LordTheNightKnight said:
KruzeS said:
That's why I said it was mostly the offense, not the legality. They didn't threaten to sue because Sony didn't ask permission, they simply stated Sony hadn't asked for permission, to which Sony responded by saying they had obtained necessary permission, which is probably means not asking at all. This may be legal and all, but it sure ain't "polite". And yes, they made "demands", not unlike those the Sikh comunity made, to which Eidos voluntarily backed off and apologised.
By my point is, they didn't say they were suing Sony into complience or anything like that. They complained publicly, which I think is legitimate from a "politness" and even a "good taste" point of view. They said they were considering legal action, which is an aditional form of pressure. And with this they got Sony to talk to them, and maybe something positive can come out of that. Until a suit is filled, people are just getting way ahead of themselves. |
The thing is that if there is no legal claim, the church becomes the slanderers, which is much easier to prove in England. If there is no real grounds for the claim, even for good taste, it means that the church is trying to make Sony, or shooter games in general, look bad, and Sony could have a legitimate suit for that. |
Oh, man, do you have any idea how much manure will be flung into the proverbial fan if Sony actually decides to file a suit against the Anglican church?
