Print Page - The sheeps are at it again!

The Pirate Ship => ARR! => Topic started by: Xerolize on 2006 December 10, 05:06:23

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Xerolize on 2006 December 10, 05:06:23

hXXp://forums.sims2community.com/showthread.php?t=30718

More exposure for PSMBD. :lol:

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: neriana on 2006 December 10, 05:27:47

A threat to sue before she even opens a site in the first place.

I... just...

*head asplode*

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Solowren on 2006 December 10, 05:29:23

The S2C folk are fun to poke.

....Oh shit. Too much Dr. Seuss.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Plum on 2006 December 10, 05:30:22

Quote

I am soon going to be opening my site, and if I feel the need for donations, well I have my lawyers working on it already.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Xerolize on 2006 December 10, 05:36:23

:lol: The suing part was hilarious. how can sue and have a lawyer set up and you don't even have a site! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Plum on 2006 December 10, 05:39:50

I think it's sweet. She's going to Save the Community!

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: neriana on 2006 December 10, 05:42:47

I also liked how she doubted the site was really in Malaysia because we speak English.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Plum on 2006 December 10, 05:45:39

I know! How freaking adorable is she? I want to make a sweater out of her.

Also, someone just posted a link to the booty. That was bold. :o

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: seapup on 2006 December 10, 05:47:52

What do ya want out of someone who doesn't know the difference between persecuted and prosecuted. :roll: :lol:

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Plum on 2006 December 10, 05:50:18

A sweater. Dyed a pretty color.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: ChloeFox on 2006 December 10, 05:56:56

can i take credit for that? lol, i just had too. i couldn't take another pathetic post from them. and she's so off her rocker that i expected her to do it first. :) bambibaby is going to get banned but chloefox will reign high!!!

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Plum on 2006 December 10, 06:00:12

Would probably be better if it were a link to the site, rather than just straight to the booty. But, meh, it's cute anyway.

*bored*

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Brn Pyrate Grrl on 2006 December 10, 06:02:12

Sheep make tasty shish kabobs :twisted:

I promise you they all make my ass twitch :roll:

Awwwwwww how cute... they linked to the booty! *dies laughing as she continues to roast sheep kabobs over open fire*

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: ChloeFox on 2006 December 10, 06:03:48

I did, but it came up booty. I mostly just can't wait to see more bla bla bla how dare you posts show up on here lol.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Pescado on 2006 December 10, 06:04:26

Quote from: "seapup"

What do ya want out of someone who doesn't know the difference between persecuted and prosecuted. :roll: :lol:

I thought we already *WERE* persecuted.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: seapup on 2006 December 10, 06:18:30

Quote from: "Pescado"

Quote from: "seapup"

What do ya want out of someone who doesn't know the difference between persecuted and prosecuted. :roll: :lol:

I thought we already *WERE* persecuted.

We are. I just want to see her reaction to her lawyer laughing his ass off at her for trying to prosecute us. :lol:

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Absolute on 2006 December 10, 06:22:21

That thread got boring fast..

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Plum on 2006 December 10, 06:26:27

Quote from: "Absolute"

That thread got boring fast..

Seriously. :/ The OP needs to come back; she was funny.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Solowren on 2006 December 10, 06:29:18

Someone ask her to come back through a pm. :o

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: andygal on 2006 December 10, 06:33:56

Quote

And Why haven't people collaborated and tried to sue the pants off these guys, their english was good, which means that they probably aren't in malasyia, which means that they can be persecuted.

All I can say is LOLLOLOL.

That's totally fucked up logic, not to mention borderline RACIST!

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Plum on 2006 December 10, 06:35:15

Quote from: "Your Mother Has Scurvy"

Someone ask her to come back through a pm. :o

"Hey, would you post in your thread more so we can laugh at how dumb you are? We're getting bored over here. Thanks." xD

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: wicked_one on 2006 December 10, 06:54:56

Quote

Via the exchange he came across this site whose URL I am not going to mention here because it's well not a good site for creators who have a donation section/ will one day have a donation section.

ok first of all what a dumb name for a couple, six and sex...and why share an account that you both regularly post on? just to confuse people? its bad enough they look almost alike...blah anyways...
the sheep that see her thread (well those that can figure out Google) can find their way here...so wouldnt the wise thing be to not mention the name of the site?
then she says shes planning on opening up a "donation" site...check out her mts2 downloads--the only 2 things she has made is an ugly girl named Bob and a decent-looking girly guy....both of which are 6 months old lol
he/she/they/it have also posted up pics to tease people over at s2c like a skintone (http://forums.sims2community.com/showpost.php?p=688413&postcount=239)...a very brightly-lit pic of a sim (http://forums.sims2community.com/showpost.php?p=681409&postcount=99)...another girly looking guy (http://forums.sims2community.com/showpost.php?p=681404&postcount=13) (the real guy has a stronger jawline than their sim version)...and i didn't bother looking at their sims for the contests they entered
if they're going to make themselves a pay site it will be like Carla Niven lol
so go ahead and make your paysite, it will give us something to laugh at even more, especially with all the misspellings and threats to sue people (I'll bet they'll put up a very retailsims-ish warning/disclaimer thingy too)

She/He/They gave me quite a giggle....thanks for linking to it, i rarely read any of the oodles of crap over there lol

And I love bluesoups post :)

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Quinctia on 2006 December 10, 07:06:15

HEY GUYS, did you know that dot-com urls cost tons of money per month? That's why sites need donations...

*giggle*

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: lemmiwinks on 2006 December 10, 07:18:42

The thread is still open. This speaks volumes. The community may finally be realizing that the coin has two sides.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Absolute on 2006 December 10, 07:23:15

Quote from: "wicked_one"

Quote

Via the exchange he came across this site whose URL I am not going to mention here because it's well not a good site for creators who have a donation section/ will one day have a donation section.

Isn't sharing a account with someone a ban worthy offense at S2C?

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Plum on 2006 December 10, 07:47:23

Quote from: "Lemmiwinks"

The thread is still open. This speaks volumes. The community may finally be realizing that the coin has two sides.

There's just no mods on.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Super_Pirate_Dude on 2006 December 10, 07:47:54

Quote

I am soon going to be opening my site, and if I feel the need for donations, well I have my lawyers working on it already.

Not the lawyers! :shock:

Quote

And Why haven't people collaborated and tried to sue the pants off these guys, their english was good, which means that they probably aren't in malasyia, which means that they can be persecuted

Classic logic ( :shock: )! Just because someone has good english, that doesn't mean they can't be in a different country/state/continent (whatever).

I love seeing people at other sites get pissed off because of us.

But, hey the more people that know of us, the more that don't donate to paysites, and the more sites threaten us with plastic swords!

They have plastic swords, but we have cannons! (and sarcastic humor)

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Solowren on 2006 December 10, 07:52:38

Quote from: "Plum"

Quote from: "Lemmiwinks"

The thread is still open. This speaks volumes. The community may finally be realizing that the coin has two sides.

There's just no mods on.

Aww. I was hoping they were actually letting the thread fester. :(

...Much like a wound.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: lemmiwinks on 2006 December 10, 07:55:29

"thread fester" I must add this to my list.
Thank you.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Super_Pirate_Dude on 2006 December 10, 07:57:33

Quote from: "Lemmiwinks"

The thread is still open. This speaks volumes. The community may finally be realizing that the coin has two sides.

What would a one-sided coin look like anyway ? :D

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Pescado on 2006 December 10, 08:33:25

Very twisted. You'd have to kinda warp it into a Mobius Coin.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Super_Pirate_Dude on 2006 December 10, 08:43:23

Intresting..... Would it be heads or tails? lol, just kidding

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Plum on 2006 December 10, 09:32:27

There's been a mod on for awhile (boolPropped) but he hasn't seen the thread yet. It's amusing.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: xBlackxDahliax on 2006 December 10, 09:50:25

Wow. It never ceases to amuse me when they threaten legal action. If you called a lawyer and explained that thousands of people were ripping off your "donation" sim objects, I wonder how many words you'd get out before being hung up on.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Marhis on 2006 December 10, 10:47:24

"It's for the bandwidth"
"It's for the hard work"
"It's for the time I spent"

"It's for .com costs" addeed.

Next: "It's for the lawyers' fees"

Wanna bet? :P

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: jesserocket on 2006 December 10, 10:52:58

Blah, that person's a twat who doesn't know what they're talking about...sixsexsix is also an extremely silly username.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Captain Feathersword on 2006 December 10, 10:57:23

To have your lawyers working on a cse before it even exists is... um... different?
If the only reason s/t/he/y are opening the site is to be able to sue "us" then why not offer assistance to someone who already has a case? Makes more sense as there's always the chance they'll turn out to be as good as Carla Niven and we'll be so in awe of their creative genius (and scared of their lawyers) that the site won't be pillaged.

I'd post over there but I'm not registered and that only means more tryping. bleh

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: jesserocket on 2006 December 10, 11:12:30

I like the way they apparently have MULTIPLE lawyers. Not just a lawyer, to be consulted for issues like this...but a TEAM of them, for every legal whim they have...or every case that they need to be defended in.....>.>

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: torque on 2006 December 10, 11:20:49

DAHLETED!!!

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: jesserocket on 2006 December 10, 11:22:19

Lol. Not even LOCKED. Just deleted. Those twats.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Plum on 2006 December 10, 11:40:18

Quote from: "jesserocket"

Lol. Not even LOCKED. Just deleted. Those twats.

QFT.

EDIT: bambibaby isn't banned. Neat.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Aquamarine on 2006 December 10, 16:47:20

Quote from: ".torque."

DAHLETED!!!

FUCK!

I always miss these threads. : /

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Ensign EO on 2006 December 10, 17:42:10

This must be why I should stop sleeping and never leave the house.

Screenshots, anyone?

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Xerolize on 2006 December 10, 17:49:31

I suck. I don't have screenshots. I only copied and pasted bits of it. I left around 2AM so i don't have anything after that.

Quote

sixsexsix
Test Subject

sixsexsix's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2006

Angry Paysites Must be destroyed?!?!

So I Six was wandering around the apartment while Sex was downloading stuff from the exchange, I don't like the exchange but he for some reason does. Via the exchange he came across this site whose URL I am not going to mention here because it's well not a good site for creators who have a donation section/ will one day have a donation section.

The fact that there is a site like this kind of rubs me the wrong way. First it's robbing us of our sites like retailsims, and second their cause is so very I want to say, hippie-esque, (no offense to you nonstealing hippies), but society everywhere now whether everyone admits it or not is capitalistic and this site is going to simply be beating their heads against the wall because not every pay site is going to close over this. I mean I don't personally contribute to anysite (I have gone halfsies on a membership before) I know there are people who do simply because they want to donate to allow the creators to keep up their free section or to keep posting things period.

I am soon going to be opening my site, and if I feel the need for donations, well I have my lawyers working on it already.

And Why haven't people collaborated and tried to sue the pants off these guys, their english was good, which means that they probably aren't in malasyia, which means that they can be persecuted.

Anyways, this really ****** me off and that kind of put me on my soap box , so sorry for the rant but this really got under my skin and I was wondering if anyone else feels the same.

Hamsterball
Elite Forces
Star Award Winner

Hamsterball's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Top Secret Confidential Information protected by the SWAT. And CIA. And FBI. And LAN.

Default

Uh. Wow. That's... Quite an opinion, there.

First of all... I think this should be a debate?

Second of all, I personally don't pay for content, because I really don't have that extra amount of money () but I believe they deserve good money for the amazing stuff they are making, especially when they have to upkeep their website and everything. So overall, although I don't use paysites, I believe they're not all bad.

Yup. Okay. Done

melanie
Elite Forces

melanie's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New Zealand

Default

Some people believe that sites do not need donation packs to continue, but the fact is they probably do because I bet a .com url costs quite a bit every month. If they do not like pay sites, they can just ignore them . They don't have to ruin it for:
-the majority of people who are probably smart enough to figure out sites need donations to stay alive, and offering nothing in return for donations probably wouldn't get the site the money to stay alive
-the people who have actually donated.
-the people who download free content of a site that also has a pay area.

So those people on the site that sixsexsix mentioned are pretty much ignorant pigs.

Psy10
Elite Forces

Psy10's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2006

Default

I'd like to see what lawyer has taken your case. Seriously... What you've described for your future site isn't "donations". They are in fact purchases. When you withhold items/merchandise from someone and the only way they can receive them is by paying then you're a merchant and they are a customer not a donator. Also, your site will be fresh and new what possible reason do you have to offer pay items?

oniella
Immortalized Industry Leader
Star Award Winner

oniella's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Smoggyville, CA ... But England eventually... hopefully...

Default

I agree that what these people are doing is wrong.... there are a few points in your post that I would just like to point out

a. Just because their english is good, doesn't mean they arn't in Malasyia, of course... it does seem a little true
b. I doubt you could sue them, especially since it's just a game (I know the content is money, but .... I really can't see people taking that serious)
c. This is probably gonna get locked (though i've been wrong before), people have made posts about this at least 5 times before this.
Proud Member of Saucy Talkers for Random Thingies!!!
remember it's only a game and a site...
oniella is online now Report Bad Post    Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
oniella

sixsexsix
Test Subject

sixsexsix's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2006

Default

If they donate to my site and then post the gift on theirs it will be intellectual property theft, and that is a crime. And I haven't figured out how exactly I'm going to set up my site yet. I'm thinking of monthly gifts, if I ever get to that point.

I'm just waiting for my chance to sue. So if I see any of my stuff I can serve them. And you're right it's probably going to get locked. lol. I just kind of vented lol.

sixsexsix
View Public Profile

Zora
Resident
Star Award Winner

Zora's Avatar

Join Date: May 2006
Location: Next to the computer

Default

Hmmm...I see all you lurkers and spectators at the bottom of my screen. How long do you guys think it will take before this gets locked?

For what it's worth...Retail Sims is back. No harm, no foul, lol!

oniella
Immortalized Industry Leader
Star Award Winner

oniella's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Smoggyville, CA ... But England eventually... hopefully...

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zora
How long do you guys think it will take before this gets locked?

Hmmm I give it.... 10 min

sixsexsix
Test Subject

sixsexsix's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2006

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oniella
Hmmm I give it.... 10 min

I'll take your ten minutes and raise you 5. 15 minutes lol

Psy10
Elite Forces

Psy10's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2006

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sixsexsix
I'm just waiting for my chance to sue. So if I see any of my stuff I can serve them. And you're right it's probably going to get locked. lol. I just kind of vented lol.

You’ll never get your chance. You have no leg to stand on. Like my girl Beyonce said:

...to the left to the left.

<------------------

Sue?

photo_me2004
Minor Leaguer

photo_me2004's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Oregon/Kentucky

Default

i personally agree with Psy... it'll never go through... no one will ever win this battle, and EA will never do anything about it so it will just go around and around until people get smart and give it up.... just an opinion, hope no one eats my soul.

I did copy a bit more after this but it's only spam. People saying they like nouk, holy simoly, etc... nothing important.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: PirateBooty on 2006 December 10, 18:21:26

HystericalParoxysm is such a crusty old cunt of a bitch.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: BlueSoup on 2006 December 10, 18:39:13

Quote from: "Xerolize"

I did copy a bit more after this but it's only spam. People saying they like nouk, holy simoly, etc... nothing important.

Hey, I posted on that thread and I didn't say that :P

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Quorneater on 2006 December 10, 19:46:02

Well eventually all the best threads are killed...

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: ChloeFox on 2006 December 10, 19:46:42

Quote from: "PirateBooty"

HystericalParoxysm is such a crusty old cunt of a bitch.

Oh but she is not!! Oh the lovely HP has sparred me S2S life!!!!!! :roll:

Warning, 5 points ra r ar ar ar a r ar albla bla bla bla bla HAHAHHAHAHAH

I'm prepared to spare me screen again in the near future!!!!

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: PirateBooty on 2006 December 10, 20:02:34

even if she banned you, you just need to make a new account :P

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Quorneater on 2006 December 10, 20:10:17

That guy in your avatar desperately needs a makeover! Or is that you just after you got up?

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Aquamarine on 2006 December 10, 20:17:20

THE POWERS OF CAPITALISM WILL SURELY SAVE US!!!

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: PirateBooty on 2006 December 10, 20:44:51

Quote from: "teadrinker"

That guy in your avatar desperately needs a makeover! Or is that you just after you got up?

Why yes, that is me.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Xerolize on 2006 December 10, 22:21:22

Quote from: "BlueSoup"

Quote from: "Xerolize"

I did copy a bit more after this but it's only spam. People saying they like nouk, holy simoly, etc... nothing important.

Hey, I posted on that thread and I didn't say that :P

You must have posted after i left.

also, what did HP say?

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: PirateBooty on 2006 December 10, 22:29:30

HP said

Thread deleted by HystericalParoxysm
Reason: Discussion of this topic is NOT allowed on this site.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Anouk on 2006 December 11, 00:15:11

Hysterical Paradoxysm izze cool, hmmmkay?

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: PirateBooty on 2006 December 11, 01:35:19

I disagree

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: jesserocket on 2006 December 11, 01:54:00

Quote from: "BlueSoup"

Quote from: "Xerolize"

I did copy a bit more after this but it's only spam. People saying they like nouk, holy simoly, etc... nothing important.

Hey, I posted on that thread and I didn't say that :P

Quite! I took the time to point out that if the OP went halves's on a sub, then by their own logic, they were no cleaner than us. Because they benefited from a paysite, without 'donating' the required amount. Shameful. Disgraceful. STEALING, that is.

And HP may have just been doing her mod-job, but if my job required me to carry out mindless censorship, over a subject which isn't especially offensive or dangerous, just a difference in opinion...well, I wouldn't stick with it. Aside from a few spots, the discussion was perfectly civilized, there were a few brown nosers saying 'Oh my, someone get a mod, quick!' and the OP being a little bit smug, but. Ugh. I don't know why I'm surprised it got deleted, I guess I'm not, but...it just seems so...stupid, y'know?

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Xeon_Black on 2006 December 11, 07:08:55

I just have to say this:

A good majority of Malaysians do speak english, even to the extent that some can't speak their own native language fluently anymore. We have newspaper printed in english, adverts in english, and countless of western programs on tv, etc. Sure, we have our share of those who aren't so well-versed in that language, but that goes the same for most other western countries, like the european side.

sixsexshiz (or whatever its name is) clearly is an ignorant twit, and yes, can't it figure that dozens of people all over the world post here as well?

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: wicked_one on 2006 December 11, 07:42:47

Quote from: "PirateBooty"

HystericalParoxysm is such a crusty old cunt of a bitch.

well i dont know about all that but this kind of surprised me...
http://forums.sims2community.com/showthread.php?t=30750
HP says its against the EULA to install the game onto all of your computers, that you must purchase a new copy (and new copies of each EP) for each of your computers....and tells nerina that shes violating it and locks the thread.
Now, I personally only have the one computer, but I dont see what would be so wrong with installing the game on more than one computer if they are all in ONE house....if that is against the EULA I think almost everyone is violating it...considering most people install it on their desktop AND laptop.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: lemmiwinks on 2006 December 11, 07:57:34

Quote from: "wicked_one"

Quote from: "PirateBooty"

HystericalParoxysm is such a crusty old cunt of a bitch.

This is interesting. I always thought the EULAs were bullshit. If you paid for it, you own it. This is possibly an out for the paysite owners.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: lucy_fell on 2006 December 11, 10:57:00

Quote from: "wicked_one"

I dont see what would be so wrong with installing the game on more than one computer if they are all in ONE house....if that is against the EULA I think almost everyone is violating it...considering most people install it on their desktop AND laptop.

Agreed, as this happens in my household. Also, I'd take HP's last post seriously if it weren't for that dancing padlock smiley. The hell?

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Marhis on 2006 December 11, 11:41:05

I heared somewhere that the point of EULAs is not about the mechanical installation itself on more than one pc, but about the simultaneous use of the software.

I mean: if I have the same game/OS/whatever installed on more than one computer, BUT I can use only one of them at the time, it's legal: if you have the game on a desktop pc and on a laptop, but you play only one of them, it's ok. If another person plays on desktop pc while you are playing on laptop, is illegal.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Randomness on 2006 December 11, 12:23:39

Quote from: "Marhis"

I'd imagine that the reason that would be illegal is that one of them would require a No-CD Crack to operate (unless I'm mistaken), so I think you might be correct there.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Moose on 2006 December 11, 14:19:22

Actually once loaded, the game doesn't need the CD to play. So if you boot up the game and then take the CD out, the game should run just fine and someone else can boot up the game with the CD. Granted, this would only work between two computers close to each other, but it's still possible to run multiple games off of the same CD.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: jicour on 2006 December 11, 17:30:59

Quote from: "Denimjo"

Quote from: "Marhis"

I'd imagine that the reason that would be illegal is that one of them would require a No-CD Crack to operate (unless I'm mistaken), so I think you might be correct there.

My daughter once mentioned to someone on MTS2 that if you start the game with CD in, then pop it out, it will keep running. True, it works. The mod on MTS2 chided that doing this could be construed as illegal. Jesus Christ, here come the computer game police to take me out in handcuffs. There are 3 of us, we all share the same game, why the hell not? We'd be fucking morons to go and buy separate copies.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: neriana on 2006 December 11, 18:17:42

It is generally against EULAs to install a copy of software onto more than one system, period. Doesn't matter when or where the software is used.

This is one reason EULAs are basically bullshit, and have been found invalid before.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: tinkrfreakenbell on 2006 December 11, 18:24:47

I purchased Microsoft Office last year and it allows you to install it on 5 diffrent computers without voiding your rights or whatever. At my house we run 2 computers that can handle the sims 2 and I use one set of games for it. I would be dumb as a box of rocks to buy a whole other set. :roll:

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: harlequingirls on 2006 December 11, 18:28:24

Quote from: "jicour"

The mod on MTS2 chided that doing this could be construed as illegal. Jesus Christ, here come the computer game police to take me out in handcuffs.

*angry customer mode on*
Sure thing, as long as you got the bloody CD, you bought the game after all.
Personally, I found it much more criminal that EA originally intended to disable game play when you had a perfectly fine copy of Nero Burning Rom (not sure... is it an internationally known burning software?) installed as well. At least the computer didn't shut down automatically upon detecting virtual drives, if you were so naughty to install any.
*angry customer mode off*

Quote from: "jicour"

We'd be fucking morons to go and buy separate copies.

Technically, you would qualify as a good customer - you know, those lovely beasts wearing wool, who crying BAA BAA.

*lawyer mode on*
Depending on your locale law, you're supposed to buy three copies.
*lawyer mode off*

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: yippee on 2006 December 11, 18:46:41

harlequingirls, i am that naughty person. popping a cd each time someone plays on our pcs would have driven me crazy. if mts2 is so concerned with every rules and following it, you would think they would have blown the whistle on someone in their midst. pft.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Evirus on 2006 December 11, 19:58:43

Quote from: "Nouk"

Hysterical Paradoxysm izze cool, hmmmkay?

That's a personal opinion, she's full of herself. Allthough she does make nice FREE hairs

And I'm guessing you have to keep your pirate activities a bit on the low key to be accepted in there with HP and the rest of Delphys motley crew...

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Anouk on 2006 December 11, 20:23:13

The reason I think she's cool, is because I have asked millions of dumbass questions, and never once was she bitchy or snappy. I've learnt alot from her.

And I know first hand that Delphy doesn't give a rat's ass what happens here and what any of us talk about, and he never even took action against Pescado either. No matter what others have said/screamed/moaned. So that's not true.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Evirus on 2006 December 11, 20:53:38

Quote from: "Nouk"

So they why is PMBD banned in sigs over there and all mention threads get deleted and frowned upon? Teaching morale and ethics to the chilluns and not to get destroyed by pay site owners.... otherwise known as hypocrisy... that sure speaks highly of them...

and on HystericalPAwhatever, like I said I've seen her be a total witch, and other times be a cool gal... I guess it depends on her ladies cycle

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: BlueSoup on 2006 December 11, 21:06:22

Quote from: "Nouk"

And I know first hand that Delphy doesn't give a rat's ass what happens here and what any of us talk about, and he never even took action against Pescado either. No matter what others have said/screamed/moaned. So that's not true.

Umm I know for a fact he did start the board on his site that allowed others to post personal information and/or compare donators to catch the filesharers. And I know he knew that they were using the board to try and combat the filesharers.

I know he did tell them to stop sharing personal information after a huge stink was made by me and by others who knew this information, but he didn't delete the board until after it was apparent LyricLee had taken the headquarters to her new Bitch Headquarters at Exnem Sims.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Captain Berg on 2006 December 11, 21:10:02

Quote from: "Evirus"

That's a different story. They don't care if "their" users hang around here, and they don't care about what "their" users say or do here. They just don't want them to talk about it at MTS2/S2C. Which I can understand. I don't say I think it's right, but I understand.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: jesserocket on 2006 December 11, 22:03:49

Quote from: "BlueSoup"

I know he did tell them to stop sharing personal information after a huge stink was made by me and by others who knew this information, but he didn't delete the board until after it was apparent LyricLee had taken the headquarters to her new Bitch Headquarters at Exnem Sims.

But her legacy lives on...

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Anouk on 2006 December 11, 23:41:01

Quote from: "BlueSoup"

Quote from: "Nouk"

Is that really true, did you have acces to those boards? I wouldn't be surprised, but is that a 100% fact? It's strange since Delphy doesn't make any money from paysites. Probably for his staff/friends I guess.

Did people actually get banned for being here, or just for posting that link?

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Moose on 2006 December 12, 00:59:07

Screen shots from the forum were posted in the sims LJ community.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: PirateBooty on 2006 December 12, 03:56:23

Quote from: "Nouk"

Did people actually get banned for being here, or just for posting that link?

I've seen people here in the early days post about being banned by LyricLee for doing nothing more than being here or having the link in their sig.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: BlueSoup on 2006 December 12, 06:37:48

Quote from: "Nouk"

It is really true, I really did have access to see these posts. It is 100% fact.

He in fact made the board for LyricLee (or allowed her to make it, same difference) even though she doesn't own a paysite either, but hey, as facts have proven she's a big hypocrite and will share stuff with her friends and download stuff from the booty here when she thinks no one is looking. But letting her do it and knowing what's on it is the same thing as him posting the information himself, in my opinion.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Toasty Pirate on 2006 December 12, 15:59:15

Quote from: "PirateBooty"

Quote from: "teadrinker"

That guy in your avatar desperately needs a makeover! Or is that you just after you got up?

Why yes, that is me.

I disagree!

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: jesserocket on 2006 December 12, 16:15:55

I think I agree in the disagreeing, in that Russell Brand is in no way in need of a makeover...Apart from, possibly, his voice. >.>

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: yamikuronue on 2006 December 12, 18:39:28

1. The dancing padlock smiley is becoming tradition on all threads that get locked- almost every thread (that isn't open) in the debate room has one at the end.

2. Technically, you don't buy software- you license it under certain terms of use. If you purchased it you would have more rights with it, such as resale rights I think, or the right to modify it as you wish, such as reverse engineering it.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: PirateBooty on 2006 December 13, 04:34:39

and again! http://forums.sims2community.com/showthread.php?t=30873

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Plum on 2006 December 13, 05:04:39

Ouch, already deleted.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: PirateBooty on 2006 December 13, 05:10:33

we need random volunteers who can use proxies and make throwaway accounts to start threads with tinyurl links to pmbd on there every night :D

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Xerolize on 2006 December 13, 07:02:35

What did that thread say? i'm curious. It was deleted very fast.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Pescado on 2006 December 13, 13:03:20

More bickering, more smiting. Get it while it's hot! (http://forums.sims2community.com/showthread.php?p=692874)

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: torque on 2006 December 13, 13:17:51

Delphy wrote:

Code:

It's nice to see that the cooler and more intelligent people who realise that EA doesn't own everything are posting here, as opposed to sheep who just take one sensationalist idea that has little basis in reality as fact.

What? We got it all wrong??! We ARE the sheep and they are the intelligent ones!!!

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Surelyfunke on 2006 December 13, 13:28:47

"Cooler" people?

Is Delphy still in junior high?

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Pescado on 2006 December 13, 14:14:02

And we have a lock. Last word for me! SCORE!

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Quorneater on 2006 December 13, 14:26:34

Whoever it is looks like he needs a good headlice shampoo. That's what my kids' hair used to look like after they'd been scratching their heads.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: MMEStalker on 2006 December 13, 14:32:18

Well, except for that completely twatty last post from Delphy. Not 'I believe it's morally and ethically wrong', but 'that is morally and ethically wrong'. As though there's absolutely no room for debate and differing opinions. Fucktard. Seriously, it's Sims 2 CC being discussed, not the raping of children.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Surelyfunke on 2006 December 13, 14:45:17

Hehehe. Somewhere in the midst of that conversation, Pescado got demoted to a Test Subject.

Delphy, are you looking forward to Prom??

LOL.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Quorneater on 2006 December 13, 15:05:27

Quote from: "Surelyfunke"

Hehehe. Somewhere in the midst of that conversation, Pescado got demoted to a Test Subject.

What was he before?

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Surelyfunke on 2006 December 13, 15:23:32

He had some custom title. Like a Grumpy old coot or something.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: torque on 2006 December 13, 15:43:13

Quote from: "Surelyfunke"

He had some custom title. Like a Grumpy old coot or something.

Wow and he didn't even have to "donate" to get a custom title. so not fair!!! :lol:

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: yippee on 2006 December 13, 16:03:18

Quote from: "MMEStalker"

this reminds me of the catholic priests lol. being satan is SOOO much better.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: neriana on 2006 December 13, 16:30:26

"We might see some of those people - and some of those sites - closing down, and while others might come and take thier [sic] place, any such loss of talented artists, programmers and designers would be a loss for all concered [sic]."

OK Delphy (I know you or one of your minions is here), this is total bullshit. It would NOT be a loss for all concerned. Paysites closing are a gain to the community. Shut them all down, they are all crap. I use some of their stuff in my game, but if they went away, I would be happy, because there would no longer be this nauseating idea in this community that it's OK to charge for game mods. Idiots who put all their time and energy into making crap would be replaced by hobbyists who put their spare time and energy into making crap. Just like for EVERY OTHER GAMING COMMUNITY.

A very large stick would be removed from the community's ass. Nothing but good would come from it.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Surelyfunke on 2006 December 13, 16:55:12

It's an incredibly condescending attitude, as well, to assume that without pay content, there would be no talent left in the community, as if to say that the best creators are the ones who are good enough to charge for their content, or by virtue of charging for content, are worth more than those who do not. Not to mention completely baseless and false, when we think about what Quaxi, Numenor and countless others have achieved.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: PirateBooty on 2006 December 13, 17:27:38

Quote from: "Surelyfunke"

Hehehe. Somewhere in the midst of that conversation, Pescado got demoted to a Test Subject.

Delphy, are you looking forward to Prom??

LOL.

Wow how fucking immature can you get? Christ.

All right, who is up for posting a thread over there on paysites must be destroyed around 8-9pm est tonight?!

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Pariland on 2006 December 13, 18:47:03

Wow. Delphy and his cheerleading minion are just that stupid.

So let me see if I understand correctly...

EA Games, who holds the copyrights/patents to all things Sims (to the point where people can't copyright images they take ingame), does not in fact own custom content because creators altered it (not made it completely unique). And because Delphy and his team of not-lawyers who like to think they are said so. Anyone who disagrees is just not cool or intelligent. The end!

However,

CC creators own the packages they make off of EA's patent (and coding, and meshes, and in some cases, textures) because they added a mesh (in many cases, just an alteration of a Maxis mesh - ignore the bullshit part about how a mesh comprises most of a package file, not the actual code itself).

Who can be the first to tell me what's wrong with this picture? The bigger the words, the better.

As a side note, it is utterly ridiculous to compare a txt or obj file format to a package file format. Those other two contain one's true personal work result in the end - completely stand alone. The package files still contain mostly Maxis code, and not the stand alone work of a mesh or bmp file.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: neriana on 2006 December 13, 19:20:37

Well, ethics can be applied to pretty much anything, though certainly this is a far less weighty matter than... pretty much anything else. That doesn't mean that ethical rules don't apply. And Delphy's stance is ethically, as well as logically, bullshit.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Marhis on 2006 December 13, 19:21:27

<devil's advocate>
I disagree with Delphy's and others similar points of view, but I have to admit that a such debate on s2c being allowed and closed, yes, but not deleted in the end, is good.
</devil's advocate>

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: m_firestorm on 2006 December 13, 20:34:01

I can't believe Delphy said: 'that is morally and ethically wrong'

Who the hell promoted him to being our collective conscience?

He's the last person to be dictating what's morally right or wrong...

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: mikbe on 2006 December 13, 22:15:58

Quote from: "m_firestorm"

I agree 100 %. he apparently thinks kiddie porn is ethically right so what does that say about his morals??!!

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: jesserocket on 2006 December 13, 22:20:39

Sheep are intelligent and cool? Who knew?

Quote from: "neriana"

Also, yes, this is what was primarily crossing my mind as I read that entire thread. One of the only reasons EA hasn't pushed this issue is because the Sims is such a VASTLY popular franchise, with usermade custom content being a very large part of the reason for its popularity. When I used to play Sim City 2000, you used to be able to download custom tilesets, change the look of your entiiiiiiiiire city, and these were often complete works of art...every single building drawn pixel by pixel....all free. The only 'morals and ethics' involved in all this, is people thinking they're owed money for...stuff they're really, really not.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Absolute on 2006 December 13, 22:22:23

Quote from: "mikbe"

Quote from: "m_firestorm"

I agree 100 %. he apparently thinks kiddie porn is ethically right so what does that say about his morals??!!

He lacks morals and is a sick fucker.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Plum on 2006 December 13, 23:45:33

Just one time I'd like to see one of these threads left open just to see how long it'll go.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Echo on 2006 December 14, 00:19:24

Quote

What? We got it all wrong??! We ARE the sheep and they are the intelligent ones!!!

I think it's pretty clear that there are sheep on both sides of the fence on this one. A sheep who argues "Creators have rights because [Name] said so" is no more or less sheepish than one who argues "Creators don't have rights because [Name] said so". And I could very easily point to people arguing this way for both sides. I'd actually go so far as to say that they make up a majority of the people arguing for both sides in this debate!

Quote

Delphy and his cheerleading minion are just that stupid.

Not sure if that's me, xanathon, crocobaura or Inge you're referring to, but just in case it was me I'll have you know that I don't have the physical coordination, the fitness, nor the legs required for cheerleading. ;)

Quote

EA Games, who holds the copyrights/patents to all things Sims (to the point where people can't copyright images they take ingame), does not in fact own custom content because creators altered it (not made it completely unique).

Or more specifically, they altered it with EAs permission. The EA content remains copyright to EA, the original content copyright and the derivate work belong to the custom creator. But I've written much more detailed explanations of my position on this in various other places, so I'll save you from reading yet another version.

Quote

And because Delphy and his team of not-lawyers who like to think they are said so.

I don't think anyone's claimed to be a lawyer here. As it happens, I wrote an entire paragraph here (http://sims.eternal-echo.net/other/copyright.php#disclaimer) on how I'm not a lawyer, and that all my conclusions are naught but widely read speculation. But as with the sheep point above, and assuming that there are no IP lawyers on this side of the fence either (and on this I am happy to be corrected, I'm don't keep track of people's professions!) everyone is on an equal legal footing in these discussions and JM's legal arguments are no more gospel than my own.

Quote

Just one time I'd like to see one of these threads left open just to see how long it'll go.

Good grief, really? I wouldn't! Both sides had quite thoroughly aired their views, and it was pretty clear that most of the legal arguments had been explained in their entirety. I'm fairly sure that further conversation would not exactly improve the quality of the discussion. More likely it would either become a "what (s)he said" battle, or have wandered even further away from the original question (which, for those who got distracted by the rest of the discussion, was a question about whether putting original content into the Sims granted non-exclusive rights to that original content to EA).

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Plum on 2006 December 14, 00:31:19

Well I wouldn't read the damn thing, just watch the trainwreck.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: lemmiwinks on 2006 December 14, 01:08:43

I think it was the University of Colorado did a study on "dialog" or some such.
They took 2 groups of students, one self professed liberals, and the other self professed conservatives, gave them a control test to gauge their liberal or conservative dedication. Then they crammed them into a room and told them to discuss their differences. After a certain number of meetings, they administered the control test again. The results were each group became MORE liberal or conservative than they were to begin with. The middle ground actually became more elusive.

After all is said and done, why is Pescado doing this? Because he can.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: neriana on 2006 December 14, 01:09:45

Quote from: "Echo"

Bunch of crap

So when has closing discussion ever led to anything? Teachers shut kids up in elementary school. There was no flaming, no swearing, no threats of violence, Delphy just descended and shut down the discussion because it bugged him. There are adults here, you know, and we don't appreciate being treated like children. Now now, talking about this won't accomplish anything, nothing to see here, move along. GAH.

Nor do I appreciate the entitled, selfish, whiny, position of a bunch of greedy bastards who get their entire self-worth, and sometimes paycheck, out of making stuff for a game. Copyright my ass, if anyone feels they need to enforce "copyright" on fan mods, I don't give a shit about the legality of it -- they're insane. The Sims 2 community is nutty, and PMBD is a wonderful little island of sanity.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Plum on 2006 December 14, 01:14:42

Hey, now. I'm an elementary school teacher and I don't shut my kids up. I moderate their arguments.

Maybe the moderators at S2C might want to *gasp* moderate a bit themselves.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: seapup on 2006 December 14, 01:55:53

Wow, I don't see the need for lawyers or debate. It all boils down to the same bottom line. Create a mesh from scratch, you own it. Create a texture from scratch, you own it. Put either or both of these items in a Sims 2 .package file, it's game content and subject to EA's EULA. End of story.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: jesserocket on 2006 December 14, 02:03:05

Echo, I read your little piece about us on your site. It's interesting, you appear to be a particularly intelligent and witty person (also, I've always loved your stuff [/fangirl]) but you seem to completely misunderstand what is going on here. Or at least, what's going on from my viewpoint, which likely counts for not much, cos I'm notoriously stupid. :)

The latter part of the satirical piece you wrote actually sounds to me like a very practical and sensible idea. Not so much step one, but...sure, if it means sites go free, and have people download from here, then cool. This site has unmetered bandwidth *shrug*. Of course, I'm sure Pescado would hate becoming the next TSR (in the early days, before they went pay, naturally) but like I say, if that's what it takes...
Because, for the most part, this isn't here because we actually think everything from a paysite should be obliterated, rather, people should not be charging for their works, the concept of a paysite shouldn't be, rather than the sites themselves. Naturally, I'm not an official spokesperson for PMBD, but as a particularly frequent patron, I'm just calling them as I see them.

As for the question of ethics, I feel it's unethical to charge for files. As I said in an earlier post, every other gaming community wouldn't even think of charging for content for the game. Other mods take just as much work, sometimes more, but they do it because they want to, not for financial rewards. And donations, for site costs, in the purest sense of the word, I don't think anyone here has any problem with, if it's a problem with site costs...so I don't think anything anyone is doing here is actually unethical. Goes against people's wishes, perhaps, probably somewhat jerkish (but isn't that what Pescado is known for?), but it doesn't go against my own ethical code. If I cared to, I could search my soul for hours, and not feel a twinge of guilt over this.

And finally, as far as bullying goes, yes, we can be extremely bitchy and unkind here, but when someone presents us with a sensible argument, we address them with respect. It's only when someone comes in and starts flaming us, all cursing and in caps and saying things about our mothers, without even properly comprehending the issues at hand, just that they've read HChangeri's rant, or whatever....then we retaliate. That's not bullying. We don't take shit, but we also don't randomly attack people for no reason.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: LesserOr on 2006 December 14, 02:06:24

Quote from: "seapup"

Exactly.
It's the same reason fanfic writers can't sell their works, no matter how nice- the sale rights belong to the original creator.

Not "I worked really hard on it, so it's mine!"
Not "I don't think they say that I can't do it!"

In order for paysites to legally sell their files, they would have to specifically obtain permission from EA.

What they're doing is just as illegal as trying to sell a non-EA "sims pack" in stores.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Pariland on 2006 December 14, 03:01:57

Quote

EA also gives permission to redistribute these files, or any altered files for non-commercial use. That is not the same as granting the rights to sell their files, or turning over ownership of these files. And why would they need the non-comercial stipulation if in the end, they had no rights to the files?

Because you cannot claim the rights to EA's coding (sorry Exnem), even when you alter a mesh or texture. The core of the package is still their coding, and especially in the case of skin meshers, their mesh.

I suspect paysite owners know this since their legal threats have never come to pass.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Echo on 2006 December 14, 03:58:28

Quote

Well I wouldn't read the damn thing, just watch the trainwreck.

Ah, well in that case I think it's more telling of your personality than it is telling of the nature of the site or the decisions of its moderators. ;)

Quote

I'm an elementary school teacher and I don't shut my kids up. I moderate their arguments.

And when the discussion is no longer constructive, do you allow it to ramble on unchecked, on the off chance that your students might make an entertaining "train wreck"? Hmm?

Quote

I feel it's unethical to charge for files

Actually jesse, on a personal level I agree with you on this. My CC is available on pretty much the most liberal set of guidelines you'll find in the sims world, because this is my hobby and I get my fun out of seeing people use it, share it, and create more things with it. The only site I have ever given money to was MTS2, and I felt that was particularly appropriate given the amount of free bandwidth I've gotten off them in the past for hosting my items, regardless of the enjoyment I get from the community. But, as has been brought up numerous times already, ethics and morality is in the eye of the beholder, and just because I think something is unethical doesn't give me automatic permission to throw my ethics to the wind and breach a contract made with them. And whether it's legally binding or not, if a creator says "you may download these objects under these conditions", and then you break those conditions, you are breaking a contract. It may not be illegal, but I'd argue it is pretty unethical. So my personal ethics won't allow me to do so, and I do feel justified in criticizing the ethics of someone who behaves in that manner. Ethics won't stand up in court though, as has already been well and truely discussed, which is why I try my hardest not to mention them in my discussions about copyright and derivative works.

Quote

We don't take shit, but we also don't randomly attack people for no reason.

Partially true, but that doesn't necessitate a good reason. Someone holds an opposing viewpoint, and is thus labelled a "cheerleading minion"? (In all honesty I think that is an awesome title, I seriously do! But the point still stands).

Quote

It's the same reason fanfic writers can't sell their works, no matter how nice- the sale rights belong to the original creator.

Close, but not quite. The reason fanfic writers can't sell their works is that fanfic is an unauthorized derivative. They have not received any authorization from the original owner, and so they have no rights over their content. Sims CC creators also can't sell their works for a profit, because doing so would breach the terms of authorization. But if they are following the terms of authorization then they're okay. That's how (good) fanzines and authorized novels can be sold - the creators have been granted permission to create and sell a derivative work.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Plum on 2006 December 14, 05:16:50

Quote

Ah, well in that case I think it's more telling of your personality than it is telling of the nature of the site or the decisions of its moderators.

I don't see how me wanting to see an argument grow to into such a monstrosity says anything about the decisions about the moderators.

Quote

And when the discussion is no longer constructive, do you allow it to ramble on unchecked, on the off chance that your students might make an entertaining "train wreck"? Hmm?

My students' discussions don't get to the point of not being constructive because, like I said, I don't just let them go free nor do I shut them down--I moderate. If moderating can get eight-year-olds to come to an agreement it could probably work for adults.

Well, probably not, but it'd be interesting to see someone actually try instead of shutting down the conversation. Not quite as interesting as just letting the debate go wild and watching the carnage though. :)

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: LesserOr on 2006 December 14, 05:34:01

Quote

The reason fanfic writers can't sell their works is that fanfic is an unauthorized derivative. They have not received any authorization from the original owner, and so they have no rights over their content. Sims CC creators also can't sell their works for a profit, because doing so would breach the terms of authorization.

Of course. But you're skirting the point.
The same lack of authorization exists for selling package files. Any creation placed into the .package is a derivative of EA's creations, EA's code. If it's a recolor, it sits on EA's meshes. If it's a new mesh, it's still in EA's personal format.
No one but EA has the authorization to sell those files, in part or in whole, nor have they sought it.

Quote

And whether it's legally binding or not, if a creator says "you may download these objects under these conditions", and then you break those conditions, you are breaking a contract. It may not be illegal, but I'd argue it is pretty unethical.

Content creators made an agreement with EA (via the EULA) that they would not sell EA's package files for profit. Paysite owners have broken this agreement, often flagrantly.
If it's providing someone's sole income, or is going towards paying other people to make files, it's no longer a bandwidth "donation."
Illegal and unethical.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Marhis on 2006 December 14, 05:36:24

Technically speaking, copyright and legality (hope this word exists in english) of the matter will always be in a gray area, always: until at least one judgement at court is made. Which it will never happen, I suspect.
Even if we all were lawyers it would be so: of course a lawyer would be a much better expert on matter, but I doubt it would make any difference, 'cause if you have 10 lawyers, it's easy that you'll have 10 interpretations (well informed and such) of the same matter. Only a judge may do a real statement on it. I'm thinking about how legal stuff is handled in my country, but I think it's not very different either.

Anyway, one of the most important things this site, others (i.e. SFV) and the many people who fight this battle, had accomplished, in my opinion is the information spread.
The booty, in my opinion too, is the only effective way to annoy, shout out loud our personal ethical point of view, and force the issue to became critical and important.
Sorry for the mess (cit. Han Solo), but I think it's mandatory.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: LesserOr on 2006 December 14, 05:52:19

Quote from: "Marhis"

Honestly, there is no question of legality (it exists :wink: ) in this situation.
Fanwork for anything, game or otherwise, is never allowed to be sold unless the proper rights/permissions have been obtained. Hell, often completely free projects are shut down, simply because it dilutes the owner's copyright.

The sims community pretends there is a grey area, because that allows them to do as they wish. Just because EA has not pursued the matter doesn't magically make it legal. Or "not illegal". :roll:

The only argument that could be made is that EA's EULA holds no weight- but if you claim that, neither does any "agreement" paysite owners would wish to enforce.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: idtaminger on 2006 December 14, 05:53:19

Wow. Sometimes the ridiculousness of this community really just...:shock:

Hello Junior High!

As long as Pescado has his site up I don't really see the point of debate. EA isn't ever going to do shit. Arguing back and forth within the community isn't ever going to do shit. So the sum total of all this is just going to be a lot of wasted breath. (or wasted typing in this case?)

So why not just sit back and d/l or not d/l to one's own liking and rest those weary little fingers?

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Marhis on 2006 December 14, 06:30:33

hehe, I call it gray area because there is no judgement which definitely and officially states what is the truth. To me, it's not grey at all: the more I read - on both sides of the war field - the more I feel myself on the "right" side, or, if you prefer, with the most correct point of view. But I know that's only my own personal opinion: I may not say "shut up, the court have had the final word", I mean.

To me, altought they may sound reasonable, the copyright/partial copyright/agreements/etc. stuff seems much more a search for *browse dictionary and crosses fingers* legal quibbles than facts.

I run a MUD, the code is derived from a copyrighted one (Smaug, if you know it) and I must accomplish to the Smaug creator's copyrights and tos. I have basically rewritten all the code, in these years: there is almost nothing left of the Smaug, it's a completely different thing now. But as I have started with it, as long as a single bit of that code is in my creature, I have to honor Smaug copyright. Whatever I'll do on that code in the future, it will always be under Smaug creator's copyright.
Thousands (and I'm sure it's more) of MUD creators like me had worked and rewritten that code, in 20 and more years; some of them tried to quibble on the matter, and were promptly rejected and boycotted by the MUD community. Only a few, on a huge creators' base, and in more than 20 years of existance of this community.

It should speak volumes, to me.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Pariland on 2006 December 14, 06:47:42

Quote

Partially true, but that doesn't necessitate a good reason. Someone holds an opposing viewpoint, and is thus labelled a "cheerleading minion"? (In all honesty I think that is an awesome title, I seriously do! But the point still stands).

As opposed to being labeled uncool and unintelligent for not agreeing with Delphy?

Also, I wasn't aware that non-constructive means doesn't agree with Delphy and warrants a thead being locked. Because that is all it takes for Delphy to lock a thread. Furthermore, he made sure he had the last word before locking it. Not even close to being a constructive action.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Solowren on 2006 December 14, 07:10:54

Quote from: "idtaminger"

So why not just sit back and d/l or not d/l to one's own liking and rest those weary little fingers?

Huzzah for resting weary fingers!

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: LesserOr on 2006 December 14, 10:13:12

Quote from: "Marhis"

hehe, I call it gray area because there is no judgement which definitely and officially states what is the truth.

Oh, I wasn't complaining that you were using the term improperly- but the paysite defenders are.
They think that saying "grey area!" means they are excused of any legal wrongdoing. Which is odd because if it's grey, black is involved somewhere.

Quote from: "Marhis"

To me, altought they may sound reasonable, the copyright/partial copyright/agreements/etc. stuff seems much more a search for *browse dictionary and crosses fingers* legal quibbles than facts.

I agree. Paysites and their defenders are claiming the bandwidth donation permission is a loophole. But if any of them tried to sell their files in regular stores, I don't think anyone would be surprised when EA sued.
Yet because it's on an internet store, people somehow convince themselves that the situation is different.

Funny, it's always "I own this, so I can sell it!" but never "EA/Maxis owns part of this, I should give them part of the money!"
Credit isn't as important when it's not their credit, I suppose.

Quote from: "Marhis"

I run a MUD, the code is derived from a copyrighted one (Smaug, if you know it) and I must accomplish to the Smaug creator's copyrights and tos.
...
Thousands (and I'm sure it's more) of MUD creators like me had worked and rewritten that code, in 20 and more years; some of them tried to quibble on the matter, and were promptly rejected and boycotted by the MUD community. Only a few, on a huge creators' base, and in more than 20 years of existance of this community.
It should speak volumes, to me.

I do know of SMAUG, though I don't often MUD. :)
And you're right- no other modding community allows this kind of nonsense.
All the games over the years, all the mods, and only the sims community thinks it's special enough to have the "right" to charge.

Obviously everyone else must be wrong. :roll:

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: MMEStalker on 2006 December 14, 11:10:19

Personally I think that, while the legal situation isn't the same, there are a lot of similarities between CC and fanfiction. When Delphy (I think, could be wrong) posted about people being upset about having their content redistributed without their permission and taking their toys and going home (I'm paraphrasing), I thought about my fanfiction and the CC I have created.

Both were created partly to challenge myself and partly to share with others (well, I haven't shared any CC yet, as I'm not yet satisfied with the quality), both have a lot of my own work in them, but even though the bulk of the fanfiction (plot, dialogue, blah, blah, even setting if it's an AU) and the texture and maybe mesh of the CC are created by me and maybe another fanfic writer/CC creator if I've borrowed something (with permission of course), they will never be totally mine, because vital parts of them are owned by someone else. If someone stole my story/CC and claimed it as their own, I would be a little pissed, because I'd put a lot of effort into it. I'd probably email them and tell them they're a fucktard and whine to my friends, but I wouldn't lose much sleep over it.

Now if we make the admittedly ridiculous assumption that all 'donations' are solely to help with bandwidth costs, I think that the issue of other people hosting your work can be compared. If someone redistributed my work and still credited me as the creator, why would I care? The only problem would be if I updated the fanfic/CC and the other host didn't, but this is hardly a huge problem, people would still know I was the creator and would still be able to contact me about my work, and presumably find the site that I put my work on. Even if I really wasn't happy about it being on another site (perhaps because the other site hosts things I have a big problem with, like fanfiction which contains the sexual abuse of children and tries to present it as acceptable behaviour (I wouldn't have a problem with fiction that contains child abuse, or hints at it, it happens and people should be able to write about it, I think most people are able to differentiate between people writing about it as something that happens and people writing about it as sexual titillation or attempted justification, but I digress...)) I wouldn't stop writing or creating CC, I wouldn't take down my work and go off in a huff. Because I don't create stuff to have absolute control over it, I create it for my pleasure and the pleasure of other people.

So it seems to me that people who have a problem with stuff being hosted here must be either worried they will lose money (after all, if they can't afford their own site, they can put their stuff up in several places for free) or worried that they don't have complete control over their work, and I don't see how losing those people would be bad for the community, since there are plenty of talented people in the community who don't charge and aren't ego maniacs. Fan communities don't crumble when they lose creators, even ones with a lot of talent.

Then there is the issue of 'intellectual copyright', a term that people on the other side of the debate use a lot. I don't get why these people are so desperate to hang on to control of things they've supposedly created for the benefit of the fan community. I don't doubt that some of them have worked very hard on their CC, but I don't think that it's sane to yell 'intellectual copyright!' every time you create something for the Sims and think that means that people who don't care about it are evil. Little in the Sims 2 community is unique (I should clarify, there are many unique bits of CC, but they comprise a tiny proportion of the CC out there) and EA ownership of .package files aside, no matter how much people claim that they create everything from scratch, most CC is not made solely by the 'creator', I'm not saying everything isn't, but most things clearly aren't. If you create some piece of original artwork and make it into a painting for the Sims 2, I could see how you would be upset if someone stole it or used it in a way you didn't like, as it is something that might have value outside of the Sims 2 game, but most CC doesn't have any use outside of the game, so I don't get why you would care about your 'intellectual copyright', it's not really important in a Sims 2 CC context, so stop frigging whining about it!

OK, that was longer and less coherent than I intended. I realise that many people have said all of this before, but I'm sitting in the house waiting for the plumber to arrive and I'm bored.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: redisenchanted on 2006 December 14, 15:53:25

Echo, you make great things and freely distribute them, why be an apologist for paysites?

None of them have obtained licenses to resell remade EA items, all are violating the EULA. A fair number, maybe most, have ripped off or purchased other meshes and ignored the fact that most of said meshes and textures say that they cannot be used for commercial uses.

The only arguement they can muster is that EA is not enforcing their EULA.

Their existence actually diminishes the entire community. Both because others are enboldened to make "money for nothing" or quite directly as when Thomas of TSR pays free sites to close down and makes their content pay while taking his cut.

I used to think that this site was too combatative, but now I see that it would have no effect at all otherwise.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: yamikuronue on 2006 December 14, 21:05:43

I like how it ended with "well, we'll have to see in the future if the EULA still stands" -- meaning Delphy knows it opposes him but doesn't believe it holds water??

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Phelim on 2006 December 15, 00:21:17

Quote from: "MMEStalker"

Personally I think that, while the legal situation isn't the same, there are a lot of similarities between CC and fanfiction.

They're same in that neither group has the legal right to sell/resell these "products." Both groups do (with certain exceptions in fanfiction by particular authors) have the freedom to create away and post their shiny things for the world to see and use/read.

However, in my opinion, it's a fair bet that an author (with his or her publisher backing) would be a lot more likely to swoop in to smite an erring fan than EA ever would.

Heck, if I never read another piece of fanfiction again it wouldn't prevent me (nor diminish my enjoyment) from reading the originals and/or purchasing new works, and even from authors I've never heard of before. (That's not to say I'd stop writing fanfiction or reading it.) I never needed the push from FF in the past to find things to read, and I don't need it now.

With Sims 2, however, CC is a huge part of what makes the game flourish, and without it, interest wanes fairly quickly. Challenges can be included (in my eyes) under the banner of CC, though I suppose it'd be a damn sight harder to sell one of those. (I remain suspicious of TSR's challenge hoopla, though.)

Hm, I'm not sure I even had a point here.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Echo on 2006 December 15, 00:22:08

Starting with a clarification, because there are two distinct issues that are being discussed here, and they are blurring. The discussion that originally prompted my to contribute here was about whether custom content was owned by EA, or by the creator. This issue is no more relevant to paysites than any other sites. The issue does affect me in a way, because it makes the difference between me doing something for myself because I enjoy it, and me doing unpaid labor for EA. (Although it doesn't really cause me concern, if they want my stuff they can have it. They've already put rugs in the game and seasons will have harvestable crops, so meh...)

I think that it is fair bet that even if it were taken to court, EA would support the position that custom content is owned by the CC creator, simply because claiming otherwise would leave it open to a ratings nightmare given all the adult CC out there. Of course, that's not really a satisfactory legal argument, which is why I did my research into copyright as it applies to derivative works in the first place. And I still believe those findings hold true.

When it comes to paysites, my original statement made it clear that if one can prove that someone is making profit from Sims content, and one can also prove that no agreement exists between the creator and EA, then that is proof that the work is not authorized and so it can be treated it as if it were any other EA content. The only significant point there against your actions here is that the burden of proof is on the person redistributing, not the person creating.

(As a distantly related side note to this, EA made a modification to the EULA for the original Sims tools and materials after a similar discussion to this, specifically called out recouping costs associated with a website as legitimate and permissable. Not really relevant here, as it was for a different game, just an interesting tid-bit.)

The objections I made to the behaviour of members of this site that Jesse was referring to were not based on the legality of the behaviour (and I said as much in the addendum to it) but on the behaviour itself. As I said previously, if I make an agreement with someone then I will do what I can to make sure that I do not breach that agreement. If the other participant is legally questionable, then I will try not to enter an agreement with them. If I do still enter an agreement though, then I am responsible for keeping my end of it. If a creator has set out an agreement for downloading, and you download that content, then it is your responsibility to keep your word. This is the biggest thing that I find objectionable about the group's methods, and any amount of "but they're bad" won't restore that lost integrity.

Well, that, the bullying that goes on, and the fact that some of your number are doing this specifically to break down an uneasy peace in the community. But those individuals never claimed to be doing otherwise, so pointing it out is hardly worth it. These are all slights to my personal ethics though, nothing that could really be argued from a legal standpoint.

As for games allowing modders to relicense (and/or charge for) custom content, you are right in that very few games have done so in the past. However, at least one game (http://secondlife.com/) (which I personally can't stand) is doing it now, and doing so extremely successfully. I think that as skills for custom content creation fall further from the techy few and further into the hands of the general community, the more potential such a system has. But that's just speculation. ;)

Quote

Any creation placed into the .package is a derivative of EA's creations, EA's code. If it's a recolor, it sits on EA's meshes. If it's a new mesh, it's still in EA's personal format.

And that's why it's a derivative, which doesn't preclude a creator's copyright on the new content. And while it does preclude making a profit from it, I've already covered that several times over.

Quote

If it's providing someone's sole income, or is going towards paying other people to make files, it's no longer a bandwidth "donation."

Absolutely. Never disagreed on that front. Can you prove the profit legally?

Quote

Arguing back and forth within the community isn't ever going to do shit.

Well duh... But then what exactly is the point of membership in this forum? Or of actively starting threads to provoke such arguments?

Quote

As opposed to being labeled uncool and unintelligent for not agreeing with Delphy?

Point taken. Although for clarity's sake, I read "cool" as "cool headed" rather than the American high-schoolism of "popular". Just one of those cultural things I guess.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: lemmiwinks on 2006 December 15, 01:01:13

"If it's providing someone's sole income, or is going towards paying other people to make files, it's no longer a bandwidth "donation.""

"Absolutely. Never disagreed on that front. Can you prove the profit legally?"

Does the I.R.S. know about paysites? Does the I.R.S. know about TSR?
That would bring things to a head with crystal clarity. If you profit, you must pay tax. If you hide profits, you become a criminal.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Echo on 2006 December 15, 01:16:17

Quote

Does the I.R.S. know about paysites? Does the I.R.S. know about TSR?

Given that TSR isn't American (at least, I don't think it is?), then probably not (The IRS is US specific). ;) But as for the equivalent GO in their country, I can't say. But asking that question isn't proof unless you actually get an answer from said GO.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: redisenchanted on 2006 December 15, 01:25:44

Quote from: "Echo"

Quote

Does the I.R.S. know about paysites? Does the I.R.S. know about TSR?

Didn't someone from Europe (UK I think) say that they had to pay a value added tax on their TSR subscription?

And please for proof that they are a for-profit industry, why do they pay sites to close down? Why do they refuse to let artists remove their work or cull the sub-par work? It's not about bandwidth costs, everything they are doing is increasing their costs. I have not one shred of pity for them and any of the silly Featured Artists who have sold out to them.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: PirateBooty on 2006 December 15, 02:18:15

Yes, TSR charges the VAT to all euro subs.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: idtaminger on 2006 December 15, 05:03:32

Quote from: "Echo"

Well, that, the bullying that goes on, and the fact that some of your number are doing this specifically to break down an uneasy peace in the community.

And there's been no bullying on the other side? And what point is keeping an uneasy peace when disrupting it causes nothing more than bruised egos? It's not like it's Darfur or anything.

Quote from: "Echo"

Quote

Arguing back and forth within the community isn't ever going to do shit.

Well duh... But then what exactly is the point of membership in this forum? Or of actively starting threads to provoke such arguments?

Quote

As opposed to being labeled uncool and unintelligent for not agreeing with Delphy?

Point taken. Although for clarity's sake, I read "cool" as "cool headed" rather than the American hig as it can get over a bunch of pixels in a game. The pay side is much dirtier, IMO, b/c of the censorship and secret info sharing. But greed makes pplh-schoolism of "popular". Just one of those cultural things I guess.

I joined for the gossip, and the occasional outlet for bitching. And gems like Carla Niven. :lol: And I didn't start this thread.

And even if cool meant "cool headed", disagreeing w/ Delphy is a pretty shoddy reason for labeling someone unintelligent and irrational.

And I think it's pretty obvious that TSR profits just from the fact that they're paying hundreds per set to certain FAs to crank out the creations. (The specific amount may be debatable, but that certain creators are getting paid is definitely a fact) But I think the tax bit pretty much ends this.

All this nonsense is pretty pointless, and I've really rambled on for more than is necessary, but the blatant bias bothers me, esp for someone attempting to argue from a "neutral" standpoint. I admire you for your part in some pretty awesome creations, but really, wake up and smell the salt.

The pay side isn't some saintly group just hoping for control over their work and getting pissed upon by a cranky old man. There is definite profit involved. Questionable morals and methods abound on both sides, although if you ask me, censorship and secret paypal info sharing are a lot worse than sharing pixels w/out permission via the web.

You say you're arguing the behavior, not the legality. Well, why not take a good look at the behavior of the group you're defending? If you can honestly examine their behavior and report not one instance of questionable or downright unethical behavior (And please don't do the "do you have proof?" comeback yet again, b/c I'm pretty sure for each instance mentioned someone here will have the proof you're looking for.), then feel free to tell me to STFU.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: LesserOr on 2006 December 15, 05:17:57

Quote from: "Echo"

I think that it is fair bet that even if it were taken to court, EA would support the position that custom content is owned by the CC creator, simply because claiming otherwise would leave it open to a ratings nightmare given all the adult CC out there. Of course, that's not really a satisfactory legal argument, which is why I did my research into copyright as it applies to derivative works in the first place. And I still believe those findings hold true.

No, they wouldn't, because EA can't do so and retain their copyright on the package format.

Package is not a free-use format. It's not like mp3, txt, jpg, or png. Those formats have free license to use and reproduce, and you do own those once they're altered.

You enter into an agreement with EA by making the file and playing the game. It's in the EULA.
You choose to give up your rights to your work by putting it into their format. That's also why they can take your ideas without asking.
You don't have to like it- I don't care for it myself, and I wish EA would give credit to content innovators.
But that's what you and everyone else agreed to do, unless you purchase the rights from EA.

Currently the law doesn't see mod content as being the fault of EA, just as it wouldn't blame fan-made Mickey Mouse porn on Disney.
What the law sees is mod and content creators voluntarily giving up their rights to EA.

Quote from: "Echo"

When it comes to paysites, my original statement made it clear that if one can prove that someone is making profit from Sims content, and one can also prove that no agreement exists between the creator and EA, then that is proof that the work is not authorized and so it can be treated it as if it were any other EA content.

For the first point, many of the paysites are blatantly for-profit, and don't make any excuses. But any time files are restricted until money changes hands, that's a sale. "Memberships" are sales as well, despite what people want to think.

"I'll sell you this card, which has the address which will get you the files. See, I'm not selling files, just a card!"
Doesn't hold up in court.

For the second, use of the package file automatically binds them into an agreement with EA.

Quote from: "Echo"

(As a distantly related side note to this, EA made a modification to the EULA for the original Sims tools and materials after a similar discussion to this, specifically called out recouping costs associated with a website as legitimate and permissable. Not really relevant here, as it was for a different game, just an interesting tid-bit.)

Which is still bandwidth and repair costs. Nothing else (employees, games, personal income, etc.) falls under that definition.
And as I pointed out before- the current game doesn't hold these permissions, which means EA doesn't have to honor their off-hand promise.

Quote from: "Echo"

As for games allowing modders to relicense (and/or charge for) custom content, you are right in that very few games have done so in the past. However, at least one game (http://secondlife.com/) (which I personally can't stand) is doing it now, and doing so extremely successfully.

This is a totally different situation.
The Second Life EULA specifically allows their modders to do so, and in fact has an infrastructure based in-game to provide them the means.
The Sims EULAs specifically do the opposite, forbidding sales entirely.

Quote from: "Echo"

And that's why it's a derivative, which doesn't preclude a creator's copyright on the new content.

Your copyright doesn't overwrite EA's copyright. You own it only so long as you keep it out of EA's package. Once you put it in, you have given it to EA.
It's harsh, but the only way to keep total control of your work is to keep it out of their format.

Quote from: "Echo"

Can you prove the profit legally?

You can when the site owner talks about their employees, what they've bought with "donations", and how the site provides their only income.
They're providing a paper trail that proves the money isn't going into bandwidth, as they agreed.

As I said above, they are restricting product behind a money barrier. Even if we pretend they put all that money into bandwidth, their sites are still set up as stores. The law takes actions over words.

I know your real argument in all of this is that PMBD shouldn't distribute files without the CCC's permission. That's entirely valid.
But it's not illegal and wishing will not make it so.
C'est la vie.

The tax issue: this also depends on how much money they're making.
Anything over bandwidth cost is breaking with EA, but it may not get them into tax trouble with their country.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Surelyfunke on 2006 December 15, 05:35:14

Sorry to interrupt the serious discussion here, but someone has just offered to pay me $8.95 (http://forums.sims2community.com/showthread.php?p=694595#post694595).

I am laughing so hard I can't even come up with a response.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Echo on 2006 December 15, 05:39:13

Quote from: "idtaminger"

And there's been no bullying on the other side?.

I already aquiesced the point that there was bullying on the other side. I don't much care for that either, and will continue to do my best not to participate in it.

Quote

And I think it's pretty obvious that TSR profits just from the fact that they're paying hundreds per set to certain FAs to crank out the creations. <cut for brevity> But I think the tax bit pretty much ends this.

Okay then. TSR is making a profit. In copying it you're still breaking a contract. And TSR is hardly the only site you've targeted.

Quote

<cut> ... but the blatant bias bothers me, esp for someone attempting to argue from a "neutral" standpoint.

Me neutral? Hell no! Apologies if I gave that impression, I'm certainly not a neutral party in any of this. I don't own a paysite and I haven't downloaded or contributed content here, but when push comes to shove I'll side with creators over copiers (almost) every time.

(edit because more posts happened while I wasn't looking)

Quote

The Second Life EULA specifically allows their modders to do so, and in fact has an infrastructure based in-game to provide them the means. The Sims EULAs specifically do the opposite, forbidding sales entirely.

I know, and agree wholeheartedly - SL and the Sims are completely different in this respect. The comment above was purely in response to the comments that no game has ever allowed users to retain rights to their custom content, and the related argument I have seen before, saying that no company would be stupid enough to allow cc creators to sell content based on data.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: lemmiwinks on 2006 December 15, 05:44:57

EA Maxis is the creator. I side with them.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Solowren on 2006 December 15, 05:45:37

Quote from: "Surelyfunke"

Noice! :o

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: BlueSoup on 2006 December 15, 05:54:38

Quote from: "Echo"

I don't own a paysite and I haven't downloaded or contributed content here, but when push comes to shove I'll side with creators over copiers (almost) every time.

Who's a copyer? We certainly don't copy or claim any of this shite as our own. We simply put it up because the alleged creators you speak of seem to think they're entitled to cash for using Photoshop and SimPE.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: idtaminger on 2006 December 15, 05:55:44

Quote from: "Lemmiwinks"

EA Maxis is the creator. I side with them.

Ditto.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Echo on 2006 December 15, 06:00:17

Quote

EA Maxis is the creator. I side with them.

How exactly is refusing to recognize a custom creator's ownership of their original content protecting EA/Maxis? (Irrespective of sites being pay or free.)

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: lemmiwinks on 2006 December 15, 06:04:17

Quote from: "Echo"

Quote

EA Maxis is the creator. I side with them.

How exactly is refusing to recognize a custom creator's ownership of their original content protecting EA/Maxis? (Irrespective of sites being pay or free.)

They have created nothing, just modified someone else's work.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Echo on 2006 December 15, 06:17:24

Quote from: "Lemmiwinks"

They have created nothing, just modified someone else's work.

Which brings us right back to where we started - is custom content an authorized derivative, or is it an unauthorized derivative? You know my opinion, and I know yours. I think this path has pretty much reached full circle now.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Pescado on 2006 December 15, 06:36:30

Quote from: "Echo"

Custom content is stated as authorized, but it also carries a number of strings attached to it, amongst which includes the fact that it can be placed on noncommercial websites for the benefit of the community. Which is what we do. Clearly it is not to the benefit of the community to be ripped off by anyone other than EA! Who would buy all the stuff packs if they blew all their cash on paysites?

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Quorneater on 2006 December 15, 08:19:29

That could be part of the anti-paysite campaign, remind people to save their money for EPs so Maxis will go on releasing them.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Marhis on 2006 December 15, 12:51:41

I want, now, stick close to the copyrights issue only - pay or free not relevant.

Let's assume the derivative work partial copyrights thing: it could be, I'm not saying it is wrong.
A creator, thus, has a mesh/texture/whatever which is made from scratch, it's his work, he has copyrights on it, that's ok.
When you adapt that work on sims stuff (i.e. apply the texture on a dress, or link the mesh to the other sims resources) and put it in a sims package format, you are transforming your work in a game content, isn't it?
Bare mesh = creator's full work
Mesh adapted to sims, and working in game = game content

Quote

You have to write this in every fansite: it's an EA mandatory request.
Thus, we have 2 issues, here, mutually excluding each other:

1) Your creation is game content, OR is not (it can't be both yes and not)
2) EA has some rights (partial) OR all rights reserved.

If it's a game content, then it's EA copyright. You wrote this on it. If EA has all rights reserved, then you can't have some. Again, you wrote this.

This is about copyrights. The TOS is another issue: your TOS may be, for example, "you can use my work only on Sunday". Ok, then, if I extract your texture, or your mesh, from the package, I will use it only on Sunday, but the extracted one. The game content as a whole (the package) is under EA's TOS, not yours.

Said that, I'm absolutely ok for credits due, and such: it's a fair behaviour. But it's not related to legal stuff at all, to me.

(Edited because I'm stupid)

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: torque on 2006 December 15, 13:25:22

Delphy is here to save the day...I mean the community http://forums.sims2community.com/showthread.php?p=694807#post694807

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Surelyfunke on 2006 December 15, 13:47:01

Oh noes! Boo hoo! :lol:

I mean, er, I'm so scared!

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Got_Nerd on 2006 December 15, 14:20:17

Somebody's throwing his toys out of the pram...

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: jesserocket on 2006 December 15, 17:17:17

Goodness. No opinions allowed, eh?

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: redisenchanted on 2006 December 15, 17:26:58

MTS2 is a fairly well run site.

S2C is Delphy's personal little kingdom. It does seem like he's moved a bit in the right direction, but control-freak that he is, it must be on his own terms.

I'll never, ever donate there again, can't get past the whole child porn conviction thing, never will, but if someone else ran it, and their expenses and income were open for inspection, I would.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Got_Nerd on 2006 December 15, 19:01:44

:shock:

Child porn conviction?

*hides*

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: redisenchanted on 2006 December 15, 20:16:29

Quote from: "Got_Nerd"

:shock:

Child porn conviction?

*hides*

http://paysites.mustbedestroyed.org/phorum/viewtopic.php?t=48&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=90

Follow the links, the thread at MATY is the best because all sides, even Delphy give their side of the story.

I don't think most people care a whole lot really, but it's a big deal for me.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Solowren on 2006 December 15, 20:30:41

Noice, Mr. Delphy.

He's such a silly.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: idtaminger on 2006 December 15, 21:44:02

No threads on paysites, huh? I think someone oughta post a thread on Delphy's child porn conviction instead.

Maybe it'll show some of the sheep exactly who this person acting as their "moral authority" is.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Absolute on 2006 December 15, 21:49:28

Quote from: "idtaminger"

Do you have any idea how quickly that thread would be deleted? :shock:

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: jesserocket on 2006 December 15, 21:50:56

The details of what Delphy did in the past don't really bother me one way or the other, but I do totally agree that he's not exactly in a strong position to talk about morals....

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: lemmiwinks on 2006 December 16, 00:35:59

Either I am senile, or Delphy was the one who years ago raged against TSR convincing me paysites were bad.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: jesserocket on 2006 December 16, 00:45:21

I'd love to accuse you of senility, Lemmiwinks dear....but you are correct.

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: neriana on 2006 December 16, 00:54:45

Where did people first get the idea that they could charge for game mods, anyway? And where did people first get the idea that getting all huffy about other sites posting their creations, with proper credit given, was OK, normal, or in any way sane?

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: Doursim on 2006 December 16, 01:40:56

Quote from: "neriana"

I don't know, I don't really want people putting my stuff up on their sites.. that is what MY site is for afterall. Now, not allowing you to package meshes with cc.. that is a different issue to me ;)

Title: The sheeps are at it again!
Post by: PirateBooty on 2006 December 16, 02:26:55

Quote from: "Surelyfunke"

Oh noes! Boo hoo! :lol:

I mean, er, I'm so scared!

Grats on your ban sugar :D