NEWS! EA finally speaks against paysites This information came directly from Noukiesims2. Pas: "Many years ago now one of our member's contacted Maxis and asked them about custom content and paying for it, if it was allowed or not. I contacted them myself, after i couldn't find that letter, to get some up to date information from them, below is the letters that i sent plus the responses:" Customer 05/17/2007 12:42 PM Hello! I would like some additional information on this subject: 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, providing this is beneficial to the product(s) in EA's judgement, and provided that if you do so, you must also post the following notice on your site on the same web page(s) where those materials are located: "This site is not endorsed by or affiliated with Electronic Arts, or it's licensors. Trademarks are the property of their respective owners. Game content and materials copyright Electronic Arts Inc. and its licensors. All Rights Reserved. You will not represent that your site is endorsed or approved by or affiliated with EA or our licensors or that any other content on your site is endorsed or approved by or affiliated with EA or our licensors. (this is found in the bodyshow TOS, which a copy of this is found HERE) The way I have understood it as being that you couldnt open a complete paysite that charges monthy subscriptions for sometimes around $9.95. You may or may not know but there has been a feud amongst the sims community for many years now, and I would like an un-biased response, when it comes down to it, is it allowed to have a personal website that is purely for commercial purposes? I do not have a website, nor do I charge for anything that I have created for the game so I just wanted you to clarify the exact meaning please Many Thanks xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Response (GM Fenris) 05/18/2007 11:46 AM Hello xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Thank you for contacting Electronic Arts. To answer your question: Yes, running a paysite featuring content for the Sims 2 is considered to be a violation of both the Electronic Arts Terms of Service and copyright law. This includes both content that is sold directly and content that is offered as part of a subscription service. Additionally, the intent behind providing these tools to the Sims 2 community was to promote the sharing of content, not commercial activity. If you know of a site that is offering Sims 2 content as a pay-service, we would ask that you please let us know so that we can take the appropriate steps to address the situation. If you have any further questions, please let us know. Take care, EA Rep Fenris Player Relations Electronic Arts ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Customer 05/18/2007 03:08 PM Hello, Thank you for responding so quickly to me. You said: If you know of a site that is offering Sims 2 content as a pay-service, we would ask that you please let us know so that we can take the appropriate steps to address the situation. I have actually heard this before, when someone else emailed you about the exact same problem a few years ago, but nothing got done when she replied with the pay site list. Pay sites within the sims community has gone far and wide, with prices raising each time they produce a pay set. I myself have spent around a good 200-350 within the 4 years since sims 1 came out. I do like these sets that i'm paying for and they are wonderfully done, so really i am a glutton for punishment. But you said: promote the sharing of content, my response would be that if you intended this to happen in the first place then you should have written something somewhere for people to read. I'm sorry if i'm now sounding a bit negative, but people are getting banned left, right and center for sharing the content, even on the exchange. They go to the lengths of getting any personal information they can about you, and will have your paypal account stopped, threatening to contact your ISP company to have your service cut off by claiming copyright laws, which as i understood it as: if you put anything into a package file, they do not hold any copyright as a creator, as EA over-rides it! Lawyer letters getting sent to the site, that i moderate at, as well as to the hosting company screaming copyright and as quick as a flash we're gone and having to move to the next hosting because of it, all because we are doing what the TOS have stated, sharing the custom content of the game. Peggy Sims 2 who has stated that she is doing this as a job to live off it, who charges $9.95 a month. The Sims Resources, who have so many hundreds of free content, BUT to be able to use the CC you will have to get a subscription to be able to buy the meshes. Blog entries from sims creators moaning that they can't get a job but will happily put a site up for the money. It's all getting beyond a joke. Because of the way, i feel, it hasn't been stated clearly enough, for people that do create to understand that sharing of Custom content is not illegal and that you even encourage it! You replied with: If you know of a site that is offering Sims 2 content as a pay-service. Would over 100 paysites that i know of you want listings of? or would you need more proof of these transactions of money? Sorry for ranting but i've seen a lot happen in the last 4 years of being a member of the community that when i've started venting i couldn't stop. Thanks for taking the time to read this and please let me know what you would like, a list or proof? xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Response (GM Fenris) 05/18/2007 03:47 PM Hello again xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, I can certainly understand your frustration over this issue, as it probably is not always clear whether EA is interested in pursuing these sorts of cases. However, I can assure you that, legally, Electronic Arts owns the rights to all material created from our engine, and that the sharing of said material for free on community sites is completely legal, even if it is material that some players are attempting to sell. If you would like to submit a list of these pay sites, I will be more than happy to pass it on to the EA Legal team to review. Take care, EA Rep Fenris Player Relations Electronic Arts Noukiesims has also put a petition together and if anyone is interested in signing they can find it HERE (pls note you do not need to make a donation to ipetitions for your voice to be heard)
If I may point out, Mr. or Ms. Fenris is a Player Relations aka Customer Service agent. He/She is not a copyright lawyer for EA. That would fall under Mr. Steve Ben or a Senior Maxoid. Only they have the final and ultimate say.
I'm a little confused. Are you for or against paysites? I understand that custom content creators need to pay fees to keep their sites up, so they can share content. So personally I have no problem with them offering subscription content alongside free stuff. I only have a problem when the free and pay stuff mixes in together (recolours being free whilst the mesh must be paid for) and when sites are 100% paysites. But if this is going to stop some people from being able to keep their websites open and keep creating some of the amazing stuff that they do. No way will I sign a petition to stop it. I'd rather some of them make a little money and still be able to offer free content, then end up with no more cc designers. And just as an extra note...if EA owns all the CC. Does that mean that designers who expressly forbid people sharing and redistributing their designs have no right to forbid it? And that we can freely pass around any custom content we want? **Not that I would do that. I'm not interested in design or creating CC at all. Just using it. Cass.
Free paysites can make money from advertising. Thre are a lot of free web hosting, if you allow thier ads. regards moon
EA owns all original work, designed by their employees and company Cassiepeia, but they certainly do not own any derivative artworks made by any third-party not affiliated by Maxis. Derivative works are protected under US Copyright Law.
Josh, copyright is not the issue. Copyright does not confer an automatic right to profit from it. Leaving aside value (good/bad etc.) copyright is only a legal form of ownership of an non-physical thing. The Mona Lisa is just some dried up oil and pigment on a bit of old canvas. The artifact has considerable monetary value, but the intellectual property is the image which has no intrinsic value as physical shapes on a flat plane but only as an emotional-response inducing experience when it is viewed by a person. If a work is copyrighted then the copyright holder may also have the right to charge fees for people to experience that emotional response. Such fees may be a one-off charge to own a copy of the material for ever (including the right to resell the copy ... or even to rent it out, subject to possible additional charges in the form of royalties or repeat fees). The original Maxis/EA End User License Agreement is quite explicit in that the game and its associated tools as supplied by Maxis and its agents remain the property of EA Maxis and that all derivative works made with such tools may not be sold on by anyone, no matter how they attempt to disguise the transaction. While there continue to be inumerable ways and means by which files can be shared without cost to the supplier or additional costs, over and above conventional internet access fees to the receiver the whole concept of charging to access a website is an utterly repugnant concept that is devoutly to be deprecated by anyone who values freedom of speech. Donation gifts are simply disguises for charges. Under common law, trade in the form of gifts used to circumvent other laws is invariably found to be illegal (eg giving away a free sofa with a pound of onions to by-pass a Sunday trading law). Common law does what it says on the lid. It is what the common person assumes the law to be. If the law says you can't sell a car on a Sunday then you stick with it or seek to have to law changed. No one is gonna believe that old $25,000 a pound onions garbage ... its a ruse to break the law ... as stupid as the law is, admittedly, but, like another legal aphorism (ignorance is no excuse), breaking a stupid law is still a crime. It may be argued that a mesher who has used Milkshape (not an EA product) and SimPE (ditto) plus various ancialliary software, none of which is Maxis supplied has outright ownership of his stuff and is exempt from the Maxian EALU caveat concerning charging. I contend that notion would fail in a court of law because the defendent would be unable to avoid admitting that the actual game was necessarily used to test the finished product. Also a very great many items that come from paysites clearly and laughably still bear the original Maxis catalog description (proving the piracy!) And even where they are changed, as one who has made meshes, the first step in making a mesh is to load an exisiting mesh to "trace" over in order to match the scale and orientation and exact positioning of the finished object. It is simply impossible to make new material for The Sims 2 without using, at some point, the "tools" referred to in Maxis' EULA and under English common law, upon which US law is also based, the veto on charging in the EULA is not a condition which may be cast aside by wishful thinking or creative interpretation of the law. In the UK we have a newer statute law to protect against unfair contractual terms. Again I very much doubt that any court would ulimately find that the EULA contains any unfair terms. In fact the EULA is extremely generous in giving carte blanche to all purchasers to make free and merry with the material ... just not to sell it. People have to pay an ISP to access the internet and the price they pay reflects their bandwidth usages. Bandwidth charging by websites is like double indemnity where the user is being charged for what goes into the pipe at one end as well as what comes out at the other! Now imagine your water company or electricity company trying that one out the poor punter. In short the Maxis EULA's condition: is utterly and completely fair, clear, and unequivocal. It does not usurp anyone's copyright, nor anyone's right to assert and protect it (actually it implies a stronger protection but that's not part of my diatribe ). Charging for access to any portion of the content of a website would automatically call into question that website's status as a non-commercial corporate body. My view, as a lay person, is that if you charge a fee for a service or product then you are running a commercial operation. Commerce does not imply profit ... lack of profit merely implies charity or lack of business acumen, neither of which is an excuse for flouting a contractual obligation. ... like I said, my views on charging are legion.
Actually the final say is the remit of the courts. EA is unlikely to go to court, the alleged copyright infringments are not theirs and any possible returns on the investment in terms of legal costs would negative. Also, after thinking about it a little more, it's not even a copyright law issue. It's a contract law issue. The issue is with the clause in the EULA (a contract); the fact that the clause pertains to copyright is irrelevant. Like I said in the previous post the issue has nothing to do with copyright. Anyone can take my work and pass it off as their own, with my blessing, but my copyright is unaffected ... and I don't even need to "assert" it in writing, here in the UK nor, I suspect, anywhere else. Possession may be 9/10 of the law but the 1/10 needed to prove a right to profit from the possession is an entirely trickier hurdle to jump. Most folks fall at the first attempt and never get up again. I mean ... if I had written the Harry Potter books I would be pursuing Ms Rowling with all the vigour I have, but a few meshes for a game? Sheesh. Life is not long enough for such minute ego-trips Likewise the arguments between paysites (like TSR to name a name) and those opposed to paysites (like PMBD to name another) are also only soluble in a court. It ain't gonna happen so what the hell is all the souting about? I'll tell ya. Vanity. Yeah I have vanity. Overweaning amounts of it. But any meshes I make are posted up for grabs. Claim them as your own, I don't care. Sahring is the important thing. Those who protest too loudly, are intellectually suspect, in my humble opinion ... no doubt they fear that someone else could be making more money out of their creation than they ever did. Get a life. There are many factors in success and creative genius is the least of them. You don't need to spend long browsing indie music to realise that 99% of the high-profile big stars are talentless bozos who just got lucky by being in the right place at the right time. I hate how teh interweb has given every Tom, **** and Harry a sudden ego-boost to imagine that if they string 4 words/notes/shapes together and call it a magnum opus that their "copyright" is suddenly more precious than their soul. Well I have news for those, they got that much right, at least ... less than nothing, bozo! Less than nothing at all. Get a life and try being generous. I need to take a cold shower. (Comments not aimed at Josh, BTW, in case that isn't otherwise clear. Also, BTW, can we de-asterisk Richard's diminutive? ... we mods can easily remove any offensive usages, surely?)
Since my voice has all but shouted down any potential gainsayers ... here's another point to consider. If the "we're only charging for the bandwidth" merchants are sincere why are they so volubly hostile to the likes of Pescado's PMBD where the only material offered for free is stuff that has been legitimately bought by paying customers who then seek to share it (without claiming it as their own, or altering it to disguise its origin). The material (on PMBD) is advertised as 'not stolen', but bought and paid for; the purchasers claiming that they are exercising their right to give away their "property". I mean: we need to establish some standards here. If I buy a book from Amazon am I breaking the law if I give it to a charity shop when I have read it? Is the charity shop breaking the law when it sells the book? Is it right that Chuck Berry is paid a cent or two every time a radio station plays the fifty year old recording of Johnny B. Goode? Most of us have to go to work every day to get paid. If you're lcuky and land on the copyright gravy train you only need to work once or twice a year. Any effort to extend the tenebrous and malevolent reach of copyright's sinisters clutches should be devoutly resisted. Artists do not create for rishes, they create because they have to. Modern copyright law stifles creativity, it doesn't foster it. To creators I have these points of advice and opinion to offer and I am willing to discuss them with you, but only as a collected whole set, not as individual items. My manifesto stands or falls as a raft of dogma, not as a loose set of planks. If you cannot afford the bandwidth then do not try to run a website ... especially if the darn thing is so poorly optimised that it wastes bandwidth with unneccessary graphics and over-sized preview images which nevertheless fail to give an adequate impression of the downloadable component. If you really do worry about piracy then do not post your work on the internet at all ... I mean, would you leave your wallet in the middle of a crowded room? If you truly desire to reserve your copyright then make sure to post a complete file of source material (Milkshape, Photoshop and SimPe files along with the finished packages as a zip on a reliable file host where date and time stamping will ensure you have the oldest extant copy. The euphemism "donation gift" must be stamped out forthwith. It is a charge for access. Moreover it is an unfair charge, because it penalises the wealthier clients who can afford to pay rather than wait until the girst becomes free and it also penalises the less well-off clients for whom paying is a non-starter. It also penalises everyone else in between those extremes for reasons to numerous to mention.
Its illegal so yes I'm against pay sites! Thats not to say I've never paid for content before, because I have, but would you think its fair or right to for example go and buy a copy of the sims 2 legally while your neighbour go's and gets an illegal copy? This is just the opposite, why do you think that its reasonable to pay for something that legally should be free?
EA does not claim to own CC. It does place an embargo on third parties make a commercial operation out of custom content. Charging fees is an act of commercialism, therefore EA is entitled to the view that charging for custom content is a breach of its EULA. (Note that commercial does not imply profit ... you can be losing millions and still be a commercial operation!) Web space does not cost a lot of money (and there are a great many fansites, which are free, who are only too willing to accept quality custom content.) Creators who insist on running their own sites and begging for cash to do it with are leeches with dreams of avarice and stardom. I avoid distributing other people's custom content, not out of respect for their insupportable EULAs, which "expressly forbid distribution", but because so little of the stuff (so little as to be none at all in my experience) has the fully-finished quality that defines a commercial product. What do I mean? I want properly catalogued products with amusing catalogue descriptions and not just a lame "no distribution" message. I want realistic prices and comfort/energy/room scores. I want the download page to indicate some of these features before I download it and find that I have yet another comfort 3 bed that I'll never use because I like my sims to get out of bed in time to go to work. In other words I don't participate in distributing crap. You may not like the looks of my meshes, but I guarantee they are fully finished with unique catalog descriptions and scores that match the prices (which are geared to provide stuff for you to buy for wealth sims who always want another table costing at least such and such a price). Remember that beauty is in the eye of the beholder but crossing the ts and dotting i's is not optional ... especially if you are going to have the damned cheek to charge people for the stuff.
Copyright does infer an automatic right to profit. Even in Derivative works. A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications, which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”. (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#101) The rights of a derivative work are the same as a regular copyright, created without origin. It allows an author exclusive access and control to how they may license it, or sell it, and use it. It’s like someone used a small item as the source of its inspiration for its painting. The item is just a small fraction of the overall painting. When the artist decides to sell the painting, it falls under derivative works and can be sold. Can the original author who made that small infraction sue and have it halted? No. Because there was significant enough changes to warrant it as a brand new piece of work and thereby new rights were given. Tools and Materials specifically reference Fansite kits, promotional materials and programs created by Maxis. Maxis has specifically labeled all game objects and game related items as “Content” Your analogy about the shop is good Mirelly, however it contains a small flaw. When the book was ORIGINALLY purchased, the author received his/her royalties for writing the book in the terms of the original sale. The author is not entitled to third-party sales royalties. It’s double dipping, something not permitted by law. I personally believe these anti-paysite arguments are arguments of morality versus legality.
Also, a contract is relevant, however my point is that Mr/Ms. Fenris is not an authorized legal representative for EA. He/She is merely a Player Relations/Customer Support Representative, who has probably minimal to no legal expertise. Update. I tried contacting EA myself and I got this response earlier. Going to try other Channels.
I appreciate the varying personal opinions expressed in this thread so far and I appreciate the fact that it's a very big grey area in terms of legality and EULA enforcement, one which can only be truly resolved in the Courts. Outside of the courts we all have an opinion and I'm expressing mine. Whether it's seen as right or wrong, it's the way I see it. This is not something new to EA/Maxis, yet what I would like to know is why certain fansite owners have been included in invites to Maxis events (TSR springs to mind) when they are 'seemingly' committing an illegal activity - commercial website with custom content. Since my last subscription there ended last May, I've noticed that the items I want to download on the free section require a mesh which is subscription only - therefore the 'free' content isn't just free, it's useless. Sure, I can see the frustration and annoyance because they claim to have free items when actually they are unusable. However, if people are prepared to pay for quality items from talented artists, then that's their choice and if there are people willing to pay for the creator's time and skill, the demand indicates the feasibility to gain some recompense for the artist. Nobody is forced to pay for custom content - if they don't buy it, they still have the base game and EPs to play with. It's a question of luxury, not necessity. Regarding the EA/Maxis Sims 2 Fansite events (i.e. the Expansion Pack events), why hasn't EA challenged those paysites? Why have those fansites still been invited to events in San Francisco on behalf of the Sims community? Surely that's a sign that EA/Maxis either condones the paysite situation, or they know that they have no rights at all to enforce their EULA. Actually, if it wasn't for the talented creators out there, the Sims and Sims 2 wouldn't have enjoyed the massive success it's had in the last several years. EA/Maxis knows that without the custom content online, the base games and EPs alone wouldn't sustain the level of success it's had, so I'm concluding that they are not challenging the paysites as they are feeding and contributing to the sims phenomena and success. If there was a sudden blitz on paysites by EA/Maxis (and I doubt that they ever will do that), I am sure that many artists would simply not share their creations anymore, and yes, they are THEIR creations (as I see it) because they spent time creating them, perfecting them, finding textures and whatever else they needed for that item. All those who don't know the first thing about creating custom content (myself included), would likely be prepared to pay a reasonable amount for quality items to enhance their game - surely that's my choice? my decision to buy? I'm appreciative of all the items I've paid for, and heck, we're talking about thousands of downloads, which has been much MUCH cheaper when compared to the stuff packs which have disappointed me greatly, both in the number of items and the quality. If I had to take away all my custom content out of the game, and play just with the base game and EPs, my enjoyment would be greatly reduced. As for PMBD, I absolutely will not condone its actions or its stance. I do not approve of anybody's self appointed right to decide on what other people can or cannot do - it's up to EA/Maxis and their legal team to enforce anything regarding the EULA and the paysite situation, IMO, not some website who thinks they are a world authority on the matter. As EA/Maxis are not addressing the situation, it speaks volumes about their position on it. The approach by PMBD is bullying in its vilest form - it takes great pleasure in knowing another paysite has been forced to close through its actions. The rude/ obnoxious/ foul-mouthed approach on PMBD does nothing to help the community in terms of the paysite debate. It's like the saying - nobody hears the 'message', only the 'shouting'. I actually can see the whole purpose of sharing content freely on the internet, non-commercially and without profit. The whole online Sims community would benefit from all those quality downloads for free, and simming would be rosy. It's an idealistic perception of how things could be. The reason that EA/Maxis made reference to custom content in the EULA is simple - they don't want anyone profiting (nor operating commercially, regardless of profit) from The Sims 2. That's understandable, they are running a business. However, those artists are sustaining the Sims community's interest in the game which surely has to have a positive effect on game/EP sales? Let them make a dollar and continue to serve the community with quality downloads - again, people are not forced to buy the custom content after all. Does this harm EA/Maxis? Possibly in sales of stuff packs, as people compare what they can get online either subscription based or for free (i.e. so much more for their money in comparison to stuff packs). Does this harm the community? Ultimately, if someone wants the paysite items but can't afford it, yes. That said, those people can still find a LOT of really good items that are completely free to download. If they want the items and can/are willing to pay for them, not really. The real harm I see is the dispute that is spread throughout the community. It's not about WHO is right but WHAT is right and only the Court/ legal teams can resolve that.
I totally agree with you Hugz. Very well written. To me its like when Henry ford built his first T model ford. And if he said we are the only company that can make and sell tires. Car company's build cars. However they don't stop people modifying them. About EA. They are the only game company that I know of that sell you a game without the manual. You have to buy the guide. To me thats ridicule's. There idea of a manual is a joke to me. And to me personally they are greedy. Thats my 2 cents worth. regards moon
Wow interesting thread. Thanks for all the great information. That is my concern too, which is the only reason I made my previous post and am very hesitant to sign anything that might stop paysites. But I agree it's unlikely to happen. Personally I would never pay for any CC, heck I don't have enough money to waste on imaginary clothing or furniture anyway LOL, but I didn't really see it as a big problem as long as there was a lot of free content out there. Now, however, I'm conflicted. I'd say I'm going to go think about this some more, but really I don't think it's worth my brain power. Take that comment anyway you please. It's not that I don't think it's important in general, just in my life. Anyhoo...this isn't about me. I think I'll just continue to download all the free content I can and watch this debate from afar. Although I doubt paysites will ever die out, if they do I hope the wonderful artists who create all that outstanding CC continue to share it with those of us who are useless at creating CC. Cass.
As I've stated in other places, this entire paysite debate centers between and ethical, moral and legal debate. But it lies moreso in the moral and ethical side rather than the legal side.
Hi Cass, I understand what you mean about it being imaginary clothing or furniture, but I just think of it like this - for the price of a movie and dinner in real life which lasts one night, I can buy a subscription which lasts several months or more, and download thousands of items which I can use (and have already used for a couple of years) in my Sims 2 game forever.
That's a very good point, I didn't think of it like that. I still wouldn't buy it but I can see the attraction for others to do so. Cass.
