is more maniacal than religious.

[Dunearhp]

Imagine if it was a virtual reconstruction of the houses of parliament.

Common sense suggests that these types of game are better off set in their own unique environments. Was there a compelling reason to model a real church? If anyone has played this game I would be interested to know if it was necessary for the story.

I am all for the designers requiring the permission of the authority in control of a location before it is modelled in virtual space. I believe they are having issues relating to this in Second Life.

This just made me think of the first level of Deus Ex, set in the ruins of the statue of liberty in a fictional future. In that case I don't think it was an issue because the location as depicted does not really exist.

[Hamro]

Religious nuts seem to have a demand to have something to bitch about, they cant live without it.

[Architectonic]

I think you should post a link next time.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/manchester/6736809.stm

[MacGuffin]

Is the interior of the church protected legally in some way?

[tinribz]

Blueprints and the like are generally copyrighted but even artistic works which are the strictest are:


The basic principle is that artistic copyright expires at the end of the seventieth year after the death of the author of the work.

This is what I know of 3D stuff:


To this end, the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 included a provision that it would not be an infringement of any copyright in a design document or a model recording or embodying a three-dimensional design for anything other than an artistic work, to make an article to the design, or to copy an article made to the design. Instead, a new right, UK design right, was introduced to protect three-dimensional designs for non-artistic works, and it is this right which tends to be more relevant than copyright in respect of industrial designs for items such as pumps, tools etc.

UK design right comes into existence when a design is recorded in a design document (e.g. a blueprint, drawing, computer file or written description), or when an article is made to the design. The duration of UK design right is shorter than that of artistic copyright. UK design right expires either (1) fifteen years from the end of the calendar year in which the design was first recorded in a design document or an article was made to the design, whichever is earlier, or (2) ten years from the end of the calendar year in which the design was marketed anywhere in the world, if first marketing occurred within five years of the design first being recorded or made.

How old is that church again?

[Rajah]

Is the interior of the church protected legally in some way?
My first thought, too.

I'm unwilling to research Brit laws on it, though. :)

[demagogic_schizoid]

There are often other avenues for the curious to explore. Just as there are religious ones for those children blessed with less spiritual parents and upbringings. And any parent or institution that nowadays punishes or threatens a child with damnation for just asking questions is more maniacal than religious.

well yes, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. they are probably a small minority though.

probably more significant are those which indirectly instill mistrust of subversive behaviour. a lot of religious groups define themselves at least partly by their rejection of liberal secular society and the material rather than spiritual focus of society.

their teachings, or the interpretations of them by them by many prominent members, aren't simply timeless beliefs in the existence of a God, but a set of values pertaining to and created by modern society.

Some religious organisations can present themselves as a sanctuary from the "decadence" of modern society. Is this always bad? I'm not saying it is. But if that society is the "other" against which the religious interpretation is defined, then exploring it will be instilled as a taboo in kids without anyone ever having to prohibit them directly.

[MacGuffin]

My first thought, too.

I'm unwilling to research Brit laws on it, though. :)

Yeah, I thought there might be some special law in the UK for churches or something.

Otherwise, if that church is as old as it looks...

[demagogic_schizoid]

Is the interior of the church protected legally in some way?




My first thought, too.

I'm unwilling to research Brit laws on it, though. :)

Spot the lawyer and the ex law student. ;)

yes Macguffin before you ask I do stalk you, I mean come on you are pretty attractive.

[rawr]

I love how its the video games that cause gun crimes so they're willing to pull them off the shelf. All this happening in a country where you can go sign up and get paid to kill people with conflicting ideas or interests, with guns no less.

[demagogic_schizoid]

I love how its the video games that cause gun crimes so they're willing to pull them off the shelf. All this happening in a country where you can go sign up and get paid to kill people with conflicting ideas or interests, with guns no less.

You're onto something there. Bear with me.

I think the media does make people more violent. One video game won't do it, but people will absord the culture they grow up in. If they grow up watching violence in the media, I don't see why it should affect their atttiudes to violence any less than presentations of sex in the media affect attitudes to sex (and yes, I think they do, most people would agree that what we find "attractive" is hugely influenced by the media, that mags like Maxim and FHM teachkids to see women a certain way, that a kid who grew up watching porn will have certain attitudes to sex which differ from someone who was never exposed to it etc.) As the owman interviewed about this on BBC news said, a man becomes what he thinks.

This doesn't just apply to the media or religion. It applies to society and politics too.

perhaps the level to which people are violent in our society is proportional to the extent to which they experience the violence of our system. Consider that our economic system and social structure is only upheld by the threat of violence. Otherwise, what protects private property, the power of the state, the independence of nation states? It's a violent system if you think about it. Could another system be better? I don't know - I knw that the attempt to create it would be violent. But that's a tangent.

If people observe, subliminally, unconsciously, that without violence or the threat of violence there is no solution, no deterrant to people not harming you, taking your stuff etc., then that will affect fundamentally who they are (and the violent coercion employed by or, usually, simply threatened by, the state, does teach people this).

Perhaps for middle class kids, this threat is quite removed, because they aren't likely to be as constrained by the economic and social system they live in, and so won't need to push against the boundaries and incur the wrath of the state. but the further down society you go, the more people need to be kept in check by the threat of state violence to prevent them from breaking the boundaries within which their economic system has placed them, and therefore the more they inherently learn violence as a day to day threat, even reality. So this will be reflected in their relations with each other. Add to this educational problems, bad diet which can affect someone's mind, and the effect of passing on what we learned to our kids, and you have the roots of a problem.

So yes, I think violence is learned, and from many different sources. Does it start within human beings who then create violent governments and art, or do violent governments and those who represent violence create violent societies? I don't know. But wherever the problem comes from, it perpetuates itself.

[rawr]

You're onto something there. Bear with me.

I think the media does make people more violent. One video game won't do it, but people will absord the culture they grow up in. If they grow up watching violence in the media, I don't see why it should affect their atttiudes to violence any less than presentations of sex in the media affect attitudes to sex (and yes, I think they do, most people would agree that what we find "attractive" is hugely influenced by the media, that mags like Maxim and FHM teachkids to see women a certain way, that a kid who grew up watching porn will have certain attitudes to sex which differ from someone who was never exposed to it etc.) As the owman interviewed about this on BBC news said, a man becomes what he thinks.

This doesn't just apply to the media or religion. It applies to society and politics too.

perhaps the level to which people are violent in our society is proportional to the extent to which they experience the violence of our system. Consider that our economic system and social structure is only upheld by the threat of violence. Otherwise, what protects private property, the power of the state, the independence of nation states? It's a violent system if you think about it. Could another system be better? I don't know - I knw that the attempt to create it would be violent. But that's a tangent.

If people observe, subliminally, unconsciously, that without violence or the threat of violence there is no solution, no deterrant to people not harming you, taking your stuff etc., then that will affect fundamentally who they are (and the violent coercion employed by or, usually, simply threatened by, the state, does teach people this).

Perhaps for middle class kids, this threat is quite removed, because they aren't likely to be as constrained by the economic and social system they live in, and so won't need to push against the boundaries and incur the wrath of the state. but the further down society you go, the more people need to be kept in check by the threat of state violence to prevent them from breaking the boundaries within which their economic system has placed them, and therefore the more they inherently learn violence as a day to day threat, even reality. So this will be reflected in their relations with each other. Add to this educational problems, bad diet which can affect someone's mind, and the effect of passing on what we learned to our kids, and you have the roots of a problem.

So yes, I think violence is learned, and from many different sources. Does it start within human beings who then create violent governments and art, or do violent governments and those who represent violence create violent societies? I don't know. But wherever the problem comes from, it perpetuates itself.


Here's some crazy shit though. Everyone, the church, you, me, the government and Sony are all able to be able to think about their product in a logical, rational way with the foresight on "how it might affect the population". Anyone you ask is going to be able to come up with their own opinion or assessment on the situation regardless of outside input. So, why do we as humans, feel that no one but ourself has the ability to make logical rational decisions for them selfs using their own gray matter? It's like humans have some kind of disease where they think they're the only one thats not a sheep which inherently leads to sheepish behavior.

[LongSilence]

Because its the easiest way to grant your own philosophy and political outlook its superiority over others. Its the best way to be able to think 'More people would agree with me and the ways I think... If only they knew better'.

Thus you get socialists who think that they best see the evils and errors of the capitalist system and in order to hold some sort of hope for themselves and their desire to rid the world of such evils they must believe that the other 'sheep' would only join them in their cause if they were shown how things could be different and of course better for them. You get capitalists who believe that the other 'sheep' just aren't willing to admit that it is currently the only system that is truly compatible with human nature. If people don't believe that what they 'know' is 'better' than what others know then how can they believe in what they do?

People define themselves somewhat by what they know that others don't seem to know.