PMBD

I don't think this has been posted here already (apologies if it has - i certainly can't find it)

What does everyone reckon to Echos interpretation of EAs EULA? I dont know where she's getting her information from.

http://sims.eternal-echo.net/other/copyright.php

she wouldnt approve of the booty, methinks:


I think someone needs to correct her. I would personally do a very crappy job of it myself. What she's saying directly contradicts EA's own statement that

That is an incorrect understanding of the way that this site and other sites of this type function. The work is not being redistributed because it is against the EULA (and frankly it is  :roll: , and while on some sites it might be difficult to prove on most it would not be), but it is being redistributed because the EULA says nothing about sharing CC created with their "tools and materials" as being wrong.

Frankly, even if EA "tacitly" approves of paysites, file sharing sites have equal "tacit" approval. There is nothing written here that proves the file sharing sites are in the wrong.

Edit: Sorry, this really bugged me as it is so nonsensical as to be meaningless to the argument.



Not making a profit off of your business is not proof of not selling a product that you shouldn't be selling. All it is proof of is being a poor business person.

here here!  If you're in the hole with a sims2 custom content paysite, either your content sucks, your buisness sense sucks, or perhaps, a bit of both....  Erm.. Things that cost you nothing to make by default make you money if you sell them.

The Echoloian interpretation of the EULA is not really relevant to the matter: It does not matter whether paysites are "right" or "wrong". What MATTERS is that the EULA states that *WE* may include materials created with said tools and materials on our website regardless of whether the site creating it is "pay" or "free", as copyright to the game content is held by EA, and we are simply following through with our option to "include materials created with the Tools & Materials on your personal noncommercial website". Therefore, it is irrelevant whether paysites are "right" or "wrong". Anyone may redistribute ANY such content on their personal website, and the redistribution policies imposed by content creators have absolutely no force whatsoever. The only reason we don't distribute free content is because we choose not to. Technically, if I wanted to create a flat out repository-of-everything, I could. But that's been done already: It's called THE EXCHANGE.

Has anyone e-mailed her to correct her interpretation (as I said i would do it but im crap at this kind of thing).

Her addy:
echo_eternity84[at]yahoo.com

she does actually have a point here. EA need to remove paysites from their official links page: they are giving out the wrong message by keeping sites like tsr on their links page and contradicting their own statements.

That point keeps bothering me... do you think that really all Paysite owners are legally registered as business-owners, at least in those places where it is required? Do they pay taxes? Do they do all the things a RL business owner has to do?

*Prints off a copy of Echoe's response and blows nose in it*


Ahh, nice tissue from Echo. OHHHH, there were senseless ramblings on that paper? Oh well..........LOL

I was using the term business a bit facetiously, as I doubt very many paysites have declared themselves a business, and I would think that even less are paying taxes related to their "business" in the countries where they are based. I was working off of the example that Echo provided which seemed to imply that a paysite could not be seen as breaking the EULA (and in a sense, functioning as a provider of goods or a "business") unless it was making a profit.

And on the list of links from the official site there are a few dead links, so this is tacit approval of dead sites.

(Unless they've removed them since I've last been there, but I really doubt it.)

ETA: The whole "tacit approval" thing is baffling to me.

If the EULA and/or EAxis doesn't say anything about making all of my Sims have the same skin tone, is that tacit approval or disapproval for racism?  If the EULA and/or EAxis doesn't say anything about making all of my Sims exactly the same, is that tacit approval or disapproval of clones?  If the EULA and/or EAxis doesn't say anything about masturbating to the Sims, is that tacit approval or disapproval to using the game as pornography?

My father hasn't said anything to me about my dating habits.  Is that tacit approval or disapproval?  Does he expect that I'll make the right choices or does he not care?

It's like looking for images in clouds, or listening for demonic messages in songs played backwards.  If someone tells you it's there, you'll more than likely see/hear it, whether your mind is forcing you see/hear it or not.  But if no one tells you it's there, you might not see/hear it.  You might see/hear something entirely different, or you might see/hear the same thing.

---

(Sorry for being too lazy to go to another thread about the following silly comments.)  I'm also seeing some tunnel vision--when I logged onto dA to clear out my messages, there was a message concerning their TOS.  People were focussing on clause 16:

16. Copyright in Your Content

deviantART does not claim ownership rights in Your Content. For the sole purpose of enabling us to make your Content available through the Service, you grant to deviantART a non-exclusive, royalty-free license to reproduce, distribute, re-format, store, prepare derivative works based on, and publicly display and perform Your Content. Please note that when you upload Content, you allow third parties to copy, distribute and display your Content.

Apparently it sent them into a tizzy about it, screaming about people stealing from artists and whatnot.  I see the same thing with the people going on about how EAxis is going to take away CC from us forever because we started screaming.  (Not that other people weren't already screaming in their ear already.)

Anyway, then we have clause 19 of the dA TOS, pointed out in the announcement about the controversy:

19. Conduct

You are responsible for all of Your Content you upload, download, and otherwise copy, distribute and display using the Service. You must have the legal right to copy, distribute and display all parts of any content that you upload, download and otherwise copy, distribute and display. Content provided to you by others, or made available through websites, magazines, books and other sources, are protected by copyright and should not be uploaded, downloaded, or otherwise copied, distributed or displayed without the consent of the copyright owner or as otherwise permitted by law.

And finally:

"you would need to provide proof that no other agreement exists between the creator/site owner and EA (ie - a statement from one of these parties stating that no such agreement exists)"

That statement bothers me.  Of course the paysite owner would say that they never agreed to anything that said they couldn't run a paysite...

I thought that was weird too. Frankly, I should think that the onus would be on the paysite in this case, i.e. the paysite would have to provide information or an agreement from EA stating that they are allowed to sell their CC. They could say that they had never seen or agreed to anything that forbid it (and, please  :roll: ), but I would hope that their site isn't running that bit of text that the EULA says they must post.

*looks at the calendar*
Yep, that'd be about three months since the last time someone on this forum "discovered" that particular document. This is hardly the first time I've had this discussion here. ;)

If you want to disagree with my interpretation of the EULA, I welcome it. I love a good debate. I'm always delighted to have a proper argument with people about the issues and legalities involved, although I'd prefer to do it via PM or email because whenever I engage in these discussions via forums I tend to get swamped with irrelevant trivia which makes it prohibitively difficult to argue a single point cohesively.

I did do a fair amount of my own research in writing that, and I haven't yet been convinced by any arguments otherwise. There is definitely room for interpretation in several of the clauses you focus on in the EULA.

It's also generally good form if, rather than simply accusing me of "pointless ramblings" in a forum you think I don't frequent, you would confront me personally with your differing opinion, just as the original poster suggested. My email address has never been kept a secret, and my PM box on MTS2 (almost) always has space for more messages. :)

Take care all,
Echo

(ps - Is it just me or does that smiley face look unusually sinister?)

Echo, gotta love necromancy, eh?

And of course the smilies look evil..it's a Pescado forum, after all!

But on topic: There is yet another huge debate going on, this time at S2C....and the truth of the matter is, all the reasoned debating in the world won't solve anything; it's only action by EA that will make any difference.

Meanwhile, I hope good creators keep creating, and that the items are free for all who want to use them in their game.

OH yeah, and TSR must die.  :twisted:

Eh, haven't you seen Hecubus? On this forum apparently everything old is new again (I knew I should've asked if this had been discussed before...bad, mando, bad!). I still don't agree with your (Echo's) interpretation of several things in the document, but I wrote out my thoughts not because I didn't think you would see them, or that I thought that what you wrote was pointless (although I will admit to having used the term "nonsensical"  :lol: ). I think debate is valuable, and much more useful up front where people can see it rather then just hidden in PMs and emails. In the future, I will be sure to send an email to let concerned parties know that something they wrote is being discussed.

I've been following the recent S2C debate as well, and while interesting, Hecubus is right that it will hardly solve anything. However, I do think that it's good that people can discuss and debate their problems and concerns about the current situation (from either side) out in the open.


Edit: Fixed up a sentence that I thought sounded weird, and added a little more.

In that I agree, and I have no objection to such conversations being posted or shared in public. But I'm a debater at heart, and I prefer to debate with individuals who can also hold together a cohesive argument.  :) Trying to argue in a forum is not really a debate with an individual, but rather open slather, with anyone and everyone throwing in their two cents. I'd rather not try to argue with 25 people all at once, each with subtly different opinions. That's all.

Ah, but see, DeviantArt works differently. DeviantArt DOESN'T claim to own anything. EAxis, on the other hand, claims all your CC are belong to them.

The S2C discussion is really pissing me the fuck off, because I've patiently explained copyright law and intention, what the redistribution allowances in the EULA mean, and everyone actually ignored my last couple of posts to bicker with one another.

But to say that you want debate, but no one can convince you, is utterly laughable, Echo.  Nothing you said actually has much of anything to do with the real issue of file redistribution and the EULA, when you're talking about content for the sims.

There actually is no valid, supported position on the opposite end of the EULA argument at this point.  One can argue that it's impolite to share other creators' custom sims content, but it is most definitely something you agreed to when you installed and ran EA's software on your computer--that items in their file format and created with and for their software are EA's property and may be redistributed freely.

You may not agree with it, and you may believe that you retain all rights to your works, even in others' formats with their IP contained within, but the proper vehicle is to test the idea legally, not whining against those who are following the licensing agreement given to them in the first place.  You've got to throw out the EULA before you can say jack shit and have any sort of winning argument.

People can and do waive the right to their creative works all the time.  Those who've been deceived into thinking poetry.com is a valid operation do consistently, the poor deluded SOBs.  If you submit works to any sort of contest, you're giving the contest operators the right to reuse those works as they see fit, 99% of the time.  By creating a file using the EA format, you give up the right to control the redistribution of the content in that format.

Now, you're not waiving your ultimate copyright over whatever original material you added, which in many cases, is very little.  But if you hand created a texture for a Sims item, nothing is stopping you from using it in other things...whether it be 3D modeling projects or selling a print of a digital painting you turned into a sims painting...nothing's stopping you from selling a mesh you made on turbosquid.  You just gave up the right to be an anal-retentive control freak over .package files by making .package files.

Apple controls .aac files, it was a way to try and keep down "piracy."  This isn't a new or foreign concept to anyone who knows anything about DRM shit.  File formats can be controlled--this generally surfaces as protected media files, but there are even rules to putting something on a shiny disc you made to officially dub it a CD!  When Sony put garbage "protection" on some audio CDs that quietly installed drivers on your computer that made it impossible to listen to your CD media on your computer, they were no longer allowed to actually say that the shiny disc was a CD.

So if you want to mess with .package files, do what EA says or fucking sue them, but stop whining.

JM: Yeah, I know they're different--my point, hidden among all the other crap, was about tunnel vision.

The discussion on S2C confuses me.  It keeps shifting to other topics, like filesharing at large and "DO U CAER ABOUT OTHER CREATORS AT ALLL???!!!  EA?  Oh, they aren't fellow creators, you know.  Not peers at all."

And the whole "it's not your place to intervene" isn't making much sense to me.  I guess if I saw someone was in danger and I was able to help, I should just step aside and not butt in, because, y'know, I'm not a cop or a fire-fighter, so I don't have any right to help those I am able to help.  I still wonder why the people who say people shouldn't do anything about the paysite issue participate at all or why the people who say others should be nice seem to be the rudest ones of all...

Cheese? Babies? I can give you both.

Why can't I ever put in such an eloquent wording? I try to tell people: all we wanna do is plunder teh B00tey! Or not pludner it, but being able to. Arr!

When it states in the EULA about the tools and materials....does this include SimPE, which was not created by EA or Maxis?  If someone creates a mesh using SimPE is it still covered by the EULA?  I am not trying to have rotten fruit thrown at me, and this may have been addressed.  Anyway.....who's got the rum???

Materials are the .package files. So anything that ends up being a .package file is covered no matter what you do to it, even if you use a different tool.

Thank you for your response.  I am not a creator, I just play....and download  :D .  I asked a customer of mine who is an attorney in Washington DC and works with patents and registration of trademarks (he also is a consultant for the Trade Commission for legal purposes)about this.  His response was, and I am quoting to the best of my memory, that if you worked for a company that had a software that was patented and registered and was the source of income because of the "branding" and you did "side" work using their software resulting in a profit without their consent that it is a violation and is illegal and all profit made from such would belong to the patent/registered trademark owner.  Is that essentially what the EULA is stating?  Since this has been an ongoing issue, I am just trying to fully understand.

Pretty much, yes.

Consider also that EA expressely demands that whoever has a Sims fan site will put the "Game contents and materials © EA. All rights reserved".
And also adds that you have to put it on every page which contains any game content made by you.

I heavily doubt that, in legal terms, not putting that statement on your site makes you "tee-hee pffffft now the copyright is mine".

In a nutshell, the whole issue might maybe be condensed in: what part of ALL RIGHTS RESERVED you didn't understand?
 :P

In a nutshell, the whole issue might maybe be condensed in: what part of ALL RIGHTS RESERVED you didn't understand?

I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to be stupid or dense.  Thank you for your response.

I think Marhis (and please our wonderful Pirate Nun correct me if I am wrong) was just stating that in general, not to you. That is what it says in most copy write text and the "you" was a generalization, not "you" as in you... I think (and I also think I have confused myself in this process. LOL)

Wooops! Absolutely yes, what Bigtruckgirl said  :D.

I was addressing that "you" to alleged copyright whiners, not you-you (I definitely need to choose better my smilies).

No worries Marhis....I just figured you had your habit in a twist.  But, it's cool.  Thanks for setting it straight though.  I appreciate it.   :D

Hello Echo. I respect you very much as a creator, but you say yourself, you are not a lawyer.

But this is exactly what you are doing yourself. EA has made their position very clear. Once your stuff goes into a .package file, EA owns the copyright, and the community can distribute it as they will, whether is pay or free. No matter if even 99% of the stuff in there you made from scratch, that 1% of code needed to make it run in TS2 makes it EAs.

Why do you seem to think your interpretation holds more weight than EA's own?

Instead of giving your own version of what the EULA means, why not just ask EA for a 'human-readable' version? I'm sure that will clarify things much better for you. All the best.

This entire topic seems to be such a slippery slope.  It's back and forth, back and forth.  Just this constant tug of war over legal vs illegal.  From what I've seen on all the discussion pages (across the wonderous & multiple forums) the pro-pay seem to be sticking to their guns and providing a response to support their tattered logic --no matter how juvenile it may seem.  It doesn't look like we're going to be able to convince them anytime soon.  

What really struck me? While the pro-pay are spewing their childish responses, more Simfans are being pulled into the trap and wasting their money.  While we may not be able to convince any of the owners of these websites, I think it's our duty to inform the public and let them make their own decision.  Taking both arguments into consideration, it seems to be a proper 'grey area' --neither proved 'nor disproved in a way that either party will both totally accept.  

My suggestion? Let's have the people make up their own mind.  Money talks.  So maybe we can't make the pro-pay turn their website towards 'free'.  But if more people know that the choice to not pay exists, they'll choose whichever they see fit.  (There are lots of items that people can get for free or cheap but choose to buy properly for a sense of luxury, establishment, goodwill.  If people actually want to donate, they will regardless.)

When the money runs dry, we'll see who create content for love of the game or love of the green.

[Forgot to add..]
Having said that, the whole point was 'ooh lookie, more publicity for PMBD'.  Seriously.  It took me months to find this place.  Google is my bitch --I looked HARD.  I knew that something like this had to exist, I just didn't quite know where to find it.  I'm sure that I wasn't alone in my search.  Other people MUST have the same idea, yeah?

<end transmission>

I would bet you money that Rose does not pay US sales taxes, and that all the 12 year-olds that gleefully start a pay site with no business licenses or tax ID numbers are NOT paying sales or income taxes in whatever country they are doing business in. They don't see it as business, but just "free money!" As a 12 year-old would.

There is no similar excuse for obvious business-oriented sites such as TSR (employees) and Rose. They know they are evading taxes. And the Russian Sims 2 pay sites are more than likely operating illegally in Russia, too, as part of the notorious piracy/bootleg/underground economy. They sure as hell ain't paying income taxes in Russia!

Just a thought has anyone turned over a list of paysites to the IRS? Doesn't matter if they are located in the USA, they'll contact whom they need to in these paysites own country. The IRS is harsh when you owe them a dime, it will quickly become 1,000 dollars. I remember my sister and brother in law didn't file one year because they knew they'd owe money. He owns his own construction company. Anyway they went from owing the IRS 2,000 dollars to over 2 million in less than a year with everything they tacked on fines/penalties/etc.

Oh and PS he also thought he shouldn't have to file because he was not yet a legal citizen, but one of the workers turned him in. That was part of the reason he gave us for why he never filed. Said he'd owe money if he did and besides he's not a legal citizen. Turns out he also wasn't paying taxes in his own country either and since he was doing business with American citizens....

You may be onto something here.  In the US, soon the various state sales taxes will need ot be collected.  What about in other countries?  I am not saying to try to collect US taxes on a German site.  But what about local taxing authorities where the site is registered?
Drown them in red tape, or is that just too nasty.