Jump to content

About the flightsim.to copyright issues, If you want to comment, here is the place!


Recommended Posts

  • Root Admin

Oh my, so many angry posts, but few actually suggest the poster understand the complete issue. I have said all of this before but let me write it one more time, in more detail. I will leave the post open indefinitely, but I do not feel the need to correct misconceptions.

 

Here are the simple facts.

  • I was informed that a file on https://flightsim.to/ contained a huge amount of our copyrighted files. A clear copyright violation. Not a huge deal, we ask for the file to be removed, that is done and normally the person who uploads it (in this case he prefers to remain anonymus) removes the copyrighted files and reuploads  it.  Happened dozens of times and often I assisted in removing the problematic parts. Never did this end up in a legal territory. Never did we even mention that. Never did we do so in this event!
  • This request was done on behalf of the developers who made those files. As publishers one of our task is to represent the copyrights of people who work with us. That is in the contracts, that is why we take a percentage of the sales.
  • Chris removed the file on my request.
  • The uploader (again he prefers to remain anonymous even though I told him we are in no way seeking legal actions, just a correction on the files), reacted rather unexpectedly and told me he would share this with everybody. Most people who violate a law do not do this. It was clear he simply was not willing to respect copyrights. He felt it was in his right to share the files because they contained bugs. We, respectfully, disagree with that.
  • The uploader responded very confrontative and basically tries to attract more attention to his copyright violation (which might explain why he wants to remains anonymous) Just now I send him (of course I know who he is, but again we have absolutely no intention to start any legal action, in fact I offered him public assistance on this forum on how to make his tweaks public), three simple questions:
     
  1. Why did you seek the confrontation? You very well know what you did was a copyright violation. You know very well that 97% of what you shared is stuff that you did not write. You are not stupid so you know a publisher simply is forced to take action, so you must have expected problems but decided to press on. To make a point? To punish us (me)? You clearly like the product otherwise you would have not gone through all the trouble.
    Are there bugs to fix? Sure and we are working on those. A lot of what was in your file was corrected in our last update. Some of it because of your kind assistance. Your file contained a bug fix for an issue with the Generator 2 annunciator that we missed but that is now corrected and in the testing pipeline. I will credit you in the readme if you allow me to do so.
  2. Why did you not simply remove the whole copyright issue and only publish the changes? You are clever, you know how to use the diff command. You would have achieved the exact same and everybody would be happy. I would even welcome it on our forums! Parts of the file, like the sound tweak, are in no way problematic as they contain none of our code. If you feel the Twin Otter internally should sound like the King Air, fine!  As you might have read we are expecting the new sound recordings done on a Twin Otter and hope to fix that nasty issue. 
  3. Why do you wish to remain anonymous? We have absolutely no intention to go after you for the copyright violation, if you want I will say so publicly. As the file is removed that whole issue is behind us. I just feel a lot more comfortable discussing things in the open. My name is Mathijs Kok, what is yours?

 

If there is any reply and the uploader allows me to share it (he already was offended when I mentioned just his first name), I will add that to this topic.

 

____________________

 

Now lets get a few things straight. 

 

Does Aerosoft have a problem with flightsim.to?

Hell no, we all go there every day to see the great work people do! We have offered our assistance to Chris many times. He knows he can contact me any time, and we’ll be there. What he does for the fs community is fantastic.

 

Does Aerosoft have a problem with tweaks?

Nope. You will actually find on many of our manuals that we invite them. Just check. If a customer finds an issue in our software and fixes it, our first response will be to say thanks. Often followed up by a request to contact us to show our appreciation in the form of a freebee or a beer.

 

Are repaints now also considered a copyright violation?

Come on, we offer a paint kit, we offer to distribute the files, we make it clear the copyright of the repaint is shared between Aerosoft and the repainter (so neither can sell the liveries, who wants that, right?

 

Why do we not ask to have all tweaks removed?

Well, if they do not contain our copyrighted code, why would we? If somebody uploads a file that contains none of our code but changes the behaviour of a product in a way they feel makes it better, great!

 

So how do I share tweaks without violating copyrights?

Basically, start with not sharing what you did not type. If you have a tweak to a file, do not share the file (as we have copyrights on that); share what you changed. Every person who makes these changes knows the diff command; it shows you the difference between two files.  Say you found a bug in this code:

image.png

And think it should not be circuit 2, but circuit 1. Simply tell people to edit line 10 and change 2 to 1.  
You did what you wanted, assist people in fixing an issue (and thank you for that) and you still respected allo copyrights. A post like that would be very welcome on our forum. I personally would upvote your post. Other people can then test it and give there comments. Some tweaks work and others do not. 

If your tweak does not contain any of our code, say you want to replace the sound.cfg with another one that links the sounds to the King Air, just post it on our forums. We might not believe a King Air sound in any way like a Twin Otter, but if that is what you believe makes the product better, post it! Does not affect our copyrights in any way and is very welcome.

So what is a copyright issue? 

If you make a few changes to a file that is copyrighted and upload the whole file. That is simply a copyright violation. It is illegal. As publisher we have to ask it to be taken offline.  If you have any doubts, if you have any question what you should do, just ask me. mathijs.kok@aersosoft.com. By now everybody knows my email, lol. I enjoy interacting with customers even if we disagree.

But you are still an asshole!

Yes, I had a fair bit of hate mail because of this.  I get paid for this. I get paid to protect copyrights and I get paid to take abuse from some people.  Most of the emails I got were to the point and while not nice, written with some respect. I replied to those, explaining the issue was simply copyrights etc, see above. I was happy to see that almost all the people responded positive to my comments. As I keep saying, almost all people will listen to arguments if they take the time to read stuff. Read and than comment. 

Some others where less pleasant. Sign of the times I fear.  My favorite today was this one: "Mr kock, whats in a name?????/, you are a funcking moron".   A wordplay on my name, how clever! I was temped to tell him I was the lucky one in my family. My fathers was name Ruud Kok (and he and I travelled the US for years)  and his brother Dick Kok (and he emigrated to Canada!) but I did not and just clicked 'spam'. 

_____________________________

As said this topic will be open and will stay open, you are all welcome to share your comments (you are even allowed to make more comments on my name!). Just do not personally offend other people who are not paid to have to deal with this. 

I will however close all other topics to make sure we all can read each others comments in one topic. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 6
  • Upvote 11
  • Downvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a new and interesting development. 

 

Just one concern:

There doesn't seem to be any user-friendly options for the people who don't make, but only use mods.

 

As a programmer, I'm familiar with Git and Diffs and all these very handy and clever things. Alas, I'm also very familiar with how insanely difficult it is to explain to a newbie how that stuff works.  For a mod installation procedure, it leaves a lot to be desired.

 

How would you explain to a non-technical person, either a freshly assembled teen, or a less-than-geeky middle ager more used to machines with a separate button for every function,  just how to go about installing a mod that requires potentially hundreds of tiny file alterations? Or how to automate that with a completely unfamiliar tool which to him looks like it came straight out of a set from The Matrix?

 

 

But most importantly:

 

This "workaround" is still impossible to those bought your products through the FS Marketplace.  Those files are encrypted. We cannot alter them.

You'll have to think of something better, I'm afraid.   Or some means of license transition has to be provided.

 

Allowing mods to carry whatever files were modified  seems like a very sensible compromise.

The game supports these file-specific overrides by design it and installation is very easy.

This has also been the general standard for modding rights that the FS community has grown to expect, with over 30 years of tradition to its credit.

 

It is also not "against the law".  Copyright is a very complex subject and I strongly advise checking in with a specialized lawyer (perhaps a new one) about how this can be resolved.  What we're asking for is not anything new or fanciful. (or why would everyone else be ok with it?)

 

Very commonly technical files like scripts and cfgs carry comment header sections where the original copyright attribution is declared and thereby preserved. 

Your files appear to be missing this section, which is probably the root of this entire mess.  Often, these headers contain instructions about not allowing their removal, so the the author's name and his rights' attributions remain even if the file is modified and shared around.  Copyright is thus upheld, and everyone is happy.

 

This is could very easily resolve all our problems.

 

 

Anyways, the efforts in reaching out are highly appreciated.  Hopefully we can come up with a clever workaround that pleases everyone.

 

Let us consider these as "Peace Talks" - and keep the discussion civilized, even if Mr. Kok does indeed have a funny name. (I know how it feels, having a middle name that rhymes with the female body counterpart)

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"

  • "The uploader (again he prefers to remain anonymous even though I told him we are in no way seeking legal actions, just a correction on the files), reacted rather unexpectedly and told me he would share this with everybody. Most people who violate a law do not do this. It was clear he simply was not willing to respect copyrights. He felt it was in his right to share the files because they contained bugs. We, respectfully, disagree with that."

    If we're going to start by utterly making things up, I have zero input into this.
  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It cannot be said with any certainty that any laws were being broken.  Copyright law is very fuzzy around edges such as these, it is a problem typical of our generation (e.g: YouTube vs. Everyone in it)

 

What can be agreed with is that a company policy was claimed as having been violated.  That is not the same thing as a law. Nor does the claim substitute for a canonical fact.

 

No other publisher (apart from that one we don't speak of) appears to have any issues whatsoever with the publication of modded .cfg files, regardless of what's in them and how much was changed.  That alone clearly indicates that nothing done here was ever in breach of any official legislation.  We're talking about company-specific rules which were laid out somewhere between AeroSoft and whoever else is involved.

 

 

So currently what we have is: 

 

AS demands that end users jump through unreasonably convoluted hoops in order to install a mod that, with any other publisher, would've been a drag-and-drop operation. 

 

Also they demand that developers go through immense efforts to package these mods and document their installation, greatly increasing the technical skill required of a hobbyist modder, to achieve results which others make easy.

 

 

That is not what I'd call "encourage and welcome".   Maybe if a specialized tool were provided to expedite these unusual requirements, then perhaps it would be fine.  But as of now, it remains an unreasonable barrier to enforce.

 

I would suggest it'd be much simpler to rethink those company rules

 

It'd be in everyone's best interests to do so.  Think about how every mod posting out there is a free ad banner for your product.

 

  • Upvote 8
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it’s such a clear copyright violation, then why do other commercial developers openly allow their aircraft to be modded in the same way? What material harm is being done to Aerosoft by distributing a free mod that requires the paid product to function and is it worse than the damage Aerosoft is doing to its enthusiast customers?

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As was left unanswered in the CRJ thread: 

>> 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.

Much of what the community is frustrated and confused about here centers around highly selective enforcement of a policy which removed one set of mods with no user-discernable difference from the multitude of other similar mods which remain available. 

 

From where we're sitting, the only difference is that the removed mod changed aircraft behavior which some feel is incorrect, while those that remain could not possibly be construed as critical of the base product. 

"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." - Hans Hartmann, CRJ thread. 

Which .cfg files are just a .cfg and which are "actual code"? Is an xml file "actual code"? If parts of the package are protected and other parts are not, there must be transparency. 

 

Mods of panel.cfg are ok? 

The livery mods contain aircraft.cfg, texture.cfg, and model.cfg; are those OK? 

Is flight_model.cfg and ai.cfg somehow not OK if all of the above are? 

Either let people participate in an ecosystem of mods, enforce this Copyright-alleged takedown universally, or provide clarity. 

Every time someone has asked "which file was the problem" the response has been "all the files are protected". 

  • Upvote 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The solution is so easy, and it should be staring everyone in the face.

Aerosoft gives permission (Grants a shared copyright - or whatever you want to call it) to CCM mod of a specific set of .cfg file to the Twotter, and going forward, BOTH entities have copyright ownership of the resulting work product, as derived from that version.

  1. The current and future owners of the Twotter are Happy

  2. Aerosoft are happy, they still hold, copyright (ie Their copyrights remain PROTECTED)

  3. CCM is happy, he can distribute his MOD, - and any modifications to that MOD based on their joint Copyright of future derived works , that he spent time & effort creating, and I believe is more than happy for Aerosoft to use any of his MOD in future Twotters, which I believe was his original hope, when he started the Mod, and offered to work & share it with Aerosoft.

EVERYONE wins, everyone “saves face”, Legal is happy, and we all move on in a Positive way …

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, What we have here is really not all that difficult a problem to work out, when isolated from the insults and accusations.

 

The FlightSim community has developed over the course of many decades, a number of reasonable implicit expectations for what they should or not be allowed to do when modding.

 

The general consensus is that "As long as a mod doesn't circumvent the need for a purchase, it should be fine to publish it".

 

This is NOT against the law, in fact, most likely the massive amount of addons published under these terms sets a significant precedent to uphold these expectations under the terms of Fair Use.

 

Anything short of that, is construed by the crowd as excessively restrictive, then the Fighting Words start flying.

 

AeroSoft is therefore at a make-or-break position, having been put there by whatever circumstances of their own making or not, doesn't matter.

 

The critical item in question is whether or not AS can somehow get their internal politics sorted out in a way that allows them to give the community what 40 years of FlightSim have had it expect, that is:  The right to freely publish any mods that don't contain enough data to enable an avenue for piracy.

 

Anything else is merely noise besides that one key point.

 

That's what we ask of MK, which is indeed quite a tall order, but that's a manager's job. To bang together whatever heads need banging to get them to agree on something that is a clear benefit to everyone involved.   

 

 

And on this hinges the company's entire reputation.  Truly, if he pulls that rabbit out of the hat, AS goes immediately from villain to hero in this story. 

The alternative is a bit grim, though.... Let's all think of bunnies instead.

 

  • Upvote 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless of who is right or who is wrong.

 

I'm glad to see Aerosoft is putting more efforts in communicating why they removed the Mod than providing any roadmaps or plans on improving the plane themselves.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Moach said:

AS goes immediately from villain to hero in this story. 

 

I think it's a bit late for that, Aerosoft just need to go to some sim forums, discord, reddit, well nearly everywhere people are talking about flight simulator to see what people think about them and it will stick

 

Was it worth it? Could it not be handled in a far better way?

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still think this could be rescuable, if they take the right action now and spin it just right.

 

Truly, nothing short of fully satisfying our demands for the reasonable expectations of modding freedom (as established by 3~4 decades of addons worth of precedents) will do.   

 

I don't think any compromise solutions would cut it after this, but if they come through with a full 180º reversal of the anti-modder stance, they could actually do this in such a way that causes such a pleasant surprise for everyone that we come out of it thanking them for listening.

 

Though perhaps the damage outside the more civilized parts of the community has already been too vast, the cruel law of PR typically says that the average disgruntled customer shares his horror with about six people, while a satisfied one on average recommends something to only two or so. 

 

I haven't had the courage to check how this went down on Reddit yet. It must have been horrifying out there.  This fire will probably continue to smoke for years, even if they do everything right for putting it out.

 

---edit---

 

I checked reddit.... Yikes!

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know this is a fresh account and I don't want to belabour the comments made by Repro and echo_oscar (they make some excellent points that need to be addressed), but overall I want to say there has to be some clarity which we're not really getting. I know the original post is supposed to be that, and its progress, but its not the end all be all we need.

 

Apparently with Aerosoft products, there's some special treatment needed to scurry around the copyright violations and we need a comprehensive guide on what is legal. Even if the rest of the devs out there have a similar policy, and they also view it as infringement, unless its sharing the entire file most don't care. Because A: it probably makes a product better, and B: it provides more value for free, and makes more money for the developer. They might not be happy about it, and they might be annoyed by the people asking for features that are in a mod to be in the original product, I get it. But there are ways to deal with that...work with the modder*, don't provide any support to people using the mod, etc.

 

*on this point, clearly working with the modder isn't viable since above, CCM discredits what really occured ("If we're going to start by utterly making things up, I have zero input into this."). Sorry Aerosoft, most here including me are likely to believe him first and foremost. So maybe address that and clear up any miscommunication you're obviously having between Aerosoft and CCM, that's not a done deal from the sounds of things.

 

What really grinds my gears is this solution:

 

"So how do I share tweaks without violating copyrights?

Basically, start with not sharing what you did not type. If you have a tweak to a file, do not share the file (as we have copyrights on that); share what you changed. *Every person who makes these changes knows the diff command;* it shows you the difference between two files. "

 

Everyone buying your product is expecting what they paid for. *Not everyone buying your product is a developer, nor should they become one to fix your mistakes*. Sure, the person who found the fix and telling someone else to do this and that is all well and good, on paper. When it comes down to it, the level of support to "Simply tell people to edit line 10 and change 2 to 1" when the person on the other end just doesn't have the time, or looking at the code as if its some alien language, is not the solution. You know whats easy though, downloading a .zip and extracting it to a folder. I'm a developer, I might be smart enough to know what to change. It's not my identity though, I don't bleed 0 and 1's, I don't see the matrix...If I want to just chill for a few hours, fly a plane I've paid for, realized its not up to par but see someone took the time and effort to make a fix for me, I'm downloading their work. They improved the product I bought so that I don't have to. So that I don't have to waste time doing what I already do 8 hours a day. So that I don't risk breaking things and ultimately getting frustrated. I know the amount of customers looking for tweaks and mods aren't a huge portion, definitely a select few enthusiasts wringing out every last cent of what they bought. But don't lump them into a group that you think have the resources and willingness to do this. 

 

If I'm a new customer, and I'm seeing a forum full of tweaks/fixes for a product I really want but have to do myself, I'm not buying that product. Plain and simple. And I'm not recommending it to anyone either. Even as an existing customer, I'd rather just uninstall, even get a refund if possible. Not worth the effort and hoops to jump through. It's laughable, because even if we did a game of tech support to do these fixes, the end result is the same, you're just concerned about the distribution. So fix it.

 

I see a lot of talk about copyright and Aerosoft enforcing the protection of it. We get it. At this point, we understand the problem. Now figure out a solution (it's not this DIY approach). In my opinion, the options are:

  • Work with flightsim.to improve this sort of thing, not just for Aerosoft but for other devs too.
  • Actively work with modders and clear up any communication problems (there seems to be a lot)
  • You have Aerosoft One, build a steam workshop type environment to distribute tweaks on your own system with those you know are real customers (not my favourite option since fs.to is a great one stop shop)

 

Keep in mind, all of the above (and this whole situation) is avoidable if the plane was just improved without the need for mods. Listen to the community and people who are willing to help improve the product beyond your expert(s) bubble. I'm sure the dev's are hard at work on an update, but CCM put in some work too and there has to be a better dialogue there. The mod was out there because a handful of people wanted those fixes, and simply weren't seeing them implemented by Aerosoft, update after update. I didn't want the mod, I actively wanted to get rid of it, hoping Aerosoft would release an update making it useless. I'm sure many others feel the same.

 

I yield my time.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 8
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think most of the community frustration isn't from the fact that Aerosoft took down a mod that improves the Twin Otter, it's from the fact that Aerosoft released an aircraft with some glaring issues and isn't communicating a plan to address these issues (i.e., users are getting a "deal with it" vibe), and when someone else went the extra mile to address the aircraft's shortcomings, Aerosoft responded by requesting a take-down of those tweaks (regardless of how legal the distribution of those tweaks is).

 

Users would like to see Aerosoft address the full aircraft. Sure there are some things that simply aren't modeled nor are intended (e.g., engine failures), but there are also other things that are obviously bugs. 

 

I'll frame this in the context of another aircraft: The CRJ. Right now, I've identified tons of issues with the aircraft that are obvious bugs. For example, one issue I found very quickly is that the TCAS targets are rendered on the ND at half the distance that they actually are. Aerosoft responded to it by saying they'd look into it, yet almost a year later, and I have no idea if Aerosoft cares, if they plan on fixing it, if they're even working on the CRJ anymore, or if they still acknowledge it or if they decided it's not worth the trouble to look at anymore. The messaging is inconsistent.

 

So yes, I absolutely would appreciate a 3rd party modder taking the time to tweak the CRJ and "make it better". This wouldn't be my first choice, however, I'd rather have the original developer (Aerosoft) incorporate the changes to make their own aircraft better, but a 3rd party tweak is an acceptable second. The last thing I want is to have the original developer roadblock any improvement to their own work from 3rd parties, while said original developer refuses to communicate their own progress on the aircraft, because that just leaves everyone in limbo.

 

Now let's be honest. If Aerosoft created the perfect aircraft that had no bugs or issues, then someone went and shared a tweak to make the lights brighter and more picturesque (i.e., not a change that is bringing the product back to the consumer baseline expectation, but is a change beyond the scope of the consumer baseline expectation), and it so happened that they shared copyrighted source code files to achieve this, I think the community would not react as negatively to Aerosoft requesting a take-down of those files, because the product already meets consumer expectations!

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The CRJ Mod by Mugz (unpublished, denied) is another key item in this debacle.  CCM's mod being pulled down was just "one blunder too many" and now it blows up in their faces.

 

 

AeroSoft in that case didn't pull such an epic stunt as to have the mod taken down. Mugz had the misfortune of bothering to ask them first, so it was never released.  They wouldn't let them.

 

According to the features list posted on the forum by Mugz as he kindly asked for permission, his mod would have covered most, if not all present issues on the CRJ.

AeroSoft having said yes, would have gained nothing less than a get-out-of-having-to-make-another-update-free card with that mod.  XBox players would still miss out, but most people agree that the majority of players who care about such details is on the PC.

 

Unbelievably, they said no.   Same reasons as now, only it didn't go Full Chernobyl on them at the time, probably because the mod hadn't been already released.  If it had, then things would have come to this point a couple of months ago.   Well, we're here now.

 

Both CCMs mods for the Twotter and Mugz fixes for the CRJ are items of very high value to the most dedicated players.  Denying them from the public is a PR blunder of such an extreme magnitude it defies all understanding.   

 

There can't be ANY way at all that some copyright, no matter how sacred, is worth the damage this has done already to the company's image. Let alone the consequent reaper's bill, which can be measured only after their *next* products release. 

 

 

This is now a desperate situation they're in because of these simple, yet indescribably bad decisions.    No Laws had or would have been broken in either case.  There's little doubts about that anymore.  This was a choice. 

 

Someone in there made up a Rule. Then made a deliberate call to enforce it and deny us something that is expected implicitly, and very reasonably so, from decades of modding FlightSims.  No other respectable* developer has ever denied users free reins on modding anything short of piracy. This is not something FS enthusiasts are at all ok with, it turns out. 
 

 

*One recently did. They're not "respectful" anymore for it.  We've renamed them, and now a certain Captain rhymes with "spam"

 

 

It's really not looking good out there.   There is truly heartfelt resentment about this, not only mere dissatisfaction circulating on every community where AS is mentioned.  On Reddit, it's "Angry Villagers With Torches" already.   This won't go away, surely not soon, maybe not at all I'm afraid. 

 

 

Modding is a core value of the FS ethos, kinda like how Americans say "Freedom".  It's a deep cultural value of ours which has been violated here.  No wonder people are frothing at the mouth.  

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since you allowed it, I'll have to take this opportunity and say...

 

Mr Kok,

  • It is your right to take off the mod. 100% agree it's your right
  • Was it smart? No. Even you can't argue that this small readable mod file was doing more good to your product than all the negativity that came with removing it
  • Is it your copyright? Yes, you wrote the original code in it. But then what? You think someone would steal a bad code that needs a day-1 community mod to fix it? What are you protecting and from who and what would they possibly do with it now that they have it? -answer this please
  • What is your answer that pirates are now bundling the Twin Otter with the mod, thus getting a better experience than those who actually bought it? The file is still out there, with pirates. So any one can access it if they want, so what exactly have you achieved by removing it from flightsim.to and preventing a way of obtaining it for your true customers to get a better experience as well? 

 

Alright, maybe you want it removed for another reason, maybe you're taking the disney lawyers path and removing anything your fans do, cool, but don't you think it's better to just include those mod changes in your original build BEFORE removing the mod? You know, so pirates getting it bundled wouldn't have a better experience than legal buyers?

 

Fortunately, there's other products in the same price range that at least won't go full captain sim at a free community made mod

 

Also go check what the community's opinion on forums, youtube and reddit. Not here in house. You truly won your customers here. Congrats to the legal department, big loss for PR and marketing

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was wondering where the hell the file went to luckily i have it backed up. Am happy i have the files myself and i would share it continuously until you folks actually come out with some changes especially with the sound and ground stance(Too tail heavy low on mtow and empty) which i have already pointed out in a separate forum. It has been 5 weeks since release and some of the minor visual fixes(Especially for the ground stance) just required some cfg text adjustment and can be tweaked weekly. This is the reason why most of us have been using CCM's mod if the fixes were quickly rolled out nobody would even bother to mod.

 

Reminded me of two Asian based airline sending legal letters to any Diecast plane maker for issuing unauthorised plane models and even going after some low level seller for selling cheapskate lanyard with their logo. Yes it is a copyright issue but there's no need to be such a whiny corporate loser. Collectors have been asking for full set of diecast models fleet for decades and all these airline never bothered to provide over the years.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone can make a mod for the AP and Baro knob issue that plagues the Marketplace CRJ (in VR) for months, please?

 

I got sick and tired of loosing minutes on each flight, trying to press the baro knob or quickly setting the heading bug - a real pity in an otherwise very nice plane (my favorite in the sim, as a matter of fact).

 

After reading this thread I get the suspicion we’re looking at a problem with time and resource management: might Aerosoft have decided to dedicate more time to fighting with customers than addressing months-old issues with their products?

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've just realized what probably it was that started the whole matter in the first place, and how the problem could be resolved for everyone.

 

 

I've edited this in to the first post I made in response to the thread.  But I'll repeat it here so the timeline of our conclusions makes sense on future reading of the discussion:

 

 

 

Very commonly technical files like scripts and cfgs carry comment header sections where the original copyright attribution is declared and thereby preserved. 

 

Your files appear to be missing this section, which is probably the root of this entire mess.  Often, these headers contain instructions about not allowing their removal, so the the author's name and his rights' attributions remain even if the file is modified and shared around. 

 

Copyright is thus upheld, and everyone is happy.

 

 

 

It should look something like this:

image.thumb.png.787f485f7561c384f41acd985fd04ed5.png

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Moach said:

I've just realized what probably it was that started the whole matter in the first place, and how the problem could be resolved for everyone.

 

 

I've edited this in to the first post I made in response to the thread.  But I'll repeat it here so the timeline of our conclusions makes sense on future reading of the discussion:

 

 

 

Very commonly technical files like scripts and cfgs carry comment header sections where the original copyright attribution is declared and thereby preserved. 

 

Your files appear to be missing this section, which is probably the root of this entire mess.  Often, these headers contain instructions about not allowing their removal, so the the author's name and his rights' attributions remain even if the file is modified and shared around. 

 

Copyright is thus upheld, and everyone is happy.

 

Given that kok has commented things like this (see attached image) in the past I am not as optimistic as you that it is as simple solution as that

either way, your efforts towards this is appreciated by the modding community, I will be awaiting koks reply to your comment.

kok.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, a book isn't the same as a script file. 

 

Copyright works differently for that, as there are format restrictions which are highly technical governing its contents.

 

If AS somehow was made to believe otherwise, I strongly recommend they get the opinion of a different lawyer. Ideally one who's specialized in the gaming industry and has a better handle on how the law applies to these very technical things in our modern day and age.   

 

I advise this because, the information I got from just such a lawyer (albeit by proxy) appears to entirely contradict their claims of this being somehow "against the law".

It shouldn't be.  Otherwise no other developer would allow it. Yet instead, they all do.

 

 

Their failure to include the ubiquitous copyright notice in these files is also a good indication that, whatever legal advice they're getting, is probably not all right on the mark.

 

 

Interestingly, he  says: "...just dumping our code without a license ... is a copyright violation" --  And he's right. Without A License. But then, they hadn't thought to first include that license in the files themselves, and now we're all here going at each others throats over it

  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Deputy Sheriffs

The fact that this topic is still open is a clear sign that Aerosoft allows open discussion.

What is not allowed, that people open multiple accounts to create a bad mood. Therefore 3 accounts got banned.

  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mopperle said:

The fact that this topic is still open is a clear sign that Aerosoft allows open discussion.

What is not allowed, that people open multiple accounts to create a bad mood. Therefore 3 accounts got banned.

 

Wowz, yeah, that's not cool.  Kind of a dick move, rly. Doesn't matter who's right or not. That's just childish.

(for clarity, I mean: it's not nice to fake other accounts for added dramatic effect - I just noticed that the above could be read both ways, and read on: It was!)

 

There's no need to do that kind of thing, I'm pretty sure we're all on the same side and this whole thing is really some EPIC mother of all misunderstandings.  

Read my posts above.  That just might be all there is to it.   

 

 

I bet lots of people are gonna feel very silly about themselves after this gets sorted out; On both sides of the argument.

 

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Deputy Sheriffs

OK, when you think it is ok, to open 3 accounts and this person uses Putin as avatar picture and calls Aerosoft a  Nazi company in this current situation we see in the world, you missed some important things. Maybe you better choose another playground. 😡

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...