New confirmation

[Lorelei]

How's this for simplicity:

Stop trying to weasel around the terms of the EULA in order to justify making a buck off of Sims 2 players and start applying your artistic talents elsewhere where you can make money if making money is so damn important to you.

You have been speculating wildly from Cloudcuckooland about What IF this and What IF that, all of which require two or three currently non-existent tools or hypothetical conditions in order for them to even be possible, and the end goal is to continue to make a buck off the community in defiance of EA Games' EULA and intent and desires--and in defiance of most people who value the community and making connections and friendships within it.

In the simplest version of your scheme, you still require end users to convert art into usable Sims 2 files, either by teaching themselves how to put the info into a package (without using any of the community or EA tools, mind you) or  using a tool that doesn't exist yet, and which probably would not meet with EA's approval anyway as it would be intended solely to subvert the EULA.

Frankly, given the quality of the free content available*, and the fact that most people who download don't take the time to create and fuss if you don't put stuff into a ZIP rather than a RAR, I sincerely doubt that anyone is going to make a buck by selling texture files (even if they haven't stolen them from someone else's photograph of fashion or a celebrity or a toy or whatever) or meshes (even if they haven't stolen them from Renderosity, Poser, Maya).

Again, most people are apparently too lazy to figure out how to use Q-Express, WinRAR (and clones), and .7z files. Even more are leery of SimPE. You REALLY think they are going to want to pay money for the joy of having to do some homework on their own time to learn how to make paystuff work in the game? I think you're deluding yourself.

* YOUR homework: find one pay item where there is not a similar or identical item available for free, and which looks/performs better in the game than the free item, and which the creator actually continues to support. This item should work for the EPs it claims it works with. This item has to be re-downloadable if the user's computer blows up or the file gets corrupted. If the item gets broken, or manages to break the user's game, then the creator also must cheerfully fix it without bitching about people being SO demanding JUST because they PAID MONEY for the broken item: show an example where this was done; say, after a new EP. This item also has to use NO copyrighted material belonging to fashion designers, celebrities, films, books, record companies, restaurants, architects, advertisers, car designers, et cetera. Do you think you can find one?

[nohead]

Sorry for not answering you before Yaardarm Monkey!

look at Exnem's site:

- he makes Piglet and Eyeore teddy bears: do you really think he OWNS the right to the teddy bear code?
nope, thats EA property
....does he own the image rights to Piglet?
nope, thats the creation of A. A. Milne and the rights belong to the Disney Corporation
(from Wikipedia: After Milne's death, his widow sold the rights to the Pooh characters to the Walt Disney Company...Royalties from the Pooh characters paid by Disney to the Royal Literary Fund, part-owner of the Pooh copyright)

so Exnem is using a copyrighted image on a copyrighted file, neither of which he owns the legal rights to....and makes money without any royalties paid to the legitimate copyright owners


so how can these paysite owners dare to comment on how "their rights" are being misused???   :shock:


then, if thats not bad enough, let's look at Exnems pictures:
- he uses an EA mesh
- he uses some image of the Net of Disney, Marvel Comics, etc
- he slaps them together using a tool he doesnt own (SimPe photo creation most likely)
- he charges money for these things and he doesnt own one bit of this 'creations'.......the images belong to someone else, the package file belongs to someone else, the tool to make them was made by someone else

then turns around and says "dont redistribute MY creations"

what B-S   :x

Does Exnem claim that the original artwork is made by him?
If Disney/Marvel/whoever has a problem with what he's doing isn't that up to them?

If it is to tempting to redistribute the end product of all of his work (which you claim is not worth anything?) then why not slap it together yourself?

[nohead]

You have been speculating wildly from Cloudcuckooland about What IF this and What IF that, all of which require two or three currently non-existent tools or hypothetical conditions in order for them to even be possible, and the end goal is to continue to make a buck off the community in defiance of EA Games' EULA and intent and desires--and in defiance of most people who value the community and making connections and friendships within it.

I had to add the what if's in order to shift focus to the real question, we got stuck on whether it's possible to make such a tool or not. It certainly is by    the way.

The end goal would of course be to find a way past the EULA, evil isn't it?

In the simplest version of your scheme, you still require end users to convert art into usable Sims 2 files, either by teaching themselves how to put the info into a package (without using any of the community or EA tools, mind you) or  using a tool that doesn't exist yet, and which probably would not meet with EA's approval anyway as it would be intended solely to subvert the EULA.

The tool would be completely transparent to the end users, it would act as any other .package installer application.
I don't think EA could do anything about such a tool.  

As for the rest (homework related), i agree that there are a lot of great and free stuff out there, which is very positive for everyone.

[OneEyedWillie]

You guys don't you think this is a little suspicious?  To me nohead is a mole from a paysite trying to get info on how to build a new program to avoid EAs EULA to start charging without any repercussions and they are getting free advice and whatnot from us.  Sorry but those are my thoughts.

[SparklePlenty]

Does Exnem claim that the original artwork is made by him?
If Disney/Marvel/whoever has a problem with what he's doing isn't that up to them?

You're right about it being up to Them (i.e. trademark owners) but neither Exnem,YOU nor any other paysite owner can use that as an excuse for doing the wrong thing.  For example, just because the victim of a crime does not prosecute, does not make it less of a crime. Just because EA does not want to waste money on something as trivial to them as this, and just because Disney/Marvel/whoever is unaware that others are exploiting their trademarks and copyrights does not give you license to exploit them. And you have the unmitigated gall to get defensive about the wrong you and others of your ilk are doing. You make me want to hurl. (But since this is all so much bullshit, I will just go refill my coffee drink and watch the show.)

[nohead]

You're right about it being up to Them (i.e. trademark owners) but neither Exnem,YOU nor any other paysite owner can use that as an excuse for doing the wrong thing.  For example, just because the victim of a crime does not prosecute, does not make it less of a crime. Just because EA does not want to waste money on something as trivial to them as this, and just because Disney/Marvel/whoever is unaware that others are exploiting their trademarks and copyrights does not give you license to exploit them. And you have the unmitigated gall to get defensive about the wrong you and others of your ilk are doing. You make me want to hurl. (But since this is all so much bullshit, I will just go refill my coffee drink and watch the show.)

So this "crime" gives a third party (PMBD for instance) the righ to do whatever they want with his work?
If you are worried about the trademark owners then by all means contact them and let them handle it.

[calalily]

So this "crime" gives a third party (PMBD for instance) the righ to do whatever they want with his work?
If you are worried about the trademark owners then by all means contact them and let them handle it.

So, this site gives a third party (you for instance) the right to tell others what to do?
If you are worried about the paysite owners then by all means contact them and let them handle it.

[Soup Parrot]

Amen! Lorlei hit the nail on the head.

You have all forgotten that these little created packages that people are trying to sell are deriviatives. (IE for reference I questioned the US Copyright on this since they have a section on their site to ask them questions, I specifically asked about Sims 2, they were more forthcoming than EA's tech dept, in an email response:

The 3rd party works may be considered derivative works.

A new work that is based on or incorporates a preexisting work can be considered a derivative work. Only the owner of copyright in the original work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create a derivative work. The owner of the original work is generally the author or someone who has obtained rights from the author. For additional information about derivative works, please read Circular 14 on our website, http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.html.

SOOO folks I did not see as 3rd party licensors on the TOU  TSR, Peggy's etc. They are deriviatives that were not legally authorized by EA, so all this arguing is just going in circles. We are allowed to freely share files to play in the game with each other, that would be considered fair use and harmless to EA as that was their original intent. But do non -licensed 3rd parties have the right to charge or complain that we share the files so we can play them in the game, no!!!!! All files here are being distributed freely, no one here is distributing the files in a commercial venture like the paysites.

You Pro pay folk if you are so confident  of your position, I have a challenge for you. Lets see you go to the Copyright office and get a form to register your deriviative package file. You will more than likely get a similiar response from them. Lets see you then go to EA and see if you can become a legal licensee, you are are not going to be able to afford the franchise license. Go for it! meanwhile be warned lots of us out here reporting to EA Legal your copyright infringement activities.  :wink:

[calalily]

Sorry to derail for a moment. Soupie! Lovely to see you  

Commence rerailment.

[Ry]

If Disney/Marvel/whoever has a problem with what he's doing isn't that up to them?

This reminds me of PSP tubes.
Disney has said plainly that people are not to use their images, characters, et al...on ANYTHING without permission.
I'm rather certain that Exnem Sims didn't e-mail them asking whether or not it was alright to create these things, so that site is misusing copyrighted material blatantly. *is that a word? blatantly...?hm*
Bah, you catch my drift, I'm sure.
As for it being up to them, I'm so sure Disney has nothing better to do than run around the internet looking for these types of things. I mean, it's not like they don't have million dollar empires to run.
Realistically, they more than likely don't have a clue about it. Why don't you e-mail them and find out what they have to say?
I bet it's not, "Oh yeah, you can make money off our copyrighted characters. We don't care, we lurve the Sims 2."

[HawkGirl]

quote]
So this "crime" gives a third party (PMBD for instance) the righ to do whatever they want with his work?
If you are worried about the trademark owners then by all means contact them and let them handle it.[/quote]

Done, just hung up with Disney legal. Thank you for the information. Anyone know of any other site selling Disney? Don't give me free sites, that would be considered fanwork.

[Hecubus]

*Hecubus chuckles

Hell hath no fury like HawkGirl and her phone.

[SparklePlenty]

So this "crime" gives a third party (PMBD for instance) the righ to do whatever they want with his work?
If you are worried about the trademark owners then by all means contact them and let them handle it.

Done, just hung up with Disney legal. Thank you for the information. Anyone know of any other site selling Disney? Don't give me free sites, that would be considered fanwork.

I got a nice note back from PepsiCo legal thanking me for informing them that Exnem and TSR were selling items with the PepsiCo brand trademarks on them.  

[HawkGirl]

If Disney/Marvel/whoever has a problem with what he's doing isn't that up to them?

This reminds me of PSP tubes.
Disney has said plainly that people are not to use their images, characters, et al...on ANYTHING without permission.
I'm rather certain that Exnem Sims didn't e-mail them asking whether or not it was alright to create these things, so that site is misusing copyrighted material blatantly. *is that a word? blatantly...?hm*
Bah, you catch my drift, I'm sure.
As for it being up to them, I'm so sure Disney has nothing better to do than run around the internet looking for these types of things. I mean, it's not like they don't have million dollar empires to run.
Realistically, they more than likely don't have a clue about it. Why don't you e-mail them and find out what they have to say?
I bet it's not, "Oh yeah, you can make money off our copyrighted characters. We don't care, we lurve the Sims 2."

They came down hard on them when they first started doing it, so did Precious Moments but then when they realized they weren't making money on it they left them alone. I had a friend that got those cease orders, then a letter saying she could post them with a disclaimer, as long as they had Disney's trademark on them, and she did not charge for them. Disney had no idea what tubes were and didn't want anyone making a penny off their characters. Several had Disney/Precious Moments disclaimers on their websites with all Disney characters are trademarked to Disney, yada yada yada...I should have snagged them then. lol Now you can hardly find any tube sites.  

If they were drawing Piglet/Pooh then they could claim them as fanart for the Sims. They could probably get away with using the images as well because they only use a portion of them. Disney links to fansites, and would probably have a link to them. As long as they are not selling them. Once they start selling them...asking for donations/subscriptions to the site, they cross the line with Disney.

Was not so long ago they went after a little elementary school right here in CA. For what? Putting on the Beauty and the Beast and charging 2 dollars a person to see it. For what? They were looking to make enough money they could afford for the children that couldn't pay to go to Disneyland. Did Disney care about the bad PR from all the newspapers here in CA? Nope. Did they care about the we will boycott Disney? Nope. The city settled out of court with Disney for the cost of licensing agreement to preform it and charge.

You know Hec I would not call these people, I don't want to see these people harmed. I don't even want to see any harm come to them from EA other than being told they cannot sell things that go into EA's product. But they don't stop. Look what they did to Delphy? Did they show even one ounce of concern for trying to destroy him? No.

Do they show any concern at all for what they are doing to designers and their copyright. To those in the community that share tools freely with the community? Like I said before, buying Poser hair then reselling it without permission. Take free hair from Poser sites that give to the community for free and then selling it? These CAD sites that give object files to the community for free and then sell them? No they do not, but they want...no they think they may pound their chest and demand what can be done with what they make. That they can call others thieves without looking at themselve in the mirror and what they are doing. They need not bother to come here and call us all theives. To begin with I do not get stuff from the booty. Check the logs if you have them. I get it from free sites, CC I know is going to be supported and taken care of if it is broken. So I do not steal from them. They are the theives as far as I am concerned. Pirates are stealing from no one. It clearly says in the contract they agreed too they may not sell CC, period.

[nohead]

You have all forgotten that these little created packages that people are trying to sell are deriviatives. [..]

Good research there but if this was directed to me then you probably missed that in the scenario i described it wouldn't be .package files that were being sold.