WickedWhims

[Petr54]

40 minutes ago, jyotai said:

 

It's still relevant though. Controlling law where EA is incorporated and HQ'd, and has enough business contacts will control what policies they set.

 

The same is true for a given mod author. If Turbo is in the USA vs if Turbo is in Canada (where the age of consent is 14) that set differences.

 

In the USA, it's only a legal violation if real people are involved. In some countries digital art representing people can be a violation - but that is NOT relevant here because EA is in the USA.

 

The general norm in International law is that the law of choice will be based on where the key parties are domiciled. For criminal matters that is similar though you can change your risk by traveling somewhere. This can sometimes lead to rare situations where a US court decides a matter using US procedural law (rules on evidence, objections, juries, etc), but using the substance law of another country (what is a crime, sentence, etc).

 

 

But the key thing here is that US law is what matters here unless Turbo is not in the US. If Turbo is not in the US, then BOTH US and wherever Turbo is matter - and it's complicated figuring out which controls.

 

 

Why do we all need these legal intricacies? Is this a forum about WW mod or the laws? 

It's important for everyone to know if WW will be fully functional. The answer is YES. It has been shown that if certain conditions are met, the mod will work as it always has. What are these conditions, I showed in my posts, I will not repeat myself, because it was clear, who wants to play, he plays with this mod, and who wants to just express their emotions about the allegedly broken WW mod, nothing can stop it. It is more important for him to say that Turbo is bad, because he restricted teenage sex.

THERE ARE NO RESTRICTIONS IF CERTAIN CONDITIONS ARE MET.

Please excuse my bad English.

Edited August 1, 2022 by Petr54

[MrGrey]

4 hours ago, Garthis said:

Be careful apparently EA has changed their guidelines to include a "No vulgar content" rule for CC and mods and they have even implemented an official reporting method that they are following up on quite quickly. This guy has a video on it where he talks mostly about how this effect paywall content but if you read between the lines this could easily turn into a crusade.

 

The videos is mostly (completely?) about mod makers selling EA content. EA owns the mods, not the mod author. It's the same as if I go to work and create intellectual property for the company, the company not I, owns it. Just as I signed away those rights in my employment agreement, mod makers signed away their rights when the agreed to the EA terms of service. Puttng the mods behind a paywall is against EA's terms of service. They can ask for donations and support, but the 'early access" is a Patreon thing, not an EA thing. EA made no such provision.

EA has the right to demand that Patreon release their IP immediately.

Which is kinda off topic.

EA owns all mods for their games, If they don't like your mod, they can shut it down with IP law. Which kinda puts EA in a bind: the rate the game "Teen" but there are mods that make it "Mature" that they technically own.

[KerrineR]

1 minute ago, MrGrey said:

The videos is mostly (completely?) about mod makers selling EA content. EA owns the mods, not the mod author. It's the same as if I go to work and create intellectual property for the company, the company not I, owns it. Just as I signed away those rights in my employment agreement, mod makers signed away their rights when the agreed to the EA terms of service. Puttng the mods behind a paywall is against EA's terms of service. They can ask for donations and support, but the 'early access" is a Patreon thing, not an EA thing. EA made no such provision.

EA has the right to demand that Patreon release their IP immediately.

Which is kinda off topic.

EA owns all mods for their games, If they don't like your mod, they can shut it down with IP law. Which kinda puts EA in a bind: the rate the game "Teen" but there are mods that make it "Mature" that they technically own.

No lewd mods... ALLOW TEENS TO WOOHOO.

 

yeah ok

[jyotai]

4 hours ago, Garthis said:

Be careful apparently EA has changed their guidelines to include a "No vulgar content" rule for CC and mods and they have even implemented an official reporting method that they are following up on quite quickly. This guy has a video on it where he talks mostly about how this effect paywall content but if you read between the lines this could easily turn into a crusade.

 

 

If you read the actual post from EA it's all about paywall content, not adult content.

 

 

[jyotai]

2 hours ago, Petr54 said:

All of the difficulties with teen sex in WW fashion arise from the new "worldview" of puberty from EA itself. EA, in turn, imposed restrictions on sexual interactions because of the new concept of the High School supplement, which introduced the concept of puberty.

 

 

 

It's actually the other way around.

 

EA has just added two things to teens they never had before:

 

Sexual orientation that is basically "who do I want to mess around with".

And an interaction to "mess around" that plays the WooHoo animation.

 

- EA is ADDING adult content onto teens... That is new.

 

 

All the talk about laws IS relevant BTW: it matters not what he law is in Zimbabwe or Cuba or England or some other weird place. All that matters is what the law is wherever EA is, and wherever Turbo is. This is why US law keeps coming up - because it matters, regardless of where you are, because the US is where EA is.

 

 

[SticksStackStuck]

4 hours ago, SysGhost said:

I mean, as far as Im aware. Thats always been there (about the "No vulgar content"), only worded differently. Plus an important point, EA knows of WW's existance, even making references in game to it. So it would be very hypocritical to suddenly pull a 180.

 

You are correct, the difference is EA has tightened up it's rule and is starting to actually do something about the rulebreakers (if you watch through Pixelades's video). That is new, EA has had a rather laissez-faire attitude to things up to now.

[MrGrey]

10 minutes ago, KerrineR said:

No lewd mods... ALLOW TEENS TO WOOHOO.

 

yeah ok

I didn't see anything about vulgar or lewd mods in that video. It was about IP rights and End User license agreements and how EA allows mods but they must not be behind a paywall. Patreon rules allow "Early access", but EA does not.

[Simsy McSimsface]

11 minutes ago, MrGrey said:

EA owns the mods, not the mod author. ... mod makers signed away their rights when the agreed to the EA terms of service.

That's what EA claims. But it's just that. A claim. For the upteenth time, TOS is NOT federal law. Corpos can claim all sorts of stuff in them (and they often do), that can never be enforced. There's no precedent. No court cases.

 

16 minutes ago, MrGrey said:

Puttng the mods behind a paywall is against EA's terms of service.

The TOS contains no such claim. It only talks about posting User Generated Content - what a vague blanket term. what is even that? no clarification on it - on relevant EA services (aka the Gallery).

 

18 minutes ago, MrGrey said:

EA owns all mods for their games, If they don't like your mod, they can shut it down with IP law.

Lol, Nope. They can send you a cease and desist if you violate their trademarks (like logos, design elements, etc.), but they don't own something a third party made for their game, no matter how hard they claim (they actually don't even claim this, it's just being twisted out of context by the player community).

 

Please play less Ace Attorney.

[KerrineR]

13 minutes ago, MrGrey said:

I didn't see anything about vulgar or lewd mods in that video. It was about IP rights and End User license agreements and how EA allows mods but they must not be behind a paywall. Patreon rules allow "Early access", but EA does not.

I heard there was some kind of rumor about EA not allowing or banning teen related NSFW mods ?not sure if these 2 are related

Edited August 1, 2022 by KerrineR

[SticksStackStuck]

9 minutes ago, MrGrey said:

I didn't see anything about vulgar or lewd mods in that video. It was about IP rights and End User license agreements and how EA allows mods but they must not be behind a paywall. Patreon rules allow "Early access", but EA does not.

 

It's all over youtube if you want to research it yourself. The main push from EA is over mods behind paywalls, but the note from EA also addresses "inappropriate" content. This is nothing new, the change now is that EA has started sending 'cease and desist'-letters out. I don't know if Turbodriver has had any communication from EA, perhaps it's just an attempt to stay a step ahead. The changes from EA are real though.

[SticksStackStuck]

14 minutes ago, The Masked Moddess said:

That's what EA claims. But it's just that. A claim. For the upteenth time, TOS is NOT federal law. Corpos can claim all sorts of stuff in them (and they often do), that can never be enforced. There's no precedent. No court cases.

 

Would you take the chance that your interpretation of the law is the correct one if it came down to a court case? Indeed, do you have the financial means to get a proper barrister and fight EA in court? If so, good for you, most of us are not in that situation.

 

Remember, should EA so desire, the devs need only change a few codes to make WW entirely useless. If the dev team are starting to get complaints about mode content, they would ha no problem nerfing said mod. So far EA have let WW slide, but if you threaten to take them to court, that is not likely to remain the case.

Edited August 1, 2022 by SticksStackStuck

[Atomhv]

17 minutes ago, The Masked Moddess said:

That's what EA claims. But it's just that. A claim. For the upteenth time, TOS is NOT federal law. Corpos can claim all sorts of stuff in them (and they often do), that can never be enforced. There's no precedent. No court cases.

 

The TOS contains no such claim. It only talks about posting User Generated Content - what a vague blanket term. what is even that? no clarification on it - on relevant EA services (aka the Gallery).

 

Lol, Nope. They can send you a cease and desist if you violate their trademarks (like logos, design elements, etc.), but they don't own something a third party made for their game, no matter how hard they claim (they actually don't even claim this, it's just being twisted out of context by the player community).

 

Please play less Ace Attorney.

YEEEEEEES                                                     YEEEEEEEEEEEES    

[MrGrey]

https://tos.ea.com/legalapp/WEBTERMS/US/en/PC/#section5

 

Also, this:

Quote

Mods must be non-commercial and distributed free-of-charge. Mods cannot be sold, licensed, or rented for a fee, nor can Mods contain features that would support monetary transactions of any type. However, Maxis recognizes that creating Mods takes time and resources. Accordingly, Mod developers may recoup their development costs via passive advertisements and donations as long as:

Passive advertisements and requests for donations must be limited to the Mod website or distribution site, and not appear within the Mod itself.

All users must be able to access the Mods in full for free regardless of whether they donate.

 

https://help.ea.com/en-gb/help/the-sims/the-sims-4/mods-and-the-sims-4-game-updates/]

 

[Ortikan]

2 hours ago, Petr54 said:

You focused your attention on a minor detail in my post. The legal side was touched by me in passing. I may not have even mentioned it, as I didn't think it would detract from the main point of my post. EA and Turbo don't have to fear legal action, that's true. 

The main thing is different, EA is the one who imposed these restrictions, EA is the one who demands changes in mods as the owner of WW. Let's not parse exactly what EA was guided by in making its demands. My guess is:

In any case, Turbo is obligated to comply with all EA requirements. He did, but in the process gave a tool to circumvent those restrictions. That was the main point of my post as well.

All user accusations against Turbo should be dismissed as baseless. And just continue to enjoy the mod using his tools to circumvent EA restrictions.

Baseless? TurboDriver makes mods for the sims +18 community. Turbodriver relies on the community for feedback and patrons to support that effort. The moment TurboDriver considers all comments against them as baseless on any matter, You may as well give TurboDriver an EA shirt and let them work in an EA office since they won't give a fuck, flying or otherwise about you, me or anyone else and they can do whatever they like no matter what. That's the way EA goes about things and that's the way you propose TurboDriver should as well?

 

Please be more careful about the way you make such comments.

[MrGrey]

23 minutes ago, SticksStackStuck said:

 

It's all over youtube if you want to research it yourself. The main push from EA is over mods behind paywalls, but the note from EA also addresses "inappropriate" content. This is nothing new, the change now is that EA has started sending 'cease and desist'-letters out. I don't know if Turbodriver has had any communication from EA, perhaps it's just an attempt to stay a step ahead. The changes from EA are real though.

I said I didn't see it in the video, I didn't claim it didn't exist. I pointed out the video was about mods being free for everyone to download.

Edited August 1, 2022 by MrGrey

[Simsy McSimsface]

12 minutes ago, SticksStackStuck said:

EA has started sending 'cease and desist'-letters out.

Source?

 

2 minutes ago, SticksStackStuck said:

Would you take the chance that your interpretation of the law is the correct one if it came down to a court case? Indeed, do you have the financial means to get a proper barrister and fight EA in court? If so, good for you, most of us are not in that situation.

Would EA risk to lose a precedent court case that might state that their claims are bogus, and have no rights over third party content?

Can EA afford to spend $70-100K per suit, trying to go after a CC maker in Albania, who's whole family fortune worths 3 grand, and where local laws might give diddly-fuck about copyrights/trademarks?

Both sides are interested in preserving the present status quo. - Modders can make money, making the game better, and EA can sell more kits and broken packs at a nice profit. Win-Win.

[Simsy McSimsface]

5 minutes ago, MrGrey said:

https://tos.ea.com/legalapp/WEBTERMS/US/en/PC/#section5

 

Again, the TOS only talks about posting on UGC on EA Services. Patreon is not an EA service, neither is LoversLab, etc.

Quote

You allow EA and our players to use anything you upload or create (UGC) for free within our games and services. You are responsible for your UGC, it must be your own content or content you’re allowed to use.

 

7 minutes ago, MrGrey said:

https://help.ea.com/en-gb/help/the-sims/the-sims-4/mods-and-the-sims-4-game-updates/]

It's a glorified blog post, like when Blizzard promises that "They'll looking into it™". So presently it's nothing more then a recommendation. apart from the trademark infringing part, that can actually be easily enforced. They most likely just pandering to the crowd, and will end up doing nothing.

[MrGrey]

1 minute ago, The Masked Moddess said:

 

Again, the TOS only talks about posting on UGC on EA Services. Patreon is not an EA service, neither is LoversLab, etc.

 

It's a glorified blog post, like when Blizzard promises that "They'll looking into it™". So presently it's nothing more then a recommendation. apart from the trademark infringing part, that can actually be easily enforced. They most likely just pandering to the crowd, and will end up doing nothing.

Are you a lawyer?

[wenflux]

Sooo switching back to actual issues with the mod. Does anyone know of a work around for the save reset bug at all? Also has Turbodriver said anything about it?

[Ortikan]

40 minutes ago, SticksStackStuck said:

 

You are correct, the difference is EA has tightened up it's rule and is starting to actually do something about the rulebreakers (if you watch through Pixelades's video). That is new, EA has had a rather laissez-faire attitude to things up to now.

EA cancel culture in effect and this ridiculous hypocritical idea they have about inclusion and tolerance and then play two faced about removing such diversity because they don't like it. EA is asserting their own correctness and what you me or anyone else thinks, if they crack down hard enough on it will not matter, you might find Loverslab and NSFW being pulled down because it contain TS4 related content they want removed, and then WW, NWP, DD and sex animations and so many other things are going to be taken to the crapper. (Don't be so sure they can't do such a thing)

 

EA are given the excuse they wanted because the mod makers were getting too greedy by hiding everything behind patreon, such utter foolishness especially considering there are limitations that were in effect that mod makers are required to provide a public version of their mod for free after a certain amount of time and most just flat out ignored it. I'm not saying mod makers shouldn't be supported for their work, but if more mod makers had put these public versions out, we almost certainly wouldn't have seen EA changing things around like this. Be glad that EA hasn't gone so draconian that they changed their game code altogether so no mod will ever work again. This is more along the lines of an over-zealous warning shot.

[Simsy McSimsface]

6 minutes ago, MrGrey said:

Are you a lawyer?

No. Are you?

I'm just someone who actually read the relevant official documents that EA provides, instead of spreading half-baked rumors made by a circle-jerking community of players who are  right now in super-sayan hype mode, coz' "Mods gonna be free now, EA said so!" - "I've heard that they already arrested Turbo, he's at Guantanamo Bay right now, being waterboarded by Andrew Wilson himself! My uncle is a guard there, he told me so."

[RUASim21]

7 minutes ago, The Masked Moddess said:

No. Are you?

I'm just someone who actually read the relevant official documents that EA provides, instead of spreading half-baked rumors made by a circle-jerking community of players who are  right now in super-sayan hype mode, coz' "Mods gonna be free now, EA said so!" - "I've heard that they already arrested Turbo, he's at Guantanamo Bay right now, being waterboarded by Andrew Wilson himself! My uncle is a guard there, he told me so."

?

[MrGrey]

CONFIRMED: EARLY ACCESS FOR MODS/CC IS NOT ALLOWED! (PER EA SUPPORT)

https://youtu.be/UITbgecLcjA

Edited August 1, 2022 by MrGrey

[MrGrey]

22 minutes ago, The Masked Moddess said:

No. Are you?

I'm just someone who actually read the relevant official documents that EA provides, instead of spreading half-baked rumors made by a circle-jerking community of players who are  right now in super-sayan hype mode, coz' "Mods gonna be free now, EA said so!" - "I've heard that they already arrested Turbo, he's at Guantanamo Bay right now, being waterboarded by Andrew Wilson himself! My uncle is a guard there, he told me so."

Huh. So, you're saying someone arrested Turbo and took him to Gitmo. What did you "actually read the relevant" post with that one?

Okay, you want mods to not be free per EA. 

 

Quote

 

The Sims Policy on Mods

We know that, for many of you, Mods are an important part of your game experience.  For that reason, we support a framework in The Sims 4 that makes it easier for you to install and use Mods.

The Sims team doesn’t pre-screen, endorse or specifically support any particular Mod. You should use Mods with caution and understand there may be risk.

We have a long tradition of supporting creativity in our community.  We do not object to Mod developers continuing to share their amazing content, subject to the following:

1. Do not promote your Mods in a way that suggests they are endorsed by or affiliated with The Sims, Maxis, or Electronic Arts. This means you cannot use any game logos or trademarks, including versions of the plumbob, or key art designs to promote your Mods. You may state that your Mods are for The Sims 4 and/or for a specific game expansion pack.
2. Mods must be non-commercial and distributed free-of-charge. Mods cannot be sold, licensed, or rented for a fee, nor can Mods contain features that would support monetary transactions of any type. However, Maxis recognizes that creating Mods takes time and resources. Accordingly, Mod developers may recoup their development costs via passive advertisements and donations as long as:
   • Passive advertisements and requests for donations must be limited to the Mod website or distribution site, and not appear within the Mod itself.
   • All users must be able to access the Mods in full for free regardless of whether they donate.

We reserve the right to address any inappropriate Mods, including Mods that infringe the intellectual property or privacy rights of others, contain obscene, objectionable, or harmful content, jeopardize the integrity of The Sims 4 gameplay, or otherwise violate the EA User Agreement.

 

It says mods must be Distributed free of charge.

You say it doesn't. Good luck with that.

[SticksStackStuck]

35 minutes ago, The Masked Moddess said:

Source?

 

Would EA risk to lose a precedent court case that might state that their claims are bogus, and have no rights over third party content?

Can EA afford to spend $70-100K per suit, trying to go after a CC maker in Albania, who's whole family fortune worths 3 grand, and where local laws might give diddly-fuck about copyrights/trademarks?

Both sides are interested in preserving the present status quo. - Modders can make money, making the game better, and EA can sell more kits and broken packs at a nice profit. Win-Win.

 

Source is the Pixelade vide linked further up. It seems the cease and desist letters may have been bogus, but the tightening of the rules are real enough.

 

Simply having to spend time and resources fighting over a hobby-related activity in court is something almost no people will be willing to do. Litigation takes years to complete, and in the mean time there's no more mod-making unless you want to really weaken your position. Would you be willing on your free time to go up against a large, multi-million corporation fighting for their intellectual property (not to say their livelihood) who has a small army of barristers that can litigate this full time?