1.  When you purchase something, it should come with some kind of money back guarantee.  I heard the arguments, but really, when most paysites photoshop their pictures, you're not actually buying what they are advertising.
2.  When your sub runs out, and there is a new EP released that makes what you previously bought incompatible, why should you have to by another sub just to upgrade the item you already paid for?
3.  When you have already spent your money, and I do speak from more than 1 personal experience, and it is not working properly, you cannot for the most part get help with it.  The attitude is that you paid for it so why should I care?

ok, lets try it again...

Do you believe that Exnem (paysite owner) owns or has full legal right to change a financial cost for a teddy bear (EA copyright package file) of a Disney character (Disney copyright) for use in the Sims2 game?  

Yes or No


Do you believe that Exnem (paysite owner) owns or has full legal right to charge a financial cost for a poster (EA copyright package file) of a Disney character (Disney copyright) for use in the Sims2 game?  

Yes or No

To recap:

Paysites violate the EULA agreement

EA supports file-sharing both on the Exchange and here

Paysites are bad for the community, "baiting and luring" us for their own profit

Paysite owners have done some really underhanded things

If you don't agree, fine. Go create your hypothetical program that will allow you to sell CC and circumvent the EULA.  :roll:

oh yeah....when you cant answer simple questions "suddenly" 2 others pop up (ahem and kaos) saying the exact thing you do and in the same fashion too   :wink:

Good research there - you still haven't answered my questions.

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

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.)

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.

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

I think your system would be probematic simply because there could be no indication given along with the product that it was intended for use in the Sims (meaning there should be no info included on how to set it up). If there was, the ground that the paysite and the creator would stand on would be shaky at best if someone did redistribute the work. If they tried to go after someone who redistributed the work, that person could say, "They included materials and instructions for the files to be used as a Sims product! I've done nothing illegal!". EA's own rules would have to be considered at least equal to the creator's and paysite's rules in a case like this.

Ah! You missed the most important part of point number two. It has to be a legal agreement. Neither the digital art nor the Photoshop point are good examples, both are still bound by their original terms and licenses. From what I can see, things made to be used inside of the Sims as their original intent are not. Which is why I made the point below it, the paysite would have to prove that their intent was never to have the pieces made into .package files.

Photoshop and the outside digital art obviously were never intended to be used in the Sims. Meshes and textures made to be sold on a paysite included with instructions and materials to make them into Sims files are a different kettle of fish, aren't they.

Well, it'll be even more difficult for him/her if this is the method he's proposing. Not only would it require someone willing to make this mythical program (or some kind of magician, I'm not sure), but it would also require legal documents and agreements by the room full.

As for that Photoshop thing...what? That makes so little sense, I'm not even sure where that came from. Photoshop is different from paid creations in that:

1.) What you're suggesting is totally unfeasable

2.)Photoshop is a seperate program unconnected to the Sims, that cannot be used inside of the Sims, and has it's own (legal) licensing agreements

You've said yourself that you're suggesting a system where people who download the creations will have no rights to distribute, or reuse the items for a separate purpose. Which effectively means that in order to do this they cannot put them in a package file and no information on how to do this can be included.