Program to edit .GAU files?

[mgh 89]

Nope... I don't agree it's not illegal. I agree it's based strictly on the EULA and local law.

Which US law, for example, makes it illegal?An EULA, being a private agreement, can't make anything illegal in the sense of being criminal. It may involve a breach of contract for which there are civil remedies available - damages and injunctions.

[N400QW 205]

Arguing the fine points of civil and criminal law will make you no less liable should you violate the same.You seem to be advocating imagined "loopholes" by comparing civil and criminal law as a basis for folks to engage in illegal activity.Not very solid ground.... :(

[mgh 89]

Arguing the fine points of civil and criminal law will make you no less liable should you violate the same.You seem to be advocating imagined "loopholes" by comparing civil and criminal law as a basis for folks to engage in illegal activity.Not very solid ground.... :(

No, I am trying to establish what the law actually is, and what is a criminal offence and what isn't. Assertations are often made that some action is illegal wiothout stating which law has been broken. You can only be liable if you violate an existing law. I repeat, which US law maks modifying, say, a gauge for purely personal use a criminal offence?

[WarpD 824]

Which US law, for example, makes it illegal?An EULA, being a private agreement, can't make anything illegal in the sense of being criminal. It may involve a breach of contract for which there are civil remedies available - damages and injunctions.

Your assumptions are incorrect. As example, modifying software to bypass copy protection... not legal. Now, I'll agree that it's not persued... it's too expensive. But it's still not legal.

[mgh 89]

Your assumptions are incorrect. As example, modifying software to bypass copy protection... not legal. Now, I'll agree that it's not persued... it's too expensive. But it's still not legal.

Which assumptions are incorrect - that an EULA can't create a criminal offence?This thread is about modifying a gauge for private and personal use.Circumventing copy protection is an offence but that's irrelvant to the present discussion. If someone has lawfully obtained an aircraft add-on that puts new gauges into his FS gauge folder and he modifies those there is no question of circmventing copy protection.If modifying a gauge for private and personal use is is a criminal offence then surely someone must be able to cite the relevant law?

[N400QW 205]

Which assumptions are incorrect - that an EULA can't create a criminal offence?This thread is about modifying a gauge for private and personal use.Circumventing copy protection is an offence but that's irrelvant to the present discussion. If someone has lawfully obtained an aircraft add-on that puts new gauges into his FS gauge folder and he modifies those there is no question of circmventing copy protection.If modifying a gauge for private and personal use is is a criminal offence then surely someone must be able to cite the relevant law?

You may really want to look into legal restrictions on reverse engineeering, tampering, code alteration, etc. In short, prove it is legal to engage in such activity rather than argue the negative side. Why would you dip a toe in this water absent an agenda??Remember you do not own code, it is a licensed copy...

[WarpD 824]

Which assumptions are incorrect - that an EULA can't create a criminal offence?This thread is about modifying a gauge for private and personal use.Circumventing copy protection is an offence but that's irrelvant to the present discussion. If someone has lawfully obtained an aircraft add-on that puts new gauges into his FS gauge folder and he modifies those there is no question of circmventing copy protection.If modifying a gauge for private and personal use is is a criminal offence then surely someone must be able to cite the relevant law?

I can assure you, based on over 25 years in the software industry, that you can indeed violate the copy protection of a gauge by doing exactly what you just stated. Your assumption is that modification of the gauge in any form or manner is allowed by the copy protection. A flawed approach.

[mgh 89]

I can assure you, based on over 25 years in the software industry, that you can indeed violate the copy protection of a gauge by doing exactly what you just stated. Your assumption is that modification of the gauge in any form or manner is allowed by the copy protection. A flawed approach.

Unless you can cite the law that makes this a criminal offence your assurances are valueless. Surely after 25 years you should know by now what law you are relying on?

[WarpD 824]

Unless you can cite the law that makes this a criminal offence your assurances are valueless. Surely after 25 years you should know by now what law you are relying on?

You agree that anything that attempts to bypass copy protection is illegal. I point out it is indeed possible for a gauge to have copy protection that doesn't allow gauge modification. Based on that, the only way to modify the gauge and still use it is to bypass the copy protection... which is illegal. I don't have to cite any law at all, since you already agreed on the base premise that bypassing copy protection is illegal.Just an FYI... you wouldn't win in a court of law. You can't stand there and demand that someone prove/disprove your argument. If you believe your claims, it's up to you to prove them. Period.

[sprintz 0]

No, I am trying to establish what the law actually is, and what is a criminal offence and what isn't.

I think the issue many are having is that your definition of "illegal" seems to be too restrictive. To be illegal means to be "not legal." (Yes, I did feel silly saying that. ;-) There are criminal laws. There are civil laws. Violating either is "illegal." If I'm reading you correctly, you seem to be saying that it's only illegal if there's a criminal law involved?? And it's true that criminal law would come into play only if substantial copying and financial gain / financial loss were present, as I think you said. But still there is civil.As to what would make copying "illegal," your reiterated question, I would say that doing what some have suggested in this thread would violate either basic copyright law, or the valid CONTRACT between software licensor and the end user. Contract law is civil law just like copyright, is taken very seriously (obviously), and it is "illegal" to violate contractual principles. This is true in any modern, civilized country.Regardless... civil... criminal... being smacked on the a$$ by either arm of the law can seriously ruin a person's life.The reality of it all, as some have said, is really... what's it worth to pursue a wrong? I hope we can all agree that, just because a harm is small enough that the person wronged couldn't justify the attorney's fees, hassle, time, etc... that doesn't make the action any more or less wrong. (It seems, somehow, that it needs to be said.) There's an example of this type of thing going on right now in our very hobby, involving a very well known company that makes VERY top notch products. And the entity (individual) that claims it was wronged by that company is out over 2K dollars... which still just is not enough to justify the hassle. I mean, lawyers cost $250 per hour or more. Add different countries of domicile, and forget it... just can't even be pursued, practically. I worked in the insurance law industry for awhile, and I can tell you that exploitative people or entities get away with quite a bit just knowing that the harm they're doing won't quite breach the potential plaintiff's "hassle factor" level. It's a shame, because that hassle factor could be several thousands of dollars. People work hard. This stuff needs to be taken seriously.

Unless you can cite the law that makes this a criminal offence your assurances are valueless. Surely after 25 years you should know by now what law you are relying on?

Something doesn't need to be a CRIMINAL offense for it to be "illegal." I think that's maybe a big part of this disagreement?

[mgh 89]

You agree that anything that attempts to bypass copy protection is illegal. I point out it is indeed possible for a gauge to have copy protection that doesn't allow gauge modification. Based on that, the only way to modify the gauge and still use it is to bypass the copy protection... which is illegal. I don't have to cite any law at all, since you already agreed on the base premise that bypassing copy protection is illegal.Just an FYI... you wouldn't win in a court of law. You can't stand there and demand that someone prove/disprove your argument. If you believe your claims, it's up to you to prove them. Period.

If a file is copy protected then it is a criminal offence to circumvent it. But that is a special case - this thread has been about gauge files in general.As far as I am aware, none of the gauge files on my PC are copy protected - so there can be no question of my circumventing copy protection in order to modify a gauge file.I would suceed in court because there are two elements in proving a criminal offence:

1. you must prove that the accused did what he's accused of
2. you must prove that that what he did is a criminal offence known to the law

I have been trying to establish the second - that there is an offence known to the law. You have been unable to establish that. I'll ask again: If I modify a gauge file that does not have copy protection, what US criminal law would I have broken?A simple citation will do - Title ? Chapter ? Section ?

[WarpD 824]

I'll ask again: If I modify a gauge file that does not have copy protection, what US criminal law would I have broken?

That is not what I stated. You can't modify your 'case' halfway through the process in an attempt to 'win'.Nor have I ever stated criminal law has been violated. I stated it could be illegal.It is illegal to do 60mph in a 55mph zone... however, it is not considered a criminal offense. You don't end up with a criminal record for being ticketed for it.You really might want to rethink... um... how you think? :(Oh... and if you really insist... go read the Copyright Act. It's a law. Violation of any law is illegal. Read the exact definition of a copyright from that law. Read the legal rights of the copyright holder as defined by that law. Read carefully, and note any and all exceptions to rights regarding copyrights in that law.I hope that you will be able to notice that modification of software is completely and totally under control of the copyright holder according to the law. Thus, doing so violates the law.

[matta757 0]

It's not illegal to modify them for personal use.In many cases, you can use a standard PE file editor to extract bitmaps or sound files, modify them, and them reinsert them into the gauge file. The reinserted section has to be exactly the same size as the original, though.If it's an FSX gauge file that's been signed by the author it's a little more complicated, as FSX won't load the gauge if it's modified after being signed. After making your modification you have to remove the digital signature from the .gau or .dll file, and then FSX will load it (after asking you if the unsigned file is OK). You can use a freeware python program called disitool.py to remove the digital sig from executables when you do those sorts of mods.RegardsBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

Bob,THANK YOU soooo much! I have finally figured out how to access the .WAV files and couldn't have done it without yours or Dai's help. Thank you so much to the both of you. I am sorry to have started such a commotion over legal issues with this thread, I didn't realize that by modifying aircraft that I have purchased legally for my own personal use (and no redistribution) could be such a major issue.Regards,Matt

[WarpD 824]

Bob,THANK YOU soooo much! I have finally figured out how to access the .WAV files and couldn't have done it without yours or Dai's help. Thank you so much to the both of you. I am sorry to have started such a commotion over legal issues with this thread, I didn't realize that by modifying aircraft that I have purchased legally for my own personal use (and no redistribution) could be such a major issue.Regards,Matt

You don't own it, you have a limited use license, not ownership. Take the time to read the EULA. It seems everyone believes they own software. It hasn't been that way since the first EULA came out. You can never own a copyrighted work without being the copyright holder. Despite what Bob is telling you... the EULA you agreed to dictates whether or not you can modify the gauge.

[mgh 89]

That is not what I stated. You can't modify your 'case' halfway through the process in an attempt to 'win'.Nor have I ever stated criminal law has been violated. I stated it could be illegal.It is illegal to do 60mph in a 55mph zone... however, it is not considered a criminal offense. You don't end up with a criminal record for being ticketed for it.You really might want to rethink... um... how you think? wink.gifOh... and if you really insist... go read the Copyright Act. It's a law. Violation of any law is illegal. Read the exact definition of a copyright from that law. Read the legal rights of the copyright holder as defined by that law. Read carefully, and note any and all exceptions to rights regarding copyrights in that law.I hope that you will be able to notice that modification of software is completely and totally under control of the copyright holder according to the law. Thus, doing so violates the law.

I haven't changed my argument halfway through. I made my point abount being criminal some post ago.

... illegal in the sense of being criminal.

We are agreed then that modifying a gauge is not a criminal.I have read the copyright law in both the US and the UK. It defines the rights of the copyright owner, and to gives him the right to compensation for actual damages incurred if those rights are infringed. It does not say that you may not infringe those rights - it says if you do you must expect to pay compensation. There are many other instances where you have to pay damages as a result of your act - for example, inadvertently reversing a car into something and damaging it - but that doesn't make the act illegal.