My Story as an Artist on TSR & The Inside Machinations

[calalily]

This is all very interesting and enlightening. Have you thought of sending this material to EA's legal department to prove that there is a precedent and that they would win? I mean telling me and the others on here is fine and enlightening, but shouldn't someone be telling the legal dept at EA games about it? Wouldn't that do more to have TSR shut down? I assume this court and that precedent was set in the same state that EA operates in and if not that despite whatever state it was set in, that it would apply Federally across all of the US states? It seems to me that perhaps you are a lawyer right? Have you solicited EA games to offer legal counsel and assistance to them if you are? If not, why not? Seems to me they'd need someone like you on their legal staff pronto.

I'm a criminologist (will be a fully fledged Dr. of Philosophy in 1.5 years) - so searching for case law is fairly easy for me - and would be even easier for those actual lawyers at EA.  But there is little or no point to send it to EA - they aren't interested.  Whether paysite customer, or freesite supporter, we all still buy the games.  

They aren't going to do anything, and if they do do something, I will be shocked.  They couldn't give two shits about their customers - so long as TSR is encouraging people to buy stuff, they will continue to ignore it.  But that's the reason why they don't stop filesharing either.  It helps them sell more stuff.  

I've worked for and with lawyers (and barristers - I don't know if you have something comparable in the US - but they are like the cream of the crop) and they don't go and solicit business.  They do what they are employed to do.  

Where this stuff does make a difference is in the people who wonder if filesharing is legal.  Well, now they have Nouk's letter, and this caselaw to show that, yes, it is illegal, and while EA won't do anything about the problem, they can take the booty guilt free.  No problems.  Ordinary simmers who pay for these things should know that in fact, the only person in a compromising situation is TSR.

It also shuts up people like nohead, who ignore the caselaw and talk about nebulous "illegalities" - when in fact there are none.  That case would actually apply all over the US - it is in the ninth circuit federal appeals court.

Oh, and I wouldn't be too sure that they don't read this phorum - EA - we've had one of their employees here, who was very nice, and if they don't keep their finger on the pulse, well, I would be very very surprised.

[nohead]

I don't know where your getting I am harping on the EULA?? I have said OVER and OVER again the EULA is just the middle piece of the puzzle. Nohead is the one that brought up the EULA.

No it wasn't me who brought it up, Lorelei started and got nods from deathtotsr and a confirmation from Not-Apsalar that TSR was indeed breaking  Swedish law and to me it looked like they meant the EULA. Maybe i got that wrong.

I'm still a little curious, who do you think would have a case against the paysites?
If EA was interested in taking that course then they might have some grounds, but it doesn't look like they are particularity interested in that.

[deathtotsr]

I don't know where your getting I am harping on the EULA?? I have said OVER and OVER again the EULA is just the middle piece of the puzzle. Nohead is the one that brought up the EULA.

No it wasn't me who brought it up, Lorelei started and got nods from deathtotsr and a confirmation from Not-Apsalar that TSR was indeed breaking  Swedish law and to me it looked like they meant the EULA. Maybe i got that wrong.

I'm still a little curious, who do you think would have a case against the paysites?
If EA was interested in taking that course then they might have some grounds, but it doesn't look like they are particularity interested in that.

Maybe if enough pressure is applied to them by the consumers of their products they will take this course. Hopefully they'll notice that pressure mounting soon and start to take action.

[HawkGirl]

I don't know where your getting I am harping on the EULA?? I have said OVER and OVER again the EULA is just the middle piece of the puzzle. Nohead is the one that brought up the EULA.

No it wasn't me who brought it up, Lorelei started and got nods from deathtotsr and a confirmation from Not-Apsalar that TSR was indeed breaking  Swedish law and to me it looked like they meant the EULA. Maybe i got that wrong.

I'm still a little curious, who do you think would have a case against the paysites?
If EA was interested in taking that course then they might have some grounds, but it doesn't look like they are particularity interested in that.

I'm sorry. I thought you had brought it up. But, please don't be patronizing. You know what I am talking about. You don't need a list of reason's outside of EA. Your much more intelligent than that.

[Soup Parrot]

I don't know where your getting I am harping on the EULA?? I have said OVER and OVER again the EULA is just the middle piece of the puzzle. Nohead is the one that brought up the EULA.

No it wasn't me who brought it up, Lorelei started and got nods from deathtotsr and a confirmation from Not-Apsalar that TSR was indeed breaking  Swedish law and to me it looked like they meant the EULA. Maybe i got that wrong.

I'm still a little curious, who do you think would have a case against the paysites?
If EA was interested in taking that course then they might have some grounds, but it doesn't look like they are particularity interested in that.

You know EA owns all rights to the game, they have a good case against TSR. Lets start with all the homemaker, bodyshop, lots and sims, that members of TSR can only DL if they have a subscription. TSR ripped us off (ex customer) for stuff, that was meant to be freely shared user to user. As an ex subscriber to TSR, I feel our money was swindled from us. SO that is lawsuit number two. Really simple!

[Quinctia]

I'm still a little curious, who do you think would have a case against the paysites?
If EA was interested in taking that course then they might have some grounds, but it doesn't look like they are particularity interested in that.

Well, for starters, anyone whose work was actually stolen and used in CC on paysites, from various corporations to artists, photographers, clothing designs and makers, etc.  (I thought that was the big point of conversation when the whole point was brought up in the first place, so I don't understand why YOU don't get this?)

Forget EA for a moment, many of these sites aren't even creating their own textures, or they're using corporate trademarks like logos and characters.  These things are most definitely not their property to sell, even if they were in the clear to sell Sims 2 CC.

I would also think that if it was perfectly legal to fileshare and not legal to sell the content, enterprising downloaders who paid a site such as TSR could get together a class-action.

[deathtotsr]

Not sure if EA updated their EULA or what but I just found a page on their site with their license agreement which I will post here. It says VERY CLEARLY it is okay to freely share custom content made for their games, but it is illegal to use it for commercial means (sell it or make users pay for subscriptions to get it). Here's the URL for it:

http://support.ea.com/cgi-bin/ea.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=8174&p_created=1098725015

[deathtotsr]

One thing I think this site is overlooking is that EA games or Maxis (whichever - because they're one & the same now) is in cahoots with TSR.

Just because TSR says they are, doesn't mean they are.  EA is lacklustre in doing something about this because it doesn't hurt their bottom line.  Freesites and paysites still encourage the buying of their games.

I'm sorry to say but harping on the EULA isn't going to get you anywhere

Harping about OJ murdering his wife doesn't get people anywhere either, but OJ still murdered his wife, and people should know that.  It matters not whether it "gets us anywhere" - we can't take them to court for breaking the EULA despite them breaking it - only EA can do that.  

Where it does make a difference (and for example, the reason I am here in the first place) is because the EULA is a contract that I signed, and I'll be damned if someone tries to browbeat me into forgetting that it is in fact something everyone agreed to.  I knew (and found this place soon after) that the contract that binds me, binds them as well.  It was the same with Bon Voyage - so the highly touted "EULA changes" didn't happen then.  It still says non-commercial, and that means that I can fileshare.

They've invested too much time and money in recruiting FAs setting up servers and lord knows what else for them to just say "okay we're free now and no one has to pay a cent" without putting up an argument if not a fight about it.

They'd be fighting a losing battle - there is caselaw enpointe concerning the selling of custom content - it has already been established by the 9th circuit court that it is, in fact, not legal.  http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/9656426.html

As for an argument that they would have to sue all violators as a class action - not so.  All they have to do is go after one.  They might choose TSR, or they might choose a pushover.  Once one site folds, then if anyone truly thinks that TSR wouldn't shut the next day and run away with all their money - because that is what Tom Ass cares about - that person is seriously short sighted.

Hi again Calalily,

I just tried going to that link for that precedent again (because I read it last night when you posted it), to bookmark it but when I clicked on it today it is telling me I have to sign in or register. So I can't read it now and wonder if anyone else on here can?

[calalily]

No, that's not new - that's been around since Sims 2 base game, and I know for a fact that it was with Pets and Homecrafter.  It's also here on the front page.

ETA: You have to register to read it more than once a day - but the good thing is registration is free.

[Zazazu]

Oh, and I wouldn't be too sure that they don't read this phorum - EA - we've had one of their employees here, who was very nice, and if they don't keep their finger on the pulse, well, I would be very very surprised.

Ooh, who was that? I seem to have missed it.

[rhiamom]

Forget EA for a moment, many of these sites aren't even creating their own textures, or they're using corporate trademarks like logos and characters.  These things are most definitely not their property to sell, even if they were in the clear to sell Sims 2 CC.

US trademark and copyright holders have been trying to make people think that ANY use of a copyrighted image or trademark is a violation. In fact it is not. We still have something called "Fair Use." It means that you can, for example, use the NHL logo on a sign to advertise a hockey game at your pub.

I have been wondering if the use of trademarked designs and logos in Sims content would be considered fair use if the content is free. If it's pay content, I'm quite certain it's a violation. But for free, it may be fair use.

Any ideas on this?

[Quinctia]

Well, copyright law is quite screwy at the moment, but I like to believe (and I honestly hope) that free stuff, freely shared, non-profit, is considered free use.

However, trademarks are a little different than materials under copyright.  If you don't protect your trademarks, which includes stopping unauthorized use, you lose the rights to the trademark.  There's precedent for that.  It's one reason why it pisses Adobe off when people use photoshop as a verb--they can lose the trademark "Photoshop" if the name becomes common usage.  Which...they're a little late on, so it might end up as too bad, so sad.  They used to have a little bit on their website about how we so shouldn't use the term photoshop in ways Adobe doesn't approve.

[calalily]

Oh, and I wouldn't be too sure that they don't read this phorum - EA - we've had one of their employees here, who was very nice, and if they don't keep their finger on the pulse, well, I would be very very surprised.

Ooh, who was that? I seem to have missed it.

It's alright - it happened before you joined.     I can't seem to remember the username - I'll try to find it now.  It was around November last year and they only made a couple of posts.  So, they know of us if their employees do.  

Well, copyright law is quite screwy at the moment, but I like to believe (and I honestly hope) that free stuff, freely shared, non-profit, is considered free use.

Agreed - and none too clear.  But the reality is that if you're not making money from the sale of the content, they may leave you alone - and call it advertising.  They *could* sue you - or rather send you a cease and desist notice - but that would make them look like dicks.  As you have probably read, some of them like Disney don't mind looking like dicks - but others, not so much.  Of course, there are sections of big corporations that don't care, and will act unilaterally - like the people from Universal suing Steve Irwin for many long years for him putting a croc in the Universal logo on his Universal movie - trademark lawyers eh?

But unless you have something that doesn't reflect well on the brand - they usually leave you alone.  The simple thing is that if they tell you to take it off, don't be a World Sims dick - just take it off.

[Lorelei]

Well, copyright law is quite screwy at the moment, but I like to believe (and I honestly hope) that free stuff, freely shared, non-profit, is considered free use.

However, trademarks are a little different than materials under copyright.  If you don't protect your trademarks, which includes stopping unauthorized use, you lose the rights to the trademark.  There's precedent for that.  It's one reason why it pisses Adobe off when people use photoshop as a verb--they can lose the trademark "Photoshop" if the name becomes common usage.  Which...they're a little late on, so it might end up as too bad, so sad.  They used to have a little bit on their website about how we so shouldn't use the term photoshop in ways Adobe doesn't approve.

This happens fairly often in the UK and USA. In the UK, all pens are biros, and vacuuming is hoovering. In the US, all dark carbonated sugary beverages are cokes, you xerox things, and any disposable tissue is a kleenex. Xerox is fighting back with adverts, saying people need to call it photocopying. I think Kleenex is fighting back as well. But in many cases, it is a losing battle. Language does what it will.

[deathtotsr]

I used to create for the Sims 1 and stopped after a well known, much loved "creator" (Raveena) took two of my objects and redid them, or, as she laughingly said "I made them better"  and many of those in power at the time, did nothing but support her right to be creative.

It took me a long while to get my trust back enough to make any thing for the Sims 2, but  when I did, I got sick of being ignored and having people I never heard of, made into SAs and FAs after only a month or two of creating, while I had been there, and creating, almost since TSR formed.

Oh well ... Not a real eye opener for those that been around long enough to see certain people come into power, but a great warning to the less informed. Thank you Netseeker2/deathtotsr.  I signed your guestbook at tsr once in support.

Thank you Jron,

For expressing your support and voicing what happened to you there. Much appreciated. And I know Raveena is one piece of work - she accused a few friends of mine who made Sims 1 stuff of stealing her work (when in actuality it was her who stole theirs).  I am pretty sure she was behind most of the sabotages going on at TSR at the time too - because her ratings were always mediocre to say the most, and she'd get scared of those who were doing what she did, only better than she could, and would sabotage their ratings. But again as you say it's who kisses Thomas' *ss over there that gets favoured and has nothing to do with their quality of work or lack thereof. If you're one of Thomas' sicophants there, then you've got it made and woe to all of your enemies or those you don't like because he'll take care of those for you real quick (as the case of Sherrie attests to).