So, what say you, Pescado? What "legal case(s)" are you referring to?
Do you actually think that anyone would ever challenge EA's ownership of all things made for their games? Is that the "legal case" you're referring to? Because if it is, you might as well wait for the sun to rise in the west and set in the east, because anyone wanting to start such a case against EA would be laughed out of any lawyer's office.
EA owns everything made for their games, and no one else owns anything. Just like every other software developer/publisher of any game I've ever played over the past 40 years owns everything anyone has made for their games. Players, ie, third-party "creators", own bupkis - nothing, and have no distribution or any kind of usage rights.
There is nothing whatsoever questionable about that.
Or maybe the "legal case(s)" you're referring to is some pimple-faced 15-year-old who thinks they can take someone to court because someone else posted their "creations" to some place they didn't approve of in their "Policies" (at various websites). That is also something that has never happened - and never will for the same reason given above, simply because players of the Sims games do not own their "creations" - EA does, and therefore no players could possibly sue any other players for violating their "Policies", ie, their "Rights", simply because they don't have any. The sheer absurdity of it boggles the mind.
That's the real point I'm getting at with is thread, namely, the notion that has persisted in this so-called "Community" for the past 20 years, or longer, that players actually have ownership control over the material they create, and the absurdity of the notion that one player can tell another player how and where they may use such material.
(I could care less about "paysites", or PMBD, but I'll get back to that in a moment, so read on.)
To repeat, EA owns everything made for their games, therefore no players have any legal control whatsoever over what happens with their creations once they upload them somewhere. For most intents and purposes, as soon as a player uploads something, they are putting the material into the public domain (again, with the exception that EA owns it and can do whatever they want with it at any time, with no compensation or ackowledgement). Other players can certainly do whatever they want with it as well.
The only exception to this are some external programs, created my modders such as Mootilda, and perhaps others. It's easy to tell when a program actually belongs to a player, because installing it will be preceded by the user having to agree to a EULA. Mootilda's 'Sims2PackInstaller' is a good example of this.
There have been countless other computer games over the years, and continue to be, wherein players have spent just as many hours creating custom material as have Sims players, yet for some odd reason, the Sims so-called "Community" is the only one where players think they actually have ownership rights over the material they create for the game.
For example, the Civilization franchise of games has been around since 1991, and is currently in their sixth iteration, with Civilization VI. Civ VII is in the pipeline.
I've played several of the Civ games, and never in the 30+ year history of the game have I ever seen anyone claim ownership rights to anything they've created for the game. Here is a
large website dealing with the Civ franchise, and nowhere on that site will you see any "Policies" made by any players that try to tell other players what they can and cannot do with the material they've created for the game.
I also still ocassionally play the old Railroad Tycoon game, for which the same is true. Many players have created maps for that game, and no one has ever claimed any ownership rights, distribution rights or any other rights in relation to what they've created for the game.
The same is true for countless other games, past and present (and will be in the future as well).
There is this concept of "Labor of Love", which most people in the Sims so-called "Community" seem to be utterly unfamiliar with. Doing an internet search, "Labor of Love" is defined thusly:
A task performed voluntarily without expectation of reimbursement; an altruistic work or undertaking.
Productive work performed voluntarily without material reward or compensation.In reference to computer games, it just means that someone has done something or made something, to simply improve the game, both for their own enjoyment and/or for the enjoyment of others. Many games are designed with precisely this function in mind.
THE SIMS SO-CALLED "COMMUNITY" IS THE ONLY ONE THAT I HAVE SEEN, IN 40 YEARS OF PLAYING COMPUTER GAMES, WHERE PEOPLE HAVE THIS ABSURD NOTION OF OWNERSHIP.
A person thinking themselves as clever might say that this is because Sims players are simply smarter and more astute than the average computer game player. I have to laugh as I'm writing this, because the opposite is obviously true.
I will acknowledge that this community perhaps has a higher percentage of players with at least some programming skills compared to the average gamer, but that doesn't change the legalities of ownership.
It's understandable that some people might be concerned that someone might "steal" their material and post it to a pay site, or sell it directly on Ebay or some other venue, but how often in the history of the Sims franchise has this actually happened? I keep hearing about a time period in the mid-2000's when TSR supposedly did this, although admittedly not on a large scale, and the actual evidence for it seems lost, if it ever existed at all, and assuming it actually happened. I've never seen any other example of someone supposedly "stealing" someone else's material for some reason. Even 20 years later, TSR is the only example I ever hear about when this was supposed to have happened.
I do not believe that the various website owners and admins actually believe the fairy tale that the material posted to their sites is actually owned by the players who upload it. They know very well that all of it is owned by EA, with the exception of a relatively small handful of external programs, as mentioned and exampled above.
So the question becomes, what is their real motive?
To me, it has been obvious for many years that a certain small but militant segment of the general Sims-playing population has been using the Sims games, and in particular Sims 2 when it was at the height of its popularity, to promote their social and political agenda. The nature of the game attracts certain segments of the population, and this one small segment in particular has been successful in convincing enough naive and impressionable people that they actually have legal ownership rights, and have thus been able to promote the false notion that players own the content they create. To these Drama Queens, it is far more important to stake out and cling to their small corner of the Sims world than to offer their creations as "Labors of Love" to the wider Sims community, as is the case with every other game I've ever played, and unencumbered by numerous restrictions as per their asinine, unenforceable "Policies".
When a comsumer buys a Sims game, they do so with the expectation of being able to freely trade custom content with other players, and to use that content without being limited by third-party enforced "Policies". In my opinion, EA should indeed have been sued by consumer protection groups, years ago, for allowing third-party operators to essentially take control of this game's online presence. EA made amends, somewhat, when they expicitly included in their Sims 3 EULA the following statement in Section 2B4:
"In exchange for the right to use content contributed by other users through the Software, when
you contribute content through the Software, you expressly grant to other users of the Software
the non‐exclusive, perpetual, transferable, worldwide, irrevocable right to access and use, copy,
modify, display, perform, and create and distribute derivative works from, your contributed
content in connection with the Software, and to distribute and otherwise communicate your
contributed content as a component of works that they create using the Software, for example,
The Sims lots or The Sims videos, without further notice, attribution or compensation to you. You
hereby waive any moral rights of paternity, publication, reputation, or attribution under applicable
law with respect to EA's and other players' use and enjoyment of such content contributions in
connection with the Software."Just because the Sims 2 EULA did not include such an explicit statement in regard to the sharing of custom content among players, doesn't mean the legality did not exist, because as I said previously, it has been industry-wide custom and policy, for many decades now, that software developers and publishers reserve all rights for anything made for their games.
In my opinion, it seems EA likely included the explicit statement in their Sims 3 EULA precisely because of the controversy concerning custom content in Sims 2 and third-party attempts to hijack the online presence of that game. I don't know this for a fact, but it is a reasobable assumption.
In short, once again, EA owns everything made for any of the Sims games, and anything uploaded to websites must be shared with other users without any encumbrances or limitations - period. EA owns everything and makes all the rules - third-party creators own nothing and cannot force players to follow any of their rules or so-called "Policies".
Granted, websites can be run as their owners and admins see fit, and they can enforce their members "Policies" within their sites, but as we all know, many of those "Policies" explicitly try to tell downloaders what they can and cannot do with the material in regard to other sites, and this is a right that these members do not have.
Now, let me get back to the issue of paysites (and PMBD).
Starting about 20 years ago, although perhaps even earlier to the late 1990's during the Sim 1 days, much has been said about EA having sole legal rights to sell anything related to the games, and that anyone else doing so is breaking the law and infringing on EA's rights.
Hence, the creation of PMBD to freely distribute as much content as possible from the hated "paysites". So far, so good.
As I've stated above, I agree that only EA has monetary rights to game material, regardless of who created it, although I also think that it should be up to EA to enforce those rights, should they choose to do so, and not have third-party players, such as MATY and PMBD do this. But MATY and PMBD have not broken any laws in doing so, so all is well.
What I find amusing and revealing, though, is that here we are now, some 20 years later, and many Sims players have taken to sites such as Patreon, to put their "creations" behind a paywall - and for some odd reason, the best Mr. Pescado can cryptically say to explain this, earlier in this thread, is that, "People seem to have taken their business to various other sites", being careful not to mention Patreon by name.
While 20 years ago it was probably somewhat difficult for the average person to set up a paysite, nowadays all anyone has to do is set up an account with Patreon and start raking in their million$ (yeah, right).
In other words, the same people who, over the years, bitterly denounced paysites and seemingly worked feverishly to destroy them, seem to have gradually joined their erstwhile enemy, now that technology and internet commerce improvements have made the process easy enough for any moron to use.
The word "Hypocrites" comes to mind in regard to these people, but I think "Scoundrels" is much simpler and more to the point.
Finally, this entire post is more directed at the Sims-playing public at large who might stumble upon it, as at anyone at this website. To them I would say: Don't be taken in by the small collection of societal freaks that run many Sims fansites. Their primary goal is not the improvement of the Sims games, but to use these games to promote their depraved social and political agendas.
What is the point of "honoring" some players "Policy" from 15-20 years ago, especially when said player hasn't been active in the "Cummunity" for many years, which is often the case?
Have you ever asked yourself why it is that in order to get a complete set of doors or windows for Sims 2 that you often have to travel to several websites to complete the quest, and that you then are obliged to "give credit" and link back to each website if you intend on using the material for your own creations? This is mainly due to the false and insane notion that anyone that creates anything for this game has legal control over that material and that no one else can change it, improve it, or even just collect various objects scattered across the internet and re-upload it somewhere as a coherent and convenient whole.
Don't misunderstand, I'm all for giving credit, not only as a matter of courtesy, but even more importantly because players need to know where the material that they put into their games comes from. This is especially true for complicated games such as the Sims series. But this doesn't mean that content creators have any legal ownership rights over the material they upload for the public to use, and thus they have no right to dictate how material may be distributed or used.
You players who think you own the material you make for these games need to get over yourselves. You are no different from thousands of other players who make things for other games, and who never promote the absurd notion of ownership.
Author