Paysite Discussion Thread
charliex:
I have a question/comment for those of you that feel that EA is the legal owner of any content packaged in their file format.
EA has taken a position against sites seeking pay for works distributed in their copyrighted file format. What would your position be if EA took a stance against free sites distributing "adult" content in their copyrighted file format?
What if the question was no longer about others making money off of the format, but EA perceiving that their games image was being damaged by content they don't approve off, hypothetically? Would you still say that EA has the right to make that call?
SolidGoldFunk:
Quote from: charliex;850079
I have a question/comment for those of you that feel that EA is the legal owner of any content packaged in their file format.
EA has taken a position against sites seeking pay for works distributed in their copyrighted file format. What would your position be if EA took a stance against free sites distributing "adult" content in their copyrighted file format?
What if the question was no longer about others making money off of the format, but EA perceiving that their games image was being damaged by content they don't approve off, hypothetically? Would you still say that EA has the right to make that call?
I think if EA took that stance then the people who feel that way would have no choice but to abide by it. Just as they are abiding by the rule or law that money is not to be made off of their work (I'm assuming you're talking about insimadult). Although, I don't see how EA would think that since most of the adult content is for adults only.
Also, how would people making adult content ruin the reputation of EA? EA has games where adult content is included. Def Jam Icon is one that comes to mind off the top of my head since that's what my husband plays. They have games with violence and they give it a rating for a reason. So that the content doesn't get into the wrong hands, but it still does and I'm sure they know it. I don't think that that's a reasonable hypothetical question in the first place.
PegasusDiana:
Quote from: charliex;850079
I have a question/comment for those of you that feel that EA is the legal owner of any content packaged in their file format.
EA has taken a position against sites seeking pay for works distributed in their copyrighted file format. What would your position be if EA took a stance against free sites distributing "adult" content in their copyrighted file format?
What if the question was no longer about others making money off of the format, but EA perceiving that their games image was being damaged by content they don't approve off, hypothetically? Would you still say that EA has the right to make that call?
No matter what their stance is, even if they should decide to make it clear they do support paysites. I think we all should abide by their rules. We never wrote the game/we never marketed it. No one could be making a penny or any CC without it. We should not try to piggyback in on it for our own personal gain. If we want others to respect us, then we too must respect others. If EA had said we are going to give licensing agreements to those that wish to sell CC for our game. I would have said ok. But they did not. If designers had said it's ok to use our clothing designs to make money off of. I would have said ok, but they have not. If these websites that share their CAD objects for free with the whole community and do not make a dime said it's ok if we give them to you for free and you sell them. I would have said ok, but they did not. If these Poser artist that distribute their content for free so everyone can enjoy it had said you may sell it, I would have said ok, but once again they did not. Over and over on Renderosity and Daz they talk about not reselling their products, but are they being respected? No they are not. Linda/Enayla said post my skins on your models you may even use them and my eyes on paysites just please do not sell them. Was she respected? No she was not and now she is gone. She could have asked for donations and probably would have made a mint, I would have donated for anything she made. She is professional artist both offline as well as online and shared her things for free. She followed the rules of the EA contract, a legal contract she agreed too and had no problems in doing so. Eric, and the selling of Insim. Numenor, Helaene, etc...etc.
kathy:
A few months ago Eric caught someone selling the InSIM for $2.00. Pissed me off, it is worth more than that.
miros1:
Quote from: charliex;850079
What would your position be if EA took a stance against free sites distributing "adult" content in their copyrighted file format?
Sorry, charliex! File formats are patented, not copyrighted, and according to USPTO.org neither Maxis nor EA owns a patent to the DBPF format.
Even owning a patent doesn't give you the "right" to control what gets put in your files. All it does is allow you to control who can or can't write computer software to read and write files in "your" format, and charge a fee for the priviledge of writing that software if you desire.
Example: The licensing fees from the GIF "writer" patents kept Unisys going for quite some time. They chose not to issue licenses for "reader" programs to ensure the popularity of the format and keep the money from the licensed portion coming in.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page