Why is this CRJ 700 mod allow ?

[Claude Desrosiers 24]

https://flightsim.to/file/10818/crj-700-performance-improvement-mod

 

I just want to understand why CCM mod is copyright infringement and this one is not ? Can we at least be consistent on the stance of distributing copyright content ?

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Mainly because we were simply not aware of this file.  Thanks for pointing it out. We'll have a look at it and when it contains no copyrighted materials there should be no issue! When it does contain copyrighted material I will discuss it with the person(s) who created it. 

[echo_oscar 40]

Yes, that seems like a totally cool and normal thing to do to your community. Astounding work!

[ReproCase 17]

How would a customer determine which components of these products are copyrighted and which are not? There is no mark or indication within the files. 

[mopperle 4162]

14 minutes ago, ReproCase said:

How would a customer determine which components of these products are copyrighted and which are not? There is no mark or indication within the files. 

There is no need for a mark/indication within th files. When you buy a product from the Aerosoftshop, before submitting your purchase, you actively acknowledge the T&Cs. And there is clearly stated that the product is copyright protected.

[echo_oscar 40]

Yes, I’d like to hear something other than the boilerplate response in all the threads that were locked for no reason. You mention you’ll lose your copyright but you appear to be conflating copyright and trademark. Surely, distributing these mods for free falls under fair use, in any case. Also, have you offered to actually help these modders make their contributions compliant? Is that even technically possible?

 

 

[Moach 97]

8 minutes ago, echo_oscar said:

Surely, distributing these mods for free falls under fair use, in any case. 

 

I've been researching the subject, and yes, it all points to it falling under Fair Use 

Read up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

 

 

Let's try and examine the "legal case" and its merits by parts:

 

AS claims infringement because:

 

• The published file is considered protected by their own copyright terms
• The file is therefore "theirs" and cannot be redistributed without permission (which isn't given because?...)

 

The Public claims no infringement applies, given that:

 

• There is no way in which the published files diminish, detract or undermine AS's revenue due to the mod's publication
• The mod file cannot be used to reconstitute the final product without prior purchase of the original
• The modded file is likely an exception to copyrights coverage given Fair Use in the first place
• Even if not excluded, the modded file can be said to possess Sufficient Change to qualify as an original wok anyways.
• There is a large amount of Public Interest on the availability of said mod.
• The mod is not a commercial work and its author derives no financial gains from it.
• AeroSoft itself has only to benefit from the mod's publication, by added final value to their product as well as extra exposure (every mod posting is a free ad)

 

 

do I really need to go on here?...

 

 

[mopperle 4162]

And you voted me down for simply giving an answer to a question coming up by another users?

I kindly ask you being more careful with your voting.

[Moach 97]

1 minute ago, mopperle said:

And you voted me down for simply giving an answer to a question coming up by another users?

I kindly ask you being more careful with your voting.

 

I voted you down because your answer did not satisfy the original question.  I'm sorry if this offends you, but I was unsatisfied by your explanation and felt it came across as evasive/defensive. (a common theme in these forums, remember)

 

Specifically, your reply does not fully qualify how copyright coverage applies to individual components of AS products (such as cfg files) and therefore fails to address the original question in a meaningful way.  As far as we understand it, one cannot publish cfg mods simply because "Aerosoft says so" - Yet no actual terms expressing fair use options are put forth and so far, the censorship of the mods appears as just that:  censorship

[mopperle 4162]

Well, the T&Cs have been made by experienced lawyers and  you can be sure they made it correct. And TBH I have never seen a piece of software, where each file, and software usually got thousands of files, is declared as coypright protected.

But as it seems that you have your very own opinion about everything around copyright protection, I'm out here now as it is useless to discuss this.

And again be carefull with your wording like accusing Aerosoft of censorship. Even when topics are closed, because further discussion leads to nowhere, they are still readable and can be seen by everybody.

[Moach 97]

Well, I have discussed this with my employer, who's been extensively consulting with a software specialized lawyer for the past year. And he quoted him saying that .cfg files and such are virtually uncopyrightable, given their highly technical nature and strict format constraints.

 

It can then be reasonably argued that any changes made to the data in a cfg file effectively make the mod file an Original, or at the very least a valid Transformative Work.   The format of the file itself cannot be changed without making it useless, nor does it have to be to achieve sufficiently different results.

 

Which basically means the cfg published in these mods can considered as not the same file under copyright.  Who can say it wasn't retyped from scratch?  Was the original even made from scratch to begin with? There is very little basis for claims of infringement there.

 

Software copyrights are usually concerned with completed works, i.e: final products.  Their individual parts, especially the fiddly technical bits are very hard to qualify in terms of originality.  

 

 

Whichever way you put it, the whole thing just comes across as AS being needlessly petty. 

There are no practical reasons for the terms themselves not to provide for Fair Use, let alone the actual legality of such claims and the interpretation of how far/deep coverage goes.

 

 

Every moment in which AS fails to provide a reasonable explanation to why cfg mods can't be published (where's the financial loss from it?) and a practical means to publish them without fault, your company's reputation suffers harder and harder. I advise you read into the relevant threads in the official MS forums, where there is open talk of active boycotts and the like. Then revise those petty rules and try to salvage whatever remains of your company's image which, trust me, right now, is pretty dim.

 

Mind also that locking topics as often as gets done here, does too come across as attempted suppression of customer opinions.

I do not phrase this lightly, mind you;  This is just the ugly face of what it seems like is going on from the users side, but in the end, perception is what builds reality, isn't it? 

 

 

[Hans Hartmann 3694]

23 hours ago, Claude Desrosiers said:

https://flightsim.to/file/10818/crj-700-performance-improvement-mod

 

I just want to understand why CCM mod is copyright infringement and this one is not ? Can we at least be consistent on the stance of distributing copyright content ?

 

This CRJ mod is just a panel.cfg and therefore not considered to be actual code. From my perspective as the author of the original file, that's fine.

[echo_oscar 40]

I’d be less concerned about downvotes in your own forum and more concerned about the overwhelming negative community reaction in every other flight sim forum and subreddit. 

[ReproCase 17]

2 hours ago, mopperle said:

There is no need for a mark/indication within th files. When you buy a product from the Aerosoftshop, before submitting your purchase, you actively acknowledge the T&Cs. And there is clearly stated that the product is copyright protected.

So the liveries are coming down too? The config files they contain are not in the paint kit. The instructions in the paint kit do not grant permission to redistribute specific configs. Therefore if it all falls under the same blanket agreement they should not be allowed to remain.

[Schmidde 5]

Flight sim community is and was always full of drama. Even as a part of it i think there is nothing to be concerned about, a few weeks and there is another topic everyone is mad about.

I mean this topic just got startet (and is still going on) for whataboutism, what in the world?

[Moach 97]

1 hour ago, Schmidde said:

Flight sim community is and was always full of drama. Even as a part of it i think there is nothing to be concerned about, a few weeks and there is another topic everyone is mad about.

I mean this topic just got startet (and is still going on) for whataboutism, what in the world?

 

--- edited out some initial comments on further consideration and a calming deep breath ---

 

 

What is that statement supposed to mean?  Should we not care about one (rather major) problem because there have been and will be others?

 

We have a genuine gripe here about AS being hostile to customers and denying public access to highly desirable mods for no reasonable cause.

  

if you just got here, that's what's going on.

 

 

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

 Can I ask you to follow up on this topic here: