To Those with Legal Understanding, or Even an Opinion..

[Renegade]

I was just sitting here doing absolutely nothing, and suddenly started thinking about the whole EA vs. Paysites thing.  I now have some questions:

I understand that people have said it would waste EA's time and money to try shutting down paysites when The Sims 2 is "half dead" since Sims3 is coming out in 2009.  However, wouldn't it just take a simple letter from EA to a paysite, saying cease & desist, or we have no choice but to bring this into litigation?  I'm sure paysites would finally close or go free out of fear of a lawsuit, right?

I was also wondering: if people bought stuff from paysites that didn't work, or were horribly misrepresented, couldn't people complain to EA?  Couldn't they say, "If you actually did something about paysites, I wouldn't have wasted my money!!"?

Or if when personal information was shared between paysites such as TSR and RoseSims, couldn't people have gone to EA saying, "Because you didn't take a stance or make any effort to quash paysites, my personal information has now been illegally shared and revealed among various people!"?

Also, on the Fansites section of TheSims2.ea.com, you will note that in their "Download" links, places like TSR (and other paysites) are listed on there.  Couldn't people start complaining to EA saying, "YOU listed them on your site, thus implying some kind of backing or endorsement.  I subscribed and (insert things like "got ripped off", "was misled", etc)"?

What would EA do in this case?  If a mass of people complained?  By NOT making any kind of effort to get rid of paysites, despite their customer service people saying "selling custom content is in violation of our copyright" (paraphrased), they are allowing their own customers to be ripped off by paysites.

Couldn't anything be done, from a kind of legal standpoint, if people started complaining and blaming EA for the existance and faults of paysites?  Because in my view, technically EA has some kind of liability in this - whether or not that actually is the case, I'm unsure.

*Renegade

[JFederated]

I feel that way too, Renegade, tho I have a feeling their ass is covered by the 'global EA TOU' thing floating around here somewhere (I hate walls of legalese).  I caught in there somewhere that by agreeing to the TOU (which I supposed we do somewhere?  when we register our games?  I dunno) absolves EA of any liability to do with third party sites out of EA's control.  I am paraphrasing and possibly misunderstanding, mind you.

However - they're okay with sites making content for their product, it's a selling point of the thing, so I do feel that by not enforcing their own EULA they have fostered an environment where their customer base gets fleeced, and whether they're technically responsible somehow or not, that is something they should wrap their lil heads around.  Now.  As it could very well affect at least my purchasing decisions in the future.

[Alphess]

I understand that people have said it would waste EA's time and money to try shutting down paysites when The Sims 2 is "half dead" since Sims3 is coming out in 2009.  

You make a lot of excellent points....

And I've never understood the argument of why bother when the Sims3 is right around the corner. My understanding is that paysites came about back in the sims1 days, and carried over to the sims2, so it's only sensible to think that paysites will carry over into the sims3. If EA made a statement now, it could head off any future sims3 paysites right now. Unless they don't really want to stop them...  :roll:

[calalily]

I understand that people have said it would waste EA's time and money to try shutting down paysites when The Sims 2 is "half dead" since Sims3 is coming out in 2009.  However, wouldn't it just take a simple letter from EA to a paysite, saying cease & desist, or we have no choice but to bring this into litigation?  I'm sure paysites would finally close or go free out of fear of a lawsuit, right?

No game company wants to challenge EULAs in court, or have them challenged - there are no pretested cases of EULAs - and that sort of litigation can take years, and might not end up in your favour.  

Therefore, sending a letter to cease and desist to TSR would be playing the legal game of "who blinks first" - cause TSR is going to know this too.  This would be monumentally suicidal and masochistic of EA.

I was also wondering: if people bought stuff from paysites that didn't work, or were horribly misrepresented, couldn't people complain to EA?

 

No, because they have disclaimers for all those links.  There's even that annoying little pop up box for the links on the BBS.

[Renegade]

Oh, right, calalily..I forgot about those annoying things :/

And while thinking about this, the only thing I could think of was that if EA did send out a letter threatening legal action or whatever, TSR would be the only paysite that might not comply.  The others would be scared shitless, pretty much, wouldn't they?

But since it IS their game, and their EULA that everyoen agrees to, they could send a letter to paysites, including TSR, stating that their paysites are in violation to their TOS and cite all the relevant sections.  EA WOULD have a leg to stand on from a legal point of view because it's their game, their EULA, their rules.  If TSR or any other paysite is violating them, and do not comply to a letter stating to cease and desist, they could be successfully sued, if EA would actually do that.  I can't think of why EA wouldn't be successful when it is their game and we do all click "I Agree" to those agreements, unless we don't play the game or touch bodyshop..

Following that line of thinking, it would be in a paysites best interest to just stop or turn free, unless they were stupid enough to risk being sued.

[calalily]

And while thinking about this, the only thing I could think of was that if EA did send out a letter threatening legal action or whatever, TSR would be the only paysite that might not comply.  The others would be scared shitless, pretty much, wouldn't they?

No - because if I know it, and lots of other people know it, then TSR knows it - if they don't, they can read it here.  Small paysites would close probably because they don't want to pay the retainer to the lawyers - as far as small paysites go it's all about the money going in, not the money going out.  As for TSR, they wouldn't back down - they've got a million dollar business to protect.

EA WOULD have a leg to stand on from a legal point of view because it's their game, their EULA, their rules.  If TSR or any other paysite is violating them, and do not comply to a letter stating to cease and desist, they could be successfully sued, if EA would actually do that.

That's the point - there's no guarantee of success.  Lawyers on both sides could end up charging EA huge legal fees, and maybe after 6 years it would be decided - and if EA loses, then they have to pay costs to the other side.

That's why TSR doesn't sue Pescado as well - the countless legal bills would be more time and trouble than they are worth.  Spend millions of dollars to recoup millions of dollars - that doesn't make any business sense - best to cut your losses and leave it at that.

If EA were to go after each and every individual creator, that might work - because they don't have the resources TSR has - but they're not going to do that either just in case one of the creators is suicidal.

[tngrspacecadet]

disclaimer : i am an attorney but i do general litigation in the area of delict/torts, i also used to be a state prosecutor (DA to those in the USA). i am NOT an expert in the area of copyright law. these are my own, rather blonde, thoughts on the topic, ie what would i do if i was an EA legal adviser.

my guess would be this:

litigation is expensive. so, in order to litigate against paysites, EA must choose between 2 evils.

1 is doing nothing. are paysites actually harming EA? not that i can see. EA is not responsible for what fansites do, and requires a disclaimer to be placed on each such website.

2 is litigating. paysites are everywhere, not only in the USA as we know. so this means appointing lots of lawyers all over the planet, then getting details of all paysites including company details and addresses. some sites belong to individuals, some to companies. (this usually means doing a company search because here we have to cite the details of incorporation and place of business of the defendant if it is a company)

different countries have different copyright laws, as we at PMBD know very well! some courts might interpret the EULA differently.

then, assuming the litigation is successful. what damages is EA going to prove? as i said, maybe nothing. in my country we do not have such a thing as punitive damages, a successful litigant only gets actual damages proved plus costs according to a tariff. this is usually about a third to half the actual costs.

so the best they could hope for here is an interdict (court order) preventing the paysite from selling sims 2 content.

what happens to the costs incurred by EA in all this litigation?

in my experience, some companies disappear in mysterious ways when faced by a huge bill of costs. they stop trading and declare themselves bankrupt. then it is risky for creditors trying to get anything out of them.

so any litigation against paysites is likely to hit EA's pocket. how would they make allowance for that? games costing more. thousands of people would be unhappy about that.

merely sending "cease and desist" letters probably would not be that expensive and would give some people enough of a fright to make them go free.  

if anybody really wants action, i suggest getting full and accurate details (full names, company details if applicable, physical addresses and so on) of paysite owners and emailing them to EA's legal department in your country together with a letter of complaint.  :?

[calalily]

Thanks tngrspacecadet.    Far cheaper to just tell fans they can use places like these with no fear - zero cost.

[Moune]

are paysites actually harming EA? not that i can see.

Exactly. Not until the outcry from the fan community and the hostility against paysites becomes so big that it is also hurting the popularity of the game and the reputation of EA in general.

Thanks for this excellent legal opinion.

[Hecubus]

Thanks for that rundown!

if anybody really wants action, i suggest getting full and accurate details (full names, company details if applicable, physical addresses and so on) of paysite owners and emailing them to EA's legal department in your country together with a letter of complaint.  :?

Actually, the legal department at corporate headquarters in California has received that information, and they are investigating. Based on various comments from customer support saying things like 'official statements must come from our Legal department", I'd say they've told the Sims Group to chill on the issue until they decide what they're gonna do.

Whee.

[JFederated]

I'm simple and idealistic, but EA could make a statement in support of their customer base (and their EULA) loud and clear by just revamping their fansite listing on the official site to include only free sites.  The end. *shrug*

Might be some squawking from pay to play quarters, but they could continue to exist, just without official site recognition.

It would be somewhat fitting to drive paysites into operating underground, as filesharing once was.

/idealistic babble.

[Ieliminate]

In my simple, idealistic, violent world there would be moar suing.

And now I shall tell of Ea v. TSR: [Fictional Story]

After millions of hours of legal babble (Erica is not into legal stuffs) shown on Court TV and other news outlets, EA comes out victorious (even I want the protagonist to win). On the courthouse steps Atwa falls to her knees, hoping against hope that the TSR regime shall live on.
"Thomass, it can't be true! No one else'll take my fuglyass shit, and the texture challenges, I cannot live without them!"
"Atwat, it is. TSR has died. The pirates are victorious."
"No!!" Atwat, Thomass and all the other FA's crumble into dust because TSR stole their souls.
Sheeple collapse into crying heaps, still believing that paysites are legal and are the bestest.

The End.  :wink:

Maybe it wasn't realistic, but realistic sane things aren't my fancy. I also know they'll probably never sue.

[Renegade]

If EA were to go after each and every individual creator, that might work - because they don't have the resources TSR has - but they're not going to do that either just in case one of the creators is suicidal.

This is a good point, too.  They could send cease and desist letters but if one paysite owner (not TSR) is stupid enough to not stop, that would mean EA needs to follow through with its letter, and would have to incur the legal bills of that.

It's good if their Legal team is actually looking into it.  Though I believe if the community did speak louder and louder about it, they'd do something.  A bit of people say that something like this could affect them in terms of buying Sims3.  I imagine it would be far more difficult to program and make stuff for the Sims3, so people who have the mentality that paysites are okay might end up charging a LOT more money.  Then what?  Things are back to square one.

I would hope they make a stance before Sims3 comes out - at least saying that when Sims3 comes out, there is to be NO selling of custom content or any Sims2 related materials/downloads, aside from what is sold by EA.  This way, they've been clear about it from the get-go.

[prattle]

My opinion, and it's not worth any more than that:
EA is trying to launch a competitor to World of Warcraft, called Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning, in the near future. Massively multiplayer online games tend to have a lot of under-the-table selling of gold, characters, and items in game, which many players consider to be outright cheating. Companies who make these games often spend a lot of time and effort keeping the real-money trade business at bay, or at least doing well enough so that they can show their players that they're trying to stop the evil gold farmers. (That, or they decide to go into the business for themselves, like Sony Online Entertainment did with Station Exchange). Mythic, the development studio EA bought out that is making Warhammer Online, has made it pretty clear that they consider gold farmers to be scum.

What does any of this have to do with The Sims? Maybe nothing. But I half suspect that EA's suddenly taken an interest in Sims paysites, because tolerance of them implies that EA doesn't care about their items being sold for money. While selling custom content downloads for a single-player game is a different matter than selling EA's content on EA's servers for money, the whole virtual property issue is a very thorny one, and not one where there's a lot of precedent. My guess is that with Warhammer Online being heavily hyped by EA at the moment, it's become in EA's interest to oppose all forms of money being exchanged for stuff in any of their games, whether they actually seriously enforce it or not.

[AW]

My speculation?  EA will attempt in Sims 3 to compete with Second Life.  Those who have grown bored with Sims have gone to SL and the role playing allows for much more interaction and varied game play.  EA is taking most of its games to this venue, whether it be XBOX Live or by PC.  Just my thought on the matter.