I read about the copyright with EA and Paysites

[missangelica]

Well, I've been talking to my friend who is a game developer/artist/coder and he said while the "package" format is not more than likely not copyrighted, the stuff inside certainly is.  Since you are including that stuff to make your CC work in game, then selling it is illegal.

He encouraged me that we should be writing to EA Maxis and that once they make a stance on it, it will probably come down to three options for the paysite owners.
1.) Work directly with us to make APPROVED content packs.
2.) Cease and desist.
3.) We sue you until you can't walk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Rights_Management

What you should be looking for is the "reverse engineering" part, which basically means making the crypted coding that makes the program work viewable and changeable.

[araneldon]

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.

Me neither, I'm just curious. Perhaps it's best not to pursue this argument any further since neither side is able to cite any authoritative sources.

One thing I find curious is how in this issue people appear to be willing to defend the rights of a big corporation against "the little guys", when it's usually the other way around.

[mando]

One thing I find curious is how in this issue people appear to be willing to defend the rights of a big corporation against "the little guys", when it's usually the other way around.

People aren't necessarily defending the rights of the corporation (who I doubt really needs our help), many people here are actually concerned about the rights of the other "little guy", the person who downloads custom content for use in game. Others might be concerned about shady business practices from some paysite owners. There are actually probably a lot of other reasons for concerns about this, I don't think it's just a "big" vs. "small" issue here.

[Sherry]

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?

Well if you're just curious, I find EA's restrictions on my creations reasonable.  

One thing I find curious is how in this issue people appear to be willing to defend the rights of a big corporation against "the little guys", when it's usually the other way around.

Well for one people feel quite disrespected by paysites, in light of EA tou, and in light of the fact the the people who do the most to make CC possible in the first place, do it all for free.  Programs, tutorials, hacks, help, all free.  Many of us feel that paysites are leeches on the community offering little in return in comparison to what they take.  We are frankly tired of the "little guys" and want them gone.

ETA: Mando said it much better.

[araneldon]

Well, I've been talking to my friend who is a game developer/artist/coder and he said while the "package" format is not more than likely not copyrighted, the stuff inside certainly is.  Since you are including that stuff to make your CC work in game, then selling it is illegal.

Yes, the stuff. What is the stuff? Meshes, textures, code... But consider a package that only contains custom meshes and textures (a skintone for example). Would such a package also have to contain material copyrighted by EA to be functional?

He encouraged me that we should be writing to EA Maxis and that once they make a stance on it, it will probably come down to three options for the paysite owners.
1.) Work directly with us to make APPROVED content packs.

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?

[Ensign EO]

Cutting EAxis a piece of the profit and sending some off for taxes as well, I assume.

[mando]

Yes, the stuff. What is the stuff? Meshes, textures, code... But consider a package that only contains custom meshes and textures (a skintone for example). Would such a package also have to contain material copyrighted by EA to be functional?

I'm not an expert on the way that package files are put together (perhaps someone who is could speak up), but I would think, no matter what the package file contains that it would always contain code in order to make it function within the game (the code being the property of EA, and not the package format in this case).

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?

I actually quoted the section of the EULA that addressed this exact question. EA knows that the game is popular due to the amount of custom content that is created to be used in game, and they also make profits out of their own new content (think stuff packs and expansion packs). They want to encourage the creation of custom content without it biting into their profits. It would be highly foolish to write in their EULA that the creation of custom content for commercial purposes is fine because it would kill any profits they could stand to make on it, and could create problems in the long term for EA's legal rights to the Sims.

[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.

[araneldon]

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?

Well if you're just curious, I find EA's restrictions on my creations reasonable.

Fair enough :wink:  

One thing I find curious is how in this issue people appear to be willing to defend the rights of a big corporation against "the little guys", when it's usually the other way around.

Well for one people feel quite disrespected by paysites, in light of EA tou, and in light of the fact the the people who do the most to make CC possible in the first place, do it all for free.  Programs, tutorials, hacks, help, all free.  Many of us feel that paysites are leeches on the community offering little in return in comparison to what they take.  We are frankly tired of the "little guys" and want them gone.
ETA: Mando said it much better.

Such leeches and scam artists exist in every industry, yet you probably wouldn't expect every small software entrepreneur or artist to give away the fruits of their labour for free. Why is this an exception?

Quite frankly, if some people are daft enough to pay ridiculous sums of money for virtual "designer lingerie", that's their problem. It's hardly a reason to punish legitimate artists.

But in the end, it's not much of a concern for me. I don't plan to make money doing CC for TS2 nor do I use much of it, free or otherwise. I just couldn't quite understand where all this hate comes from.

[missangelica]

Yes, the stuff. What is the stuff? Meshes, textures, code... But consider a package that only contains custom meshes and textures (a skintone for example). Would such a package also have to contain material copyrighted by EA to be functional?

The most important part of the stuff I think are the BHAVs but I am not a modder.  Pescado would be a much better person to tell you all what a package does/can contain.

I'm pretty sure even skintones have coding to make it work in game.  It isn't just textures.  I will pull up SimPE and do a screenshot of a skintone "guts" whenever Body Shop decides to finally close..

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 it is already authorized in the TOS for noncommercial custom content.

yet you probably wouldn't expect every small software entrepreneur or artist to give away the fruits of their labour for free. Why is this an exception?

It's called having a hobby.  This is one of the first fandoms where people expect to be paid for their HOBBY.

I just couldn't quite understand where all this hate comes from.

Let me give you some background information.  SimPE and the other free tools were created out of blood, sweat, and tears from the community coming together to break the code and give us the ability to make custom content to improve the game.  

Pay site owners took all that communal effort, free tools, and free support given to them with no strings attached and they put a price tag on that.  It's a huge slap in the face.  It has broken the spirit this community once had.

Here is that screenshot.

[mando]

Such leeches and scam artists exist in every industry, yet you probably wouldn't expect every small software entrepreneur or artist to give away the fruits of their labour for free. Why is this an exception?

It's an exception because EA owns the rights to the programs needed to make the "artwork" functional. There are a lot of amazing artists who create CC for the Sims (the best of whom work for free), but I don't think that they own their work in the same way that an artist might own a painting or a sculpture. Creating for the Sims requires the artists to work under EA's rules, meaning that the work should only be available non-commercially.

Quite frankly, if some people are daft enough to pay ridiculous sums of money for virtual "designer lingerie", that's their problem. It's hardly a reason to punish legitimate artists.

I don't think any legitimate artists are being punished. An agreement was struck up between the creator and EA before the art was made, not understanding the agreement or thinking that it's unfair is not an excuse. If you create for the Sims you should do it because you want your work to be seen and shared and not because you want to make a buck.

But in the end, it's not much of a concern for me. I don't plan to make money doing CC for TS2 nor do I use much of it, free or otherwise. I just couldn't quite understand where all this hate comes from.

I don't hate anyone, but I do hate seeing people get screwed over (and in this case I mean the downloaders and the artists who create all of their work for free). The custom content was meant to be shared, not meant to send someone on vacation for a month.

[araneldon]

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

[araneldon]

Yes, the stuff. What is the stuff? Meshes, textures, code... But consider a package that only contains custom meshes and textures (a skintone for example). Would such a package also have to contain material copyrighted by EA to be functional?

I'm pretty sure even skintones have coding to make it work in game.  It isn't just textures.  I will pull up SimPE and do a screenshot of a skintone "guts" whenever Body Shop decides to finally close..

I'd do that myself but the weight of my eyelids is becoming unbearable. Thanks for your effort tho

yet you probably wouldn't expect every small software entrepreneur or artist to give away the fruits of their labour for free. Why is this an exception?

It's called having a hobby.  This is one of the first fandoms where people expect to be paid for their HOBBY.

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.

I just couldn't quite understand where all this hate comes from.

Let me give you some background information.  SimPE and the other free tools were created out of blood, sweat, and tears from the community coming together to break the code and give us the ability to make custom content to improve the game.  

Pay site owners took all that communal effort, free tools, and free support given to them with no strings attached and they put a price tag on that.  It's a huge slap in the face.  It has broken the spirit this community once had.

I can understand those feelings, but I also understand that people who spend countless hours creating meshes and tweaking UVs and painting textures and so on... may want some compensation for their work, especially when said work is of high quality and many people express interest in paying for it. After all, is it not the customer who ultimately defines the fair price?

Still, a lot of the so called artists do very little compared to the efforts of the community, that I don't deny.

[mando]

Artists and software developers can create their own outside, seperate work and charge whatever they like for it, it's not comparable to charging for Sims creations.
The artists and developers in question are making work for use in Sims games, meaning that they must follow the rules that they agreed to before they created the work. As their work depends on EA's software they agreed to follow the rules for distribution that EA set out in their EULA.

[Smonaff]

Lots of companies limit what you can and cannot do with their software. I copied the following from Adobe's website and it pertains to the academic versions of their various applications.

Adobe offers qualified educational institutions, organizations, and end users (such as administrators and students) the opportunity to buy Education versions of our products for administrative or educational instruction purposes only.

Educational institutions and organizations must meet one or more of the following criteria to qualify for the education discount and purchase Education Versions of our software:

    * Accredited public or private universities, colleges, and community colleges that grant degrees requiring at least two years of full-time matriculation
    * K-12 schools, school districts, administrative offices, and boards of education that purchase for the schools above
    * Hospitals, libraries, labs, and museums wholly owned and operated by the schools above
    * Home schools approved by Macromedia at its sole discretion
    * Accredited vocational schools (i.e., trade schools providing certificates for specific specialties, such as Heald Business School)
    * Training centers qualified to purchase the Macromedia K-12 Training Center Solution

As set forth in the EULA, Education versions cannot be used for any commercial purpose. A commercial purpose is any revenue-generating activity beyond an educational institution's usual and customary educational activities.

If a software manufacturer states that you cannot sell something that you have created using their software, then doing so is in violation of the EULA and therefore illegal.

Here's the url.
http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/knowledgebase/index.cfm?id=tn_19592#edu

ETA: I wonder how many paysite creators are not only violating EA's EULA, but also Adobe's by using educational versions of Photoshop to edit textures.