Paysite Discussion Thread
BeosBoxBoy:
Then, I must beg to disagree with you PegasusDiana, if it does not involve EA, then it is a personal vendetta you describe.
It must involve EA, for thereby hangs all our work. For if EA owns all our work the moment it becomes a .package file, then none of us may so much as whimper when our artistic rights are abused by others. We, none of us, pay or free, would then have the right to defend our "rights" or anyone else's for the content you would wish to defend and the artist you would wish to defend is now dispossessed of all rights to his or her work.
One cannot turn this one way or the other to suit one's agenda. The basic question we all must face and answer before any action we undertake is made in the name of "justice" is "Does EA own all our work?".
If it does not, then pay-sites ARE legal, and our arguments have substance. If it does, then pay-sites ARE illegal, and we all of us are dispossessed of all our rights and all arguments are pointless.
PegasusDiana:
We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one, I personally don't have a vendetta against anyone. I do have a vendetta as to what is being done on several of these paysites. I do not believe EA ever intended for anyone to make a profit off their content or they would have charged licensing agreements from the get go and only allowed certain people access to the tools. I have never purchased paysite content and shared it because I personally have never thought two wrongs make a right. I will however not judge others who do.
pickpock:
For me, it comes down to which set of laws holds the most weight.
And seeing as everyone signs a EULA by their own free will (and there by, if you ask me, signs away the right to all the "tools and materials"), I think that any claims EA/Maxis might have on 'our' CC will be approved in a court.
But I really don't think they are going to use their advantage to do something else than stop paysites. They want us to create and share and have fun; because then we are happy customers who will by the next EP as well.
They just don't want people earning money from doing something illegal.
BeosBoxBoy:
The validity of any contract comes down to the moment of agreement. If at the time of agreement you do so "without prejudice", then you agree totally and in a committing manner. However one can agree to any contract "with prejudice" that holds one in a state of partial agreement to clauses in the contract, but reserves the right of the signator to reject those terms of the agreement, in part or in whole, that are not to his benefit or liking. This is a form of agreement that is fully permissable under the law and is a protected right of all people.
I have no especial concern in this matter but that of my rights to my own work. Unfortunately for me, this matter is so intertwined with the matter of my rights that I must argue for a larger cause than this small thing of my own rights to my own work.
I have strong reason to suspect that the shareholders and executives of EA have a very clear idea of how much money is to be made from custom content. There is abundant evidence that they clearly understand the community that has grown up around their games. I do not think it is without reason that they have themselves engaged in a similar strategy with the release of "stuff packs".
Corporations do not undertake the expenditure of developing new products that are unmarketable. Ergo, EA knew precisely the market appeal of The Sims 2 and -- in light of the success and manifold sites with custom content for the predecessor game The Sims -- they knew full-well that pay-sites would be in the mix. I do not think it unreasonable to believe that EA's only concern in this matter is that we continue to purchase their wares and that they continue to make the lion's share of the profits.
I think EA's posturing on this matter has clearly indicated a desire to do nothing that will imperil their profitability. It is the nature of corporations to pursue their own best interests and to hire lawyers and marketing specialists that provide precisely the right spin to their press releases, statements of policy, and EULAs. They wish to be perceived in a certain way since it is beneficial to them; but it means little more than the promises of a politician in the long view. EA is no more our "friend" than Union Carbide was a friend to the citizens of Bhopal. They assume this posture of the "kinder, gentler corporation" because it benefits them to do so, but, in the final analysis, all they care about is their profits and the contentment of their shareholders.
giggy6004:
EA is the exception but sites like Pandora sims have no interest of making content but stealing others and selling them.
Imagine them taking your bodybuilder meshes, putting them onto their site and selling them, you would be as mad as heck and I'm not joking.
They stole one of Numenors creations, Numenor complained to the site and asked to remove it and they replied stuff about the EULA (Which isn't there in the first place) and saying why they're going to keep them.
If anyone can back this up that would be solid gold
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page