The sheeps are at it again!

[jesserocket]

Sheep are intelligent and cool? Who knew?

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

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

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

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

[Absolute]

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

Who the hell promoted him to being our collective conscience?

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

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

He lacks morals and is a sick fucker.

[Plum]

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

[Echo]

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

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

Delphy and his cheerleading minion are just that stupid.

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

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

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

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

I don't think anyone's claimed to be a lawyer here. As it happens, I wrote an entire paragraph here 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.

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

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

[Plum]

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

[lemmiwinks]

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

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

[neriana]

Bunch of crap

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

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

[Plum]

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

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

[seapup]

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

[jesserocket]

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

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

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

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

[LesserOr]

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

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

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

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

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

[Pariland]

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.

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

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

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

[Echo]

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

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

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

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

I feel it's unethical to charge for files

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

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

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

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

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

[Plum]

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

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

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

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

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

[LesserOr]

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

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

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

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