I read about the copyright with EA and Paysites

[Heinel]

There are plenty of people who do a bit of artwork or software development or whatever because they enjoy it and might therefore call it a hobby, and also charge money for whatever they make. I don't see anything wrong with that.

That's misrepresenting the issue quite a bit, as analogies often do  :wink:

1) When you create a software, you do not first sign a EULA.

2) I take it that when you say developing software, the software is to be developed from scratch.  All forms of CC currently available are not purely works of the artists.  In fact, only a very small part of it is created by the artist.  Firstly, if the creator creates from SimPE, which I believe is the case 99.9% of the time, their work is not 100% original.  In order to create a CC from SimPE, you must clone an existing object.  That means, there's always something that can be traced back to EA's product (such as the codes that define the CC, to be read by the game).

Only a select few people could work a package out from scratch (such as SimPE contributors), but they all do it for free.  There are also things that I believe are independent enough to not be covered by the EULA, such as Delphy's download organizer, jfade's compressorizor, paladin's hack conflict detector, SimPE, etc.  None of those are for pay, however.

[Marhis]

Let's try to look at the issue from another point of view.

As a matter of fact, EA made a statement (EULA), which is - until further facts would rediscuss it - the rule of the game. In short, the EULA draws a line between what's legal and what is not: EA point of view.

Now, EA may be wrong: I mean, if the matter eventually came to a court, a judge might sentence EA's EULA is not legal, and paysites copyright are legitimated instead. This would draw another, different, line in between.

What we concretely have now, is EA's EULA, and their further confirmations (see the letters their customer care sent): nothing else.

Now, I would be happy to see paysites owners and supporters - if really concerned about their copyrights and the legality of their income - start a discussion with EA about this issue.
In short, again: DO something, for heaven's sake!

What we have, instead, is free CC creators and supporters discussing this matter: if I remember correctly, I've read Echo, HystericalParoxysm, and many others like them: not ONE of paysite owners nor supporters did it.

Oh well, after all it's always the same pattern: vampirize someone else's work and effort, whine a lot (whining is easy and costs nothing), try to  undermine people's overall credibility, and stay away from anything which may cost you some effort.

In the end, to me what matters is facts: EULA and EULA's confirmation letters. Personal speculations aren't facts, and until someone discuss the facts, I stand my ground.

[Quinctia]

CC is just like fanfic.  If you want to get paid for what you do, don't do something derivative.  If you want to get paid for making meshes and textures, get into the 3D modeling community and stay out of the game modding community.

It's basic elementary stuff that everyone else in fandom and gaming managed to figure out like 25-30 years ago.  Any other fan group would shun people doing this sort of crap, and people defend it.  Why?  I don't know.  Maybe because the game appeals to the sort that never really gamed before, never really was tech savvy before, and never really got into fandom before, but this sort of thing has never been acceptable elsewhere.

[SparklePlenty]

Just out of curiosity, why should custom content creators willing to sell their creations be required to get approval, when those who distribute their content without charge don't have such a requirement?

Because EA has already given their approval for us to MAKE custom content. They have NOT given their approval to sell what we make. Therefore, only those who want to SELL what they (or anyone else) makes need approval. My advice to you? Think before you type.

[Taboo]

I've been reading about the copyright argument on here for a few days, and remembered that here in England - as far as I know - you have to legally register something, whether it's a book, music or whatever, in order to claim that you have legal copyright on that item. As I very much doubt that any of the paysites (possibly with the exception of TSR) have gone to the trouble of doing something similar as is required in their countries, for them to say that freely distributing their CC via the booty or any other method is violating their copyright is a load of hogwash. Unless they've gone through the proper procedure, they do NOT own the copyright on anything they make, whether it's meshes, textures or simple recolours. Let's face it, many paysites - such as Sim Chic for example - photoskin from celebrity and designer photographs in order to make things such as formal clothing and full outfits. In that case surely they themselves are violating two sets of copyrights - the original designers' and the photographers'? Starbucks pulled the plug on a Sims Connection payset when they found out that they were selling items that infringed their copyright after all.

I found this definition of copyright on an online dictionary, and have italicised part that seems most appropriate to any whinging coming from paysite owners who believe that their copyright (and other rights) have been infringed by freely sharing their CC:

[Free On-line Dictionary of Computing - Cite This Source
copyright legal
The exclusive rights of the owner of the copyright on a work to make and distribute copies, prepare derivative works, and perform and display the work in public (these last two mainly apply to plays, films, dances and the like, but could also apply to software).

A work, including a piece of software, is under copyright by default in most coutries, whether of not it displays a copyright notice. However, a copyright notice may make it easier to assert ownership. The copyright owner is the person or company whose name appears in the copyright notice on the box, or the disk or the screen or wherever.

A copyright notice has three parts. The first can be either a c with a circle around it (LaTeX \copyright), or the word Copyright or the abbreviation Copr. A "c" in parentheses: "(c)" has no legal meaning. This is followed by the name of the copyright holder and the year of first publication.
Countries around the world have agreed to recognise and uphold each others' copyrights, but this world-wide protection requires the use of the c in a circle.

Originally, most of the computer industry assumed that only the program's underlying instructions were protected under copyright law but, beginning in the early 1980s, a series of lawsuits involving the video screens of game programs extended protections to the appearance of programs.

Use of copyright to restrict redistribution is actually immoral, unethical, and illegitimate. It is a result of brainwashing by monopolists and corporate interests and it violates everyone's rights. Copyrights and patents hamper technological progress by making a naturally abundant resource scarce. Many, from communists to right wing libertarians, are trying to abolish intellectual property myths.

See also public domain, copyleft, software law.
US Copyright Office Circular 61 - Copyright Registration for Computer Programs.
The US Department of Education's "How Does Copyright Law Apply to Computer Software".
Usenet newsgroup: misc.legal.computing.
[Is this definition correct in the UK? In the US? Elsewhere?]
(2000-03-23)

The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing, © 1993-2007 Denis Howe]

I have no doubt that paysite owners and supporters would say that the start of the second italicised paragraph is in their favour if EA eventually do agree that the selling of CC must stop, namely "Use of copyright to restrict redistribution is actually immoral, unethical, and illegitimate." However anyone with a shred of common sense can see that they would again be talking out their behinds, as we have EA/Maxis approval to use their tools to make and redistribute CC - they are not the ones imposing the restrictions on sharing what should be available to all of us in the Sims community.

In my opinion it's the paysites that are the real pirates as they are guilty on more than one or two counts in what they do. All we are doing is dowloading and using what should be freely available to us in the first place, as stated in EA's EULA. That's why paysites must be destroyed.

EDIT: link to the online dictionary (the definition quoted is the second to last item at the bottom of the page):

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/copyright

[giggy]

I don't fully support your cause

Then why come here and post?

what a waste of space

Edit: the quote thing is stuffed!

[Silvercoin]

Then why come here and post? what a waste of space

And hundreds of "arr, pass the rum" posts aren't? :lol: Nothing wrong with some intelligent debate. Besides, PMBD is nothing without bitchfests, drama whores, hacking threats, conflicting opinions and dirty jockstraps.
Oh yeah, and paysites, of course. Yeah. Paysites.

[giggy]

:lol: Aye, now pass thee rum would ya!

*Gets sober*
Now *Hic* Paysites, always ruin my day aye *hic* nothin beats them to a good ol game of *hic* finding the rum in the *hic* buryed sand game eh *hic*
*faints on floor*

[Broomhilda]

Here is my view on this. Lets say I loaned my friend a chair and told them to sit on it all they want and let their friends sit on it. Well a week later I find out they painted it and sold it for more than I paid for it. I would be pissed. I loaned them the chair to use, not sell. I know chairs aren't the same thing as files, but I still think it's a shitty thing to do if you sell someones chair. It's just common sense and decency. That is just my opinion.

That's misrepresenting the issue quite a bit, as analogies often do :wink:

In that scenario the chair would be lost to you. But when Maxis "loans" you a chair and you make a copy of it and sell it, Maxis hasn't lost anything except maybe a potential sale (if whoever bought your chair would as a result feel it unnecessary to buy content made by Maxis).

To put it in your terms: I tried to make it clear that I'm not defending creators who don't do anything more than provide a custom paint job for objects created by others (Maxis or third parties). I'm talking about artists who instead of painting and selling your chair would create a new one from scratch, and sell that.

Of course, given that a lot of the value in any CC is dependent on the game (IOW, the meshes and textures by themselves without the game wouldn't be worth as much to most people), it's fair to say that Maxis/EA could justifiably lay claim to some of the earnings made off CC.

(is it just me or are my language skill deteriorating... time to go to sleep methinks)

Anyway, this discussion was... well, at least somewhat entertaining if not terribly enlightening. Thanks for being so civil, I expected a lot more negative feedback given how homogenous (and at times ever so slightly fanatic ) a bunch you appear to be

That wasn't my point at all. My point was EA loans the files to be used for free. They do not give any kind of permission to sell them. So even if it were legal to copy them and make a profit, it's just not a decent thing to do. I'm not saying anything about law because I'm not a lawyer, I'm talking about decency. It was my opinion, and I stated chairs and files are very different things, so I don't understand why you felt the need to tell me they are different...

[HawkGirl]

I thought the .gif was an example of a format that was copyrighted at a time, but I'm not sure.

I knew this would come up :wink: That was about a patented algorithm, different issue.

Could EA pull out a creators mesh and texture and say "mine"?  I doubt it.  Could they pull out a .package chucked full of their hard work that a creator willingly added a mesh and texture to for the sole purpose of using with a game EA created and say "mine"?  I believe so.

You can make a package that contains entirely original meshes and textures and very little else. So the questions remain: what copyrighted material do those packages contain and is the package file format itself protected?

Your whole point is mute, your arguing copyright verses contract. You agree by contract and it is written in laymans terms. "Anything" that is made for, goes into EA games, belongs to and is the sole property of EA. So the very minute you upload it into your game or anyone else uploads it into their game it is then the property of EA which "You" agree too. Check out ghost artists and see what their rights are on copyright verses contract. Nada, zip, zilch because they give up by contract all rights to their copyright, the exact same thing you do when you click on I agree which is why there is also a I disagree button. If you don't agree to the terms of a contract why would you ever agree to it? I believe is the smarter question. Ignorance of a contract you agree to is 0 grounds for defense in a court of law.

[Lorelei]

What is so difficult to understand?

If you make something for sale that does not require EA's games or tools to work or have usefulness, good for you.

If your creation depends on the game to work properly or have usefulness, you may not sell it.

The end.

As HawkGirl said, it is a moot point.

You can create anything you like for use with the game as long as it is non-commercial.

Non-commercial means you don't get paid. Period.

An item is a pay item if any money most be paid in order to acquire the item.

You can call it a gift, donation, surprise, bonus, present, or invent your own special term, but if you accept any money at all for it, it is a pay item, and that makes you in defiance of the EULA, and your activities thus illegal.

So, let's review.

Your item is intended to work for The Sims 2? EA owns the rights to it.

If it is a .package file, Sims2Pack, Sims2Skin, or similar proprietary format, EA owns the rights to it. It's not a Word document, people, where a .doc does not belong to Microsoft, this is EA, where their .package (etc) files are protected by their legal documentation.

If your creation will not work without Sims 2 tools, games, or products? EA owns the rights to it.

Some charities do give away incentives.
Point one: they have filed papers to declare themselves charities, and charities have different laws and rules applied to them.
Point two: you are not a charity.
Point three: incentives given away do not break the EULA of another company which has specifically made it illegal to sell them.
Point four: many people give to charities and reject the gifts.

Is it illegal to go to the grocery store or doughnut shop and buy a cake and then sell it as yours at a school bake sale?
Technically, yes.
However, the embarrassment most people would feel trying to pass of a grocery store baked good or Krispy Kreme doughnut as their own prevents most people from trying this dodge in the first place.
Also, no one is pretending to be Dunkin' Donuts when selling those doughnuts.
Also also, Krispy Kreme and Dunkin' Donuts often work with schools and give them a reduced price on their products specifically so they can be resold for fund drives.
EA does not allow anyone to buy their games directly from them at a reduced price or to resell them for fund drives, and do not allow content specifically designed to work only with their games for a profit either.

Do people have a right to make a living?
Yes.

Do people have a right to make a living selling content they are not legally allowed to make a commercial profit from?
No.

Isn't the booty illegal?
No.

Are the items in the booty "stolen"?
No. They have been paid for.

Is filesharing booty items illegal?
No. According to EA, FREE filesharing is okay. It is a big part of what makes the Sims enjoyable for their customers.

What has EA said about the paysite versus freesite issue?
In addition to their EULA, which clearly states you can modify the game with custom content as long as you do so in a NON-COMMERCIAL manner (which should have been the end of the debate right there), EA has sent several letters to concerned Sims 2 community members clearly stating:

* that they are okay with paysites.mustbedestroyed.org
* that selling content is not okay
* that their legal department is looking into how to approach the issue.

Note that EA has also intervened on behalf of pro-freesite creators and forced sites such as TSR to release those creators' content.

EA is not against creators, EA is clearly against creators making a buck off the community by selling custom content illegally.

What about that bandwidth loophole we enjoyed during Sims 1?
That loophole is gone.

Why?
MAXIS used to take care of Sims community issues, and MAXIS issued the bandwidth loophole statement. This was years ago, when bandwidth was costly. Now MAXIS is only very tangentially involved. EA has taken back all control of their intellectual property. MAXIS rules no longer apply at all.

What if I really need to recoup the costs of my server/bandwidth?
There are many legal ways to do this without selling content.

* You can talk to several people at this site about hosting.
* You can put a donation button on your site and make sure that no content is exchanged for donations.
* You can post your creations to free sites (MTS2, SFV, et cetera) or the Exchange and let them host your work.
* You can work with sites that are grouped together and host your work on a site network. S2Chost and Wicked Sims are both options.
* You can use file hosts like 4shared to host your work.
* You can use Yahoo Groups to host your work.
* You can e-mail your files to interested parties using mailers like gmail.
* You can make products for sale at CafePress, Zazzle, Spreadshirt, et cetera, as long as they do not break EA's copyrights. In other words, selling items with the official Sims logos or art is out, but selling items with your own logo, art, or creative designs are okay.

How can I get rich and make a profit in the Sims 2 community and not break the law?
You can't. To attempt to do so is to break the law. Why is it right for you to make a dollar off of EA Games? You didn't make the game, you didn't make the file formats, you didn't make the tools, you didn't write the code, you are not paid by EA, thus you need to make a buck in another way.

I don't like your attitude, you are surly pirates.
Too fucking bad. We don't like YOUR attitude, nor do we like you stealing from the community and feeling self-righteous and above the law.

If you were nicer, I might join your cause.
If you need candy and flowers to do the right thing, then you are in need of more help than we can offer. Most people do the right thing without expectation of reward or a pat on the head.

If paysites are outlawed, what will happen to all the good content?
First of all, most paysite items are not great quality and you can find similar or superior quality items for free.
Paysites do not typically refund your money if the item breaks your game.
Paysites do not typically issue refunds if the scale of the items are wrong and bleed through walls or Sims.
Paysites do not typically bother to let you know if their items are high-polygon, and thus lag-inducing.
Paysites typically do not reveal that their meshes are ripped off from Poser and other mesh sites. Poser artists are less than sanguine about their work being stolen.
Paysites which specialize in hair typically do not show you the gaps in the Sims' necks or poor animations or hair cutting through Sims; in fact, many paysites show their hair meshes on Photoshopped images.
Paysites typically do not bother to do currency conversions, so some people pay more than others for the same item they legally should not be buying in the first place.
Paysites occasionally refuse to release content when creators choose not to sell their work anymore, and hold it hostage until threatened by EA.
Paysites do not typically process subscription requests in a timely manner, so if you pay for a month, you may get two weeks or fewer.
Paysites make you pay to download their goodies, and some have punished subscribers from downloading "too much" or using download accelerator programs.
Paysites often use copyrighted images and brand names to make their pay items more appealing, which is breaking the copyright of those companies, the professional photographers who took the images, the designers of clothing used in the photos, et cetera.

If I only have one pay item, and another site has 50,000 pay items, are we equally wrong?
The scope of your wrong-doing is smaller, but you are still wrong.

If I am usually a free creator and have only one donation item, does that make my site a paysite?
Yes.

But I need to feed my chillunz / can't work a "normal" job / have an illness / am agoraphobic / need to be compensated for my talents and time!
Then you need to find a legal alternative to earn money.
Your talents as applied to Sims 2 game content can not legally be sold.
Apply your talents legally to make money, and use your talents within the Sims 2 community to share your hobby for free.

But I wouldn't create anything for the Sims 2 if I didn't make money!
Then you need to stop playing Sims 2 and find another outlet for your skills, because clearly being part of the fan community is not important to you.

But I have come up with something so new and special that it deservesd to be rewarded with cash!
Submit it to EA, then, if it is truly so new and special, and see if they are willing to hire you.
Do not think that your item(s) is/are so special that you and you alone are allowed to break the law.
Also, it is likely that someone else has already made that new and special item, and you simply have not found it yet.
And they are probably offering it for free.

But if I call something a donation, it's a donation!
You can call it a purple unicorn, but it doesn't make it so.

[mando]

...Lorelei covers and answers many stupid arguments people make...

Oh, Lorelei, you needed to post that for the earlier troll. Hopefully he'll come back and troll around some more to see your post.

Edit: Was worried that it sounded like I thought Lorelei's arguments were stupid. I probably need sleep, stupid me procrastinating on projects...(sigh)

[Pucci]

Lorelei, that was brilliant.

[derMarcel]

Hi.

Now, I would be happy to see paysites owners and supporters - if really concerned about their copyrights and the legality of their income - start a discussion with EA about this issue.
In short, again: DO something, for heaven's sake!

I'm not running a paysite yet, but I asked EA (Germany) who owns the copyright on the custom content made with simpe from their point of view. I did'n get an answer till now - they just told me to be patient because the product manager and maxis are checking it. I asked one month ago  :!: So starting a discussion with EA seems not to be that easy  :wink:

p.s. sorry for my bad english  :roll:

[Ensign EO]

Has your site already been established?  Or does it not exist yet, and when it does come to life, it will be born as a paysite?

If the former, please look into the alternatives.  People are willing to help.

If the latter...  why?  Are you just skipping all the pretence about gifts and maintenance costs, instead stating outright you are in this for the money?

ETA: Also, if I misunderstood completely, and you don't have a site nor do you plan to have one... don't mind me.  :lol: