PMBD

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

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.

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:

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.

 

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

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.

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.



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.

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.  :?

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

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.

Thanks for that rundown!



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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

What follows is sheer speculation based upon some facts dug up while leafing through the husband's Game Informer Magazine, August 2007 issue in case any of you want to check it out as well.

EA has recently announced plans to split their game publishing into four divisions entitled EA Games, EA Casual Entertainment, EA Sports, and The Sims.

That was on the very last page, up in the right hand section of the page in a box called the Breakdown. But, if this is true, it could explain why in the hell the company has it's head up it's collective ass at the moment regarding the controversy we are involved in. They are rearranging. They aren't sure where in the hell everything actually fits in. They could well be taking names and such and getting ready to kick some asses once the Sims 2 is into their very own brand new division. You know, the "we've got our shit sorted, now let's kick some dumb fucker's ass cause I'm tired of all the e-mails I get every week about it," kind of thing. Of course, if they were going to sue just on the basis of how ugly paysite owners are, well, Thomass is going to bear the brunt of the whole damn thing. I sure hope to God that he hasn't contributed to the gene pool because his portion of it is in need of some serious bleach work...

I hope I'm in the right spot because it makes sense that it would be:

http://s95147669.onlinehome.us/beosboxboy/

the last entry. I hope it has not been posted somewhere else for fear of the plank...

I saw that last month.  It's interesting that he included Pescado and how they agree.  My favorite part, though, was "No more to come"  :lol:

I bet you're all surprised I have an opinion on the corporate changes.

(Shut up! Lemme talk!)

I once worked for a major aerospace manufacturer - the company is made up of many former competitors, so you can imagine the variety of processes, knowledge, etc. I imagine the same thing is happening at EA as it swallows up smaller game companies, like Maxis.

Now there is always a time of initial acceptance when the company is first bought - usually the employees who 'come along' are allowed to keep going as they were, with gradual policy differences (and usually a massive HR nightmare as insurance, pay, etc. gets settled). But at some point, it becomes important for them to become part of the greater whole.

And usually that time is about when a new CEO is brought in to get things running RIGHT.

This happened at EA, with the hiring of John Riccitiello. Riccitiello's known as someone who can come in and get everyone on the same page and on the right track...so I would assume that the reorganization was to take away the lines that had built based on company loyalty (the maxoids v. ea)...and make everyone work together, dammit.

So...the reorg makes perfect sense, and I would bet dollars to donuts there are people who were never IN The Sims group or even Maxis who are leading some of these teams. They're working on a new model of procedures/customer contact, thus we see some nebulous statements from customer support, and as I explained elsewhere, they're probably trying to speak with ONE voice for a change, and until they know what that voice says, they need to keep 'pronouncements' to a minimum.

Now....why is it taking EA so long to review data regarding paysites? That's easy. I suspect that (a) they only have one lawyer/paralegal on it, (b) they are actually investigating financial records as well as the sites themselves, and (c) they are gathering case law regarding license and copyright violations to see if there is precedence, and if not, how to build a case/suit/court order based on what does exist.

I'd say that has little to do with the actual reorg and more to do with the law. It seems like forever for us, but really, the big question that has sparked their investigation wasn't asked until late May...not that long ago.

So...corporate culture clashes meet major reorganization with a little typical legal process thrown in....and thus, we sit grinding our gears, fighting, and settling absolutely nothing.

Well, except for the fact that some members of this community are either twats, perverts, or fucking nuts.  :twisted:

There is of course option number 3:
Strategically hit the 10 largest and most popular abusers.   Once injunctions have been granted against these sites the rest will probably cave rather fast with simple C&D notices or DMCA notices to the ISPs.


Actual damages really aren't all that important, what is however important is getting an injunction filed against the site.   Regardless in the US at least you can file your court and lawyer costs under actual damages.

However I suspect if they do sue these places the arguments would likely hone around the fact that selling the objects is unfair competition and dilutes their trademarks.  Using tools developed under their R&D dime to create commercial content that competes directly with their object booster packs.  Not to say that would be an easy case to prove, but I believe it is doable.


It's very hard for companies to just disappear when they have fixed assets (the content itself as an asset).  When a company goes into bankruptcy they have to auction off all of the company assets otherwise they could go to spend some time in club fed for embezzlement.  The best content could be bid on by EA itself (since really it is only them they would be of any use to) and be sold in object packs, expansions, etc themselves.

Not to mention (d) They don't want to fuck it up.  These cases aren't going to be clear cut and failing on the first case can spell serious problems if not disaster for any subsequent cases.

I feel angry to Renegade at EA. I think the whole wait and see game, seems mute to me. My observation is EA needs the numbers for marketing to corporations like Ford (the free cars are paid advertisements), to Visa Corp, H & M, who knows whos next but they have movie rights sold which will include more than likely other licensed agreements with toymakers, etc. They need the numbers to sell more franchise deals. They need the  custom content sites free or pay to draw in new customers. The more of these deals they make, they increase revuenue to buy other games, or bail out their games that lost profit. Plus they need money for the development of Spore, which from online videos I get the impression they want to to make into a franchise to.

SOOO My issue is we can talk and talk about this issue, write letters, and wait. What if Sims 3 comes and nothings changed? What if they give these paysites the content maker and license agreement that took advantage of the sims 2 Community? Can you stomach that ? I as a consumer here in America, feel as there are children (under 15 involved) in our population feel we have a right to see Ea's official position, in a clear language that  even someone under 15 can understand, it should be in the game pak booklets and on the site highly visible. I dont agree with Beos's June 27th  essay that consumers here in the US dont have rights. We most certailnly do. WE can either play wait and see, and talk till we're blue in the face in circles, write letters. Or we can REALIZE we should be angry at EA too for contributing to the mess and allowing it to esculate. You cant look at what they say, but what they do. They wrote an article saying they invited their top fansite back, TSR. Now they just endorsed the site, players going to see that and think its okay to subscribe there. I know some of you have talked to the CEO of EA. They lie. my parents had a situation several years back that involved a large cable network. They had met with the owner and his lawyers face to face, they lied nothing changed after that meeting which was a face to face. Look at what they do not what they say!!! When we realize that we have rights, here in America we can go lots of places to enlist help, there are lots of consumer protection organizations. I have places I will be inquiring for help, may even try my State's Attorney's office to. I encourage all you to look to other channels, even Boycotting Sims 3.

I fail to see where EA has done anything "wrong" in this case. Yes, they have thus far failed to take any specific action against paysites, but we all know that the corporate machine moves at a glacial pace. As this matter doesn't COST them anything, there is likely no compelling reason for them to hurry, given that the status quo works fine for everyone involved.

So it stops being ok when they start losing money. I wonder how many boycut their stuff packs and expansion packs because they're unhappy. And I really wonder how many will boycut TS3.

I, myself, haven't the willpower to boycut the EPs but as it looks I won't even consider TS3 as an option. It would surprise me if I were alone in this... I wonder if enough will react this way to make a difference. After all, the community is not that great a percentage of the consumers...  :roll:

From the outside looking in, as I am not neck-deep in the sims community, I actually fail to understand what all the fuss is about.  Why do people care so much about pay sites.  There is certainly enough free content and free sites so people never need to pay.

Personally I don't agree with sites which try to make their living selling sims content.  Making a little money to pay for bandwidth is one thing, trying to make it your main source of income is another. But even when that's the case, I don't care enough to be the slightest bit angry about it.  I don't even care enough to boycott a site, if there is something there I want.  Why is everyone so freaking passionate about it??  You'd think that pay sites are sweat shops, or use child labor, or deal in the white trade. Now those are things to get upset about and boycott.

Anyway.  The whole debate seems to have produced some good results.  Made people reconsider.  Stopped or slowed the slow drifting of content to pay sites. That was a real concern. We can thank MTS2 for being such a strong counterforce to that.  Thanks to PMBD for making pay sites less exclusive and less attractive to run.

There is only one thing I am sure of.  If people make so much noise that they prod  EA to act, everyone will be unhappy.  Be careful of what you wish for.  For those who think that EA will simply sue pay sites and leave free sites alone, I have some nice land in Florida to sell you.  

To paraphrase beoboxboy in one of the link above...(go read it, that post rocked) don't wake the sleeping giant.

Just some random thoughts:

Often in these threads, I see posts asking 'why so long' or 'think of the cost' when disscussing why EA hasn't done anything.  As many have stated already, the 'communities' of other mod-able games do NOT tolerate pay sites, the publishing companies will not tolerate them.  And when one does pop up, all it usualy takes is a 'cease and desist' letter to the site owner, or their provider, to bring such things to an end.  So if EA were really serious, they could close down 99% of the pay sites within a week.  Most sites do not have the finacial backing to go up against EA, even if they truly believed they would win.
Sadly, I have come to the conclusion that EA/Maxis (either or both) put the 'no pay sites' clause in their EULA 'just in case'.  They don't feel the need to use it at this time, and may have some worry that if they did enforce it, they might loose some future revenue.

Some of the advantages to creating a mod-able game are; it extends the life cycle of the game, increases the fan base, and reduces the amount of production for the game itself.  Seriously, how many people would have stayed with Sims or Sims2 as long as they did if the only content was what shipped with the games and the EPs?  How well would the EPs have sold?

EA may fear, that if they crack down on pay sites, they will eliminate a lot of the custom content, and/or the incentive for custom content.  They may not have a realistic 'picture' of the content and creators out there.  It also may be a low priority of theirs, they are releasing what may well be the last or next-to-last EP for Sims2 before they push Sims3.  And don't forget, they have many other titles as well.

Hell, they may be even thinking of a 'franchise' arrangement in the future- allowing a paysite for Sims3 in exchange for a 'cut' of the proceeds.  If they crush paysites now, it will be harder to do that in the future.  Or they could be looking at perhaps their biggest 'life game' competitor, Second Life, which ENCOURAGES the sale of custom content.  If that model works well, EA may well go that route.

ETA:  Addressing the 'fear' that a crack down on pay sites will 'spill over' into a crack down on free sites, the history of 'mod-able games' shows this not to be valid, when ever a crack down did occur, the free sites were left alone.  The only exceptions I ever saw were crack downs on 'adult' content, but that is  a completely different thing.  And, as I stated above, no custom content would mean much less revenue for the game.

Well, if EA is going to take advantage of TSR and other paysites in the form of franchising, things will still look better for the customers. If EA is the entity behind the paysites, then the customers can file a complaint and also get refunds if the final product does not meet the standards one would expect, e.g. if a hair has gaps that are not visible in the screenshot or if a preview shot has been sharpened to hell.

I'm still hoping that this is not the direction they'll be taking, but still, it would be an improvement to the current situation where the customer has no rights whatsoever.

Good points Willy.

But what about the fact that most of the tools creators use to mod the game involve reverse engineering and that is clearly against the EULA.  Is it completely unreasonable that if they crack down on sites that break their EULA, they will also address the issue of tools like SimPE ?

I dunno, it's like having the eye of Sauron on you.  I rather they look the other way.

From The Great Paysite Debate at S2C:


http://forums.sims2community.com/showthread.php?p=974264#post974264

post #304 and post #309