Well that's very encouraging. If TSR can make packages with EA hand-holding, then free tool coders will be able to download that CC, reverse engineer it, then make free, well supported tools much faster than if they had to do it without sample CC to base it on. Then we'll have a lovely, well built tool to make anything we please.

Gasp!

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

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

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

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

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

Take care all,
Echo

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

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

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

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

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

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

(edit because more posts happened while I wasn't looking)
I know, and agree wholeheartedly - SL and the Sims are completely different in this respect. The comment above was purely in response to the comments that no game has ever allowed users to retain rights to their custom content, and the related argument I have seen before, saying that no company would be stupid enough to allow cc creators to sell content based on data.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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