PMBD

New confirmation from EA regarding paysites

Basically saying: why are you asking again, you naughty girl, you posted my convo on your site! :D

But still :P

http://www.noukiesims2.net/EAconfirms.gif

All I can think of at the moment is how is Lyric going to find enough dirt on this person to convince us they are evil?

Well, a maxoid (http://thesims2.ea.com/mysimpage/blog.php?user_id=3215790) countered that with, "The jury is still out because legal hasn't said or done anything yet."

Yay! This is cause for celebration.

I epecially like this part:


*passes rum*

I don't care what Maxisdude says, if you look at the date, this was confirmed AFTER the above statement. They obviously don't work together, and obviously EA legal doesn't give a rats ass what this person has to say.

Sweet!  :D  *passes out*

That's his opinion though, but honestly I always fail to see how in the end this matters much.  We have over the years collected many similar letters.  Nothing is ever done to prevent paysites or to stop us from distributing thier files.  I could be mistaken, but I have very little faith anything will happen with this.

It juist confirms to me that this is 100% real, and that things are starting to move. Don't worry, it might be the start for Sims 3 at least.

The lack of professionalism in that maxoids little address does not inspire much confidence.

Oh, I am not advocating at all what the maxoid is saying.  I'm just sharing what's out there.

EA Maxis certainly isn't showing a united front against paysites.. yet.

That's what I am hoping.

that comment from the sims 2 was by a Sim master, not a maxoid. sim masters are not employed by ea/maxis so they have no idea what really goes on even if they want to pretend they do. maxoids are the only people that even have the right to speak on behalf of ea. sim masters are simply people that ea thought might do a decent job a moderating that shitty BBS, as you can see they are terrible mistaken. sim master drama llama is an idiot and her posts and bannings calling out members is enough to confirm it. she has no info in ea legal at all.


EDIT- Dude, i swear there is one there that has a blue haired avatar and she is simmasterdramallama, lol. i hate her and her goddamned blue hair, she is the epitome of...uh, i just cant stand her

"This llama does not dig drama."  :lol:  I'm sorry.  I just had a Breakfast Club flashback.  "You mess with the bull you get the horns."

Thanks for the news Noukie.

The drama aint over.

May I suggest asking the following:

"If I were to use products of my own to create items for the sims, am I stil entitled to sell these, even though I am using .package to make them possible to be used within the game. Is this legal for me to sell them? Or is it against the law to sell them when they have been made "useable" for game use?"

Or something along those lines.

THAT is what paysites are arguing about. The fact is, they dont ALL use Homecrafter/Bodyshop etc to make their products, they use 3D programs etc.

So we need confirmation if them using other products, but then turning them into .package (useable form for the game) is legal or illegal.

As it all boils down to that.

I am highly against paysites, but that is the little cloud they are hiding behind right now, and we NEED to know if that is illegal or not. We cannot keep saying that what they are doing is illegal 100% until we know 100% for sure that they are- as I said, it all boils down to what EA says about it.

And finding out that one little thing could show more.

Sorry if im not making great sense, but its freezingcold here and typing is hard lol, and im tired >< (even though its 12:24pm in the arvo..)



Actually DramaLlama is a Maxoid- they are employed by EA, they are just one of the developers stuck with the task of watching the BBS with other Simmasters when they arent needed for coding/developing.

Pirate Gem, once you put your creation into .package format, it is EA Maxis'.  It's as simple as that.

They could sell obj and texture files and it would be legal.

And PMBD can now be linked on S2C!!

Yes I do know this :)

I am just sayign someone needs to ASK EA, and then post it so the paysites can see ;p

lol, i was just over at s2c and i looked at hysterical paroxysms avatar and it has an eye patch over her girl....and in her siggy it links, and i quote "pirate booty" LOL, YES....

Pirate Gem I think the closest answers we are going to get are about what we have now and have gotten these past years.  EA does a good job of not being too specific.  However, they have mentioned that both the selling of CC is a violation of their copyright and that legally EA owns all work created that includes their "tools and materials" which to me answers that question.   I don't think they are going to say anything more specific than that.  

EA owns the .package, even if you put your own stuff in it.  Now I am not sure they could go on and extract your mesh or texture and say they own it, but as long as it's together with their materials, and you willingly placed it there,  then you have no argument.  

Also, paysite know about this, I am sure the majority do, and they are not going to do a thing about it even if you plaster it all over their inboxes.  They are going to look around, see other paysites, see the money coming in, and continue to do what they do until EA directly tells them to stop.

You're as cynical and skeptical as I am. Paysites are a virus that is immune to the antibody known as EA legal. They'll just keep doing what they do until they implode which I can see happening over at TSR.

They're imploding?  This I got to see.

It is a huge step though for S2C to allow linking to the booty. It will suck paying customers away from them. I suspect that after it all sinks in, the stupid anti-Delphy commandos will not be very popular among paysite owners. I think their self-serving little stunt was the tipping point for the people over at S2C.

Who is going to pay now?

lol. How ironic, that would mean that LyricLee has unwittingly helped the anti-paysite cause more than just about anyone.

Guess she got a revolution after all then, just not the one she wanted.

If she was smart, which we know she's not, she would quietly retire from the sims community and find somewhere else on the internets to hang out, Myspace comes to mind.

So young. So cynical.  :)

I know, but I been in this community for so many years.  Back when trading walls and floors on ts1 forums was the "thing".  Back when sites were free and then first criticized for going pay.  

It's great that Pes backed sharing the way he did.  It's even great the FFFS is out there, it's awesome that Delphy is allowing links to PMBD, and it's nice that finally there is a large part of the community speaking out against paysites together.  However, at the end of the day EA really needs to do something other than write us pretty letters.  

I am hoping for TS3 they will do so, if only to end this mess that paysites, and anti-paysite people have made for them.

I remember those days too.

And I think that was half the reason for the sims2pack to work the way it does.  You make a house and share it.  Its a little clumsy, but it does make it obvious that sharing is the idea - not locking it behind a wall.  Same with the way the whole exchange works.

http://www.thesimsresource.com/news.php?ID=2564



:lol:

More crumbs being tossed down to appease the peasants. Wooo... woo... Sorry, I just can't muster the enthusiasm this demands... :roll:

They're not new crumbs.  They're crumbs that have been eaten and digested and gone out the other end.

LOL! I was trying to be nice about it but that's the truth of it.

Arrr! Indeed, I can't muster any 'impressings' either. In fact, it's got me all unimpressed. I'm pressing for more rum though!

Sherry Wrote:


I have to agree. In all honesty, I never did quite understand why they bother writing a EULA if they weren't prepared to enforce it. It's a mystery.

Speaking of Maxis, I thought they were no longer part of EA? I'm pretty slow on the news front/going ons in the community.

PS. Thanks for the info/update Nouk.

Actually, I thought Maxis was gone...bought by EA and thus...swallowed.




So I'm wrong. hm.

Pirate Gem just wants confirmation on the .package thing.  I agree with that.  If we had something in writing from EA stating that .package files are also included in the "tools", then paysites just got their last itty bitty leg swept out from under them.

edit: argh! This thread went to fast and I posted a bit late. It was in response to Missangelica and Pirate Gem on page 1 >< And HP's link on another thread basically has that in writing. Yay!

ladidah was advised to edit ;)

I can't see that happening, or working.  Beyond the simple technical expertise required to make something capable of doing that being pretty hard to come by, all the expertise of the free community hasn't made something capable of doing that.  SimPE still takes a lot of learning to use any one part of it and it's by no means automated for many processes.

I also can't see being able to make a program to make something game-workable - with the express purpose of using it to sell content -  without being in violation.  I don't think you could completely separate all the game's information from it and still have it output something like that.

Hair meshes would also be completely impossible to do via that method, too - no user would be willing to sit and reassign every one of those vertices with multiple bone weights because it had to be separated from the skeleton to be sold clear of original game components.  And body meshes are already irrelevant, containing original game parts in 99.9% of body meshes.

I don't think it's possible to properly separate most things out like that.  Completely static objects, perhaps, but once you get into hacked objects and anything more complicated, it just wouldn't work.

Of course, the technical issues are really not that important, as users wouldn't go for it.  They whine and cry if a hair is left un-binned... they're not going to follow a tutorial and instructions to put together each individual piece of content, especially if they've already paid for it.

Meh, in my view that option just would not work for two reasons

1) its too complicated & complex - people wont be bothered enough/understand it enough to buy that and put it together themselves, when they can get complete stuff for free

2) they will learn how to make things, and so will make their own stuff from scratch - so wont need to buy the pay stuff when they can make it themselves for free

But if they are desperate enough, then they will try it.  :roll:

I'd ignore this since it was necromancy but since you said my name then I'm going to respond.  My response to the confirmation was that it was like at least the third confirmation in a row over a period of a couple days that said basically the same thing so I wasn't impressed.  It felt/feels like beating a dead horse, ya know?  I understand why she did it though.

I don't think it will work for another reason aside from the ones listed above. Outside of the Sims 2, creators are free to sell their textures and meshes through various sites and to various clients. The above situation would mean that the creators are having to sell their original meshes and models to the paysite, which could mean they lose a certain set of rights to control how and where they are published. At the moment, these creations are confined to just Sims 2 use, however if the above was true then things would be quite different. I will admit that meshes and textures can be pulled out now by using various programs, but, as HP said, doing so requires a fairly high level of skill and knowledge.

It would certainly require new agreements to be drawn up between the paysite and the creator in order to limit the use of said objects. I know for myself that I would be less than keen on handing out my original meshes and textures to be used by a gigantic group of basically uncontrolled individuals unless I was being really well paid for it. I have a feeling that such a thing would be, while more legal than what is being done now, a nightmare in terms of working out contracts, terms and payment with hired creators. Especially if people find out that their work is being misused, or (actually, in this case) stolen for some other purpose.

All you would have to do is to take the actual artwork (mesh, textures) out of the package and put in a separate file which would be the file you sell.
The remaining parts of the package would of course be sent along with the file being sold (.package file are free to share right?) together with a simple little program that merges the .payfile with the .package.

Nifty :).

Nohead, in the case of something like a static object - let's say it's a living room chair, that might be possible.  You could put together a file that, say, had the GUID, description, name, mesh, and textures all in it, and have that separate, with a program that would put together something for the end user.  But whether or not that program could be fundamentally separated from the game's coding...  I would think a program that could output working .package files would have to have a lot of information within itself about .packages to do that.  I'm not a programmer, but it seems like to give that end result you'd have to have bits and pieces in there that would be EA's stuff...  And if you're selling the stuff along with a program to package things as game content, I think that's still going to fall under the reverse-engineering type stuffs.

But for anything more complicated - anything that goes on a sim like the ever-popular Peggy, Rose, Raon, etc. hairs, the mesh cannot be separated from the original game's skeleton without losing the bone assignments (at least not by any method I know of) and if you lose those, the mesh is useless to the end user.  Anything hacked as well, I don't think you could possibly separate the hacky bits from the original game bits required and still be able to put it back together properly.

All in all, it's far too much effort for everyone involved - the paysites that would have to learn how to somehow do what has never been done with all the efforts of the free community, and for the end user, who would have to go in and put together every single item in a process that is far more effort for them with stuff they'd be paying for than getting free content and just using it.

It would actually not be very hard and it would not need any code written by EA to accomplish it either.

The interesting question though is would those files still be in the booty?
There is no EULA that says that .payfile's are free to share so that argument can't be used.

Um, no.  Just, no.  You've never looked what is inside of a package, have you?

I have. But for the sake of giving the more interesting question a chance let's just say that it is really hard to do, but if someone managed to do it would it still end up in the booty?

It's not really hard to do.. it's IMPOSSIBLE to make things show up in the game without EAMaxis code.  So your question about the booty is moot.

I'm not saying there will be no EA code involved, just that there will be no EA code in the program that merges the .payfile with the .package (which indeed  contains lots of EA code) and no EA code in the actual .payfile (see my previous post about that).
No EA code is being sold, it's just being sent along with the .payfile that is being sold.
See what i mean now?

Actually, the code is being sold if it is being provided along with the meshes and textures. I would think that everything inside of the sent folder or file would be part of the sale. Besides which, there aren't any programs that can do this simply at the moment anyway. Are you thinking of trying to develop something like this? Based on the descriptions of the system that you're suggesting, it's basically just a more complicated version of what is being done right now.

That is a valid point, so instead of sending the remaining .package file along with the .payfile it might need to be downloaded separately.
It should actually be free for everyone to download the .package part but without the .payfile component it would be rather useless.
All the trouble with downloading the right .package file could be handled by the merging application so it wouldn't have to be complicated for the end user.

I'm not considering to develop anything, i'm just interested in how it would affect things if such a system were being used.

I think the hypothetical is that there are 2 files that make up the game object and a program to put them together. The part containing all EAxis code is provided free to anyone who wants it. The other part , .payfile if you will, has the "copyrighted" part. If a program puts the two bits to make a whole .package what could be in the .payfile?
I don't think there is much scope in this, especially as it would require expert hacking, something no paysite supporter can currently do, but I believe that is the question being asked.

Well, assuming that there are people out there who want to do the work (AHAHAHA), most paysites are just doing it for the money.  If they sold the pieces and allowed people to put it together, only one person would need to pony up the cash for it and then everyone would have it for free.

Which is not what most paysites want--they want everyone who wants their stuff to pay for it, so instead of getting paid once, they get paid thousands of times.

Yes that pretty much sums it up, thank's for putting it in other words :).

What would go in the .payfile would of course only be the original artwork (.bmp's, mesh data etc) and absolutely no EA code.

Well that is what they would accomplish, there would be no legal way of obtaining the .payfile (original artwork) besides paying for it.

The point is that only one person would need to buy it and put it together, and it's not like the original creator can say "you can't redistribute the package file, though".

Once it's out there for free, someone could take the .package file and rip out the art.  You don't have to cough up the cash yourself to get the art if someone else already did and it's available for download.

I think the issue here is that acutually this is what the EULA does protect against in my understanding.  Also, whether someone is brave/stupid enough to undertake this, you still are using EA's game to play.  I write code and it is very difficult to do something like this and no guarantees if it would work, who will keep it up to date with EPs and lastly, if EA changes something within the game that would affect the program that bridges the two files - you are then SOL and poor.

I'd love to see the paysites crippled by the latest EP. Waiting, as we usually are for the SimPE and hack updates, to be able to release new stuff.
*takes a swig of rum and daydreams a little*

All content in the .payfile would be copyrighted material which you can't (legally) just share, on the same principle that makes it illegal to share music and movies for example.

And in the end, how will this solution be any different from what goes on here?  You have someone seling this .payfile with consent to combine it with a .package file.  And then, they can take that package file, upload it here or anywhere else, and it's back to square one.

There would be no consent to redistribute the copyrighted materials in any format, not the in original format and not in the .package format.

The difference would be that the EULA argument that are being used to sanction such activities would not hold and it would actually be illegal in the real sense of the word to do so.
Do you think that it would still be done?

So when someone uploads it to the exchange you really think the paysite has a leg to stand on against EA?

Well that was the point I was trying to make in my earlier post as to one of the reasons why selling the mesh and textures wouldn't be feasible even if such a program existed. The legalities of it are a bit murky, especially if the creator wants to hold onto any rights of sale and distribution of their items.

The current system is actually better for creators as they can sell their creations to anyone they want so long as it is not a Sims file. Deciding which TOU (paysite's or EA's) is more binding would be the decision that would have to be made, as according to EA, once it's in a package file it's under their discretion how the files may be used. Paysites would have to prove that their intent was never to make package files out of the creator's work in order to prove that redistribution and resuse was illegal (and any instructions they've included in files to show how to use files in game might put kind of a hole in that argument). In order to make redistribution totally illegal, they would not be able to include any instructions or materials to create package files out of this work, which would essentially make the idea pointless.

That sounds like it's still trying to skirt around the EULA, but not really.  A product is still being sold to be combined with something that is to use the pacakge file format - and the sellers know this.  They would probably even go as far as to tell their customers how to insert the code into the package files, so they can't really claim that the items are independent of Sims 2 coding.  And if the sellers are doing this, they still relinquish the rights to their works - however much of it is actually theirs.  In the end, the sellers are consenting to redistribution of their materials if they are encouraging people to link them to package files in any way.

Plus, as someone mentioned before, this would render clothing and hair meshes useless.

look at Exnem's site:

- he makes Piglet and Eyeore teddy bears: do you really think he OWNS the right to the teddy bear code?
nope, thats EA property
....does he own the image rights to Piglet?
nope, thats the creation of A. A. Milne and the rights belong to the Disney Corporation
(from Wikipedia: After Milne's death, his widow sold the rights to the Pooh characters to the Walt Disney Company...Royalties from the Pooh characters paid by Disney to the Royal Literary Fund, part-owner of the Pooh copyright)

so Exnem is using a copyrighted image on a copyrighted file, neither of which he owns the legal rights to....and makes money without any royalties paid to the legitimate copyright owners


so how can these paysite owners dare to comment on how "their rights" are being misused???   :shock:


then, if thats not bad enough, let's look at Exnems pictures:
- he uses an EA mesh
- he uses some image of the Net of Disney, Marvel Comics, etc
- he slaps them together using a tool he doesnt own (SimPe photo creation most likely)
- he charges money for these things and he doesnt own one bit of this 'creations'.......the images belong to someone else, the package file belongs to someone else, the tool to make them was made by someone else

then turns around and says "dont redistribute MY creations"

what B-S   :x

Actually, and I am still trying to find it, there was a thread posted by Steve Bonham concerning TSR content on EA's site.  According to the post, a conf. call between Steve and 2 execs from EA occurred.  EA is now investigating the claims of people uploading content created by someone else.  If you find this thread, let me know or post it.  I didn't look at the date, but I don't think it was that long ago.

The whole idea would of course be to make it workable in the game in a way that is more or less transparent to the end user.

BUT the part you sell (the .payfile) has nothing to do with any EA code and is copyrighted with restrictions on how it may be used.
I can't see how it would make things fall under EA's control?
Can i take Photoshop for instance and squeeze it into a .package file and share just because EA says that .package files are free to share?

Nohead, you come up with the craziest ideas.  Why pose questions that could not happen to begin with?

Because nohead is apparently bent on continuing to charge for content.  It would be interesting knowing just who nohead really is.

That's just the way i am i guess :).

But it's actually not very hard to add Photoshop or a dvd rip for example on to a .package file, just a matter of pushing bytes.

Can they then be used as CC in the Sims2 game?

I guess so but i haven't actually tried it, but it would still be a .package file and those are free to share right?

We could make a more realistic example then (i tend to take things to the extremes), what about digital art being sneaked in to a package file (a painting for example)?

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

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

1.) What you're suggesting is totally unfeasable

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

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

Take all the bytes that's on the Photoshop CD/DVD and put them in somewhere in a .package file and there you go :).
In order to make the game accept having Photoshop in a .package file you would need to know exactly where and how to put the bytes there of course but for the sake of distributing Photoshop i guess we could live with not being able to use the file in the game.

But i realize that i once again have managed to blur the real question by going to the extent of things, so if the Photoshop example is too hard to swallow try the digital art one instead.

Your point number 2 is the same argument i use for why you can't redistribute the contents of the .payfile.

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

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

So what if the creator of the digital art says in the legal text that the end user is allowed to use the creation in the game for personal use only, does that all of a sudden mean that it is free to share?

After reading all of this shit and trying to make sense out of it, my fucking hangover headache is starting to come back. Thanks a lot, nohead, thanks a fucking lot. (and I'm serious about the headache, I no longer recover from shit like I ought to)

The hangover is your body's way of telling you that you need to get started on the drinks again ;).

I have the perfect hangover cure, stay drunk! But damn, 151 kicks ass like nothing I've had before, unless you want to count tequila and Long Island Iced Teas...

In my opinion, I'm afraid so. Unless this digital artist has an outside licensing agreement with EA that limits the redistribution of their product, according to EA it's free to share. Any artist who was (or is) allowing their work to be used in game should be well aware of the limits that in game use puts over their work. They can ask people not to redistribute it without their knowledge, but there isn't much they can actually do about it. As an example of a party that does have outside agreements for usage and distribution with EA you can think of H&M (who certainly didn't sign the same agreement that you or I or Peggy or whoever did).

As I said before, this is where I see one of the major flaws in the system you suggested. Currently, digital artists are still free to sell their work outside of the Sims, and if their work is pulled out of a package file and resold by some unscrupulous person they have much more steady legal ground to stand on. The work that was freely distributed as a Sims file falls under EA's distribution interests, however outside of a Sims file the artist retains all right to sell and redistribute that work as they see fit.

What you suggest sounds like it would mean that the artist's unaltered work would be sent out into the community at large and controlling usage of that work would take large amounts of paper work, dilligence, and cash from the controlling paysite. Talk to some Poser artists to see how they feel seeing their own work stolen to be used as pay Sims product (plus, making meshes out of Poser product actually takes some effort, whereas your idea is as easy as opening up the file). Any artist who thinks that it would be a good idea to send out straight textures and meshes to large groups of people that they have no real contact or agreement with would have to be seriously naive (sob! I don't know how to create an umelaut).

Thanks Mando for explaining your take on this, i think that i get your point of view now.

I'm not so sure that the copyrighted materials becomes free to share as soon as it's put into a .package though.
It is being put in that format by the end user with the explicit permission from the original creator to do so for personal use only.
I do think that the normal copyright laws will protect the creator in this case (i have very limited knowledge in this field though so i might be wrong here).

The first time I drank tequila shots, I got really drunk. The next morning, I was so sick that I was vomiting about every 15 minutes from early morning to the early evening. I swear I'll never drink tequila again.

TO-KILL-YA! LOL

At one point I thought I was gonna die or something. I was vomiting something black. I didn't remember eating anything black. I still don't think I ate anything black. I learned my lessson. It was kinda my friend's fault though. I told him I wanted to try tequila and he mixed it in my sprite. I'm not sure how much tequila he put in my sprite.

I think that it depends on the copyright, depends on the material, and depends on any previous agreements whether it does or not. Anyone who creates work expressly for use in the Sims 2 should be aware of what that agreement would mean for free distribution of their work. The examples I gave before were reused as Sims files without the permission of the creators which means that in those cases redistribution actually is a broken copyright. Redistributing a pay clothing or hair mesh and texture (one made by the creator for use only in the Sims, mind you) is not.

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

With no indication that it was intended for the Sims 2 the creator or the paysite could say, "Someone bought my/our files and illegally redistributed them as a Sims 2 product! That is against our terms which say that it is solely for personal use!". This, I think, would be a more protected position but hard to maintain and maybe slightly pointless as many people won't be willing to chase down the information to get the work to function properly and might not buy it in that case (especially if there are ready made, complete, free files up for download). I also think that basically giving away your own base work (original meshes, textures, etc.) out to whoever is not a great idea for all the reasons I'd stated before. I just feel that as a method what you suggested would be too onerous and difficult to really work well.



Edit:...and here's something about Tequila for the rest of you. Something about Tequila. There you go, enjoy. :lol:

See this is where i think our views differ. I'm only speculating of course, i'm not a law person nor a copyright expert.
It would be somewhat shaky ground and is probably not recommended, but it might work... :twisted: ;)

In theory, would it end up in the booty?

Maybe the endproduct would, since it falls under the same rules as all other sims 2 content. Don't know though.

nohead, the issue is that by putting a copy of photoshop in a package file and uploading to the exchange, the uploader is (by using EA materials to create "custom content") agreeing to waive rights which s/he did not have in the first place, namely exclusive rights to redistribute photoshop. Now, if ADOBE did this, then yes, they'd have agreed to the same terms and conditions and therefore that'd be perfectly legal. But you or I can't sign away Adobe's rights. It's the same as putting Disney copyrighted images in a package file- we can't sign away Disney's rights to exclusive distribution. More accurately, it's like making a sims 2 TV channel (for use on the in-game TV) made of music videos: we can't legally sign away the rights of the bands and their labels to charge for their videos, and so we're agreeing implicitly (having agreed to the EULA) that these videos which are not ours may be shared freely, which is illegal.

I think that even if it could work (and in this we definitely disagree  :lol: )that it would be a pretty dodgy position to be in, and really hard to defend if you were trying to claim exclusive rights to distribution. I think they could end up in the booty depending on how the files are sent and what they contain. The end product (as a .package file) would fall under EA's distribution rules, so it would depend on what the intended end result was. See yamikuronue's post above for a much less longwinded  :D explanation of what I was trying to say before relating to intent and permission.

you know, nohead, you keep going on about images & package files but you never responded to the 2 examples I gave previously

Ohhhh HP you in trouble now!  :lol:

Nohead, dude, seriously are you with us or against us? You have confused me through this whole thing. I can't tell if you are pro paysite, anti-paysite, or a pain in my ass.

How's this for simplicity:

Stop trying to weasel around the terms of the EULA in order to justify making a buck off of Sims 2 players and start applying your artistic talents elsewhere where you can make money if making money is so damn important to you.

You have been speculating wildly from Cloudcuckooland about What IF this and What IF that, all of which require two or three currently non-existent tools or hypothetical conditions in order for them to even be possible, and the end goal is to continue to make a buck off the community in defiance of EA Games' EULA and intent and desires--and in defiance of most people who value the community and making connections and friendships within it.

In the simplest version of your scheme, you still require end users to convert art into usable Sims 2 files, either by teaching themselves how to put the info into a package (without using any of the community or EA tools, mind you) or  using a tool that doesn't exist yet, and which probably would not meet with EA's approval anyway as it would be intended solely to subvert the EULA.

Frankly, given the quality of the free content available*, and the fact that most people who download don't take the time to create and fuss if you don't put stuff into a ZIP rather than a RAR, I sincerely doubt that anyone is going to make a buck by selling texture files (even if they haven't stolen them from someone else's photograph of fashion or a celebrity or a toy or whatever) or meshes (even if they haven't stolen them from Renderosity, Poser, Maya).

Again, most people are apparently too lazy to figure out how to use Q-Express, WinRAR (and clones), and .7z files. Even more are leery of SimPE. You REALLY think they are going to want to pay money for the joy of having to do some homework on their own time to learn how to make paystuff work in the game? I think you're deluding yourself.

* YOUR homework: find one pay item where there is not a similar or identical item available for free, and which looks/performs better in the game than the free item, and which the creator actually continues to support. This item should work for the EPs it claims it works with. This item has to be re-downloadable if the user's computer blows up or the file gets corrupted. If the item gets broken, or manages to break the user's game, then the creator also must cheerfully fix it without bitching about people being SO demanding JUST because they PAID MONEY for the broken item: show an example where this was done; say, after a new EP. This item also has to use NO copyrighted material belonging to fashion designers, celebrities, films, books, record companies, restaurants, architects, advertisers, car designers, et cetera. Do you think you can find one?

Sorry for not answering you before Yaardarm Monkey!



Does Exnem claim that the original artwork is made by him?
If Disney/Marvel/whoever has a problem with what he's doing isn't that up to them?

If it is to tempting to redistribute the end product of all of his work (which you claim is not worth anything?) then why not slap it together yourself?

I had to add the what if's in order to shift focus to the real question, we got stuck on whether it's possible to make such a tool or not. It certainly is by    the way.

The end goal would of course be to find a way past the EULA, evil isn't it?


The tool would be completely transparent to the end users, it would act as any other .package installer application.
I don't think EA could do anything about such a tool.  

As for the rest (homework related), i agree that there are a lot of great and free stuff out there, which is very positive for everyone.

You guys don't you think this is a little suspicious????  To me nohead is a mole from a paysite trying to get info on how to build a new program to avoid EAs EULA to start charging without any repercussions and they are getting free advice and whatnot from us.  Sorry but those are my thoughts.

You're right about it being up to Them (i.e. trademark owners) but neither Exnem,YOU nor any other paysite owner can use that as an excuse for doing the wrong thing.  For example, just because the victim of a crime does not prosecute, does not make it less of a crime. Just because EA does not want to waste money on something as trivial to them as this, and just because Disney/Marvel/whoever is unaware that others are exploiting their trademarks and copyrights does not give you license to exploit them. And you have the unmitigated gall to get defensive about the wrong you and others of your ilk are doing. You make me want to hurl. (But since this is all so much bullshit, I will just go refill my coffee drink and watch the show.)

So this "crime" gives a third party (PMBD for instance) the righ to do whatever they want with his work?
If you are worried about the trademark owners then by all means contact them and let them handle it.

So, this site gives a third party (you for instance) the right to tell others what to do?
If you are worried about the paysite owners then by all means contact them and let them handle it.

Amen! Lorlei hit the nail on the head.

You have all forgotten that these little created packages that people are trying to sell are deriviatives. (IE for reference I questioned the US Copyright on this since they have a section on their site to ask them questions, I specifically asked about Sims 2, they were more forthcoming than EA's tech dept, in an email response:

The 3rd party works may be considered derivative works.

A new work that is based on or incorporates a preexisting work can be considered a derivative work. Only the owner of copyright in the original work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create a derivative work. The owner of the original work is generally the author or someone who has obtained rights from the author. For additional information about derivative works, please read Circular 14 on our website, http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.html.

SOOO folks I did not see as 3rd party licensors on the TOU  TSR, Peggy's etc. They are deriviatives that were not legally authorized by EA, so all this arguing is just going in circles. We are allowed to freely share files to play in the game with each other, that would be considered fair use and harmless to EA as that was their original intent. But do non -licensed 3rd parties have the right to charge or complain that we share the files so we can play them in the game, no!!!!! All files here are being distributed freely, no one here is distributing the files in a commercial venture like the paysites. :D

You Pro pay folk if you are so confident  of your position, I have a challenge for you. Lets see you go to the Copyright office and get a form to register your deriviative package file. You will more than likely get a similiar response from them. Lets see you then go to EA and see if you can become a legal licensee, you are are not going to be able to afford the franchise license. Go for it! meanwhile be warned lots of us out here reporting to EA Legal your copyright infringement activities.  :wink:

Sorry to derail for a moment. Soupie! Lovely to see you  :D

Commence rerailment.

This reminds me of PSP tubes.
Disney has said plainly that people are not to use their images, characters, et al...on ANYTHING without permission.
I'm rather certain that Exnem Sims didn't e-mail them asking whether or not it was alright to create these things, so that site is misusing copyrighted material blatantly. *is that a word? blatantly...?hm*
Bah, you catch my drift, I'm sure.
As for it being up to them, I'm so sure Disney has nothing better to do than run around the internet looking for these types of things. I mean, it's not like they don't have million dollar empires to run.
Realistically, they more than likely don't have a clue about it. Why don't you e-mail them and find out what they have to say?
I bet it's not, "Oh yeah, you can make money off our copyrighted characters. We don't care, we lurve the Sims 2."

quote]
So this "crime" gives a third party (PMBD for instance) the righ to do whatever they want with his work?
If you are worried about the trademark owners then by all means contact them and let them handle it.[/quote]

Done, just hung up with Disney legal. Thank you for the information. :) Anyone know of any other site selling Disney? Don't give me free sites, that would be considered fanwork.

*Hecubus chuckles

Hell hath no fury like HawkGirl and her phone.

I got a nice note back from PepsiCo legal thanking me for informing them that Exnem and TSR were selling items with the PepsiCo brand trademarks on them.  :)

They came down hard on them when they first started doing it, so did Precious Moments but then when they realized they weren't making money on it they left them alone. I had a friend that got those cease orders, then a letter saying she could post them with a disclaimer, as long as they had Disney's trademark on them, and she did not charge for them. Disney had no idea what tubes were and didn't want anyone making a penny off their characters. Several had Disney/Precious Moments disclaimers on their websites with all Disney characters are trademarked to Disney, yada yada yada...I should have snagged them then. lol Now you can hardly find any tube sites.  

If they were drawing Piglet/Pooh then they could claim them as fanart for the Sims. They could probably get away with using the images as well because they only use a portion of them. Disney links to fansites, and would probably have a link to them. As long as they are not selling them. Once they start selling them...asking for donations/subscriptions to the site, they cross the line with Disney.

Was not so long ago they went after a little elementary school right here in CA. For what? Putting on the Beauty and the Beast and charging 2 dollars a person to see it. For what? They were looking to make enough money they could afford for the children that couldn't pay to go to Disneyland. Did Disney care about the bad PR from all the newspapers here in CA? Nope. Did they care about the we will boycott Disney? Nope. The city settled out of court with Disney for the cost of licensing agreement to preform it and charge.

You know Hec I would not call these people, I don't want to see these people harmed. I don't even want to see any harm come to them from EA other than being told they cannot sell things that go into EA's product. But they don't stop. Look what they did to Delphy? Did they show even one ounce of concern for trying to destroy him? No.

Do they show any concern at all for what they are doing to designers and their copyright. To those in the community that share tools freely with the community? Like I said before, buying Poser hair then reselling it without permission. Take free hair from Poser sites that give to the community for free and then selling it? These CAD sites that give object files to the community for free and then sell them? No they do not, but they want...no they think they may pound their chest and demand what can be done with what they make. That they can call others thieves without looking at themselve in the mirror and what they are doing. They need not bother to come here and call us all theives. To begin with I do not get stuff from the booty. Check the logs if you have them. I get it from free sites, CC I know is going to be supported and taken care of if it is broken. So I do not steal from them. They are the theives as far as I am concerned. Pirates are stealing from no one. It clearly says in the contract they agreed too they may not sell CC, period.

Good research there but if this was directed to me then you probably missed that in the scenario i described it wouldn't be .package files that were being sold.

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

According to the latest news posted on TSR, their guy Steve went to the EA event again this year. What do we make of this??

Sorry, i thought you were just trying to be funny, didn't realize they were actual questions.

I don't claim that i have any rights whatsoever here.

Everyone subscribed to the inside scoop or owns a fansite gets an invitation. Here's a little scenerio to ponder ;) I was invited and I am a nobody.

Steve: Hey Will can I ask for donations to support our website? You know bandwidth is very expensive.

Will: Sure!

Few Month later:

Steve: Um Will were not getting enough in donations...we really don't want to shut down. Could we charge a subscription?

Will: Umm I'm not real sure about that...

Steve: After we get enough to pay the badnwidth bills we'll stop charging.

Will: Ok I guess that would be ok then, but you will stop charging once bandwidth is met?

Steve: I assure you we will, all money will be used to cover bandwidth, server bills and that is it.

Did they? No. Did they tell him they would be paying people to create CC? No. Did they think they pulled the wool over a nice guy's eyes that was willing to work with them? Yes. Do they think he now supports them after being used to support their whole family? They might. Does he really? I don't think so. He didn't have the means to fight what has been happening, held off cause he's a nice guy and wanted to give them the chance to do what was right, did they? No. So he turns over everything to EA....nice little scenerio is it not? Is that how it happened? ...

How many millions have they made over the years off Will's work from TSR alone? Anyone think he's not entitled to some of it? I think he should get every penny made above and beyond bandwidth costs from everyone of these sites.

Wow what a fairytale!
Do you actually believe it yourself?

Oh, kaos kind of made the same point now :).

3 words for ya, go look em up   :wink:

Letter of Marque


in this case, not for a monarch, but the community


yarrrr     :D     yarrrr

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

Getting paranoid are we?
What simple questions did i fail to answer?

I think nohead's goal is to talk us to death. He reminds me of a 3 year old asking why constantly.

To recap:

Paysites violate the EULA agreement

EA supports file-sharing both on the Exchange and here

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

Paysite owners have done some really underhanded things

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

ok, lets try it again...

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

Yes or No


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

Yes or No

Thank you for the summary, i appreciate it! :)
The following is not directed to you personally as it looks like this is extracted from the collective "wisdom" of this site.

#1 Yes they just might, as it currently stands. We've seen indications that they don't actually want to target the paysites with the EULA though, i'm referring to the questions that HP sent and how they acted on them.

#2 Do you know for a fact that they support what PMBD is doing?

#3 If you have a problem with the fact that someone might make money out if this then by all means go for the free alternatives. How does the existence of paysites hurt the community?

#4 Uhm, not much to go on here, are you saying they are all generally mean? Are all paysites equally mean? All of them do exactly the same mean things?

Aha, you didn't like my previous answer? OK then:

#1. No
#2. No

I don't think he is in full legal right since both cases violates the trademarks of Disney.

Do i think that this gives anyone the right to steal his work? No.

Nohead - (I feel funny calling someone that but ok) I just want to address why I think paysites are wrong or that they should be free.  

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

Those are just the top 3 that I have off the top of my head.  EA is a business, with rights and protection provided legally for not only the entity, but for the customer/end user.  If you are a business person, and you are in sales, you generally cater to your chosen market.  This is not the attitude with most paysites.  I will not say all, but I will say a good percentage don't care about the actual gamer or user.  It is about who can make more money, show more creations and get their objects downloaded more than others.  Let's be honest, it's all about the money, not the consumer.  Therein lies my issue with paysites for the most part, I have more, but these are the highlights.

Thanks armywife for taking the effort!

Excellent points! I agree on all of them actually :).
 
Have you tried to take this up with the guilty ones?

With 2 of my subscriptions (please keep in mind that this was BEFORE I ever knew about these file sharing sites and I have documented proof)
When I sent a message to the creator or admin, I was fussed at and told that it was basically "tough shit".  My account was cancelled with days left and no refund.

With the other 3 I have had subscriptions with (keep in mind above disclaimer), 2 never bothered to respond and 1 did respond with they didn't know how to make the bed animations work the way Maxis intended.

This is why I have issues with paysites, because there is no standard or requirement to be met, it is subjective to each site which does not produce a positive outcome for customers or EA.  If EA condones these paysites, in my opinion, they will also have to have a legal SOP, especially since they are a publically traded company on the NYSE.

HIS work?  you just admitted that he has no rights to the file images or the package files

how can anyone "steal" what never belonged to him in the first place?  

he violated the Disney copyright, therefore he has NO proprietary rights over anything he makes from that violation

I just read through this entire thread.  I must say... Nohead, you are giving more than Paden a headache.  *Reaches for excedrin with rum*

Why are you grasping at straws?  That really is all you're doing, you know.  FFS, EA has said paysites are illegal.  That is GOOD enough for me, and should be good enough for the rest of the community.  The bottom line is they made Sims, Sims 2, Sims 3.. you agreed to their rules when you installed the game.  If they were not around, you would not have this little "business".  Stop trying to find a way to part players with their money.  Do the right thing and share your creations freely.  

As for the argument that what we are doing here is wrong.. give me a break.  Sharing Sims 2 content is legal.  Making people pay for that content is illegal.  There is nothing bad or wrong going on here.  Get over it.

You'll know when I'm trying to be funny - it won't be to a TSR worker.

You still haven't refuted this statement:

If you are worried about the paysite owners then by all means contact them and let them handle it.

Unless you are a paysite owner, this really isn't any of your business according to your own philosophy.  Why don't you let them deal with it, if you are so gungho about people dealing with only that which pertains to them.

Sounds like you have ha d bad experience with some paysites, i can understand why you don't like them after the treatment you got.
The thing is that you are a customer to the paysite and not to EA so why should EA be held responsible for what a paysite might do?

This (PMBD) is not the way to make the guilty paysites change for the better though.

No, I did not say EA was at fault.  With a MBA and a Series 63, I assure you I am very well versed in the business world.   I actually have no files out of the booty.  I have downloaded, yes, but kept no.  The main reason is quality, the second reason was I had something already similiar in my game.  I come to PMBD basically because I have a great time in the forum and enjoy many of the friendships with these crazy pirates behind the screen.

But you supposition was why do you (general term) feel that filesharing is ok.  Well, I believe that you pointed it out very nicely.  EA is not responsible.  In fact there are the same disclaimers on every site, pay and free, that the site is not affiliated.  Paysites are holding items "hostage" that actually belong to another legal entity, not only does the EULA cover this but the copyright laws as well.

In order to have an affiliation, as EA is incorporated, you would have to be considered a 3rd party or subsidiary.  In this case, EA would be the official regulating body of said paysite.  I don't know if that is what a paysite would want, control would no longer be exclusive and a paysite would be required, as any business, to pay set fees to the product owner and produce a product that meets specific standards and guidelines, not to mention the animations and colors would also have to meet game standards.  And that doesn't even include the tax issue, which is going to be a hurdle all by itself.  Especially for any creators on the sites that receive pay from the site.  1099's would have to be produced as well to the contracted creators (US Residents).  

So, who do you hold responsible when the site owner who took your money, with a "bait and switch" in some cases, when the site is the final say and they do not hold themselves accountable?  What course of action is there for the end user?  

I don't think that PMBD is going to make paysites change, but I do think that any change EA makes will be impacted by PMBD and freesites.  You are very correct in that not only did I have bad experiences, but evidently was the victim of those who do not know how to run a "business", do not do it fairly and do not necessarily do it honestly.  

A final thought, if I was not EA's customer first and foremost, I would have no need to use items from a paysite or a freesite.  It sounds in your post as though you are saying I should just get over it and move on and do nothing.  The money I spent on paysites that I wasted was money that I earned that was exchanged for unsatisfactory goods.  Therefore, I have the right as a consumer to go to a third party to obtain items that are offered somewhere else.  

I have a couple of questions, for you.  I have answered yours honestly and respectfully.  What is your interest in this exactly?  What is your objective?  Are you a paysite owner?  Give me the history of why you are questioning this issue, you involvement is much too focused to be a casual user or observer.

The ministering angels said: Sovereign of the Universe, why do You shame the leader of Your court? Let truth rise from the earth. Thus it is written, "Truth will arise from the earth." (Psalms 85:12)

Nohead? Bite me.

Yes the work involved in making those thing usable in the game.
That work resulted in a product  that didn't previously exist.
That product is not yours to take just because he did a wrong in the first place.
See what i mean?

If there is something in particular that i didn't manage to explain very well  then please ask :).

I'm actually not interested in making such a program, i was interested in how the people here would react if such a system were being used by paysites.
Interesting because it would take away the whole EULA argument.
What you're doing here might not be illegal but it's against the wishes of those who created the items you have here.
Paysites are not illegal, they might break the agreement (EULA) but i think it is safe to say that there is an understanding between EA and paysites.

And in this you have the chicken vs. egg theory.  And we are back to, if paysites were freesites then the booty would not exist.  You say that EA gives their blessing on paysites, well, you could say the same in regards to file sharing.  Why?  The Exchange is a prime example and condoned by those who are employed by EA.  According to a SimMaster there, the only reason that any items have been removed were not because they were paysite items, it was due to the credit for said content not being given by the designer/uploader/member.  So, to believe that it was because it was a pay item, is not correct at all.  As long as proper credit is given for the original and/or mesh, EA Online has no problem with the posting of the object or sim.

Keep in mind, that the freesites who have TOS are for the most part in the community, adhered to respectfully.  There are those few who will always work outside the margin, so to speak, but not as a whole.  I actually don't think that any program would take the place or create disregard of the EULA.  The base game, which is required for any content, belongs to EA "All Rights Reserved".  If paysites are breaking a legal agreement, then you are incorrect, in business law it is operating under illegal practices and is subject to all penalties assigned.

Wishes and dreams don't equate to legal and binding agreements.  How about an example?  Second Life is a game in which user made content is sold, levels of the game are sold, and it is understood that those with the money will reap more benefits "in game".  EA, however, packaged a complete game with the ability to develop content, share with a community - which is what they do with just about  all of their games, have a central uploading and downloading site, i.e. Sims 2, and allow for those who would like to have a fansite and forums to discuss or do collaborations.

Armywife:
I must have got that you wrong about EA being held responsible, so no disagreement there. You certainly seem to know what you're talking about and you explain it well :).


That's one way of looking at it and i can understand it.
But what if said legal entity (EA) silently accepts and even approve of what paysites do?


I'm not sure if the affiliation part was connected to this question but i don't think it's ever going to come to an actual affiliation, more likely they will just allow charging for custom content.
So who you should hold responsible is the site owner and if the site owner is not being professional about it i'm afraid it will be tricky :(.
In the real world a shop that treats their customers bad will in the end stand there without customers and it should work in a similar way here as well.


No i don't mean that you should get over it and move on. No one should have the accept this behavior and i would encourage anyone that gets an unfair treatment to protest and do something.
I'm just saying that the PMBD method (the sharing part) is not the right method, not if you have a genuine interest in trying to make things better.
A neutral place where customers and paysite owners could meet and resolve such issues would be a good thing i think.


I'm not representing anyone but myself, everything written by nohead is my personal opinions only.
I do have a connection to the paysite world but i would not like to go in to any more details on that as i'm afraid that would very much limit my ability to participate here.
I hope this can be respected.

My interest in this is that i wanted to figure out what it is that makes so many people here so hostile to paysites.
I'm not sure that i have much of an objective here but i would like to put all the facts on the table and try to sort them out. There are a lot of speculation going on and they seem to be taken up on as real facts.
Unfortunately it will be very difficult to achieve this without revealing who i am (bummer) but i can at least try to encourage people to try and figure things out for themselves and not believe in speculation.

Isn't said place the forums that most sites have where this should be done?  However, when threads/posts are made questioning content or with a complaint, the SOP is to either lock the thread, ignore the complaint, chastise the poster or ban the user.  Would you like a prime example?  Check out Peggy Sims & TSR.  TSR who state in the forum agreement that you can be banned at the discretion of the site for any reason, and no reason has to be given.  EA may give their "consent" to paysites, but unless the are going to take the reponsibility of regulating these sites, then there is really no way that they can ban file sharing.  Why?  Very simply, if EA says "You can have a site and charge for content", unless they are going to give a guarantee of quality and workable content compatible to any/all current and future EP's and react on behalf of the EA customer, then it will be business as usual here at the booty.  In the real world of finance, the dollar will always win.  If EA loses customers or has to employ additional personnel to handle or deal with dissatisfied 3rd parties that they have "ok'ed" or endorsed to provide pay content, I would be extremely shocked if it wasn't stopped immediately.  So, in giving any approval, contrary to the current EULA that every customer who purchased the Sims 2 agreed to adhere to, EA would have to absorb partial liability.

You don't have to give up who you are or who you know.  I can respect that and won't ask you to again nor condemn you for your decision.

Really?  Hmm.. perhaps you need to read Nouk's conversation with an EA representative.  I believe that's what this original thread was about.  They seemed pretty clear on the matter.
 
In case you missed it in the very first post, here it is again.
http://www.noukiesims2.net/EAconfirms.gif

Now we could pick apart whether or not this means anything, but honestly, this is one of several letters I've seen from EA that says that paysites are illegal.  I have not seen one letter where they confirmed paysites are legal and are supported by EA.

*Edited because I'm sick and feverish and I keep making dumb-ass typos.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/1003/mmekare79/smileys/consoling1.gif)

AwwBoo, feel better soon.  :D


Proceed.  8)

But that conversation is looking a bit dubious now.  This was just one EA bod replying (probably at support level) and it just doesn't match with TSR rubbing shoulders with EA Corporate at this year's fansite event.  EA, in their own article, have named TSR their number 1 fansite.  

EA would surely not have invited any site that so blatantly seems to violate their EULA, and certainly wouldn't hold them up as a great fansite example unless EA absolutely agrees with what TSR is doing.

This fansite event has screwed everything up.  Speak up, EA!  What is the REAL truth?!  :(

I am quicker to believe an actual written achknowledgement that paysites are illegal then some silly fan day event.  TSR is using this to say "Oh looky, EA loves us and agrees with our policy!"  I don't see that at all.   I see a company that is attempting to support it's fan-base, and is doing some serious advertising.  A lot of people create for TSR.  This seems to be a way of them supporting the creators, and advertising the new and upcoming expansion pack to a large audience.  No where does it say they agree or endorse TSR's policy.  Still, having TSR listed as their top fan site is misguided and it does make me wonder if they realize how much money TSR is making off of their game.  I have a feeling they are pretty misinformed.

Thing is if it was just one letter, I might agree that EA has not taken a stand.  However, there are many many letters out there from various EA employees saying that paysites are illegal.  I've yet to see one that says that they support paysites.  

I would like to see just one written letter/conversation that says that EA supports paysites.  Just one.  Otherwise, I'd say at least in my mind, it's still pretty clear.

Oh, and thank you, Ry.  :)  I'll be back in bed soon and hopefully feeling better.  :D

You can't say that just because they invite them over, they "absolutely agree" with TSR.

Have you ever thought that the reason EA might invite people who happened to be paysite owners simply because unfortunately, a lot of people visit these sites?

TSR is a "big" site, and a lot of people visit it because they've been doing so since The Sims 1.  They also have some free content, so that's another reason why people go there.

Inviting TSR would only help EA in advertising its new EP - it does not mean that EA "absolutely agrees" with TSR, so don't put words in their mouths.

Exactly.  I think what we are seeing is mainly some serious advertising of the new expansion pack.  Just by reading the article at the website, it was pretty easy to see what was going on.

You're welcome.
I was sick last month with the tummy flu. I hate it when people are sick..lol.

Oh I have an example of this! A friend of mine is having her annual Harry Potter party. However, this other girl decided to totally rip off my friend's party (literally every aspect of it) and claim it as her own. My friend still invited this girl, simply to be nice. I'm hoping this girl shows up so I can smash her head in if she mentions ANYTHING about the parties being similar.

Kinda random, but I still saw the connection in my own mind.

I guess it kind of makes sense, in a mainly obscure way.  It took me a bit, but I think the point is that even though your friend did invite the girl over, she did it only to be nice.  Just because she invited her over doesn't mean that she agrees with this girl, who ripped off your friend's party idea thingie, and it doens't even mean she likes her.

Yes? No?  I'm going to say yes, because I can.

Exactly.  :) I was so excited to talk about Harry Potter that I forgot to add the fact that my friend definitely didn't approve of the other girl's actions. Silly me.

I really can't comment on this since i don't know any of the details, but i would agree that if a sincere ask for help gets turned down in the way you describe it's not good at all. Perhaps it would work better to contact them outside the forum?


I'm not fully with you on this one. Why would EA have to give guarantees for what the paysites do just because they allow them to do their business.
Can't they just say that that paysites are allowed but EA will not take any responsibility for them? (you know this stuff better than me)


Thank you, i appreciate that :).

How about their reply to HP where they took it all back?
No they don't say anything about the legality of paysites in that reply but it certainly shows that they haven't decided yet.

Did we read the same post?  Yes, I've seen the post by HP.  As I understood it, they needed to work out some legal details, apparently.  They did not give much information, and certainly did not endorse paysites.  Nor did they "take it all back".  You are grasping at straws again.

I will ask one more time, show me one letter from EA that says paysites are legal.