PMBD

I read also that its not just content that is created with items supplied by The game, like bodyshop etc...  But infact, even if the stuff is created with their own software, the .package file is copyrighted as well.  And we all know that the files that work in the game are .package files.  So even thougth they may say its their software and they have used nothing of maxis to create the content, the only way to get it in our games is as a .package so in fact they are commiting the crime of copyright and gaining money off it.  :lol:

Did you accidentally hit "New Topic" instead of "Post Reply"?  :lol:

I don't believe copyright applies to file formats.

If it did, don't you think Microsoft for instance would have done away with OpenOffice.org as it both reads and writes file formats developed by Microsoft for their Office suite?

And btw this is the number one reason why I don't fully support your cause; I simply don't believe that EA has the legal right to restrict the creation and sale of CC, provided such content does not include any of their intellectual property (meshes, textures). Furthermore, I'm willing to bet there's still a lot of uncertainty about the legal applicability of software licenses, and I certainly wouldn't want to operate in a digital world where software companies can dictate what their software can or can't be used for.

Having said that, I see nothing wrong with people charging money for their CC, especially considering that some of it is of no less quality than what is in the original game.

And finally, I'm also not condemning your activities and might very well download stuff from your hoard as I'm not about to pay for CC given my current financial situation and it would therefore represent no loss of potential income for the creators. In other circumstances I certainly would pay because some of those people deserve it.

So there. I'll just find my way to the nearest plank now, thank you :grin:

(First post!)

Video game developers create their own file format that works only in their games.  Additionally, you have to use what's in the package format that EA Maxis made to make it work in the game.  You cannot sell their work.

ETA:  Again I say that if paysites were just selling texture files and OBJ files that were completely their work and not EA Maxis' deritives, it would be legal.  Once you put it into the package format, it is theirs.  They could take all the paysite stuff and make a big pay site stuff pack and the creators couldn't do a thing about it.

The package file is a proprietary file format and is useless unless you have the game.   What can you do with a package file other than use it in Sims 2?

I can't find any support for the claim that file formats are protected by copyright and therefore stand by my original claim. If you or anyone else can point out evidence to the contrary, please share. I'd do the research myself but trying to decipher legalese makes me feel stoopid and I don't like that :(

Any lawyers around? IIRC, (at least in Finland) copyright law actually grants certain rights to the creators of derivative works as well, but things have changed thanks to all the greedy megacorps.

Not much (except extract the meshes and textures and whatnot), but how is this relevant?

While I agree that issues surrounding the ownership of file formats and the like can be murky, I don't think that it's true that companies should have no rights to the control of the formats they do develop (especially when it affects their bottom line).

Also, I don't think this would necessarily be a matter of a company making abstract rules for the use of their software. All (or at least most) software requires you to agree to a license to use the software especially when you can produce something with that product. Think of a program like Photoshop for example. In order to use Photoshop and use it to create things for sale, you must purchase a license in order to use it legally. Just because Adobe (or EA, or Microsoft) is not rampantly pursuing illegal users doesn't mean that it's fine to do whatever you want.

I thought the .gif was an example of a format that was copyrighted at a time, but I'm not sure.  EA, claims their tools, and materials, which include objects, textures, coding and other fun stuff that goes into a .package file that I won't even pretend to have a full understanding of, legally belongs to them.  

Could EA pull out a creators mesh and texture and say "mine"?  I doubt it.  Could they pull out a .package chucked full of their hard work that a creator willingly added a mesh and texture to for the sole purpose of using with a game EA created and say "mine"?  I believe so.  

Also, I believe microsoft supporting OpenOffice.org was a choice, good PR, wanting their format to become a standard, not necessarily because they couldn't take legal action if they wanted to.  I am not schooled in it, but what I read briefly leads me to believe so.

At the end of the day, microsoft, like EA has to decided if making a legal statement or move is worth the effort, not necessarily it's because it's in their rights or not.  I am not sure any document could ever be held up 100% in court, but you have to do what you can to protect your rights.

But explain to me how that helps you with Sims 2?  You want to use a package file as a sort of big blue zip file?

I knew this would come up :wink: That was about a patented algorithm, different issue.

You can make a package that contains entirely original meshes and textures and very little else. So the questions remain: what copyrighted material do those packages contain and is the package file format itself protected?

No. But I still don't see your point.

To use a copyrighted work legitimately one must obtain a license, that much is certain. But what restrictions can the copyright holder impose on its use?

Can you give me an example of a restriction on the use (apart from making copies or distribution) of a software product that you find reasonable?

Okay - this is my own personal views on things.

I personally think if I buy something, it is mine to do what I want with it afterwards.  However, there are some fine lines.  I can't rewrite Goblet of Fire, for example, and sell it as my own [ well, word for word, or even mostly the same words ] .  However, I could sell my copy of the book once I was done reading it.

Unfortunately, software, and some other industries, have tried to curtail this.

Now, how does this relate to The Sims2 and CC?  Well let me tell you....
 *that was supposed to make you laugh - so laugh - have some rum-corn*

Basically, you can't make money using what is mostly their code - that's plagerism, just like re-writing a novel someone else did first.  And unfortunately, while the artwork in CC is done by players, and code tweaks and such are done by players, there is still a sufficient quantity of the original in 99% of all CC that it still belongs to EA for purposes of intellectual property rights.

The problem is, too many folks see the new mesh, new functions, and new textures and forget the rest of the stuff lying beneath the surface, like an iceburg.

And interestingly enough, the stuff that has perhaps the least amount of the original code seems to all be free :D

Hmm, I don't know that I really want to play the burden of proof game here. I'm not sure how citing hypothetical situations based on other software will really add any strength to either side of the argument. I can only speak about the matter being discussed here.

The main restriction in the EULA for the Sims 2 that applies here is that "You may include materials created with the Tools & Materials on your personal noncommercial website for the noncommercial benefit of the fan community for EA's products". The .package file is a "tool or material", and so may be used "non-commercially". This is what was agreed to when the user opens, plays and creates for the game.

You may be right that the EULA or EA's ownership or control of the .package format might not hold up in court, but at the moment it is an agreement that the consumer has willingly agreed to. Plus, the .package format has absolutely no other usage outside of the game that I am aware of (which is the point that rickets was trying to make), and so is entirely dependent on the game to have any use what-so-ever. The product (no matter how it was made) is useless outside of EA's "tools and materials".

Well, I've been talking to my friend who is a game developer/artist/coder and he said while the "package" format is not more than likely not copyrighted, the stuff inside certainly is.  Since you are including that stuff to make your CC work in game, then selling it is illegal.

He encouraged me that we should be writing to EA Maxis and that once they make a stance on it, it will probably come down to three options for the paysite owners.
1.) Work directly with us to make APPROVED content packs.
2.) Cease and desist.
3.) We sue you until you can't walk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Rights_Management

What you should be looking for is the "reverse engineering" part, which basically means making the crypted coding that makes the program work viewable and changeable.

Me neither, I'm just curious. Perhaps it's best not to pursue this argument any further since neither side is able to cite any authoritative sources.

One thing I find curious is how in this issue people appear to be willing to defend the rights of a big corporation against "the little guys", when it's usually the other way around.

People aren't necessarily defending the rights of the corporation (who I doubt really needs our help), many people here are actually concerned about the rights of the other "little guy", the person who downloads custom content for use in game. Others might be concerned about shady business practices from some paysite owners. There are actually probably a lot of other reasons for concerns about this, I don't think it's just a "big" vs. "small" issue here.

Well if you're just curious, I find EA's restrictions on my creations reasonable.  



Well for one people feel quite disrespected by paysites, in light of EA tou, and in light of the fact the the people who do the most to make CC possible in the first place, do it all for free.  Programs, tutorials, hacks, help, all free.  Many of us feel that paysites are leeches on the community offering little in return in comparison to what they take.  We are frankly tired of the "little guys" and want them gone.

ETA: Mando said it much better.

Yes, the stuff. What is the stuff? Meshes, textures, code... But consider a package that only contains custom meshes and textures (a skintone for example). Would such a package also have to contain material copyrighted by EA to be functional?

Just out of curiosity, why should custom content creators willing to sell their creations be required to get approval, when those who distribute their content without charge don't have such a requirement?

Cutting EAxis a piece of the profit and sending some off for taxes as well, I assume.

I'm not an expert on the way that package files are put together (perhaps someone who is could speak up), but I would think, no matter what the package file contains that it would always contain code in order to make it function within the game (the code being the property of EA, and not the package format in this case).



I actually quoted the section of the EULA that addressed this exact question. EA knows that the game is popular due to the amount of custom content that is created to be used in game, and they also make profits out of their own new content (think stuff packs and expansion packs). They want to encourage the creation of custom content without it biting into their profits. It would be highly foolish to write in their EULA that the creation of custom content for commercial purposes is fine because it would kill any profits they could stand to make on it, and could create problems in the long term for EA's legal rights to the Sims.

Here is my view on this. Lets say I loaned my friend a chair and told them to sit on it all they want and let their friends sit on it. Well a week later I find out they painted it and sold it for more than I paid for it. I would be pissed. I loaned them the chair to use, not sell. I know chairs aren't the same thing as files, but I still think it's a shitty thing to do if you sell someones chair. It's just common sense and decency. That is just my opinion.

Fair enough :wink:  

Such leeches and scam artists exist in every industry, yet you probably wouldn't expect every small software entrepreneur or artist to give away the fruits of their labour for free. Why is this an exception?

Quite frankly, if some people are daft enough to pay ridiculous sums of money for virtual "designer lingerie", that's their problem. It's hardly a reason to punish legitimate artists.

But in the end, it's not much of a concern for me. I don't plan to make money doing CC for TS2 nor do I use much of it, free or otherwise. I just couldn't quite understand where all this hate comes from.

The most important part of the stuff I think are the BHAVs but I am not a modder.  Pescado would be a much better person to tell you all what a package does/can contain.

I'm pretty sure even skintones have coding to make it work in game.  It isn't just textures.  I will pull up SimPE and do a screenshot of a skintone "guts" whenever Body Shop decides to finally close..



Because it is already authorized in the TOS for noncommercial custom content.



It's called having a hobby.  This is one of the first fandoms where people expect to be paid for their HOBBY.



Let me give you some background information.  SimPE and the other free tools were created out of blood, sweat, and tears from the community coming together to break the code and give us the ability to make custom content to improve the game.  

Pay site owners took all that communal effort, free tools, and free support given to them with no strings attached and they put a price tag on that.  It's a huge slap in the face.  It has broken the spirit this community once had.

Here is that screenshot.
(http://www.modyourpanties.com/hosting/070601034916-skintoneguts.jpg)

It's an exception because EA owns the rights to the programs needed to make the "artwork" functional. There are a lot of amazing artists who create CC for the Sims (the best of whom work for free), but I don't think that they own their work in the same way that an artist might own a painting or a sculpture. Creating for the Sims requires the artists to work under EA's rules, meaning that the work should only be available non-commercially.



I don't think any legitimate artists are being punished. An agreement was struck up between the creator and EA before the art was made, not understanding the agreement or thinking that it's unfair is not an excuse. If you create for the Sims you should do it because you want your work to be seen and shared and not because you want to make a buck.



I don't hate anyone, but I do hate seeing people get screwed over (and in this case I mean the downloaders and the artists who create all of their work for free). The custom content was meant to be shared, not meant to send someone on vacation for a month.

That's misrepresenting the issue quite a bit, as analogies often do :wink:

In that scenario the chair would be lost to you. But when Maxis "loans" you a chair and you make a copy of it and sell it, Maxis hasn't lost anything except maybe a potential sale (if whoever bought your chair would as a result feel it unnecessary to buy content made by Maxis).

To put it in your terms: I tried to make it clear that I'm not defending creators who don't do anything more than provide a custom paint job for objects created by others (Maxis or third parties). I'm talking about artists who instead of painting and selling your chair would create a new one from scratch, and sell that.

Of course, given that a lot of the value in any CC is dependent on the game (IOW, the meshes and textures by themselves without the game wouldn't be worth as much to most people), it's fair to say that Maxis/EA could justifiably lay claim to some of the earnings made off CC.

(is it just me or are my language skill deteriorating... time to go to sleep methinks)

Anyway, this discussion was... well, at least somewhat entertaining if not terribly enlightening. Thanks for being so civil, I expected a lot more negative feedback given how homogenous (and at times ever so slightly fanatic :P) a bunch you appear to be :)

I'd do that myself but the weight of my eyelids is becoming unbearable. Thanks for your effort tho :)

There are plenty of people who do a bit of artwork or software development or whatever because they enjoy it and might therefore call it a hobby, and also charge money for whatever they make. I don't see anything wrong with that.

I can understand those feelings, but I also understand that people who spend countless hours creating meshes and tweaking UVs and painting textures and so on... may want some compensation for their work, especially when said work is of high quality and many people express interest in paying for it. After all, is it not the customer who ultimately defines the fair price?

Still, a lot of the so called artists do very little compared to the efforts of the community, that I don't deny.

Artists and software developers can create their own outside, seperate work and charge whatever they like for it, it's not comparable to charging for Sims creations.
The artists and developers in question are making work for use in Sims games, meaning that they must follow the rules that they agreed to before they created the work. As their work depends on EA's software they agreed to follow the rules for distribution that EA set out in their EULA.

Lots of companies limit what you can and cannot do with their software. I copied the following from Adobe's website and it pertains to the academic versions of their various applications.



If a software manufacturer states that you cannot sell something that you have created using their software, then doing so is in violation of the EULA and therefore illegal.

Here's the url.
http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/knowledgebase/index.cfm?id=tn_19592#edu

ETA: I wonder how many paysite creators are not only violating EA's EULA, but also Adobe's by using educational versions of Photoshop to edit textures.

1) When you create a software, you do not first sign a EULA.

2) I take it that when you say developing software, the software is to be developed from scratch.  All forms of CC currently available are not purely works of the artists.  In fact, only a very small part of it is created by the artist.  Firstly, if the creator creates from SimPE, which I believe is the case 99.9% of the time, their work is not 100% original.  In order to create a CC from SimPE, you must clone an existing object.  That means, there's always something that can be traced back to EA's product (such as the codes that define the CC, to be read by the game).

Only a select few people could work a package out from scratch (such as SimPE contributors), but they all do it for free.  There are also things that I believe are independent enough to not be covered by the EULA, such as Delphy's download organizer, jfade's compressorizor, paladin's hack conflict detector, SimPE, etc.  None of those are for pay, however.

Let's try to look at the issue from another point of view.

As a matter of fact, EA made a statement (EULA), which is - until further facts would rediscuss it - the rule of the game. In short, the EULA draws a line between what's legal and what is not: EA point of view.

Now, EA may be wrong: I mean, if the matter eventually came to a court, a judge might sentence EA's EULA is not legal, and paysites copyright are legitimated instead. This would draw another, different, line in between.

What we concretely have now, is EA's EULA, and their further confirmations (see the letters their customer care sent): nothing else.

Now, I would be happy to see paysites owners and supporters - if really concerned about their copyrights and the legality of their income - start a discussion with EA about this issue.
In short, again: DO something, for heaven's sake!

What we have, instead, is free CC creators and supporters discussing this matter: if I remember correctly, I've read Echo, HystericalParoxysm, and many others like them: not ONE of paysite owners nor supporters did it.

Oh well, after all it's always the same pattern: vampirize someone else's work and effort, whine a lot (whining is easy and costs nothing), try to  undermine people's overall credibility, and stay away from anything which may cost you some effort.

In the end, to me what matters is facts: EULA and EULA's confirmation letters. Personal speculations aren't facts, and until someone discuss the facts, I stand my ground.

CC is just like fanfic.  If you want to get paid for what you do, don't do something derivative.  If you want to get paid for making meshes and textures, get into the 3D modeling community and stay out of the game modding community.

It's basic elementary stuff that everyone else in fandom and gaming managed to figure out like 25-30 years ago.  Any other fan group would shun people doing this sort of crap, and people defend it.  Why?  I don't know.  Maybe because the game appeals to the sort that never really gamed before, never really was tech savvy before, and never really got into fandom before, but this sort of thing has never been acceptable elsewhere.

Because EA has already given their approval for us to MAKE custom content. They have NOT given their approval to sell what we make. Therefore, only those who want to SELL what they (or anyone else) makes need approval. My advice to you? Think before you type.

I've been reading about the copyright argument on here for a few days, and remembered that here in England - as far as I know - you have to legally register something, whether it's a book, music or whatever, in order to claim that you have legal copyright on that item. As I very much doubt that any of the paysites (possibly with the exception of TSR) have gone to the trouble of doing something similar as is required in their countries, for them to say that freely distributing their CC via the booty or any other method is violating their copyright is a load of hogwash. Unless they've gone through the proper procedure, they do NOT own the copyright on anything they make, whether it's meshes, textures or simple recolours. Let's face it, many paysites - such as Sim Chic for example - photoskin from celebrity and designer photographs in order to make things such as formal clothing and full outfits. In that case surely they themselves are violating two sets of copyrights - the original designers' and the photographers'? Starbucks pulled the plug on a Sims Connection payset when they found out that they were selling items that infringed their copyright after all.

I found this definition of copyright on an online dictionary, and have italicised part that seems most appropriate to any whinging coming from paysite owners who believe that their copyright (and other rights) have been infringed by freely sharing their CC:

[Free On-line Dictionary of Computing - Cite This Source
copyright legal
The exclusive rights of the owner of the copyright on a work to make and distribute copies, prepare derivative works, and perform and display the work in public (these last two mainly apply to plays, films, dances and the like, but could also apply to software).

A work, including a piece of software, is under copyright by default in most coutries, whether of not it displays a copyright notice. However, a copyright notice may make it easier to assert ownership. The copyright owner is the person or company whose name appears in the copyright notice on the box, or the disk or the screen or wherever.

A copyright notice has three parts. The first can be either a c with a circle around it (LaTeX \copyright), or the word Copyright or the abbreviation Copr. A "c" in parentheses: "(c)" has no legal meaning. This is followed by the name of the copyright holder and the year of first publication.
Countries around the world have agreed to recognise and uphold each others' copyrights, but this world-wide protection requires the use of the c in a circle.

Originally, most of the computer industry assumed that only the program's underlying instructions were protected under copyright law but, beginning in the early 1980s, a series of lawsuits involving the video screens of game programs extended protections to the appearance of programs.

Use of copyright to restrict redistribution is actually immoral, unethical, and illegitimate. It is a result of brainwashing by monopolists and corporate interests and it violates everyone's rights. Copyrights and patents hamper technological progress by making a naturally abundant resource scarce. Many, from communists to right wing libertarians, are trying to abolish intellectual property myths.

See also public domain, copyleft, software law.
US Copyright Office Circular 61 - Copyright Registration for Computer Programs.
The US Department of Education's "How Does Copyright Law Apply to Computer Software".
Usenet newsgroup: misc.legal.computing.
[Is this definition correct in the UK? In the US? Elsewhere?]
(2000-03-23)

The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing, © 1993-2007 Denis Howe]

I have no doubt that paysite owners and supporters would say that the start of the second italicised paragraph is in their favour if EA eventually do agree that the selling of CC must stop, namely "Use of copyright to restrict redistribution is actually immoral, unethical, and illegitimate." However anyone with a shred of common sense can see that they would again be talking out their behinds, as we have EA/Maxis approval to use their tools to make and redistribute CC - they are not the ones imposing the restrictions on sharing what should be available to all of us in the Sims community.

In my opinion it's the paysites that are the real pirates as they are guilty on more than one or two counts in what they do. All we are doing is dowloading and using what should be freely available to us in the first place, as stated in EA's EULA. That's why paysites must be destroyed.

EDIT: link to the online dictionary (the definition quoted is the second to last item at the bottom of the page):

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/copyright

Then why come here and post?

what a waste of space

Edit: the quote thing is stuffed!

And hundreds of "arr, pass the rum" posts aren't? :lol: Nothing wrong with some intelligent debate. Besides, PMBD is nothing without bitchfests, drama whores, hacking threats, conflicting opinions and dirty jockstraps.
Oh yeah, and paysites, of course. Yeah. Paysites.

:lol: Aye, now pass thee rum would ya!

*Gets sober*
Now *Hic* Paysites, always ruin my day aye *hic* nothin beats them to a good ol game of *hic* finding the rum in the *hic* buryed sand game eh *hic*
*faints on floor*

That wasn't my point at all. My point was EA loans the files to be used for free. They do not give any kind of permission to sell them. So even if it were legal to copy them and make a profit, it's just not a decent thing to do. I'm not saying anything about law because I'm not a lawyer, I'm talking about decency. It was my opinion, and I stated chairs and files are very different things, so I don't understand why you felt the need to tell me they are different...

Your whole point is mute, your arguing copyright verses contract. You agree by contract and it is written in laymans terms. "Anything" that is made for, goes into EA games, belongs to and is the sole property of EA. So the very minute you upload it into your game or anyone else uploads it into their game it is then the property of EA which "You" agree too. Check out ghost artists and see what their rights are on copyright verses contract. Nada, zip, zilch because they give up by contract all rights to their copyright, the exact same thing you do when you click on I agree which is why there is also a I disagree button. If you don't agree to the terms of a contract why would you ever agree to it? I believe is the smarter question. Ignorance of a contract you agree to is 0 grounds for defense in a court of law.

What is so difficult to understand?

If you make something for sale that does not require EA's games or tools to work or have usefulness, good for you.

If your creation depends on the game to work properly or have usefulness, you may not sell it.

The end.

As HawkGirl said, it is a moot point.

You can create anything you like for use with the game as long as it is non-commercial.

Non-commercial means you don't get paid. Period.

An item is a pay item if any money most be paid in order to acquire the item.

You can call it a gift, donation, surprise, bonus, present, or invent your own special term, but if you accept any money at all for it, it is a pay item, and that makes you in defiance of the EULA, and your activities thus illegal.

So, let's review.

Your item is intended to work for The Sims 2? EA owns the rights to it.

If it is a .package file, Sims2Pack, Sims2Skin, or similar proprietary format, EA owns the rights to it. It's not a Word document, people, where a .doc does not belong to Microsoft, this is EA, where their .package (etc) files are protected by their legal documentation.

If your creation will not work without Sims 2 tools, games, or products? EA owns the rights to it.

Some charities do give away incentives.
Point one: they have filed papers to declare themselves charities, and charities have different laws and rules applied to them.
Point two: you are not a charity.
Point three: incentives given away do not break the EULA of another company which has specifically made it illegal to sell them.
Point four: many people give to charities and reject the gifts.

Is it illegal to go to the grocery store or doughnut shop and buy a cake and then sell it as yours at a school bake sale?
Technically, yes.
However, the embarrassment most people would feel trying to pass of a grocery store baked good or Krispy Kreme doughnut as their own prevents most people from trying this dodge in the first place.
Also, no one is pretending to be Dunkin' Donuts when selling those doughnuts.
Also also, Krispy Kreme and Dunkin' Donuts often work with schools and give them a reduced price on their products specifically so they can be resold for fund drives.
EA does not allow anyone to buy their games directly from them at a reduced price or to resell them for fund drives, and do not allow content specifically designed to work only with their games for a profit either.

Do people have a right to make a living?
Yes.

Do people have a right to make a living selling content they are not legally allowed to make a commercial profit from?
No.

Isn't the booty illegal?
No.

Are the items in the booty "stolen"?
No. They have been paid for.

Is filesharing booty items illegal?
No. According to EA, FREE filesharing is okay. It is a big part of what makes the Sims enjoyable for their customers.

What has EA said about the paysite versus freesite issue?
In addition to their EULA, which clearly states you can modify the game with custom content as long as you do so in a NON-COMMERCIAL manner (which should have been the end of the debate right there), EA has sent several letters to concerned Sims 2 community members clearly stating:

* that they are okay with paysites.mustbedestroyed.org
* that selling content is not okay
* that their legal department is looking into how to approach the issue.

Note that EA has also intervened on behalf of pro-freesite creators and forced sites such as TSR to release those creators' content.

EA is not against creators, EA is clearly against creators making a buck off the community by selling custom content illegally.

What about that bandwidth loophole we enjoyed during Sims 1?
That loophole is gone.

Why?
MAXIS used to take care of Sims community issues, and MAXIS issued the bandwidth loophole statement. This was years ago, when bandwidth was costly. Now MAXIS is only very tangentially involved. EA has taken back all control of their intellectual property. MAXIS rules no longer apply at all.

What if I really need to recoup the costs of my server/bandwidth?
There are many legal ways to do this without selling content.

* You can talk to several people at this site about hosting.
* You can put a donation button on your site and make sure that no content is exchanged for donations.
* You can post your creations to free sites (MTS2, SFV, et cetera) or the Exchange and let them host your work.
* You can work with sites that are grouped together and host your work on a site network. S2Chost and Wicked Sims are both options.
* You can use file hosts like 4shared to host your work.
* You can use Yahoo Groups to host your work.
* You can e-mail your files to interested parties using mailers like gmail.
* You can make products for sale at CafePress, Zazzle, Spreadshirt, et cetera, as long as they do not break EA's copyrights. In other words, selling items with the official Sims logos or art is out, but selling items with your own logo, art, or creative designs are okay.

How can I get rich and make a profit in the Sims 2 community and not break the law?
You can't. To attempt to do so is to break the law. Why is it right for you to make a dollar off of EA Games? You didn't make the game, you didn't make the file formats, you didn't make the tools, you didn't write the code, you are not paid by EA, thus you need to make a buck in another way.

I don't like your attitude, you are surly pirates.
Too fucking bad. We don't like YOUR attitude, nor do we like you stealing from the community and feeling self-righteous and above the law.

If you were nicer, I might join your cause.
If you need candy and flowers to do the right thing, then you are in need of more help than we can offer. Most people do the right thing without expectation of reward or a pat on the head.

If paysites are outlawed, what will happen to all the good content?
First of all, most paysite items are not great quality and you can find similar or superior quality items for free.
Paysites do not typically refund your money if the item breaks your game.
Paysites do not typically issue refunds if the scale of the items are wrong and bleed through walls or Sims.
Paysites do not typically bother to let you know if their items are high-polygon, and thus lag-inducing.
Paysites typically do not reveal that their meshes are ripped off from Poser and other mesh sites. Poser artists are less than sanguine about their work being stolen.
Paysites which specialize in hair typically do not show you the gaps in the Sims' necks or poor animations or hair cutting through Sims; in fact, many paysites show their hair meshes on Photoshopped images.
Paysites typically do not bother to do currency conversions, so some people pay more than others for the same item they legally should not be buying in the first place.
Paysites occasionally refuse to release content when creators choose not to sell their work anymore, and hold it hostage until threatened by EA.
Paysites do not typically process subscription requests in a timely manner, so if you pay for a month, you may get two weeks or fewer.
Paysites make you pay to download their goodies, and some have punished subscribers from downloading "too much" or using download accelerator programs.
Paysites often use copyrighted images and brand names to make their pay items more appealing, which is breaking the copyright of those companies, the professional photographers who took the images, the designers of clothing used in the photos, et cetera.

If I only have one pay item, and another site has 50,000 pay items, are we equally wrong?
The scope of your wrong-doing is smaller, but you are still wrong.

If I am usually a free creator and have only one donation item, does that make my site a paysite?
Yes.

But I need to feed my chillunz / can't work a "normal" job / have an illness / am agoraphobic / need to be compensated for my talents and time!
Then you need to find a legal alternative to earn money.
Your talents as applied to Sims 2 game content can not legally be sold.
Apply your talents legally to make money, and use your talents within the Sims 2 community to share your hobby for free.

But I wouldn't create anything for the Sims 2 if I didn't make money!
Then you need to stop playing Sims 2 and find another outlet for your skills, because clearly being part of the fan community is not important to you.

But I have come up with something so new and special that it deservesd to be rewarded with cash!
Submit it to EA, then, if it is truly so new and special, and see if they are willing to hire you.
Do not think that your item(s) is/are so special that you and you alone are allowed to break the law.
Also, it is likely that someone else has already made that new and special item, and you simply have not found it yet.
And they are probably offering it for free.

But if I call something a donation, it's a donation!
You can call it a purple unicorn, but it doesn't make it so.

Oh, Lorelei, you needed to post that for the earlier troll. Hopefully he'll come back and troll around some more to see your post.

Edit: Was worried that it sounded like I thought Lorelei's arguments were stupid. I probably need sleep, stupid me procrastinating on projects...(sigh)

Lorelei, that was brilliant.

Hi.


I'm not running a paysite yet, but I asked EA (Germany) who owns the copyright on the custom content made with simpe from their point of view. I did'n get an answer till now - they just told me to be patient because the product manager and maxis are checking it. I asked one month ago  :!: So starting a discussion with EA seems not to be that easy  :wink:

p.s. sorry for my bad english  :roll:

Has your site already been established?  Or does it not exist yet, and when it does come to life, it will be born as a paysite?

If the former, please look into the alternatives.  People are willing to help.

If the latter...  why?  Are you just skipping all the pretence about gifts and maintenance costs, instead stating outright you are in this for the money?

ETA: Also, if I misunderstood completely, and you don't have a site nor do you plan to have one... don't mind me.  :lol:

Seems that my name is not really known in the english speaking community  :wink: I had a paysite (things4sims.de), but now I'm one of the admins from a free board (all4sims.de) - we have a donation button, but people don't get anything but a 'thank you' for donating  :wink:

But I am not agains paysites ... I like some, I dislike some. But I'm really pissed of people telling me that I have absolutely no copyright on the things I create for Sims2 - thats why I asked EA Germany about their point of view.

Marcel, as I understand it: you have the copyright to the things you make for sims as long as you do not try to profit off them. This means that EA is not going to take the things you've created and add them to their next stuff pack.

But if you sell .package files, they can tell you to stop it, because they own the legal copyright to the things put in .package files.

What I'm trying to say, is that EA is willing to respect your copyrights as long as you respect their copyrights, that is, you do not sell custom content.

Credit and copyright are two different things, which I think may be the problem.

You can and should get all credit and praise for work you do.

However, you can not claim copyright on items which can only work with EA's intellectual property, the Sims games.

Even if copyright issues and laws are different in your home country, you still need to abide by the EULA of the parent company, which is not based in your country. The EULA is the agreement all Sims players click "I agree" to before installing the game content.

As otherwise noted, it is also not a copyright law issue as much as it is a contract law issue. The EULA is a contract which expressly forbids users from selling content in any way, whether the sale is straightforward, as in subscriptions that are required to access content, "donation" "gifts," and so on.

I encourage you to share your work freely, so your name can be known as widely among English-speaking Sims fans as elsewhere. It is another way to ensure you get proper credit for your hard work and good ideas.

We are quick to defend creator's rights in the pro-freesite community. Please see threads here, specifically those concerning Linda Berkvist's work (Enayla, who is known best for her Sims skins). Linda's work is frequently stolen by paysites which try to sell it (such as 2-for-u, and most recently her work showed up in another game, Second Life). We believe that Linda's work should be credited only to her, and have gotten very angry on her behalf.

If you ever see any of your work being distributed without proper credit, especially if someone is attempting to sell your work, please let us know. We will help you.

Thank you Lorelei!
I bow before your awesomeness! :D

That is exactly what I meant. Credit and Copyright are the same thing in my mother tongue, so sometimes I accidentally use one of the terms when in fact I was supposed to use the other.

So, Maxis can't take the credit from you, but they own the copyright.

But as far as I know - I'm not a lawyer - the EULA does not 'work' (sorry, don't know the correct word) in germany, because I just can read it after I bought the game/software.
There is a part in the german copyright laws, that lets me think that EA does not own the copyright on things I make with SimPE - but my english is absolutely not good enaugh to translate  :wink:


I know most people don't like the way I handle it, but I don't like to see my meshes on other sites even if proper credit is given. People can recolor things, but the mesh should stay on my site (of course meshes can be included in houses). I think therefore I cannot count with your help in this cases  :wink:
But at this time I know only one site offering meshes made by me without my permission  8)

Yes!

Well said.

(And thank you.)

Sorry, it still applies. You have the option to disagree and not install the software.

Also, once you use SimPE to make something, it can only work with Sims games, so EA still owns the right to that content to the extent that they can forbid you from selling it commercially.

I can use the same ingredients to make a lunch sandwich that McDonald's uses, but I can not then sell it to people who want McDonald's sandwiches.

The analogy falls a little short, alas, because the sandwich is actually useful if you decide not to sell it as a McDonalds' product. SimPE-created content is completely worthless without the Sims 2 games.

It is also rather rude, to be honest, honey, to take a tool that was given free to the community at large to create items you intend to sell. That is not why SimPE was offered to us. The creator offered if for free, and does not even accept donations, much less sell it, because he wanted everyone to make content that was likewise free.



Alas, once you post anything to the Internet, you can't entirely control what people will do with it. However, we could gently urge the people not crediting you properly to do so.

Also, does it not give you a hint that meshes are automatically included in lots and sims2packs? EA intended for all content to be freely available. If you are not happy with that decision, you need to find another outlet for your talents.

As a suggestion, I would urge you to consider rethinking your insistence that people visit your site for meshes. It is annoying to play hide and go seek and have to visit a handful of sites to complete a download for the game. It is unnecessary. If your work is superlative, people WILL look to see who made it, and will come to your site on their own.

Whenever I have had to play hide and go seek for a mesh, I am generally so annoyed that I either do not use the item at all, or visit the site only long enough to find the one specific item I need, at which point I do not stay, and am not in any kind of mood to be thankful that I was forced to detour all over the net for a stupid game item.

But that is just me.

To repeat: you deserve credit for your creative ideas and work.

You can not legally sell your work IF it requires the Sims 2 games to function properly.

You had the option to disagree with the EULA's terms and return the game if you disagreed with what they required legally of you. You did not choose to disagree, and thus you made the choice to abide by the legal contract you were shown.

Using tools offered free to the community at large (and intended for creators to make free content for the community) to make pay content is, in a word, rude.

You are welcome to solicit donations. You are not allowed to offer anything in exchange for those donations. Once you make payment a requirement to get a specific item, you are selling content.

Selling content is against the legal contract you agreed to.

Therefore, selling content is not only illegal, but you can not argue that you did not know it was illegal. It is stated quite clearly in the end user legal agreement (EULA).

Thus, if you sell items, you are knowingly doing something that is illegal.

It is really very simple.

No thats not correct for germany an most other european countries. It's descibed in the german wikipedia article (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_User_License_Agreement) - maybe someone can/likes to translate it - i can't :wink:


Thats true, but not a really good argument.


No its not just you - I know that.
But I don't think that most people would take the time to visist the creators pages if the don't need to. Most people don't even take the time to click a 'Thanks'-button on MTS or leave a 'thanks' in a guestbook or mail it. And I think - I just can speculate about that - that is one argument for more and more creators to go to TSR.
Why do peolpe need to react angry, if they have to take a little time for getting meshes while I have to invest a lot more time in making them?

p.s. I have to say, that I have not understood everything of your post  :oops: Sorry, but a discussion in english is really hard for me  :wink:

Oh god, you're whining about thanks buttons?

Look, it's a fact of life, no matter what sort of creative work you do, the majority is not going to respond to it.  That's why, for example, on a fiction site, pageviews are a more worthwhile stat to the author than review counts.  Your download stats are more worthwhile than the thanks button.  It's just a fact.

And if I can't get the mesh with the item, not only is that item ignored and useless to me, if I remember what site housed the mesh, I avoid them.

The rest of what was said?  You're taking stuff given to you freely (like SimPE) which was intended to make items that EA/Maxis want you to share freely (which is why their packaging methods now include meshes, and the Exchange is so easy to upload anything to) and saying it's okay to profit from it.

Basically, even if it's legal, you're still an asshole.  Is that clear enough now?

Want to call me an asshole? Fine - you're free to do it. But not for selling simscontent - becouse I'm actually not doing it. Start reading the posts you're answering to.

In germany (and most parts of europe) the eula is not binding, because I can not read it, before I buy the Software (thats why it can be binding, when I buy software online).
I need to say, that the fact that the eula does not mean that the software would be completly free to use/change. It only means that german laws count - not what EA says.


See above  :wink: But because it's the booty offering meshes made by me, theres no way to discuss that here in a normal way I think  :wink:

I think I need to say again: I'm not pro and not against paysites. Theres a lot paysites out there which are really 'evil' (don't have a better word now). But I am against the 'everything belongs to EA, so we can share everything like we want'.

"But I am against the 'everything belongs to EA, so we can share everything like we want'."

But not everyone thinks that.  Why do people think that those who are anti-paysite are interested in an anarchy of sorts?

The reason that items are being redistributed now at PMBD is because they are otherwise unavailable to the public.  Once the site goes free and the items are available to the public through the owner's site, they are removed from the booty.

Not everyone here thinks that creators' wishes should be ignored.

In the last weeks I have the feeling, that more and more people are thinkin it. Thats why I asked EA about the copyright.

:o  That makes alot more sense ( :lol:  Did I mention my translator sucks? )

In that case, Does this apply to only when you can't find a eula at all?
( No website or flyer or word of mouth even.  nothing. zilp. zitch. nada. )

or you can find a enla at your leisure? ( As  in a poster with the eula on it next to the software )



  :?:  I can't quite understand what you mean :(




:lol:  Fair enough



:) It's not so much the objects, but the file format ( Made by Ea games ) that you put them in. The meshes, and the textures are yours
( provided that you made them ) but a lot of coding goes in that package file to make it actually work,

Think of it this way
If I have a computer, And I create a theme for it
( the desktop, the folder thumbnails, a custom cursor that sort of thing )

Yes, the theme is mine. however, I cannot claim the whole computer as mine, nor sell it as such.

If I didn't create the coding from the ground up that lets me make themes in the first place, or anything like that

then how can I claim that the computer is completely mine, and that I have the right do what ever I want  with,  against enla ( at lease in my country ) of the people that did do all the coding?

Creator's ownership (and credits) are - I think - a slightly different issue, that pertain any creator, free or pay.
It matters, of course, in this free vs. pay debate, but it's not the core issue. It's not easy to explain, but I'll try.

Let's say you make a skintone in BodyShop; it turns out very good. That skintone, with some adaptations, may be used by other artists/users/whatever. You decide to sell that texture on Renderosity (or whatever may apply).

An EA's lawyer may object that according to EULA you can't, because you made it with their tools.
The antipaysites guys do not give the issue a damn. It does not pertain your behavior toward community members, we are not advocating EA (or someone else's) legal rights, but unwritten rules of fellowship between members of the same community.
EULAs, laws and such are not the issue, but only the tools we have (and may use) to judge behaviors.

Not only. There's a high probability that in case of legal debate (between you and EA, so to speak) you may have support by your fellow community members, just because you are part of this community. That's the community spirit, nothing more, nothing less; and everything pertains the antipaysites movement is centered on community spirit: all the rest (laws, copyrights, EULAs, whatever) is only data, not issues.

I hope it makes sense.

I prefer comparing it with the wma format. When you write & sing a song and convert it into the wma-format you still have the copyright on it - not microsoft or someone else  :wink: Don't matter what any eula says. Well, all I say is based on german laws - can't say how it is handled in other countrys.

@Marhis
Sorry, I really could not understand what you meant  :oops:

derMarcel, obviously someone needs to explain this all to you in your mother tongue because you are not understanding at all.

I could help, but I don't think this should be done in this thread.

Marcel, wenn du Hilfe beim Übersetzen brauchst, dann sag mir bitte, was ich übersetzen soll, damit hier die Missverständnisse nicht Überhand nehmen.


About the Wikipedia article:
Endbenutzer-Lizenzverträge werden meist zu Beginn der Installation der Software angezeigt und müssen vom Benutzer akzeptiert werden, um die Installation fortzuführen. Diese EULAs sollen den Benutzer neben den üblichen Klauseln zur Wahrung des Urheberrechts oft auch zu mehr verpflichten: Bestimmte Hersteller versuchen damit z. B. zu verhindern, dass der Kunde, der das Produkt verwendet, Negatives über ihn verbreitet.

Translation:
EULAs are mostly shown at the beginning of the installation and have to be accepted by the user to proceed with the installation. These EULAs should bind the users not only to the usual clauses about the copyrightlaw but to more, too: Certain producers try e.g. to avoid that customers, who use this product, spread negative things about them.

Obwohl diese Verträge auf Laien oft sehr „offiziell“ wirken, haben sie in Europa meist keine Gültigkeit: Der Kaufvertrag ist die Grundlage für den Eigentumserwerb am Datenträger, so dass der Erwerber bereits über ein Nutzungsrecht (aus Eigentum) verfügt; zu diesem Zeitpunkt ist das EULA für den Kunden jedoch noch nicht einsehbar. Gesetzliche Regelungen, wie z. B. das Urheberrecht gelten auch ohne Erwähnung in einem EULA, darüber hinausgehende Klauseln sind ungültig.

Translation: Although these Licenses look very "officially" to the layman they most times aren't valid : the ageement for sale is the basement for the ownership of the data medium, so that the purchaser already has the right to use it as his own property; at this time the EULA isn't visible for the purchaser. Legal rights like the copyright are valid even without being mentioned in the EULA, things beyond that are invalid.

And Wikis are notoriously inaccurate.

Yep, using Wikipedia as the end word on anything is a foolish move. You can use it as a base for an argument, but only if you have checked out all of the sources and information listed and read through them to understand exactly what each source was getting at. I have a feeling that the "EULA is invalid in my country" argument being used here is a misunderstanding of what was originally intended.

derMarcel

I do know your work and have quite a bit of it in my game.  What I have I got from MTS2 a while back.  I don't understand any language but English, so I can't register on your site to download anything else, although I would really like more of your items.

I think you should follow the advice of all the others in this thread.  Even if you make an item in Simpe, you still have to clone a maxis object to make your item.  Without that code from the cloned item, your object is useless and that code does belong to EAMaxis.

I make dresses for little girls.  I use a pattern I purchased at a store.  There is a disclaimer that I can only use the pattern for non-commercial purposes.  Now if someone wants me to make a dress for them, they purchase the fabric (the texture, if you will).  I make the dress for them and sometimes, but not always, I receive a tip for my efforts.  I don't charge for my labor because then it would violate the commercial-use clause on the pattern.  This is my hobby and I do it for the joy that it brings to those who do not or cannot sew.

So, sell your textures, sell your meshes, but once you put it in a .package format, it becomes something you cannot sell.

sorry, double post

To the song, yes. With that, I completely agree. But not to the actual wma format.

Lets say I was to create a music player, and few completely new music formats including on called .putt

I state in my eula that you cannot use any file format that I made for profit. If you were to create a song and saved it as a .putt file, you wouldn't be able to sell the song. the song is yours, but the file format is not. if you were to create your own formant, or find one that allows you sell, then have at it. but as long as it's in the format .putt,  which I made, my eula and copyrights still apply

Another way I can put it is I have an empty vase.
I'll tell you what, you can have my vase, so long as you don't sell it. you can fill it with gold or water or whatever you need to fill it with. whatever is inside the vase is yours. but the vase self isn't. That's mine. and as long as your using my vase, you can't sell it.

even if you were to add to the vase or paint it or anything like that, you still cannot sell my vase, as selling the vase would be a breach of contract, and the contract is what allows you to use my vase is the first place :wink:

Ultimately, the fundamental truth is that EULAe are legally dodgy documents at best and have not really had their day on court, but at the same time, what we're doing isn't prohibited by any *OTHER* laws, and nobody has managed to find an actual lawyer willing to formulate a legal C&D. As no real lawyer is willing to consider this matter seriously, nothing is done on the legal front and paysite-people primarily resort to threats and intimidation unbacked by any legal force whatsoever in an attempt to get their way. EULAe are ultimately little more than bits of sophistry and who's right or wrong is ultimately determined by those with the biggest guns.

I think what he's saying here is that if the EULA (or ENLA, whichever)  happens to contradict German Law that addresses the same situation,  German Law would take precedence over the EULA/ENLA. Does that make a bit more sense?

In English, "you" is both the singular and plural second person pronoun.  When I stated "you're an asshole," I was referring to people selling custom content using tools by the community meant for sharing and distributing them for a game where the publisher and company meant content to be shared.  Not you specifically, unless you personally are in that category.

There is no reason to take it personally if you are not actually doing that.  However, my statement still stands.  Even if it's legal (in Germany), if you do it, then you are an asshole (in Germany).  And it seems like you are the one having reading issues (in Germany?).  I can give a bit of allowance for not knowing all the inner bits and pieces of English, but not if you're going to get all uppity with ME because you MISREAD something I said.

Okay, I think before I make myself a complete idiot, I should probably step out of the discussion.  :wink:

If you want I can inform you what EA answered me to my question about the copyright - if they ever answer  :roll:


Sorry, but I really didn't knew that. My mistake and I take back everything I said to you. :oops:

There are a few major flaws in the whole EULA argument which everyone seems to overlook

First, and most important, is the fact that almost ALL Sims2 sites are in violation of the EULA.  
I don't mean the part about charging for content - everyone likes to throw that one around, because it suits your purposes.

I mean thae part that says you can not "reverse engineer" or "disassemble" the software.  This means that you can not examine the game itself or it's file formats to find out how they are put together.  So, programs such as SimPE and anything made using such programs also violates the EULA.

In short, if you think paysites are doing something "illegal" because of the EULA violation, then it also follows that any site using content made using SimPE or other modding tools is also doing something "illegal"

If you are against paysites for some other reason, fine.  But all this talk about the EULA is pure BS as far as I am concerned, because you don't really care about it at all.

Oh, the other things about the EULA that are never mentioned:

Here in the US anyway, a pesron under 18 can not legally agree to a "contract" which is what the EULA is.  If I am under 18, I can click the EULA and install the game, but legally the EULA is now void.

Not to ment the fact that even if I am over 18, there is no way to prove WHO agreed to the EULA - maybe my sister installed the game, or my dad?  In that case, am I still bound by it?  Certainly not, because I could say that I never even saw it.

In case you are wondering, I do NOT run a paysite, all my stuff is available for free at various places.  But this whole EULA nonsense really puts this site in a bad light, and by extension free sites in general, and turns a lot of people away from your campaign.

 

Wrong. It specifically states in the EULA



Whereby, if you put up that notice, you can provide it.




No, that applies to the tools that you use.



You cannot reverse engineer Bodyshop, or Homecrafter and sell it, or distribute it without trademarks, or distribute it as your own work.  It says nowhere in any EULA that you may not reverse engineer the files and make more content that may not be used for any purpose - it is referring to the tools.



I only converted to this way of thinking after reading the EULA - I follow the law, and while others might not care, I don't even cross against the little green man because it's against the law.



No one under 18 can form contracts needed to run a business either, so it is moot.



It's not nonsense, it's a contract that we all agreed to.  It's a legal document.  And this EULA nonsense hasn't turned away anyone who didn't already think that paysites were a good thing - it's just the latest scare tactic used by paysite sympathisers.

I'm not sure why this "all CC is illegal!" bit has become the argument du jour. Any reading of the EULA will show that this is not so (both Calalily and kariminger have given very good explanations as to why, please see the Trezillah thread for more).

EA is not a company run by a band of business school drop outs, so they wouldn't write into their EULA a fantastic way to shoot themselves in the foot. The Sims remains popular because of CC, and the EULA is there to protect both EA's commercial interests and to keep CC creation as a way to keep people playing and buying the game.

There's a fundamental difference. Please forgive me if I make now some generalizations, they're for a brief explaination, not for arguing about EULAs legalities or such.

1) Paysites do something illegal that subsequentely damages EA and community members.
EA is damaged in its copyrights, money, etc.
Community is damaged in its inner unwritten rules of fairness among members, mutual support and - in particular - not trying to mock other fellow members or - worse - con them.

2) Assuming that someone has disassembled the code, this may (perhaps) damage EA, for the same reasons mentioned above, but not community members.

That's the key point, not the uber-legality toward the world.
Do you really think there's a single anti-paysite supporter who cares about EA rights?

Community members that try to cheat on other community members are recognized no more as members: plain and simple.
The fundamental key is awareness: after that, I can choose to buy from paysites or not, that's my personal choice, but I need to know the facts, before, and that's what the community is for, btw: share information among their members.

This stated, we may also argue about disassembling/reverse engineering, as it apparently was not done (nobody - for what I know - ever disassembled the game engine).

And more, as calalily pointed before:

What is forbidden, literally, here, is not the hacking per se, but its use in commercial or unlawful ways.

Marhis, your community/members comment reminds me of a situation I once found myself in a mumber of years ago:

A group of us had taken an intensive day-long workshop on tarot...history, philosophy, divination, other uses/meanings. After the workshop, we all gave each other readings. One woman was hesitant. "I plan to charge for readings; I'm not sure I should give them away for free now."

We beat her severely.

(No, not really, but no one 'played' with her after that comment.)


So I think...we all learn how to do this stuff from a collected body of literature - tutes, programs...available to all. We all go to these forums to hone our craft. It seems like, at least ethically, the same thing.

Or maybe I'm full of shit. <gurgle>

I've been absent from this discussion simply because I lost interest in it, just came to see how it has progressed while I was gone. To be clear,  I don't care much about any of it either way, it was all mostly for the sake of a good debate.

However, I'm not knowledgeable enough about copyright and contract law and will therefore have to throw in the towel at this point. Arguing without a proper foundation of facts is just too frustrating.


Are you calling me a troll?

At least I haven't resorted to name calling unlike some other posters here :wink:

Nope, I was not calling you a troll. I was making reference to someone who had posted a few days ago with some very poorly reasoned arguments. I can understand the confusion because I did post this comment in a different thread, but you've been away for a while so you shouldn't assume that everything's about you.  :wink: