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.
No, they wouldn't, because EA
can't do so and retain their copyright on the package format.
Package is not a free-use format. It's not like mp3, txt, jpg, or png. Those formats have free license to use and reproduce, and you do own those once they're altered.
You enter into an agreement with EA by making the file and playing the game. It's in the EULA.
You choose to give up your rights to your work by putting it into
their format. That's also why they can take your ideas without asking.
You don't have to like it- I don't care for it myself, and I wish EA would give credit to content innovators.
But that's what you and everyone else
agreed to do, unless you purchase the rights from EA.
Currently the law doesn't see mod content as being the fault of EA, just as it wouldn't blame fan-made Mickey Mouse porn on Disney.
What the law sees is mod and content creators
voluntarily giving up their rights to EA.
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.
For the first point, many of the paysites
are blatantly for-profit, and don't make any excuses. But any time files are restricted until money changes hands, that's a sale. "Memberships" are sales as well, despite what people want to think.
"I'll sell you this card, which has the address which will get you the files. See, I'm not selling files, just a card!"
Doesn't hold up in court.
For the second, use of the package file automatically binds them into an agreement with EA.
(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.)
Which is still bandwidth and repair costs. Nothing else (employees, games, personal income, etc.) falls under that definition.
And as I pointed out before- the current game doesn't hold these permissions, which means EA doesn't have to honor their off-hand promise.
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.
This is a totally different situation.
The Second Life EULA specifically allows their modders to do so, and in fact has an infrastructure based in-game to provide them the means.
The Sims EULAs specifically do the opposite, forbidding sales entirely.
And that's why it's a derivative, which doesn't preclude a creator's copyright on the new content.
Your copyright doesn't overwrite EA's copyright. You own it only so long as you keep it out of EA's package. Once you put it in, you have given it to EA.
It's harsh, but the only way to keep total control of your work is to keep it out of their format.
Can you prove the profit legally?
You can when the site owner talks about their employees, what they've bought with "donations", and how the site provides their only income.
They're providing a paper trail that proves the money isn't going into bandwidth, as they agreed.
As I said above, they are restricting product behind a money barrier. Even if we pretend they put all that money into bandwidth, their sites are still set up as stores. The law takes actions over words.
I know your real argument in all of this is that PMBD shouldn't distribute files without the CCC's permission. That's entirely valid.
But it's not illegal and wishing will not make it so.
C'est la vie.
The tax issue: this also depends on how much money they're making.
Anything over bandwidth cost is breaking with EA, but it may not get them into tax trouble with their country.
PMBD
Author