Reprint of my thread starter at TheSims2.EA.com

[sickpuppy]

Maybe Soup Parrot has a good idea: write a petition with names and emails. But don't boycott Seasons--people simply won't do it, might say they will, but they won't. But a petition stating the reasons against paysites and how it hurts the community might get to them.

I do have a personal email address of a maxiod, and undoubtedly others have too, so we could get right into their office for sure. But I think a written hardcopy would be better, at least for the first try, with names and a listing of all EA products bought by each might make a lasting impression on them.

[torque]

Well, Teadrinker I have seen examples where products or places boycotted changed the execs. Were the customer if we get together in nubers we have a lot of power, low sales figures not good.

But notice he used paysites and fansies together maybe we should start a thread there...

Well EA may not of said it officially but MaxiodMel said it,

(reprint post)

Here you got it, we can see the EULA on the SIMS 2 its not worth water. Maxoid said paysites are fansites. Maybe we should get together as a group, and make our own stuff pack of content and sell. I'm sure Insiminator MTS2, appreciate the extra funds. You kind of spit in their Maxiod Mel. They were trying to obey the terms of the Eula but from what you just told us, its okay to profiteer off your game.

How about that dont know nerve enough to post it.

They would sue us instanltly for making a stuff pack and selling it.

[BlueSoup]

Online petitions are pointless and ineffectual because names and emails cannot be verified.  Don't even waste your time.

Try writing guestbook messages to Mel, politely expressing your dissatisfaction with her wording.  She'll get the point.

And if she doesn't, I'd make a public thread to her.  They'll probably delete it, and may even warn you, but who cares?  It's the BBS.  Again, politeness is the key!

[sickpuppy]

MaxiodMel=female, Melanie

[Soup Parrot]

I like the idea of a petition of some sort, I think we need to get to Will Wright to, its his baby.

I started to write in her guest book said, to myself she wont post it. Only if it is approved do they post it.

[Marhis]

In short, MaxoidMel said: "it's our business, not yours".

Generally speaking, this point is correct: what to legally do about, directly, is entirely their business.

We users have a different point to focus, though, and it's about the community unwritten rules, not laws. Laws are the starting point, not the focus, of our issue against paysites.

Honestly, I don't expect too much from EA, they have goals too different from us, despite the fact they support community spirit with the Exchange: they do because of money/business help, not because of generosity or such.

Important facts are, to me, that the thread is closed, not deleted.
And PMBD links and relative comments are untouched both on my simpage and t2suggas'.

[stim]

Important facts are, to me, that the thread is closed, not deleted.
And PMBD links and relative comments are untouched both on my simpage and t2suggas'.

EA doesn't care what we do. Those two points you bring up make it pretty clear. If they cared, that would nipped in the bud immediately.

Actually, in their eyes, not answering this question and letting the community deal with it is very favorable to them. The more drama about this and the more people become involved, the longer their franchise lives. When people are in battle, they aren't just going to leave the community and stop buying the games. In fact, they are more likely to stay longer than they otherwise would have done, because now they have a purpose. They have to win!

[Pescado]

You know, the EULA also specifically says not to bother EA about this, too. And frankly, I don't think it's wise to pester them. Anyone familiar with the law of unintended consequences?

[ChamiMinds]

Ok so they aren't going to reply or do anything about it. But maybe what we can do is continue to put up posts about paysites violating the EULA on the BBS. Not really argue or point fingers ect just simply point out that it states in the EULA that paysites shouldnt be. Just keep getting the 'word' out about them.
It's a shame someone had to use a word such as Nazi as otherwise I believe it might have been able to stay active. But that doesn't mean we can't post another about it. Only this time not ask Ea for their opinion just make it a hint like we give out game hints.
I'd do it but I'm having to borrow a computer at the moment as mine needs to dry from water being spilled on it by a moron in my house! Oh yes I won't even go into my annoyance about how that happen or even the fact that instead of wiping off my laptop they went straight for soaking it up from the carpet and didn't even bother to touch the laptop.. ::balls hand into a fist.. clears throat:: sorry.. anyway yeah I have to give this puter back now otherwise I'd start that threat over there too!

Haha! Edited cause I didn't mean to say "I'd start that threat" I honestly meant to type thread. Though it must have been my anger rubbing off on my typing.

[toomanyguppys]

Here's something I haven't seen mentioned--tho it might not have been mentioned because it was common knowledge--but it raised a question in mind.

Apparently, at some time in the past, the "fan site agreement" from EA, in regards to fans putting up sites for Sims 1, included this:

"Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing herein shall prevent you from charging users of your Fan Site a modest fee to access your Fan Site."

I got this from this ancient thread on the TSR forums where paysites were being discussed: http://forums.thesimsresource.com/showpost.php?p=2307971&postcount=82

So my question is, was this a clause that did exist for Sims 1 sites and was removed for whatever reason (perhaps because EA's definition of "modest fee" and paysite owners' definitions of "modest fee" differed in a large way?)  Or does that clause still exist someplace for Sims 2 sites?  Is it revoked for both Sims 1 and Sims 2?  Were the people who thought they saw that clause hallucinating it?  What gives?

(Here is the archive version of the entire thread if anyone wants it--the archive version is less annoying than the "real version." http://forums.thesimsresource.com/archive/index.php/t-209553.html
The thread is kind of interesting--the entire archive is sort of like watching the horror that is the Sims community coming into being.)

[Soup Parrot]

Sims1  I always downloaded freebies!

I was reading that post you sited there and this part jumped out:

EA and its Licensors

Ok wonder where the whole EULA is for Sims2 think it been built into it upfront not hidden.

[Quorneater]

I dunno maybe this "violating the EULA" thing is barking up the wrong tree and not going to get a satisfying response.  On my (I know it's debatable) assumption that the best way to discourage paysites is to discourage people paying them, it might be the best approach in the long term is to make people who pay feel a bit silly or even irresponsible for doing so.  Actually target the subscribers - since the owners don't seem to care whether they fit into the community or not.

[Soup Parrot]

1. Educate sim community on Intellrctual rights, etc.

2. Check into allegations of thievery of poser meshes get proof. Get all free sites not to allow these meshes, put out notices, next and go after their paypal etc, and whatever action needs to be taken.

3.Get the poser initiative going.

EA :I will just get seasons, and possibly fall release, but will be playing spore more as it does look like not all this CC neccessary.
I think EA's employees will do in EA. What do I mean. There was an article I read back a few weeks ago that EA was in turmoil. Many of the EA programmers working overtime like 80 hrs a week, and not being paid overtime. I saw complaints were filed by several employees, went to court, but EA didnt change its policy. so a lot of overworked unhappy EA employees. That means game glitches could be a result of exhaustion as well, but unhappy employees when not treated right could get back at EA by sabatoge.

[LesserOr]

As expected, but it ended better than I would've thought.

1. It was locked, not deleted.
2. It stayed up for a long time for being "offensive", as moderation continued elsewhere on the BBS. This means that EA upper staff had to approve what was to be done with the thread, and they read it.
3. They acknowledge that there's a problem, and that's the first step to recovery.
4. "at this time."

So my question is, was this a clause that did exist for Sims 1 sites and was removed for whatever reason

The bandwidth permission was announced first, and only put into the Sims 1 EULA some time afterward.
The dot-com bust killed off free and ad-supported hosting for a few years- a very real and serious issue at the time. "Modest" gave the sites wiggle room because Maxis didn't want to set an amount, and then have things get worse.

What's happened is that EA's lawyers realized that the bandwidth permission left them open to / promoted paysites. This doesn't revoke the permissions given to Sims 1 for it's time. Since it's not present in the current EULA, EA does not have to honor it with Sims 2 sites.
If anyone tried to get into it seriously, it was promised by Maxis, not EA.

It's moot as to what would happen to Sims 1 paysites if EA sued, though.
First, EA wouldn't go after any site that was a real donation operation, not beyond cease and desist. Very few sites meet the definition.
Second, paysites couldn't save themselves even if the language was in the Sims 2 EULA, because paysites are stores. Whenever you can't get content until you give money, that's legally a sale. Subscriptions are sales as well, despite what many believe. Even the little "donation gifts" are considered a sale unless there's some way to get them for free.
Good intentions wouldn't protect anyone. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

I've heard conflicting reports as to what's in the EULA for the new(ish) Sims 1 box sets.
This is important because part of all EULA language includes the right to change the rules at any time without prior notification. They can't change it and then sue you for having disobeyed unless you keep it up after the change, but they don't have to notify you of revisions. You have to keep tabs on your own, if your game doesn't update dynamically.
If the Sims 1 boxsets have the omission, that means that EA won't support the bandwidth permission at all. Interesting if true.

notice they are calling fansites paysites here.

They can't say "paysite". That's a loaded word, and it would be admission that a distinction exists between them and free fansites.
It would be "commenting" on the issue.

If this inspires someone to go check for BBS/blog mentions, you should know that offhand comments by forum mods don't count as official company statements. This keeps EA clear if one of them goes insane and promises the next EP free or something, and in cases like this where they need to cover their asses until legal can draft up a real statement.

I think EA's employees will do in EA.

This is how almost all game companies treat their employees, especially around the holidays. It's an industry-wide problem, and other professions do the same things.
Sabotage (malicious or intentionally letting bugs slip) isn't likely. If caught or suspected, you'd never be able to work in a coding job again. Why go pyhrric when you could quit?

Bugs do get through more commonly in these situations, but it's almost always because the publisher (EA) doesn't pay for enough playtesting or tries to rush an unfinished, over-deadline game to make Christmas.

If you don't like it, vote with your wallet- don't pay for games released buggy. They get away with it because people accept first-day patches as normal.

[Pescado]

If you don't like it, vote with your wallet- don't pay for games released buggy. They get away with it because people accept first-day patches as normal.

First DAY patches? We got a patch on the first day? Where?