New confirmation

[nohead]

Um, no.  Just, no.  You've never looked what is inside of a package, have you?

I have. But for the sake of giving the more interesting question a chance let's just say that it is really hard to do, but if someone managed to do it would it still end up in the booty?

[missangelica]

It's not really hard to do.. it's IMPOSSIBLE to make things show up in the game without EAMaxis code.  So your question about the booty is moot.

[nohead]

It's not really hard to do.. it's IMPOSSIBLE to make things show up in the game without EAMaxis code.  So your question about the booty is moot.

I'm not saying there will be no EA code involved, just that there will be no EA code in the program that merges the .payfile with the .package (which indeed  contains lots of EA code) and no EA code in the actual .payfile (see my previous post about that).
No EA code is being sold, it's just being sent along with the .payfile that is being sold.
See what i mean now?

[mando]

I'm not saying there will be no EA code involved, just that there will be no EA code in the program that merges the .payfile with the .package (which indeed  contains lots of EA code) and no EA code in the actual .payfile (see my previous post about that).
No EA code is being sold, it's just being sent along with the .payfile that is being sold.
See what i mean now?

Actually, the code is being sold if it is being provided along with the meshes and textures. I would think that everything inside of the sent folder or file would be part of the sale. Besides which, there aren't any programs that can do this simply at the moment anyway. Are you thinking of trying to develop something like this? Based on the descriptions of the system that you're suggesting, it's basically just a more complicated version of what is being done right now.

[nohead]

Actually, the code is being sold if it is being provided along with the meshes and textures. I would think that everything inside of the sent folder or file would be part of the sale.

That is a valid point, so instead of sending the remaining .package file along with the .payfile it might need to be downloaded separately.
It should actually be free for everyone to download the .package part but without the .payfile component it would be rather useless.
All the trouble with downloading the right .package file could be handled by the merging application so it wouldn't have to be complicated for the end user.

I'm not considering to develop anything, i'm just interested in how it would affect things if such a system were being used.

[Captain Feathersword]

I think the hypothetical is that there are 2 files that make up the game object and a program to put them together. The part containing all EAxis code is provided free to anyone who wants it. The other part , .payfile if you will, has the "copyrighted" part. If a program puts the two bits to make a whole .package what could be in the .payfile?
I don't think there is much scope in this, especially as it would require expert hacking, something no paysite supporter can currently do, but I believe that is the question being asked.

[Ensign EO]

Well, assuming that there are people out there who want to do the work (AHAHAHA), most paysites are just doing it for the money.  If they sold the pieces and allowed people to put it together, only one person would need to pony up the cash for it and then everyone would have it for free.

Which is not what most paysites want--they want everyone who wants their stuff to pay for it, so instead of getting paid once, they get paid thousands of times.

[nohead]

I think the hypothetical [...] I believe that is the question being asked.

Yes that pretty much sums it up, thank's for putting it in other words .

What would go in the .payfile would of course only be the original artwork (.bmp's, mesh data etc) and absolutely no EA code.

[nohead]

Well, assuming that there are people out there who want to do the work (AHAHAHA), most paysites are just doing it for the money.  If they sold the pieces and allowed people to put it together, only one person would need to pony up the cash for it and then everyone would have it for free.

Which is not what most paysites want--they want everyone who wants their stuff to pay for it, so instead of getting paid once, they get paid thousands of times.

Well that is what they would accomplish, there would be no legal way of obtaining the .payfile (original artwork) besides paying for it.

[Ensign EO]

The point is that only one person would need to buy it and put it together, and it's not like the original creator can say "you can't redistribute the package file, though".

Once it's out there for free, someone could take the .package file and rip out the art.  You don't have to cough up the cash yourself to get the art if someone else already did and it's available for download.

[AW]

I think the issue here is that acutually this is what the EULA does protect against in my understanding.  Also, whether someone is brave/stupid enough to undertake this, you still are using EA's game to play.  I write code and it is very difficult to do something like this and no guarantees if it would work, who will keep it up to date with EPs and lastly, if EA changes something within the game that would affect the program that bridges the two files - you are then SOL and poor.

[Captain Feathersword]

I'd love to see the paysites crippled by the latest EP. Waiting, as we usually are for the SimPE and hack updates, to be able to release new stuff.
*takes a swig of rum and daydreams a little*

[nohead]

The point is that only one person would need to buy it and put it together, and it's not like the original creator can say "you can't redistribute the package file, though".

Once it's out there for free, someone could take the .package file and rip out the art.  You don't have to cough up the cash yourself to get the art if someone else already did and it's available for download.

All content in the .payfile would be copyrighted material which you can't (legally) just share, on the same principle that makes it illegal to share music and movies for example.

[Pariland]

The point is that only one person would need to buy it and put it together, and it's not like the original creator can say "you can't redistribute the package file, though".

Once it's out there for free, someone could take the .package file and rip out the art.  You don't have to cough up the cash yourself to get the art if someone else already did and it's available for download.

All content in the .payfile would be copyrighted material which you can't (legally) just share, on the same principle that makes it illegal to share music and movies for example.

And in the end, how will this solution be any different from what goes on here?  You have someone seling this .payfile with consent to combine it with a .package file.  And then, they can take that package file, upload it here or anywhere else, and it's back to square one.

[nohead]

And in the end, how will this solution be any different from what goes on here?  You have someone seling this .payfile with consent to combine it with a .package file.  And then, they can take that package file, upload it here or anywhere else, and it's back to square one.

There would be no consent to redistribute the copyrighted materials in any format, not the in original format and not in the .package format.

The difference would be that the EULA argument that are being used to sanction such activities would not hold and it would actually be illegal in the real sense of the word to do so.
Do you think that it would still be done?