Exnem Leaves (Again) with Zero Apples

[stim]

The trouble with this approach is won't it make trouble for other people besides just paysites?   I mean it could end up cutting off our noses to spite our faces.   It can't only be paysite creators who want to occasionally sneak in a branded item.

Large corporations usually don't care what is happening with their stuff if no one is making money. In fact, it is now very well known to marketing and PR departments in the entertainment industry that taking away fans' freebies costs money. Marvel has been burned, as has Star Trek.

If they do care, they'll send a cease & desist letter as required by law before they can legally sue for infringement. It's up to the corporation then to make sure if the C&D has been complied with or not.  In most cases, it's too much of a hassle for them to spend the time on stuff that isn't exchanging monies. The only real instance I've ever heard of in this community is when Muffy at TSR had to change her username and (mayber) her avatar. And they only went after her because members of this community were starting to associate the name Muffy for her, and not the character franchise.

[Quorneater]

Miffy, wasn't it?

[The ISZ]

Well as long as people don't lose sight of *why* we're anti paysite.  Freedom to create whatever free content we like is an enjoyable thing, I am not sure I want someone moralising with me if I harmlessly make a BurgerKing sign to share with my online friends.  Though I am beginning to suspect in some cases there is a personal agenda against individual pay-content creators that is in danger of becoming more important than the general principle.

You don't want someone moralizing with you.  That's kind of funny.  Most of the issues people have brought up for being against pay sites are moral based.  If EA felt what they were doing was illegal they would pursue it.  So take out the legal issues and what you are left with is what people think is morally wrong.

Besides, I could care less what happens to anyone if they violate a companies copyright by using it.  Not my problem.  Use some common sense and just because it would be free content doesn't mean it isn't still a copyright infringement.

[Quorneater]

So you're not using the booty either?

[bethgael]

Would the Fair Use Act cover non-paysites anyway, seeing as they aren't making money? I have no idea myself (law babble makes my head spin), but  someone else might know.

Legally, yes, if it is only to a certain point (eg, a free site could have one or 2 items in a hundred with Disney images but a whole site devoted to Disney would be in trouble and is not "fair use" but exploitation of another's copyright, even if free).

In practice, often not. eg, Disney sends out "cease and desist" to all copyright violations they are aware of (and I criticise this practice, where they knock off creativity in people who aren't making money while applauding it where people charge for using their stuff). People get scared of "cease and desist" orders and so pull their stuff without checking to see if their use is covered by "fair use" first. It comes down to who can pay the best lawyers.

[lordrichter]

In practice, often not. eg, Disney sends out "cease and desist" to all copyright violations they are aware of (and I criticise this practice, where they knock off creativity in people who aren't making money while applauding it where people charge for using their stuff). People get scared of "cease and desist" orders and so pull their stuff without checking to see if their use is covered by "fair use" first.

So, what do you think Disney would do if the site refused to comply with the cease and desist?  Somehow, I don't see Disney filing a lawsuit.

[The ISZ]

So you're not using the booty either?

Who me?  Of course I am.  I never said I wasn't.

[Soup Parrot]

Hmm hope EA and Disney friends, Diisney might like sims, and might think about a collaboration on a stuff pak. Never know.

[bethgael]

In practice, often not. eg, Disney sends out "cease and desist" to all copyright violations they are aware of (and I criticise this practice, where they knock off creativity in people who aren't making money while applauding it where people charge for using their stuff). People get scared of "cease and desist" orders and so pull their stuff without checking to see if their use is covered by "fair use" first.

So, what do you think Disney would do if the site refused to comply with the cease and desist?  Somehow, I don't see Disney filing a lawsuit.

Possibly not (although with Disney you never know; they've sued for less and like to set legal precedents all over the joint), but they would go to a site's server and send them legal notices instead. The server company would comply, because they do have funds that they could lose.

[tinkrfreakenbell]

I remember the whole comic book heros thing from Sim 1 days, and like it was stated, they weren't even a paysite.  I remember too when BunnyWuffles had to change her site layout, name and avatar because her previous icon was some sort of trademarked thing, can't remember what it was.  She did the greatest architectural items for the Sims 1.

[jesserocket]

I miss BunnyWuffles so much...my favourite Sims 1 houseI ever built was made using her Maxis Matching Banana Brick set...*nostalgic sigh*

And Soup Parrot, I hope to hell a Disney stuff pack never happens...>.<

[Quorneater]

We could definitely do with her roof sections!  The game roofs are hopeless  :x

[redisenchanted]

I've often missed her build items in TS2.  

[Soup Parrot]

I visited Bennys, and (who did all the plant stuff), and then Sim Interior, and Laura Ts. Those were the days. I gave those games to my nephew, almost reordered the deluxe set.

[jesserocket]

I visited Bennys, and (who did all the plant stuff), and then Sim Interior, and Laura Ts. Those were the days. I gave those games to my nephew, almost reordered the deluxe set.

Persimmon Grove. *nods*