Insimenator.org
December 03, 2022, 12:55:48 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
  Home   Forum   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 19
  Print  
Author Topic: Paysite Discussion Thread  (Read 65232 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
sabrasivonsky
Member

Posts: 7


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: June 05, 2007, 06:14:06 am »

babyblue,

What many people do when they create artwork is to have something showing the date of creation on it, so that they've documented the originality of the creation.  Yes, you can apply for a copyright to make it official, but my point was that you don't legally have to.  

From a government website on US copyright law:

Copyright Registration

In general, copyright registration is a legal formality intended to make a public record of the basic facts of a particular copyright. However, registration is not a condition of copyright protection. Even though registration is not a requirement for protection, the copyright law provides several inducements or advantages to encourage copyright owners to make registration.

http://www.copyright.gov/register/
Logged
babyblue1387
Member

Posts: 554


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: June 05, 2007, 08:49:06 am »

Hmm. That seems really weird to me.
Logged
Marhis
Member

Gender: Female
Posts: 51



View Profile
« Reply #32 on: June 05, 2007, 09:32:38 am »

For what I know, in Italy too works in this way. Copyright is granted by the act of creation itself. Copyright registration is a further official document, which puts a timestamp on the item, so in case of litigation you have a solid proof about the date of your creation.

If I register a copyright on someone else's creation, but he can prove in another way the author is not me but him, my registration is revoked for sure.
Logged
PegasusDiana
Member

Posts: 2328


View Profile
« Reply #33 on: June 05, 2007, 10:11:44 am »

Quote from: babyblue1387;760948
Hmm. That seems really weird to me.



Your correct this has been tried in courts here in the US without actual copyright protection I don't care what they tell you, no court in this land is going to award you a thing. This is why if you do a search on copyright cases you'll find 99.9 percent of them have been settled out of court with each side paying their own attorney costs and a cease order. Somewhere, someone has either drawn, painted, or made something very similar and they own the Patent. Which means at best you get limited copyright protection.

EA is smart enough to know they have limited copyright protection which is why "you" have to agree to a contract. Writing is different although many have lost on that issue as well. Artwork is set up to protect budding artists, moreso than the actual artist. But here we come full circle back to copyright and copyright has nothing 0 nada to do with contract laws.

Contract laws could care less what "you" think you own. Who made it. Who thinks they own copyright. Besides we give up any right to copyright on our own creations the minute we click on agree, we agreed to the terms of their contract. Here's the major difference, you violate copyright there are almost always set fines, cease orders. No biggy. You violate contract laws, the company sets the amount they feel are the losses. Some of these people really should use their brains. When you play with fire, you usually get burned. Maybe EA will never do nothing about paysites, and maybe they'll decide the lining in their pockets could also use some fattening. It's all about the almighty dollar and if they feel these people are getting to big a piece of the pie.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2007, 10:30:55 am by PegasusDiana » Logged

We are each of us angels with only one wing, and we can only fly by embracing one another.
                                         -Luciano de Crescenzo
babyblue1387
Member

Posts: 554


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: June 05, 2007, 12:16:00 pm »

Thanks Pegasus. That makes things a little clearer for me. Maybe I just had it in my mind that you had to file some kind of paperwork for the copyright. As one of my professors said: "A copyright is only worth as much money as you are willing to spend to protect it." And in this case (maybe with the exception of TSR and Peggy combined) I hardly think paysites can hardly even BEGIN to go up against EA.
Logged
sabrasivonsky
Member

Posts: 7


View Profile
« Reply #35 on: June 05, 2007, 05:12:23 pm »

Pegasus, I think you're right.  As far as EA's concerned, this is a matter of contract and not necessarily of copyright.  But EULA's (i.e., terms of use contracts) are very hard to enforce and don't tend to stand up in court (if they ever get that far).

babyblue, I think your teacher may have  been talking about trademarks, not copyrights.  If they're not enforced, they break down (like Kleenex--the company tries very hard legally to prevent the use of the term Kleenex to refer to other facial tissues, because it will lose its trademark if the name becomes commonly used that way.  Other examples are Scotch tape and Xerox.)
Logged
babyblue1387
Member

Posts: 554


View Profile
« Reply #36 on: June 05, 2007, 05:55:44 pm »

Well, I was half asleep, so maybe he did say trademark. But I could have sworn it was copyrights. Oh well. I'll pay more attention next semester, lol!
Logged
BeosBoxBoy
Silent

Gender: Male
Posts: 5021



View Profile WWW
« Reply #37 on: June 05, 2007, 06:16:21 pm »

As this discussion has continued and is now on the matter of copyrights and how they are automatically granted by law for the work we undertake to create; I return to my original state and position:  The EULA is extra-legal because of the pre-attachment of copyright ownership for all content made with Body Shop and in .package files by EA.

The EULA is the foundation of the "legal argument" that seeks to directly involve EA in this matter.

The point Kathy raises is not a matter which is not germane to this topic, but rather one that should be raised by the original mesh/texture creators on these other sites.  Whereas it may be unscrupulous or unethical or amoral, it does not directly adhere to the matter of the legal right of pay-sites for content for The Sims 2 to exist.

I am not poo-pooing the matter, but it is not my fight to fight.  Nor is it in any way right for me to impose my moral or ethical views on another, there is a name for that, it's called tyranny.  Something which I cannot believe is ever right.

So first and last, if we discuss only the salient matters, it boils down to the same questions: do they or don't they have a right to exist under the law?  do we or don't we own the copyright on our own work? do we or don't we have the right to share or sell our own work?

It doesn't matter that some people don't obey the law, this is the case with every law every constructed by the mind of man.  It bothers me not at all that someone out there right this minute is breaking a law.  It has ever been this way.  All that matters to me is how can I obey the law and defend my rights to my creations, when a large section of the community is being moved to believe I have no rights to my own work since some leaders in the anti-pay-site movement choose to express an interpretation of the law that contends I have no rights to my own work because of the EULA in complete defiance of existing laws in most nations.
Logged

"There is a certain elegance in wasting time. Any fool can waste money, but when you waste time you waste what is priceless."
-- Maugham, W. Somerset. Ashenden: Or the British Agent.
bedtbug
Member

Posts: 20


View Profile
« Reply #38 on: June 05, 2007, 06:30:32 pm »

Interesting thread to read.  But, in my humble opinion, if EA would make decent items for our Sims and include them in their EP's some people may not support paysites.  Another opinion is that the "stuff" packs they put out between EP's are not worth the price half the time.  Seems to me they take items they have already created..do a little change here and there and voila...new item when in reality it is old with new knobs, colors and just maybe they think we are too stupid to see it.  Most of the items, including clothing, belong in the 50's, 60's they haven't passed the millenium yet.

Now for the paysites....ever notice that at the paysites they offer "free" items..usually the ones that are not popular and quite ugly..except maybe for some meshes?  I stay away from them for the most part.  I stick with InSim and MTS2.  I have tried making my own things and forget it; I suck at it, plain and simple.  But whether a pay site or a free sight, kudos go to the designers and modders for all their hard work amd the time they give of themselves to make the game more interesting, etc.  However, I would rather donate to sight like this where I can be involved in the forums and download nice things from our wonderful designers and modders.  Speaking of which another donation will be on it's way soon .  Copyrights and contracts with EA bore me and since I am not breaking any rules, I really haven't anything to say about it.  You all said it greatly throughout the thread.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2007, 06:37:41 pm by bedtbug » Logged
PegasusDiana
Member

Posts: 2328


View Profile
« Reply #39 on: June 05, 2007, 10:07:28 pm »

Quote from: beosboxboy;761609

It doesn't matter that some people don't obey the law, this is the case with every law every constructed by the mind of man.  It bothers me not at all that someone out there right this minute is breaking a law.  It has ever been this way.  All that matters to me is how can I obey the law and defend my rights to my creations, when a large section of the community is being moved to believe I have no rights to my own work since some leaders in the anti-pay-site movement choose to express an interpretation of the law that contends I have no rights to my own work because of the EULA in complete defiance of existing laws in most nations.



Beos I hate to say it but I don't think this should have anything to do with the EA. This to me is a simple matter of common decency and respect. It doesn't matter to me if it's pay or free I would fight for someone wronged in either situation, and I have several people know this. Like I said it's one thing to share a file...we all have shared a file with friends so I'm not going to pass judgement on those who do, I have a mirror. Weather it's music, desktop wallpaper, etc...but to rip a file apart, to claim the work is wrong. We have a right to disagree with an idea, to fight against that idea. We have 0 right to attack or try to destroy someone just because they believe differently than ourselves.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2007, 10:11:51 pm by PegasusDiana » Logged

We are each of us angels with only one wing, and we can only fly by embracing one another.
                                         -Luciano de Crescenzo
BeosBoxBoy
Silent

Gender: Male
Posts: 5021



View Profile WWW
« Reply #40 on: June 06, 2007, 12:01:15 am »

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.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2007, 12:05:28 am by ~Marvine~ » Logged

"There is a certain elegance in wasting time. Any fool can waste money, but when you waste time you waste what is priceless."
-- Maugham, W. Somerset. Ashenden: Or the British Agent.
PegasusDiana
Member

Posts: 2328


View Profile
« Reply #41 on: June 06, 2007, 01:37:09 am »

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.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2007, 01:42:06 am by PegasusDiana » Logged

We are each of us angels with only one wing, and we can only fly by embracing one another.
                                         -Luciano de Crescenzo
pickpock
Member

Posts: 1288


View Profile
« Reply #42 on: June 06, 2007, 01:43:24 am »

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.
Logged

[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Come on! You know you want to... Join!

The Plot Thickens! It now contains: 1 broken chainsaw, 1 fishes ( I got hungry), 1/2 a bottle of rum (and thirsty too!) and way to many things keeping me away from the computer.
BeosBoxBoy
Silent

Gender: Male
Posts: 5021



View Profile WWW
« Reply #43 on: June 06, 2007, 02:05:21 am »

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.
Logged

"There is a certain elegance in wasting time. Any fool can waste money, but when you waste time you waste what is priceless."
-- Maugham, W. Somerset. Ashenden: Or the British Agent.
giggy6004
Member

Posts: 38


View Profile
« Reply #44 on: June 07, 2007, 12:23:26 am »

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
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 19
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.025 seconds with 29 queries.
SimplePortal 2.1.1