Does anybody know how to download from:

[Guest]

You do not seem to be aware that this website operator actually post files without the permission of Authors. The website operator simply collect files from other file servers and post them whether the Authors even know about it and agree to this action or not ... like some other website operators who are widely considered to be 'low-life'. Posting files this way is not even remotely the same as Authors choosing to upload files to that server, or other reputable file libraries such as that run by Avsim.com or FlightSim.com who provide other valuable services too ... libraries from where AirIndigo.net got these files.In my own case, there are numerous files on that server in breach of my Copyrights and those of the other project Authors. Over the course of the last seven days, website operator Tim Miller -in spite of four (4) desist letters to date (as at the time of this posting) - has not taken any action to remove the files nor has he indicated he will comply at any point in the future. I'd also point out that I am not alone in my unsuccessful petitions on this same subject.By both his / AirIndigo.net's actions (i.e. posting files without Authors approval) - as well as his inactions (i.e. refusing to remove thise files on request), Mr Miller is violating both :(1) the express wishes; and (2) the Legal rights of Copyright holders - i.e. the Authors. In what appears to me to be a contradiction, the website operator states "It (your file) didn't get here by accident. It was selected because it deserved mention. ( We only give mention to those things that are positive. It saves time. )"The writer then goes on to further state :"About Copyright ! It is not the intention of any Member of AirIndigo to profit from the work of others. If you are and Author, Developer, or Designer and you would like obtain information on your Freeware on this Site please contact webmaster@airindigo.net"Despite the (apparent) hypocricy and clear hyperbole, what you actually seem to have is a website who seeks credibility (and profit) by posting and being associated with (without Authors approval) quality works by established Authors and Developers. The real trouble is, AirIndigo is doing it :(1) without the Authors permission; and (in some cases)(2) AGAINST their specific objections. If he (Mr Miller) is so blatantly disrespectful to the Authors rights and wishes you have to ask yourself just what he thinks of mere users (i.e. most readers of this message) in general ...This website operator, who elsewhere laments the spiralling cost of providing bandwidth (to host the files he is doing without the Authors permission) and then goes on to editorialise (sic) that users need consider (his) recovery of costs. I happen to accept the concept of cost recovery for running a file library but the point is IF the website operator posts your files without approval and then complains about the cost of doing so (although you can't get him to remove the files) ... then maybe you should start to ask yourselves what is the real motive for the website's existence ? As I see it, the real motive for the existence of AirIndigo.net is to profiteer from FS Freeware and Freeware Authors. Mr Miller and AirIndigo.net are NOT DEVELOPERS : they are riding on the backs of Freeware developers without their agreement and in spite of their objections. If you support websites like AirIndigo (Tim Miller, or whatever his real name actually is) ... then you are support those who profiteer from Freeware whilst they are contributing nothing. My view may be a bit jaundiced by having been on the receiving end of constant Copyright violations over quite a long time ... but I personally see very little diffence between the action of Airindigo.net and commercial developers like Carenado and others who have repeatedly ripped off my work and sold it for profit. My Freeware work - and that of many others - is now relatively limited because of those repeated Copyright violations and it shouldn't take a rocket scientist to see the writing is on the wall for other Authors whose rights are consciously being violated by the likes of Mr Miller and AirIndigo.net.Can I ask if you're comfortable with these violations of Copyright and if you can recognise the longer term implications of Mr Miller's / AirIndigo.net's actions ? Rgds,

[Guest SoarPics]

You spank 'em hard, Steve!!!Last month FSPlanet... who knows this month maybe airindigo.net.Regards,

[Guest TimD]

Here we have another blatant example of someone exploiting this hobby in a disreputable fashion for his own personal aggrandizement. Just swiping people

[Guest]

Guys (and gals) I feel terrible having even posted a link to that site -- I was just doing a search and trying to find a place for Heather to get those files.I did post alternatives to that site (which turned out to provide the files for free) but now I wish I had spent even a tiny amount of time investigating what was up. At the very least if I had found it was a pay site I would not have posted the link, as I am very much against pay sites in general (speaking as someone who maintains their own site, ad-free, at a cost of a few hundred dollars a year).I will make sure, in the feature, that any links I post do not lead to such sites, and apologize for causing any grief to the authors of files who have been abused by this site. Just in passing it's interesting to note that the site mentioned here (which I won't grace again by even typing the name) hasn't responded to repeated emails from either Heather nor myself, so I'm not quite sure they're even in business anymore (good news to us all, I'm sure).

[Guest SoarPics]

So now we've had the unique perspective of two of the more prominent authors in the hobby... and guys who know something about having their property used without permission. The lesson here is simple: When we find a file we like at a site we're unfamiliar with, maybe we should first ask WHO is offering the file rather than simply being excited about what we found.Just an idea we all might keep in mind :-beerchug Edit: Sorry, Mike, I had a phone call that distracted me while writing this post, and your post came in before mine. This post certainly was not directed at you, and I'm sure most here know you were only trying to help a fellow simmer get to a site. Cheers

[Guest]

Hey, Mike,Mate ... it's cool. It's just that I had been dealing with this issue and this website : because your post was timely I replied.It was the talented Aaron Swindle who gave me the head's up about this site about ten days ago after he went down the same unproductive path : Aaron is another Freeware developer apparently in the same boat as I am, and I assume others ...Tell you what, though, this does highlight a bigger issue many developers do think is quite important. Please indulge me ...Most substantial projects involve many hands : 3D model designers, animators, artists, gauge programmers, sound-smiths, researchers ... even flight dynamicists. Here you have diverse skills converging into one product from several folks who may all have individual rights and Copyrights in addition to the overall Project Copyright. Now, these Copyrights are never in conflict when the file is assembled and released BUT when those files are released they are uploaded to agreed file libraries like Avsim and FlightSim, to name the two leaders. The troubles arise when parasitic website operators re-post these files and you then get the situation where some of the contributors may object to an unprincipled website operator re-posting the file ... and coordinating petitions may become complicated. The point of this ? Yeah ... there is one ... and that is that unless websites can be prevented from taking liberties with the works of others you are going to find fewer developers prepared to contribute to complex Freeware projects because their ability to sustain their rights and Copyrights may be diminished. Commercial works generally have their Copyright tied up somewhat differently - there's not much prospect of ambiguity.What will likely happen in the increasingly specialist area of design and programming for FS ... is that you may well see FEWER complex projects partly because of the actions of these website operators. Is this a reach ? No, it's not in the least and this issue has been discussed for a while amongst developers but it just hasn't been raised in public - until now. But to finish on a positive note : our Freeware T38 will be released in a few days to selected libraries but that certainly won't include AirIndigo.net Best,

[Francois_Dumas 10]

Only had time to throw a quick glance on that site....first time I heared of them, to be honest. Steve, guys, would you say they are on the same level as FSPlanet?If so, then they deserve the same treatment.Francois :-outta Francois :-wave________________________Francois A. "Navman" DumasAssociate Editor &Forums AdministratorAVSIM Online!email: fdumas@avsim.com________________________

[Guest]

Hi Francios,Well, I dunno ... 'cos I tended to tolerate FSPlanet. But something just does not sit right with these guys. I still prefer to think favourably of all folks and I'd rather they just did the right thing and removed the files thay have no right to be posting. That's all I asked. If Miller removes the files immediately and apologises for not doing so on first demand a week ago I'll drop this issue. I have no time for this nonsense. They are parasites, they are not contributors to the hobby, they bring nothing of value to the hobby and ultimately they are just irrelevant.BTW : noticed who advertises there ... ?

[Francois_Dumas 10]

'Indigo Cactus'!!?? :-outta Francois :-wave________________________Francois A. "Navman" DumasAssociate Editor &Forums AdministratorAVSIM Online!email: fdumas@avsim.com________________________

[Guest]

Hi Francois,What I was referring to was the banner link to another FS web-based subscription service ... ?Best,

[Guest eko]

Before I go ahead and make a longer post, let me put forth a question and a hypothetical scenario. Question:Are freeware developers against their files being posted ANYWHERE besides where they originally uploaded them, or only if they are reposted to a site which profits from them.Hypothetical Situation:Take for example, I'm an enterprising guy, and I wish to provide a new outlet for what I think is high quality freeware. Having some contacts in Gamespy Industries and having had a site hosted there before, I am able to secure a free hosting solution from them for a FS2002 simulator specific site, which allows me to host as many files as I want, and access to one and all is absolutely and completely free with good download speeds.I plan on offering what me and my staff of volunteers consider to be "top notch" FS2002 specific freeware that has been released. Obviously, 99% of all freeware authors upload to AVSIM and Flightsim.com, so that is where we will get our files, as we have no upload system. This site is in no way intending to take over for flightsim.com or avsim.com, as a matter of fact, both of those sites are always prominently featured as the "places to go if you're a flight simmer" and banners and links for both are clearly visible. The site would also clearly state in it's terms of use, that absolutely NO downloads made from the site may be uploaded to another site that charges anything for access (even the cost of an e-mail!). The point, to make sure that the files are always at a FREE site.So... what say you? Poaching or Bandwidth load distribution? How many freeware authors would be opposed to a site such as this? How many would welcome it? I, personally, would have no qualms with my files being put up on that hypothetical site, but that's just me.

[Guest]

Hi eko,There are only three problems I personally have with distribution of my files on a freeware site:1) The site *must* obtain permission from any source site if they intend to mass download those files. One or two files does not matter of course: mass leeching to fill out one's own library from site(s) that have built up its own library is completely wrong in my opinion. If users themselves spread files, that doesn't bother me in the least (and indeed should be encouraged I think). Its the mass downloads by creators of sites without permission from the source(s) that ticks me off.2) The site *must* respect any license in each and every file they provide (and actively *look* at each to ensure so). This is extremely important for such a site as you describe: if the author didn't upload the file there, whatever the author wishes in his own individual license must be respected. If the author uploads his own files to a site, that of course shows compliance with his/her license.3) The site *must* be responsive to requests from authors to remove any of their works. If the site doesn't have an easy and fully responsive mechanism to do so, even when in full compliance of a works license, they don't deserve to be in existence in the first place.Beyond those three very easy to follow stipulations, I personally don't have any problem. Its when some sites charge their users a fee to download files "easier" than non-payers (the classic bait-and-switch routine in my book - with our *free* works as the bait), have built their libraries from competitor libraries without permission, and refuse to remove authors works when requested (and in a timely fashion), that is the real problem... FSPlanet anyone? And now this other site. Good lord. This used to be so easy.Take care, http://members.rogers.com/eelvish/elrondlogo.gifhttp://members.rogers.com/eelvish/flyurl.gif

[Guest SoarPics]

Elrond, with all due respect, I simply cannot agree with your perspective.I know you've already read my proposal in Heather's "Legal Terminology" thread, and clearly my idea would seem a bit extreme... on the surface. But I believe the authors disallowing ANY free distribution is the only way to protect themselves and the hobby.As this hobby grows and the proliferation of talent continues there will be an increasing number of persons who will see an opportunity to make a buck off the labors of others. And authors placing that "free to distribute" clause in their read-me files will only make it easier for the poachers and thieves. The protective clauses one might include in the "free to distribute" section will do little if any good. Such clauses will at best be "misinterpreted" by the poachers, and at worst simply ignored (as we have seen is the current tact of the crooks).This hobby has grown by leaps and bounds in the past few years. As is the case with most things in life, it has and continues to experience growing pains. I believe the "small, intimate, and friendly community" attitude is suffering at the hands of the thieves. They are intent on taking advantage. It is high time the community slammed the door on them.And what would the cost be if the "free to distribute" era came to an end. For the life of me I can't see any. The community would continue to download just as it is now, with one strong exception. The poaching sites would be fewer and farther between. These sites are visited mostly by the newest members of the community, who are unaware of the sites' disrepute. That's what they count on. If theses sites die off due to lack of interest, the new members will naturally find the reputable sites.You wrote above:Unfortunately it's not so easy anymore, nor is it simple. Gone are the days when creative folks passed their work largely amongst themselves. With growth has come the crooks. It's time to close the gate and protect the authors. No exceptions, no compromises. Give a thief an inch and he'll steal you blind.Finally, I offer this regarding the "protective provisions" that many include in the "free to distribute" section of their read-me files: We both have been around long enough to know that a lock will only keep an honest man honest. A thieve will always find a way to bust the lock. The only true way to stop a crook is to bar the door, stand vigilant, and attract attention to him (then he'll slither away to victimize another unsuspecting party... or hobby).Regards,

[Guest eko]

Thank you for your response Elrond. Here is my take on it.I'm not in 100% agreement with point number 1. I completely agree that mass downloading of files, to later be put on a site which charges for access is wrong, unless the downloader has requested permission to do so (as you state) from the originating site. I'm pretty certain that not too many folks who make this request will get a positive response, but that is another issue. I do not think that an individual who wants to download, say, 50 files in one day should obtain permission from the source site. If the distributing site permits this kind of access, then the eventual resting place of the files is of no concern to the distributing site (nor should it be) and rests solely on the license which is included in the file, as per the authors request. Let us say that I want to start an all pre-1930's section at my new hypothetical site. I download every plane which looks to be of quality that fits the description (remember, we're not trying to just build a library of EVERY file --that's what flightsim.com and avsim.com are for!--, only select above-average quality files), and then I check the individual licenses of the files and contact any authors for permission whose licenses express a problem with being downloadable from somewhere else besides the originating site. If that file is off limits, and the author truly only want's it to be distributed, for free, at only ONE site, then so be it. The file get's deleted. The distributing site itself really should have no say in this matter. So as far as point 2 is concerned, I agree 100%. Point number 3 should go without saying. Why an author would want their file deleted from a completely free downloading location is beyond me... BUT, the authors wishes must be respected at all times, EVEN if the license says otherwise. In the end, the authors words are completely final.So, aside from a slight disagreement with point 1, we share the same views. However, I get the overriding feeling, that many authors are "gun shy" because of all these "make a buck" sites, and are releasing under extremely prohibitive licenses. I can't say that I blame them, but what about the folks who legitimately want to contribute something with nothing in return expect the feeling that they are contributing to the community?I don't feel that restrictive licenses are the key... more often than not, these do absolutely no good, as thieves don't bother to pay any attention to them, and we have to resort to the ONE thing that I think we should really focus on instead of restrictive licensing, active policing. This is what has to be done ANYWAY, because most licenses are ignored by "non-well-intentioned" folks like FSPlanet and AirIndigo. I believe that any library which hosts files for free should put big, noticeable disclaimers EVERYWHERE stating that if they find flight sim files at a "pay site" of some kind, that they should contact the authors/library administrators, etc. etc. etc. This type of "announced" license will put the community as the guard dog, and would be much more beneficial than a restrictive per-file license. All your per-file license really would need to say is that it should not be distributed from any site which charges for access, and of course, any other licensing wishes the author wants to include. Make it a bloody popup window every time you visit the library at avsim or flightsim... "These files are free. If you find these files at a pay site. Contact the library administrator, post in the forums, tell you dog, etc. etc. etc." This community policing will make it MUCH easier for an author to see if their expressly dictated free file is being served up at a "pay" site they do not wish it at. A more strict license? That will only make it much more of a hassle for all the well intentioned folks out there. Why should the community have to suffer because one(or more) individual(s) is trying to take advantage of the system?

[Guest]

Hi Greg,In the overhead view of your post, I completely agree. There *is* a strong need to slam the door in the face of the possible crooks who take advantage of freeware authors *and* great sites like AVSIM.In the minutia, however, I have to disagree. If a crook is willing to leech files and ignore any licenses within such files en-mass, it doesn't matter *what* those licenses say... Their act already breaks the license and the propriety of its distribution.A license is only useful/good for those with the integrity to abide by one: crooks need not apply. Cracking down in the terms of a license to disallow end-user redistributions (with stipulations) only hurts end-users, authors and the "good" sites. In a crooks case, its the *enforcement* of such a license that they *might* care about. Sadly, in the freeware market, this doesn't have much/any teeth because of the enormous cost enforcement would entail.Unless and until one or more crooks really ticks of a large enough set of authors so they/we band together and spend some hard-earned cash to hire a lawyer and make a very public example, no license - with "free to distribute" clauses or not - is worth its weight in salt to a crook.So, I still must believe "free to distribute" (if stipulated properly) tremendously benefits end-users, authors and honest sites like AVSIM (if they allowed non-author uploads). I say AVSIM because they have proven their integrity to respect an authors wishes - even if they should reasonably doubt any possible consequences to doing otherwise.Take care,http://members.rogers.com/eelvish/elrondlogo.gifhttp://members.rogers.com/eelvish/flyurl.gif