By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony - "It is likely there is no basis for a claim" Sony vs church

Lingyis on 13 June 2007

it's a no-win situation for sony PR. they'll settle.  (probably for nominal amount of money)



the Wii is an epidemic.

Around the Network
LordTheNightKnight on 13 June 2007
KruzeS said:
LordTheNightKnight said:

It's not the offense; it's the legality.

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. It's mostly the offense. The Church said it was considering legal action. Nowhere except gaming forums have I read they were talking about copyright or anything like that. If anything, I imagine they'd say the cathedral is their private property and that they have some rigths to it (you can't take pictures without their permission, you probably can't publish detailed blueprints, and maybe you shouldn't be able to do realistic looking depictions either). And they might as well bring charges more like defamation and such. Plus, saying you're considering legal action is also a form of pressure. And what the Church did say, was that they wanted Sony to apologise publicly, and give some recognition and funding for the Church's anti-guns program. Sony is talking to them, not ignoring them, so what's the big deal? But I know - it's the Church, so it's got to be outrageous!

Also, this is not the first time games have used places of worship as violence playgrounds. And at least one such case ended with Eidos voluntarily removing Sikh material from Hitman 2 and offering a formal apology. But, again, this is "the Church" (for some cluless people it's even "the Vatican"), so they must be after money, or power... or both - you know, godly stuff like that.


 They did ask the game be pulled from store shelves, wich does require legal action. The reason that copyright is brought up is that offense isn't enough grounds for such an action, unless deliberate defamation can be proven.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

LordTheNightKnight on 13 June 2007

And I forgot the church insisted that permission was not given to put the cathedral in the game. That does fall under copyright law. If they don't have a copyright, no one had to ask for permission.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

KruzeS on 13 June 2007
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.

Reality has a Nintendo bias.
LordTheNightKnight on 13 June 2007
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.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

Around the Network
your mother on 13 June 2007
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?

 



your mother on 13 June 2007
LordTheNightKnight said:
And I forgot the church insisted that permission was not given to put the cathedral in the game. That does fall under copyright law. If they don't have a copyright, no one had to ask for permission.

According to English law, there are no copyright infringements for buildings on permanent display, and even if it was copyrighted, that must have also expired long ago.



JSF on 13 June 2007

This thread is still going on? Honestly, if they want to argue about making Christianity look bad, Halo 2 does a much better job making religious people look stupid than Resistance does...or just turn on a television and watch the news...hey, this story is part of the news...who would've thought? Anyway, this is about as dumb as NYC protesting Grand Theft Auto IV.



KruzeS on 14 June 2007
LordTheNightKnight said:

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.

Look, I live in a flat and am having some problems with the upstairs neighbors dragging their feet about some leakages they have. If I went up there and told them I'm considering legal action, however baseless, as a form of pressure, I'd be a slanderer?

Come on man, the Church didn't even say they were going to pursue legal action - they said they were considering it! All of the sudden that's slander? And Sony is taking the hole issue (not necessarily the legal one) seriously, and talking to them, not saying: "yeah, you do that, and you'll see! we've got the powa of legal bloggers on our side".

All I'm saying is I think people like you are reading too much into this, and over analyzing the hell out of it. And yet you keep going at it: now it's slander, what's tomorrow? Come on! Sony can defend themselves without your help and, as of yet, it's not slander to them. This isn't Jack Thompson vs. Rockstar.



Reality has a Nintendo bias.
Blue3 on 14 June 2007

Its really just a pathetic attempt by the church to stay relevent these days.