New confirmation

[Captain Feathersword]

So when someone uploads it to the exchange you really think the paysite has a leg to stand on against EA?

[mando]

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?

Well that was the point I was trying to make in my earlier post as to one of the reasons why selling the mesh and textures wouldn't be feasible even if such a program existed. The legalities of it are a bit murky, especially if the creator wants to hold onto any rights of sale and distribution of their items.

The current system is actually better for creators as they can sell their creations to anyone they want so long as it is not a Sims file. Deciding which TOU (paysite's or EA's) is more binding would be the decision that would have to be made, as according to EA, once it's in a package file it's under their discretion how the files may be used. Paysites would have to prove that their intent was never to make package files out of the creator's work in order to prove that redistribution and resuse was illegal (and any instructions they've included in files to show how to use files in game might put kind of a hole in that argument). In order to make redistribution totally illegal, they would not be able to include any instructions or materials to create package files out of this work, which would essentially make the idea pointless.

[Pariland]

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?

That sounds like it's still trying to skirt around the EULA, but not really.  A product is still being sold to be combined with something that is to use the pacakge file format - and the sellers know this.  They would probably even go as far as to tell their customers how to insert the code into the package files, so they can't really claim that the items are independent of Sims 2 coding.  And if the sellers are doing this, they still relinquish the rights to their works - however much of it is actually theirs.  In the end, the sellers are consenting to redistribution of their materials if they are encouraging people to link them to package files in any way.

Plus, as someone mentioned before, this would render clothing and hair meshes useless.

[Yaardarm Monkey]

look at Exnem's site:

- he makes Piglet and Eyeore teddy bears: do you really think he OWNS the right to the teddy bear code?
nope, thats EA property
....does he own the image rights to Piglet?
nope, thats the creation of A. A. Milne and the rights belong to the Disney Corporation
(from Wikipedia: After Milne's death, his widow sold the rights to the Pooh characters to the Walt Disney Company...Royalties from the Pooh characters paid by Disney to the Royal Literary Fund, part-owner of the Pooh copyright)

so Exnem is using a copyrighted image on a copyrighted file, neither of which he owns the legal rights to....and makes money without any royalties paid to the legitimate copyright owners


so how can these paysite owners dare to comment on how "their rights" are being misused???   :shock:


then, if thats not bad enough, let's look at Exnems pictures:
- he uses an EA mesh
- he uses some image of the Net of Disney, Marvel Comics, etc
- he slaps them together using a tool he doesnt own (SimPe photo creation most likely)
- he charges money for these things and he doesnt own one bit of this 'creations'.......the images belong to someone else, the package file belongs to someone else, the tool to make them was made by someone else

then turns around and says "dont redistribute MY creations"

what B-S   :x

[AW]

Actually, and I am still trying to find it, there was a thread posted by Steve Bonham concerning TSR content on EA's site.  According to the post, a conf. call between Steve and 2 execs from EA occurred.  EA is now investigating the claims of people uploading content created by someone else.  If you find this thread, let me know or post it.  I didn't look at the date, but I don't think it was that long ago.

[nohead]

The whole idea would of course be to make it workable in the game in a way that is more or less transparent to the end user.

BUT the part you sell (the .payfile) has nothing to do with any EA code and is copyrighted with restrictions on how it may be used.
I can't see how it would make things fall under EA's control?
Can i take Photoshop for instance and squeeze it into a .package file and share just because EA says that .package files are free to share?

[missangelica]

Nohead, you come up with the craziest ideas.  Why pose questions that could not happen to begin with?

[FreakyBooty]

Because nohead is apparently bent on continuing to charge for content.  It would be interesting knowing just who nohead really is.

[nohead]

Nohead, you come up with the craziest ideas.  Why pose questions that could not happen to begin with?

That's just the way i am i guess .

But it's actually not very hard to add Photoshop or a dvd rip for example on to a .package file, just a matter of pushing bytes.

[Bigtruckgirl]

Nohead, you come up with the craziest ideas.  Why pose questions that could not happen to begin with?

That's just the way i am i guess .

But it's actually not very hard to add Photoshop or a dvd rip for example on to a .package file, just a matter of pushing bytes.

Can they then be used as CC in the Sims2 game?

[nohead]

Can they then be used as CC in the Sims2 game?

I guess so but i haven't actually tried it, but it would still be a .package file and those are free to share right?

We could make a more realistic example then (i tend to take things to the extremes), what about digital art being sneaked in to a package file (a painting for example)?

[mando]

Because nohead is apparently bent on continuing to charge for content.  It would be interesting knowing just who nohead really is.

Well, it'll be even more difficult for him/her if this is the method he's proposing. Not only would it require someone willing to make this mythical program (or some kind of magician, I'm not sure), but it would also require legal documents and agreements by the room full.

As for that Photoshop thing...what? That makes so little sense, I'm not even sure where that came from. Photoshop is different from paid creations in that:

1.) What you're suggesting is totally unfeasable

2.)Photoshop is a seperate program unconnected to the Sims, that cannot be used inside of the Sims, and has it's own (legal) licensing agreements

You've said yourself that you're suggesting a system where people who download the creations will have no rights to distribute, or reuse the items for a separate purpose. Which effectively means that in order to do this they cannot put them in a package file and no information on how to do this can be included.

[nohead]

Well, it'll be even more difficult for him/her if this is the method he's proposing. Not only would it require someone willing to make this mythical program (or some kind of magician, I'm not sure), but it would also require legal documents and agreements by the room full.

As for that Photoshop thing...what? That makes so little sense, I'm not even sure where that came from. Photoshop is different from paid creations in that:

1.) What you're suggesting is totally unfeasable

2.)Photoshop is a seperate program unconnected to the Sims, that cannot be used inside of the Sims, and has it's own (legal) licensing agreements

You've said yourself that you're suggesting a system where people who download the creations will have no rights to distribute, or reuse the items for a separate purpose. Which effectively means that in order to do this they cannot put them in a package file and no information on how to do this can be included.

Take all the bytes that's on the Photoshop CD/DVD and put them in somewhere in a .package file and there you go .
In order to make the game accept having Photoshop in a .package file you would need to know exactly where and how to put the bytes there of course but for the sake of distributing Photoshop i guess we could live with not being able to use the file in the game.

But i realize that i once again have managed to blur the real question by going to the extent of things, so if the Photoshop example is too hard to swallow try the digital art one instead.

Your point number 2 is the same argument i use for why you can't redistribute the contents of the .payfile.

[mando]

But i realize that i once again have managed to blur the real question by going to the extent of things, so if the Photoshop example is too hard to swallow try the digital art one instead.

Your point number 2 is the same argument i use for why you can't redistribute the contents of the .payfile.

Ah! You missed the most important part of point number two. It has to be a legal agreement. Neither the digital art nor the Photoshop point are good examples, both are still bound by their original terms and licenses. From what I can see, things made to be used inside of the Sims as their original intent are not. Which is why I made the point below it, the paysite would have to prove that their intent was never to have the pieces made into .package files.

Photoshop and the outside digital art obviously were never intended to be used in the Sims. Meshes and textures made to be sold on a paysite included with instructions and materials to make them into Sims files are a different kettle of fish, aren't they.

[nohead]

Ah! You missed the most important part of point number two. It has to be a legal agreement. Neither the digital art nor the Photoshop point are good examples, both are still bound by their original terms and licenses. From what I can see, things made to be used inside of the Sims as their original intent are not. Which is why I made the point below it, the paysite would have to prove that their intent was never to have the pieces made into .package files.

Photoshop and the outside digital art obviously were never intended to be used in the Sims. Meshes and textures made to be sold on a paysite included with instructions and materials to make them into Sims files are a different kettle of fish, aren't they.

So what if the creator of the digital art says in the legal text that the end user is allowed to use the creation in the game for personal use only, does that all of a sudden mean that it is free to share?