It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us • Hacker News Board

Re: It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us

#141

Post by lvs » Fri, Jul 09, 2021, 7:36 PM UTC

Justsignedup wrote: post #54

throwaway894345 wrote: post #13

> In an increasingly uncertain world, this protective use of the red cross emblem has become more and more important. In the past ten years, there have been 162 fatalities among Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement personnel including two Canadians. I don't understand how these two sentences are related and the article doesn't explain it as far as I can tell. They seem to be vaguely insinuating that video games approp…

IF you are in combat and you see a red cross vehicle, it is important for your first reaction being "that is not where the enemy is" vs firing at it. This saves lives, and protects those who run into danger zones to save people. If we slap red cross symbols on people with medical equipment that you see in video games, it'll just dilute the meaning and maybe next time someone sees a vehicle with the red cross symbol t…

Article 19 of the First Geneva Convention covers all medical units, not just the Red Cross. It is just as illegal to target an enemy medic as it is to target a Red Cross medic. Both are war crimes.

Re: It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us

#142

Post by sandworm101 » Fri, Jul 09, 2021, 7:37 PM UTC

yellow_lead wrote: post #120

sandworm101 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> It's too common, hasn't been enforced. You lose the exclusive right to it This isn't some bit of copyright law. This is an international treaty that has vested the right to enforce this thing with a specific group. Misuse isn't going to result in in a DMCA takedown. Misuse of the red cross is an international crime, a violation of the Geneva Conventions. Don't like it? Elect people and have them withdraw your coun…

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the spirit of the rule is to protect things like hopsital ships, medics, etc. Saying its use in video games "distorts its meaning and its protective value..." is a bit much, especially for a creative work.

But it isn't a creative work. It is an adopted symbol more akin to a national flag or religious structure. The laws that protect it from violence trump things like freedom of speech. Use of it in a game, a situation where people can simulate the misuse of that symbol, reduce its realworld significance.

Prison Architect actually received a notice about this. Their answer was very simple: replace the red cross with a green one. There is no reason other games cannot also make this very minor concession to the Geneva Conventions. It is the law.

Look to TV shows. It is very very rare to see an actual red cross. Ambulances on shows like Scrubs don't use them. Film/TV people know to respect that symbol and only use it in very specific scenarios. MASH used it extensively, but then too very carefully.

Re: It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us

#143

Post by birktj » Fri, Jul 09, 2021, 7:39 PM UTC

Note that the Red Cross organization doesn't have unique rights to the red cross symbol under the Geneva convention, it is slightly more complicated than such.

From Wikipedia [1]: "As a protection symbol, they are used in armed conflicts to mark persons and objects (buildings, vehicles, etc.) which are working in compliance with the rules of the Geneva Conventions."

This means that in contrast to what many commenter here are saying non-Red Cross medics (including military ones) can and do use the red cross symbol to signal that they are such.

This of course does not really change much in regards to the usage issue, you are still not allowed to use the symbol for other purposes than specified in the Geneva convention.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emblems_of_the_International_R...

Re: It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us

#144

Post by MattRix » Fri, Jul 09, 2021, 7:39 PM UTC

throwaway894345 wrote: post #112

CobrastanJorji wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of Red Cross buildings/vehicles/personnel being bombed? Lots of them. Here are the first three I found on Google. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolo_hospital_airstrike https://www.irishtimes.com/news/us-admits-bombing-red-cross-... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1523489/

Not seeing where videogames caused these...

Are they supposed to wait until videogames cause an issue, and not be proactive? And how would you ever prove such a thing?

Re: It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us

#145

Post by kipchak » Fri, Jul 09, 2021, 7:40 PM UTC

tyingq wrote: post #46

mushufasa wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If video games or art or movies are depicting the appropriate scenarios, such as a scene involving army medics, wouldn't that be a constructive use of the symbol? It would spread awareness and education. A green cross would confuse people.

That's where I'm confused. I see the issue with products appropriating it as a sort of brand hijacking...like the example of a first aid kit with a red cross. But tv, movies, games, etc, just showing an accurate representation of real life, within the media itself seems...normal. I think if they have to, the least confusing thing would be a red square with a white cross inside it. That's what a lot of first aid kits…

To complicate things one further layer down, what about games (Escape From Tarkov's AFAK for example) having products in them that do hijack the red cross, which is somewhat common in real life.

Re: It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us

#146

Post by lamontcg » Fri, Jul 09, 2021, 7:41 PM UTC

yellow_lead wrote: post #120

sandworm101 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> It's too common, hasn't been enforced. You lose the exclusive right to it This isn't some bit of copyright law. This is an international treaty that has vested the right to enforce this thing with a specific group. Misuse isn't going to result in in a DMCA takedown. Misuse of the red cross is an international crime, a violation of the Geneva Conventions. Don't like it? Elect people and have them withdraw your coun…

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the spirit of the rule is to protect things like hopsital ships, medics, etc. Saying its use in video games "distorts its meaning and its protective value..." is a bit much, especially for a creative work.

> is a bit much

not really. they've got a zero tolerance approach to the appropriation of their symbol because the mission is so important and from their perspective it is all downside risk to them. they don't care about your video game, all they care about is misuse of their symbol.

and they're protected by the geneva convention and have all the weight of law behind them.

if they ask you to stop using their symbol its very simple and you need to stop.

the clarity of the rule means that they don't need to debate which usage is or isn't sufficient to produce the effects, it all simply needs to be removed and then they're assured it is not being diluted.

that is actually a perfectly reasonable perspective.

the fact that it doesn't allow for subjective arguments over the magnitude of the harm being done by the particular violation is a feature, not a bug.

Re: It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us

#147

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jul 09, 2021, 7:41 PM UTC

johncolanduoni wrote: post #138

yellow_lead wrote: post #45

> Under the Charter Act that was adopted in 1900 under the Geneva Convention (and later amended in 1905 and again in 1910)3, the American Red Cross has the exclusive right to use a red Greek cross4 on a white field, with the only exception being that any user of such an emblem prior to 1905 would continue to have the right to use the emblem. Registrations owned by Johnson & Johnson for red Greek crosses date from 190…

I feel like putting more burden on the red cross to police their “trademark” instead of their primary mission is a massive waste considering what that mission is. And the symbol is inherently common because the main place the average person sees it (on ambulances and hospitals) is actually an intended and authorized use of the symbol per the Geneva convention.

[deleted]

Re: It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us

#148

Post by MattRix » Fri, Jul 09, 2021, 7:42 PM UTC

Vaslo wrote: post #109

CobrastanJorji wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of Red Cross buildings/vehicles/personnel being bombed? Lots of them. Here are the first three I found on Google. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolo_hospital_airstrike https://www.irishtimes.com/news/us-admits-bombing-red-cross-... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1523489/

So there were video games in 1935 that caused the Dolo air strike? I think the issue is around why (or whether) video games cause this, not if there were ever assholes who tried to bomb them.

The claim is not only about video games. And it makes more sense to be proactive about protecting their brand, rather than only reacting once an issue arises.

Also how would you even prove such a connection? What combatant is ever going to say “I’m sorry, I shot you because I thought you were the enemy’s medic and not the red cross due to decades of brand dilution”.

Re: It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us

#149

Post by dwaltrip » Fri, Jul 09, 2021, 7:43 PM UTC

dang wrote: post #115

Lammy wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This looks like a job for—Emdash Man!

Probably the most excited I've ever personally made PG was when he saw me make an em dash on my MBP and immediately wanted to know how.

I would also like to know how!

Re: It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us

#150

Post by throwaway894345 » Fri, Jul 09, 2021, 7:44 PM UTC

bingidingi wrote: post #140

throwaway894345 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Trying putting the whole article in context instead of picking apart two sentences. What they're saying is that the Red Cross Emblem is being watered down, so much so that it's losing it's symbolism of humanitarian protection status and impartiality and as such are becoming a target in conflict zones. Wow that's a lot of snark. 1. I did read the entire article, I just didn't quote it all because that's not what quo…

The argument is that diluting the mark can cause confusion, and that confusion can cause death. "Videogames cause death" feels like a bad-faith oversimplification of the point they're trying to make. It's understandable, as video games are often wrongly attributed as creating violence... but that's not what they're saying. They don't want video games to stop representing medics, for example... they just don't want th…

> The argument is that diluting the mark can cause confusion, and that confusion can cause death. "Videogames cause death" feels like a bad-faith oversimplification.

I was being terse, not bad faith. In particular, "videogames cause death" is not a less robust argument than "trademark appropriation can cause confusion which can cause death". Moreover, I'm specifically being charitable and saying "I don't think this is what TFA means because it's so ridiculous, but I can't identify a better likely meaning".

But apparently there are a lot of people who think the "trademark violation => death" (again, brevity, not mockery) argument is serious, so I invite them to support their position with examples.