I read about the copyright with EA and Paysites

[missnaughty]

I read also that its not just content that is created with items supplied by The game, like bodyshop etc...  But infact, even if the stuff is created with their own software, the .package file is copyrighted as well.  And we all know that the files that work in the game are .package files.  So even thougth they may say its their software and they have used nothing of maxis to create the content, the only way to get it in our games is as a .package so in fact they are commiting the crime of copyright and gaining money off it.  :lol:

[Duckie]

Did you accidentally hit "New Topic" instead of "Post Reply"?  :lol:

[araneldon]

I read also that its not just content that is created with items supplied by The game, like bodyshop etc...  But infact, even if the stuff is created with their own software, the .package file is copyrighted as well.  And we all know that the files that work in the game are .package files.  So even thougth they may say its their software and they have used nothing of maxis to create the content, the only way to get it in our games is as a .package so in fact they are commiting the crime of copyright and gaining money off it.  :lol:

I don't believe copyright applies to file formats.

If it did, don't you think Microsoft for instance would have done away with OpenOffice.org as it both reads and writes file formats developed by Microsoft for their Office suite?

And btw this is the number one reason why I don't fully support your cause; I simply don't believe that EA has the legal right to restrict the creation and sale of CC, provided such content does not include any of their intellectual property (meshes, textures). Furthermore, I'm willing to bet there's still a lot of uncertainty about the legal applicability of software licenses, and I certainly wouldn't want to operate in a digital world where software companies can dictate what their software can or can't be used for.

Having said that, I see nothing wrong with people charging money for their CC, especially considering that some of it is of no less quality than what is in the original game.

And finally, I'm also not condemning your activities and might very well download stuff from your hoard as I'm not about to pay for CC given my current financial situation and it would therefore represent no loss of potential income for the creators. In other circumstances I certainly would pay because some of those people deserve it.

So there. I'll just find my way to the nearest plank now, thank you :grin:

(First post!)

[missangelica]

I don't believe copyright applies to file formats.

Video game developers create their own file format that works only in their games.  Additionally, you have to use what's in the package format that EA Maxis made to make it work in the game.  You cannot sell their work.

ETA:  Again I say that if paysites were just selling texture files and OBJ files that were completely their work and not EA Maxis' deritives, it would be legal.  Once you put it into the package format, it is theirs.  They could take all the paysite stuff and make a big pay site stuff pack and the creators couldn't do a thing about it.

[rickets]

The package file is a proprietary file format and is useless unless you have the game.   What can you do with a package file other than use it in Sims 2?

[araneldon]

I don't believe copyright applies to file formats.

Video game developers create their own file format that works only in their games.  Additionally, you have to use what's in the package format that EA Maxis made to make it work in the game.  You cannot sell their work.

I can't find any support for the claim that file formats are protected by copyright and therefore stand by my original claim. If you or anyone else can point out evidence to the contrary, please share. I'd do the research myself but trying to decipher legalese makes me feel stoopid and I don't like that

ETA:  Again I say that if paysites were just selling texture files and OBJ files that were completely their work and not EA Maxis' deritives, it would be legal.  Once you put it into the package format, it is theirs.  They could take all the paysite stuff and make a big pay site stuff pack and the creators couldn't do a thing about it.

Any lawyers around? IIRC, (at least in Finland) copyright law actually grants certain rights to the creators of derivative works as well, but things have changed thanks to all the greedy megacorps.

[araneldon]

The package file is a proprietary file format and is useless unless you have the game.   What can you do with a package file other than use it in Sims 2?

Not much (except extract the meshes and textures and whatnot), but how is this relevant?

[mando]

Furthermore, I'm willing to bet there's still a lot of uncertainty about the legal applicability of software licenses, and I certainly wouldn't want to operate in a digital world where software companies can dictate what their software can or can't be used for.

While I agree that issues surrounding the ownership of file formats and the like can be murky, I don't think that it's true that companies should have no rights to the control of the formats they do develop (especially when it affects their bottom line).

Also, I don't think this would necessarily be a matter of a company making abstract rules for the use of their software. All (or at least most) software requires you to agree to a license to use the software especially when you can produce something with that product. Think of a program like Photoshop for example. In order to use Photoshop and use it to create things for sale, you must purchase a license in order to use it legally. Just because Adobe (or EA, or Microsoft) is not rampantly pursuing illegal users doesn't mean that it's fine to do whatever you want.

[Sherry]

I thought the .gif was an example of a format that was copyrighted at a time, but I'm not sure.  EA, claims their tools, and materials, which include objects, textures, coding and other fun stuff that goes into a .package file that I won't even pretend to have a full understanding of, legally belongs to them.  

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.  

Also, I believe microsoft supporting OpenOffice.org was a choice, good PR, wanting their format to become a standard, not necessarily because they couldn't take legal action if they wanted to.  I am not schooled in it, but what I read briefly leads me to believe so.

At the end of the day, microsoft, like EA has to decided if making a legal statement or move is worth the effort, not necessarily it's because it's in their rights or not.  I am not sure any document could ever be held up 100% in court, but you have to do what you can to protect your rights.

[rickets]

Not much (except extract the meshes and textures and whatnot), but how is this relevant?

But explain to me how that helps you with Sims 2?  You want to use a package file as a sort of big blue zip file?

[araneldon]

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?

[araneldon]

Not much (except extract the meshes and textures and whatnot), but how is this relevant?

But explain to me how that helps you with Sims 2?  You want to use a package file as a sort of big blue zip file?

No. But I still don't see your point.

[araneldon]

Furthermore, I'm willing to bet there's still a lot of uncertainty about the legal applicability of software licenses, and I certainly wouldn't want to operate in a digital world where software companies can dictate what their software can or can't be used for.

While I agree that issues surrounding the ownership of file formats and the like can be murky, I don't think that it's true that companies should have no rights to the control of the formats they do develop (especially when it affects their bottom line).

Also, I don't think this would necessarily be a matter of a company making abstract rules for the use of their software. All (or at least most) software requires you to agree to a license to use the software especially when you can produce something with that product. Think of a program like Photoshop for example. In order to use Photoshop and use it to create things for sale, you must purchase a license in order to use it legally. Just because Adobe (or EA, or Microsoft) is not rampantly pursuing illegal users doesn't mean that it's fine to do whatever you want.

To use a copyrighted work legitimately one must obtain a license, that much is certain. But what restrictions can the copyright holder impose on its use?

Can you give me an example of a restriction on the use (apart from making copies or distribution) of a software product that you find reasonable?

[SoggyFox]

Okay - this is my own personal views on things.

I personally think if I buy something, it is mine to do what I want with it afterwards.  However, there are some fine lines.  I can't rewrite Goblet of Fire, for example, and sell it as my own [ well, word for word, or even mostly the same words ] .  However, I could sell my copy of the book once I was done reading it.

Unfortunately, software, and some other industries, have tried to curtail this.

Now, how does this relate to The Sims2 and CC?  Well let me tell you....
 *that was supposed to make you laugh - so laugh - have some rum-corn*

Basically, you can't make money using what is mostly their code - that's plagerism, just like re-writing a novel someone else did first.  And unfortunately, while the artwork in CC is done by players, and code tweaks and such are done by players, there is still a sufficient quantity of the original in 99% of all CC that it still belongs to EA for purposes of intellectual property rights.

The problem is, too many folks see the new mesh, new functions, and new textures and forget the rest of the stuff lying beneath the surface, like an iceburg.

And interestingly enough, the stuff that has perhaps the least amount of the original code seems to all be free

[mando]

To use a copyrighted work legitimately one must obtain a license, that much is certain. But what restrictions can the copyright holder impose on its use?

Can you give me an example of a restriction on the use (apart from making copies or distribution) of a software product that you find reasonable?

Hmm, I don't know that I really want to play the burden of proof game here. I'm not sure how citing hypothetical situations based on other software will really add any strength to either side of the argument. I can only speak about the matter being discussed here.

The main restriction in the EULA for the Sims 2 that applies here is that "You may include materials created with the Tools & Materials on your personal noncommercial website for the noncommercial benefit of the fan community for EA's products". The .package file is a "tool or material", and so may be used "non-commercially". This is what was agreed to when the user opens, plays and creates for the game.

You may be right that the EULA or EA's ownership or control of the .package format might not hold up in court, but at the moment it is an agreement that the consumer has willingly agreed to. Plus, the .package format has absolutely no other usage outside of the game that I am aware of (which is the point that rickets was trying to make), and so is entirely dependent on the game to have any use what-so-ever. The product (no matter how it was made) is useless outside of EA's "tools and materials".