Slamdance trots out new Super Columbine excuse

by Kyle Orland { Jan 22nd 2007 at 7:25PM }

When Slamdance first announced they were pulling Super Columbine Massacre RPG from consideration in their independent game competition, Slamdance president Peter Baxter cited both advertiser impact and moral considerations as the reasons. Now, a new official statement on the Slamdance site has come up with a new excuse for the removal -- potential legal fees.

Take it away slamdance.com/games: "Specifically with the subject matter of Super Columbine Massacre Role Playing Game Slamdance does not have the resources to defend any drawn out civil action that our legal council has stated can easily arise from publicly showing it." The statement doesn't cite any specific legal threats made against the game or the competition, but we can easily foresee some frivolous Jack-Thompson-esque lawsuit that would indeed cost Slamdance a pretty penny to defend.

But wait. The site also mentions that "the organization annually takes on legal matters in support of the independent artists." Indeed, in 2001, Slamdance stood up to legal threats from Artisan Entertainment and hosted a surprise showing of controversial documentary "Brooklyn Babylon." We find it hard that Slamdance had the resources to stand up to a distinct, stated legal threat from a major independent movie studio like Artisan but doesn't have the resources to handle vague, potential legal threat over Super Columbine Massacre RPG.

Besides subject matter concerns, a Business Week article cites Baxter as saying that "organizers were reluctant to expose Slamdance to possible legal issues over music in the game." As far as we can tell, the SNES-style, bleep-and-bloop MIDI versions of popular songs from Nirvana, Marilyn Manson and other early-'90s favorites in the game are all well within the bounds of fair use. If Slamdance has to worry about legal culpability for giving exposure to these songs, sites like MIDI Database should be quaking in their boots.

It seems to us that Baxter is just trying to come up with a convenient excuse for a hypocritical decision to duck away from defending a controversial game in the same way he would defend a controversial movie. But, as we all know, games are just kid's stuff, so really, who can blame him?

[Via Kotaku]

Tags: art, columbine, independent, indie, slamdance, Super Colubmine Massacre RPG, SuperColubmineMassacreRpg

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

flyguy @ Jan 22nd 2007 7:54PM

If this were a movie ("Elephant", anyone?), it would've been shown. Regardless of the numbers that indicate the average gamer is near or at 30, the non-gamer crowd still regards games as primarily for kids, adults second, which is why mature themes in games are shunned (from the non-gamer crowd).

Is the game in question tasteful? Doesn't sound like it, but that's only my opinion. The Slamdance president could've made a stand, but this industry is only it it's infancy stages when it comes to be taken seriously with awards shows NOT influenced by advertisers. The industry still holds on to them dearly, especially with periodical sales down nearly half the last 5-6 years, so know one wants to piss them off, resulting in folding of a magazine...or in this case, an awards show.

v1cious @ Jan 22nd 2007 7:56PM

the game sucks, i can't even see why people are so bothered by this. i played it for like five minutes and turned because it was so cheesy.

anything to create controversy i guess.

ez054098 @ Jan 22nd 2007 7:58PM

Good! Why anyone would make a game about this tragedy is beyond me. And don't tell me it "enlightens" people to the events of that awful morning.

Kyouryuu @ Jan 22nd 2007 8:06PM

Ironically, I think this is the excuse that Slamdance should have first used because it sounds plausible. SCMRPG is:

- Built on RPG Maker, which was never legally released in the United States except for RPG Maker XP.

- Uses sprites from various commercial games, including Doom. Also uses artwork from other commercial series, including South Park.

- Uses MIDI music based on actual commercial music. Although this might be safe from a legal standpoint, I think the RIAA would try to make an issue about it. Certainly, rappers use samples all the time, but we know the amusing trouble Vanilla Ice got into over sampling Queen without permission.

So, with those three points, a reasonable case can be mounted for exclusion. It's like producing a movie for Sundance, except you stole your camera from a camera store, stole a background from another movie, and then added a score from John Williams... or at least a crude MIDI rendition of a Williams score.

Not saying that's the right choice, but I think it is a more reasonable excuse.

John West @ Jan 22nd 2007 8:13PM

Hey, it's their awards show, they can do what they want. If they don't want the game considered, so be it. Who are you, Joystiq, to think that your opinion on this topic matters? I'd think Joystiq would be quick to stand up for the kids that were murdered at Columbine, instead of supporting in any way a game that relives the events. Joystiq, you're not holding yourself to a higher standard by supporting the game; indeed, just the opposite. You'd be setting a higher standard by recognizing that sometimes a game is inappropriate. Period.

Rusty Shackleford @ Jan 22nd 2007 8:15PM

The comments section really needs to be deleted. Most posts here make me sick.

saboola @ Jan 22nd 2007 8:31PM

Hey Kyle, lets see you go face to face with the parents of the children that died in this event. Tell them how important this game is to you. I am sure they would fully understand...

otakucode @ Jan 22nd 2007 8:43PM

They threw artistic freedom under the train for money. Period. Any excuses they make are rationalization on their part trying to escape facing the elasticity of their own spine.

Defending freedom of expression when you only allow things that won't ruffle feathers is NOT defending freedom of expression!

otakucode @ Jan 22nd 2007 8:46PM

Rusty Shackleford: And if it offends you, well then certainly let's chuck freedom of speech out the window and go censor-crazy!

saboola: Can the guy who made "Elephant" go first?

John West: The problem is that it's not an "award show". Slamdance is trying to be to games what Sundance and Cannes are to the film industry. They're trying to claim showcasing art while banning SCRPG because it might be fiscally dangerous to them.

Ryan @ Jan 22nd 2007 9:03PM

My guess is that slamdance doesnt want to be a douchebag. Plain and simple anyone whom supports this game is exactly that a DOUCHEBAG. Furthermore the writers of Joystiq that write articles supporting this game are also douchebag material.

Mr. Khan @ Jan 22nd 2007 9:15PM

If we want to debate the game's actual QUALITY

well

It did make the top 10 worst games ever, last time they made a list (although that list didn't include Superman 64)

but I want to think that they meant legal reasons due to the fact that it is Super COLUMBINE Massacre RPG, not due to the "illegal" dev tools/pirated MIDI music/pirated sprites etc.

otakucode @ Jan 22nd 2007 10:19PM

Mr. Khan: At Cannes and Sundance, some of those movies are B&W! LAWLZ! And some don't have full orchestral soundtracks and CGi and think they can skate with social commentary and content to make people squirm and THINK! LAWLZ!

Colin @ Jan 22nd 2007 10:30PM

I'm all for free speech ... but theres a difference between political correctness ... and something that's just plain morally and ethically wrong. You do have to differentiate between viewing and actively participating. If there is a film portraying 9/11, or the columbine massacre, or john wayne gacy (sp?), viewing it is still a completely passive act. while maybe not even completely factual, all you do is watch and listen and feel. imagine a game where you kidnap and rape little boys in a clown suit, actively participating the whole time. that should make most people queesy. though it is well within the rights of the creator to make that game ... slamdance shouldn't have to explain itself for not wanting their name anyway near it.

astroblastro @ Jan 22nd 2007 10:40PM

can't they just keep it out because its a poorly made game?

Billyok @ Jan 22nd 2007 11:58PM

Everyone wants everyone else to take a stand when it's not their money and livelihood that's on the line.

Anyone who calls the people behind Slamdance cowards is either (a) full of shit or (b) welcome to start their own festival and feature this exploitive pile of crap on the marquee.

Matt @ Jan 23rd 2007 2:42AM

I think people are missing the point here. Slamdance invited the maker of SCMRPG to submit their game. The Slamdance jury then judged the game worthy of a being a finalist in the competition. Only after taking it this far through the process, one man at the head of the Slamdance hierarchy made a unilateral decision to pull the game based on it's objectionable content.

Yes, the game is disgusting AND is not well made, but that's beside the point. This would never have happened with a film. Slamdance is stating that games should be held to a different artistic standard than films.

Next-Gen-Gamer @ Jan 23rd 2007 4:07AM

I find it funny that everyone is trashing Slamdance for their new "excuse". Maybe if you would've paid more attention to the gaming media, you'd know that the heads of Slamdance actually discussed this with the creator of SCMRPG before it was made public days ago.

Also, I don't believe it would be a lie, considering the creator of the game was also on Attack of the Show last night, explaining the situation.

Hakobus @ Jan 23rd 2007 9:49AM

There's really no way midi-versions of popular songs would fall under fair use. Unless someone succesfully argued that this is actually pop art (like Campbell's tomato soup) and not entertainment.

I'm not saying that it isn't art, I'm saying, that in court it would have to be succesfully argued that it is.