Hello, before I ask I would like to make it clear that i am not trying to raise garbage here when i ask this, just a general question that im curious about.I was wondering about that new program on the avsim home page called live atc chatter or something, now I was just wondering if it is legal to make money off a program that takes (in this case) live audio streams that are free to begin with?Again just curious, not trying to start anything as I'm sure this could be a sensitive area.

Yes... e.g. radio, tv: public broadcasting...DJ

I see, As I was reading your reply I also thought it must be ok because Vroute comes to mind, you can get the premium service(or something like that) for payware and it gets info from vatsim(freeware).I was just curious is all.

Actually, technically no, since most broadcasters make it clear that their broadcasts cannot be redistrubuted or rebroadcast without the express written concent (read license) of the station that is broadcasting. You cannot rebroadcast a TV station, cable channel, radio station, or internet broadcast unless you get permission first and that usually involves substantial fees.This is clear in apps like Maps2bgl and Tileproxy where technically using googlemaps and virtualmaps is a breach of the respective user licenses. This is why these sites are not expressly defined in the .ini files and instead are replaced with ******.com and ***********.net to relieve the author of liability since the user must change the *** to something else therefore the user assumes responsibility.Similarly, it is illegal to use likenesses of aircraft, likenesses of brand name avionics, airline liveries and such without having it licensed first. To my knowledge with the exception of the Flight1 ATR (and the default aircraft in MSFS) almost all the rest are technically in breach.An illustration of this was with FLY! II. None of their aircraft were named after the actual likenesses (Cessna, Beechcraft etc) because they were not able to attain proper licenses for whatever reason. So even though FLY! II came with a 'Cessna', for instance, it was named something else.HOWEVER, the aviation industry has always taken a 'wink-wink, nod-nod" approach to our hobby using their copyrighted material (with the exception of American Airlines) and not taken any action or put forth a cease and decist order, or required 3PDs to specifically get a license.So to answer your question, 'technically' 99% of the stuff available for MSFS is not 'legally' conforming to the letter of the law...but exist at the good graces of the copyright holders and licensees.Regards,Mike T.

Excellent explanation Mike T. Thank you.As I said im not trying to get on some developpers back or anything like that(I appreciate all the hard work that goes into these products, And hope for more), I was just curious.Thanks AgainP.S What do you mean by "except American Airlines" Do they not want their liveries available for download or something?

Mike you nailed it.I am a long time sim racing fan as well. And many guys do mods and repaints with official names.I know that Tommy Bahama made a site remove a car paint sceme with their logo on it once.

Yep, same thing with Peter Max. He made it clear that no one is allowed to reproduce his Continental Airlines Peter Max 777 (one of the most beautiful aircraft ever made IMHO). So you not find a Peter Max 777 anywhere.The most interesting conumdrum in this sceneario is thus:A 3PD releases a Boeing 777-200 with tons of real world airline liveries. Someone pirates it and the 3PD sues. I always wondered how that would play out it court. This is a highly contraversial matter!Since the 3PD has no license from Boeing or the other airlines to produce a reproduction of their product and has not shared the revenue with the copyright holder the 3PD is in breach of the copyrights of the respective holders. In the same token the pirate has stolen something, but from whom? Did he steal from the 3PD or did he steal from the original copyright holder? If the original copyright holder has not enforced the copyright against the 3PD, then is the pirate thereto absolved UNLESS the orginial copyright holder sues, but then would they have to sue the 3PD also? I'm assuming that the law doesn't provide the ability to play favorites towards those doing things for the common good vs doing not so good. As the old addage goes, the road to h3ll is paved with good intentions. Of course I'm not likening 3PDs to criminals by any (ANY) stretch of the imagination. I'm just thinking out loud from a 'letter-of-the-law' perspective. I've always wondered since there are very well known pirate sites around hawking pirated FS illgotten software. I'm sure the 3PDs know about them but I'm very surprised that they have not sued them yet. Anyhoo any 'real' lawyers around?Regards,Mike T.

I have been tweaking 2D panels for a few months to fit my 24" widescreen monitor (round gauges again, sigh) and some of them are quite good, if I do say so myself. But I am afraid to give the bitmaps and panel.cfgs away to those that might want them or to post them in the library because I don't want to step on any toes or peeve anyone off. So is this the same thing or am I off my rocker?dolph

Dolph:You can redistribute as long as you get permission. For instance There is an updated texture set for the LDS 767 VC that is available so I don't think you'll have a problem with yours either if it enhances a payware product.Give credit where credit is due and make sure you get permission and you will be fine.

>I was wondering about that new program on the avsim home page>called live atc chatter or something, now I was just wondering>if it is legal to make money off a program that takes (in this>case) live audio streams that are free to begin with?Let's draw another parallel. How about a program that ports live traffic into FS. FlightAware.com lets you track any aircraft in the continental US that you have an "N" number or flight number of the aircraft. This implies that there is a live governmental ATC feed into their web service. Does FlightAware pay the government for the feed? Since it's free to subscribers I thought FlightAware made their operating money by advertising but there is another money making scheme behind the scenes. They can block any "N" number from public view for a fee, usually over a $1000 per year per aircraft if the aircraft owner wants up to 5 internet addresses to NOT be blocked from view, ie FBOs, limo services etc. These are aircraft owners that don't want, for various reasons, their aircraft movements to be tracked by the general public. This almost seems like a form of blackmail directed at aircraft owners who want privacy from public view.

I knew that flightaware can block aircraft from coming up if requested however I did not know they charged a fee for this. As you said that seems like a massive form of blackmail.You made a very good point with this post, Very interresting.