SKAI Traffic - Is It Kosher?

[Chock 17,769]

Actually, in the past there have been huge storming arguments between freeware developers on Subsim, and many threads with people suggesting codes of conduct for anyone wanting to use other people's work, including a huge series of complaints when a similar large mod was created. Check out some of the old threads on there, it got extremely heated, with people being banned and all sorts of nasty goings-on.In actual fact, I was one of the first people to do a reskin texture for the VIIC U-Boat for Silent Hunter 3, and that turned up in other people's mods or as the basis for other ones, and although I personally was not that bothered, not everyone is that accommodating, and the assumption that they will be is at the very least morally questionable.Al

[Mike... 7]

Either way I put it, it is wrong, unfortunately.

Honesty does do something for me. :(

With regards to copyright infringement, I believe that you cannot call an activity illegal until a case is litigated and proven to be an infringement. So anyone claiming that it is illegal, (that has not won at least a summary judgment), may not be quite correct.Do you think the technique of calling something illegal, (at least in this case), might be termed "Putting a Spin on Things" in order win sympathy by intimidation?

Yesterday you said "illegal implies that you're stealing something, criminal behavior with intent. In this case, it appears to be more of a copyright infringement, at best, since the software is free in the first place. That's civil, not criminal.". Now you say, okay, it may be illegal, but not until a legal decision says so.If you run a red light, is it only illegal (not that strong a word is it?) when you get a ticket?Copyright infringement, certainly in this case, is quite clear. "A" creates something, makes it avialable under certain conditions, which is A's right protected by law. "B" does not honor those conditions, "B" is going against the law. It's not a matter of opinion, most countries have those basics covered.What's not clear for example is what's happening with the Pirate Bay. There's a lengthy thread about it in the Hangar Chat forum. Why is it not clear, because nobody could foresee that there would be such a thing as being an "accessory to copyright infringement". That they're not actually hosting anything is an often heard argument and it may actually stick for now because try and find something like "torrent" in any law. The law will adapt to these new phenomena however, it is doing its best to catch up and it is inevitable, because again, that's the society we live in. You do not take what's not yours. And if someone helps you take what's not yours, then that person is most certainly crossing the line as well. To me at least it is obvious that the Pirate Bay is wrong and if it isn't illegal already, it soon will be.What's interesting is people's reasoning to say that this newflangled method of getting things is not the same as old fashioned stealing. When you go to them and take for example their car, you will hear them call you on that quite vehemently, no doubt, yet they have no problem grabbing the latest CD of so-and-so off the web, an anonymous "victimless crime". Fascinating and slightly hypocritical I might add.Getting off topic, back to the original question, "Is It Kosher?", I wonder if need to reply when you phrase it like that? :(

[Swoop 0]

Kosher meaning, has anyone else successfully installed the software and does it cause any problems within flight simulator. I don't want to install a package that will cause problems in my sim if possible. As far as red lights go, I think that has been a well defined, well litigated, cut and dry condition. By the way, it's ironic in the fact that it's not a criminal matter in most cases, that is, to run a red light. It's treated as a traffic violation which is a different revenue stream, court system, and possibly jurisdiction. A lot of the court system has to do with who gets paid for what :)It can, however, be deemed criminal if certain conditions apply but once again, it needs to be in front of a judge and/or jury before it actually becomes criminal. Semantics I guess...The pirate bay, hummm, giving away software that's supposed to be paid for. I wonder if the pirate bay would have had so much trouble if it distributed software that was being given away for free? What do you think...Mark

[Swoop 0]

One more thought that I'd like to add to this discussion. The whole reason that I brought it up was that I didn't know what SKAI was, other then a AI traffic package. I wanted the advice from some of the most knowlegeable simmers in the world so I asked the Avsim forum.So far, people from PMDG, Eaglesoft, HiFi Simulation Software, and others have chimed in on this discussion and it's proven to be a good source of information and also, as it turns out, a lay of the land if you would. So what ever is the copyright, comes of the copyright, evolves with the copyright...that's fine. But that is what discussions are all about, right?So I think Avsim can sometimes hold quite a lively discussion and weather you are pro or con SKAI, I really did get the information that I was looking for at least. So thanks to everyone...Mark

[duckbilled 310]

So maybe not illegal but definitely treif.

[jagabom 21]

The Wings were flying tonight.JimCYWG

[Mike... 7]

The pirate bay, hummm, giving away software that's supposed to be paid for. I wonder if the pirate bay would have had so much trouble if it distributed software that was being given away for free? What do you think...

I think it's fascinating how you treat SKAI and TPB differently. You put a lot effort into "defending" the SKAI package, semantics, legal discussions, the works. But concerning TPB, you make one sweeping statement. It is not giving away anything, it's not hosting anything. That's the whole problem...A different tactic perhaps, but I think you're wrong in both cases.:(By the way, if you want more info on the package, try the search engine, the topic has come up several times.:(

[Swoop 0]

A long time ago I was blogging in the newsgroups with a guy named Dvorak. It was when Windows NT was being transformed into Windows XP. Most of us system level guys knew that the alleged, new XP Kernel was basically the same as the NT kernel and yet instead of simply adding a the new "skin" to NT, it was decided to resell it as a completely new product.So I did some research on the subject and found that it would be an easy task to simply add a library, pardon the comparison, to NT to make it have more of that 3d effect that we've known to come and enjoy. That being said, I posted the C++ code on the blog.A few minutes after I posted the info, there were a number of people who said it wasn't possible. So I then posted more code to prove that it was, this time, the code came from an MS knowledge base article. Most of the people who read it knew that it was correct and yet people were still out there saying that it was wrong. They were basically yelling at me for explaining what I thought to be true...no problem.So I told that Dvorak guy that something seems funny, it's almost like someone has paid these people to tear up this information by simply posting so many different points of view, all negative, that it would make it hard to discern the message that was really being put forth. I then posted that point of view, and the people who were complaining, now claimed that I was trying to do something, but it was never clearly explained by them what I was trying to accomplish. Just that I was trying to accomplish something.That Dvorak guy said that I was off base, and me being willing to consider different opinions, tended to agree with him, and so it was left at that. Microsoft abandoned NT, produced XP and as it turns out, is a pretty good product. A couple of years, ago, Microsoft admitted they had paid shills to tear up the newsgroups with information that was completely irrelevant and counter productive if it was deemed, by MS, that it would prevent them from completing their agenda. But at the time, when it was important to discuss what was going on, all people heard was negativity and then a magical voice of clarity, namely Microsoft.So now I'm asking, what's your agenda Mike?Mark

[flightwatch 68]

The problem today is excuses. Excuses, excuses, excuses. I understand the natural drive to rationalize it all but at the end of the day the true creator of a flightplan, of a model, of a repaint, etc... has ownership. Not just in the legal sense, but also in the moral sense. Moral ownership of whatever he or she creates. The latter is part of the very basis of our Western civilization. Does that do nothing for you? (Not a communist, are you?! :( )The fact that Alpha India Group or World of AI ask that their work not be distributed without their permission. Apart from the legal aspects is there no moral obligation to respect their wishes? That it's free doesn't change anything. That credit is given doesn't change anything. They asked that their work not be uploaded elsewhere. I don't know about you, but I respect their wishes and the hundreds and thousands of hours they have altruistically spent on making and releasing their work. Which I then spend hundreds and thousands of hours on installing it. Then this SKAI guy comes along and then some other guy comes along and it takes mere minutes/hours to gets quasi instant gratification. Sure, credit is there, it's free, it's easy...O tempora, o mores! :( As for the law, change it, don't break it.

Ok Ok Ok...hold on there. The true creator of the flightplan would be an airline. Of a model; the aircraft manufacturer. Of a paint scheme; again, the airline. (Not a Socialist, are you?) Let me ask you a question. Do said developers get an airlines permission to use their timetable when creating timetables for us simmers? How about when they repaint an aircraft? Or on a larger scale; does a virtual airline get their real world couterparts permission to use their logos? I hate to tell you, but no they don't. Because airlines would not give that permission without something in return (I know as I work for one) Now I do know that some do, but you can't tell me that every single person that has uploaded a repaint, timetable, etc has. All of that stuff is copyrighted by the airline. For example: A whole airline marketing team develops a timetable for an airline. It costs the airline thousands of dollars in man hours and equipment to develop that timetable. Now joe schmo freeware developer comes along and developes that timetable in a matter of hours for us simmers. An even better example: An airline develops a paint scheme for it's 737. It costs the airline a little over $300,000 to paint that 737. (I'm not kidding. Around $1,000,000 for a 747) and some guy with photoshop can repaint the plane for us and nobody says a word...The airlines know that it is happening, but they have more important issues to deal with than to rant and rave over piddly stuff I am not taking sides here, but if you go after one, you have to go after all of them. I am also not saying that what that individual did was right or wrong, but at least he gave credit where it was due.Matt

[TheDanger 182]

Two words (if you have some cash spare) - Ultimate Traffic II !!

[edemeijer 19]

In my opinion World of AI is the best option for AI traffic:- Free- Regular updates- Airlines per package, so easy updating and removing ceased airlines

[Swoop 0]

Two words (if you have some cash spare) - Ultimate Traffic II !!

Yeah, I've been waiting to read that. A few of the opinions that were expressed in this topic lent themselves to someone saying "buy the latest version of a new AI package". I was just waiting for the first one to come along.But don't get me wrong, I'm sure that UTII is a good and viable product. But I beginning to believe that's why a few people have been diametrically opposed to the SKAI stuff. Granted, SKAI has overstepped the boundary of good sportsmanship but the anger and disgust that have been radiating from some, it just didn't fit as far as I'm concerned. There maybe a vested interest in there, and maybe not. I can't tell, I don't know, I can only postulate :)By the way, how is the package? Are the aircraft really cool looking? Does it fill up every airport on the planet...that would be nice and easy too!Mark

[ZachLW 37]

Ultimate trafffics models aren't optimuzed for frame rates. I hate it.

[Guest lgvpilot1]

Not meaning to put the cat among the pidgeons but I noticed there is another offering called Mortens AI and that offering is bigger than SKai .It seems he laid it out in a differernt manner to SKai Contains commercial traffic, general aviation, cargo, military, government flights etc...Models, Repaints, FligtPlans & tools are taken from:www.AVSIM.comwww.AVSIM.ruwww.flightsim2004-fanatics.com/FlightSim/KnowledgeBase/Brandon.htmwww.calclassic.comwww.htaimodels.com/downloads/dwai/fs_projectswww.dusteagle.huaca.be/fs2004/index.htmlwww.flightsim.comwww.projectai.comwww.trafficsystem.ru/eng/main.phpwww.samdimdesign.free.frwww.the-fruit-stand.comCompared to another freeware package like skAI Traffic 2.3Morten's AI Traffic 1.0-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------Number of Aircraft used in Flightplans: 9113Number of Flightplan files; 1560Number of different Airports used in Flightplan: 6019Number of Flights: 44428Number of Legs: 896462skAI Traffic 2.3-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------Number of Aircraft used in Flightplans: 3606Number of Flightplan files; 1Number of different Airports used in Flightplan: 3651Number of Flights: 18404Number of Legs: 581738Contains 1560 traffic.bgl files. Every one tells you the company and the valid period like: Traffic_KLM_Wi0809.bgl.If there is traffic you don't like, just delete a single file or rename it from .bgl to .bak instaed of edit a huge one traffic file.Remember to backup and delete your existing AI TrafficThis package requires app. 13.1 GB of free space. It's huge, but i think it's worth it.How long will it take for FS9 to start with that lot on your HD :( Mark

[Chock 17,769]

Ok Ok Ok...hold on there. The true creator of the flightplan would be an airline. Of a model; the aircraft manufacturer. Of a paint scheme; again, the airline. (Not a Socialist, are you?) Let me ask you a question. Do said developers get an airlines permission to use their timetable when creating timetables for us simmers? How about when they repaint an aircraft? Or on a larger scale; does a virtual airline get their real world couterparts permission to use their logos? I hate to tell you, but no they don't. Because airlines would not give that permission without something in return (I know as I work for one) Now I do know that some do, but you can't tell me that every single person that has uploaded a repaint, timetable, etc has. All of that stuff is copyrighted by the airline. For example: A whole airline marketing team develops a timetable for an airline. It costs the airline thousands of dollars in man hours and equipment to develop that timetable. Now joe schmo freeware developer comes along and developes that timetable in a matter of hours for us simmers. An even better example: An airline develops a paint scheme for it's 737. It costs the airline a little over $300,000 to paint that 737. (I'm not kidding. Around $1,000,000 for a 747) and some guy with photoshop can repaint the plane for us and nobody says a word...The airlines know that it is happening, but they have more important issues to deal with than to rant and rave over piddly stuff I am not taking sides here, but if you go after one, you have to go after all of them. I am also not saying that what that individual did was right or wrong, but at least he gave credit where it was due.Matt

This harks back to an argument from the dim and distant past with AVSIM (I won't rake it up in detail here, since most people will know exactly what and whom I am talking about). But the issue it centered around was one of the permission to use company logos on repaints.Broadly speaking, there are two important factors to consider with regard to this situation. The first one is that if a company is setting out to use a logo to make money for themselves, then they obviously need to negotiate some sort of licensing agreement with the company who own that logo. But, freeware is a very different matter, since nobody is making money from splattering the logo about. This means the logos in question take on the other purpose of a logo, which is of course corporate identity placement. That is actually the main reason why airlines do not actively pursue freeware repainters, because if someone does a freeware repaint and it gets that company's logo seen, then it is effectively free advertising, and no company legal department in its right mind is going to try and prevent that.It's also not a great advert for an airline to go after a person who is probably only doing a repaint of a certain livery because he or she admires that airline, and they'll be well aware of how nasty that would make them look if the press got on the repainter's side, not to mention how much such a heavy-handed approach could damage the airline's reputation; airlines usually try and nurture a smiley happy image. Quite different for a company making money out of it of course, you can bet they'd go after one of those.The difference is subtle, but it is a distinct one, and can basically be summed up as - is someone benefiting from the usage in a commercial sense? In the case of freeware, you will find that someone is indeed benefiting from it, and that someone is usually the airline itself, courtesy of all that free advertising. The same will be broadly true for commercial products of that type too, which is probably why many of them can get away with having airline identities appear in them without being prohibitively expensive on licensing, although you will note that there are some disclaimers where logos appear on traffic board screenshots for UT.With regard to the other issue of posters with vested interests chipping in as voices of dissent, I've absolutely no doubt that goes on in internet forums, but it is probably not the only reason people are having a dig at things. It's not always a smart tactic either. On the face of it, it would seem to make some commercial sense for a company with a rival product to have a dig at a free alternative under the guise of 'morally outraged from Seattle' or whoever, but it is known that such behaviour can backfire spectacularly (see point 1). What is more, you could argue that the best way for companies to beat free alternatives, would be to avoid prolonging threads in forums which make those rival products known. So don't imagine that such tactics are as common as you might suppose.A far more likely tactic, and one which clearly takes place on forums, is the 'is this new product any good?' type of thread, which is quite clearly often seeded on forums to get the thing talked about. But, that's not always a bad thing, because if the product is good, then it's useful to know about it, and if it sucks, then people find that out too.Personally, I couldn't give a toss if someone uses anything I've posted on AVSIM or any other file library for their own purposes. Good luck to them, but my own philanthropy on that score does not mean everyone else who does freeware stuff is going to be similarly disposed. For that reason alone, I would not use a package which sidesteps that moral nod. At the moment I use several commercial traffic programs for FS9 and FSX, I've never actually tried any of the freebie ones, but I'm going to hold off on the new UT release until it is somewhat mature, since the ones I have at the moment do a fair enough job of things. I'll probably end up with UT 2 at some point, but for now I can wait.Al