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

Problem is, I never stated it was criminal. I stated it was illegal.

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.

Holy rationalizations, Batman! :(

MGH, I stated earlier in this thread that arguing the fine points of Criminal vs Civil Law does not endemnify you if you violate the legal precedents already established.Playing a "Catch 22" game over whether a violation falls under Criminal or Civil Code is short sighted even when you are attempting to legitimize illegal behaviour.Be assured that violations under either code can and should be addressed in courts of jurisdiction to the extent that punitive damages can and should be awarded under either code.There is no "loophole" in your arguement despite your feeble attempt at producing a justification for illegal activity. :(

... It does not say that you may not infringe those rights - it says if you do you must expect to pay compensation.

Wow. That quoted statement is breathtaking in its insanity. Heheh. Anyway, this all goes back to the "is it worth it" and "hassle factor" ideas I mentioned above. Just because Mr. Copyright Holder chooses not to pursue damages, that does not mean that the very same action of the violator is now magically transformed to "justifiable" status. Right? It's not at all like your motor tort analogy, the car backing out.On to the practical side.... Many on this board, including myself, make a portion of their income by selling the rights to software they've created. And, also like myself, I can pretty much guarantee you that each of them has watched in horror as the product they've toiled over is passed effortlessly back in forth on the free... uhm... "file sharing" sites. To watch this, with hands tied, is a REALLY crappy feeling. You feel disrespected, even almost violated in a small way. It may not be true that each copy that's downloaded there would've been a sale, but it's true that every 2nd, 4th, 8th, 16th, or whatever copy would've been. It's real money out of your pocket. It's like just standing there helplessly watching people take cash from your wallet. And there is no remedy, realistically speaking.I share all that not for sympathy (hahah ;-) , but to maybe put some of what's been in this thread into perspective. Consider who is here: many people who are stolen from pretty much on a daily basis. So if words by the "strict copyright" crowd seem reactionary or heavy-handed, I think we all know why. It does feel like "the winter of our discontent" around the boards the last many months. It feels like the thieves are winning. To me it does. So, just sayin', maybe this isn't the best place to ask about circumventing copy protection. ;-)My take: GAU files are compiled, thus not meant to be edited, and I strongly suspect the EULA explicitly prevents that. Still, the main purpose of the EULA is to prevent BIG things like the file sharing scenario I mentioned above. But, editing 1 GAU file for personal use and never distributing it, that is WAY down on the scale of relative wrongs. But it is still technically a violation to some EULA's.

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.

Every time this subject comes up, some software maker appears to assert that their interpretation of the law is absolute and above question. It is, most assuredly, neither.First is the misuse of the word "illegal." The EULA is, by its nature, a contract, and breaking of a contract is not a matter of legal or illegal, but rather one of injury claimed by one party or another than may have to be resolved as a tort in civil court. In order for a litigant to win, he generally has to show that he was injured in some demonstrable and quantifiable way, and he petitions for redress in a court to recover those damages.Second, since 1990 the EULA has been recognized at multiple appellate levels as a technique crafted intentionally to avoid federal copyright statute, and has in a number of cases been overturned on that basis. Just because a shrink-wrap or click-wrap EULA says "you can't use this product with a left-handed mouse without express written permission of the grantee" does not automatically make it enforceable, and there are ample cases where this proves to be the case. An attempt to invoke EULA language to deny a purchaser use of a product as he sees fit is a losing bet.Third, 17 USC 117 allows for adaptation of copyrighted works by a legal user of computer software.The idea of a copyright holder going to the trouble and expense of trying to show that a valid user--one who actually paid him for use of the product--has harmed him in some way by modifying the aesthetics of that software for his own personal use is ludicrous to me, and when the same old voices come around braying about the supposed evils of such behavior, I just can't find it within me to take them very seriously.RegardsBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

U.S. Copyright Law is... well law. The fact you imply it is not is astounding.That law (read that word again, it's significant!) explicitly and without question spells out exactly what is protected with regards to the copyright holder's rights and control of a copyrighted work. It explicitly states that modification is one of those rights that is under absolute control of the copyright holder.Violation of a law is illegal. How can you even begin to think it is otherwise.As for the EULA, it has yet to be defeated in any manner for commercial software.Regarding 17 USC 117, it does not provide exceptions for modification. Not one bit.

U.S. Copyright Law is... well law. The fact you imply it is not is astounding.

I do not imply anything of the sort. But a EULA is a contract, not a part of copyright law.

That law (read that word again, it's significant!) explicitly and without question spells out exactly what is protected with regards to the copyright holder's rights and control of a copyrighted work. It explicitly states that modification is one of those rights that is under absolute control of the copyright holder.

Then provide a citation, please, where it says modification is under the absolute control of the copyright holder. You can't, because it doesn't.

Violation of a law is illegal. How can you even begin to think it is otherwise.

Sorry, but violation of a EULA might be a breach of contract, but it is NOT a violation of law.

As for the EULA, it has yet to be defeated in any manner for commercial software.

Oh yeah, well let's start with Step Savers Data Systems, Inc vs Wyse Technology (939 F.2d 91). EULA clauses have indeed been preempted by the federal statute they try to circumvent.

Regarding 17 USC 117, it does not provide exceptions for modification. Not one bit.

17 USC 117 (a)QUOTEMaking of additional copy or adaptation by owner of copy. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 [17 USC 106], it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:(1)that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or UNQUOTECheerioBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

Give it a rest Bob.The fine points of Contract/Copyright Law and/or Criminal/Civil Law do not intend or permit anyone to circumvent existing restrictions in a legal sense and I suspect that both you and MGH are not only are aware of that fact but are simply playing "legal arguements 101" here. :( The intent of legal restrictions is to ummm....restrict certain types of activity. The fact that endless legal arguements are made with respect to the finer points of existing law does not provide a legal basis to endemnify those who violate not only the letter but the intent of law. :(

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're welcome. And it's not a major issue except in the minds of an overly aggressive few...CheersBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

Give it a rest Bob.The fine points of Contract/Copyright Law and/or Criminal/Civil Law do not intend or permit anyone to circumvent existing restrictions in a legal sense and I suspect that both you and MGH are not only are aware of that fact but are simply playing "legal arguements 101" here. :( The intent of legal restrictions is to ummm....restrict certain types of activity. The fact that endless legal arguements are made with respect to the finer points of existing law does not provide a legal basis to endemnify those who violate not only the letter but the intent of law. :(

No, sorry Ron, I won't give it a rest. How 'bout YOU give it a rest, eh?It's a fact that EULA restrictions have been found unenforceable in previous court cases. It's a fact that just because some arbitrary restriction is in a EULA does not make it carry the force of law. You would like people to believe that, but it's simply not true.The EULA is an industry contrivance to try and circumvent, as you put it, the "letter and the intent" of the copyright law, which permits for example, resale of software paid for by a purchaser under "first sale" doctrine. And the courts tend to be pretty reasonable as to how intrusive they allow use restrictions to be.Cite for us a case where someone, ANYONE has been successfully found guilty of a criminal act or liable in a tort judgment for making aesthetic modifications to a program they acquired legally for their own use on their own computer.We're waiting...Bob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

No, sorry Ron, I won't give it a rest. How 'bout YOU give it a rest, eh?It's a fact that EULA restrictions have been found unenforceable in previous court cases. It's a fact that just because some arbitrary restriction is in a EULA does not make it carry the force of law. You would like people to believe that, but it's simply not true.

Um... EULA restrictions that follow and comply with the U.S. Copyright Law are 100% enforceable and have never, ever been successfully challenged in court.

The EULA is an industry contrivance to try and circumvent, as you put it, the "letter and the intent" of the copyright law, which permits for example, resale of software paid for by a purchaser under "first sale" doctrine. And the courts tend to be pretty reasonable as to how intrusive they allow use restrictions to be.

Inaccurate statement. The copyright law permits a transfer, if the license you purchased allows it... but it does not grant a right to transfer. Even more accurately, it allows you to transfer the license... not sell.

Cite for us a case where someone, ANYONE has been successfully found guilty of a criminal act or liable in a tort judgment for making aesthetic modifications to a program they acquired legally for their own use on their own computer.We're waiting...Bob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

You'll be waiting a long time... I know of no copyright holder who has persued such a claim simply because it's not financially of value. However, the fact no one has doesn't make it unenforceble. Which apparently is the assumption you're making.

Disagreement with any who would take the position that you and MGH have espoused in an FS Forum is hardly an offense to you Bob.While you may post your viewpoint, it is hardly an authoritive view that you or others could count on in a real life situation...As Ed has pointed out, lack of prosecution for illegal practices does not convey legallity to illegal practices. That is simply wrong headed reasoning.It's not like software makers are attempting to track individuals who violate legal precedent for individual use since there is no return to be had. :(

Um... EULA restrictions that follow and comply with the U.S. Copyright Law are 100% enforceable and have never, ever been successfully challenged in court.

I cited one case, which you conveniently side-stepped. There are more.

Inaccurate statement. The copyright law permits a transfer, if the license you purchased allows it... but it does not grant a right to transfer. Even more accurately, it allows you to transfer the license... not sell.

Once again, you are completely confused between your own EULA and the actual law as codified in Title 17. I suggest you read up on case law related to the doctrine of first sale as it applies to copyrighted material.

You'll be waiting a long time... I know of no copyright holder who has persued such a claim simply because it's not financially of value. However, the fact no one has doesn't make it unenforceble. Which apparently is the assumption you're making.

Thank you. You state that you know of no copyright holder who has pursued a claim. Me either. I suggest it's because without financial value to the imaginary damages in such a case, there are no damages to be pursued under tort law. But in any case, without precedent, the enforceability of a restriction which does not affect marketability is very much in question, and more than enough for to raise the BS flag on these continued claims of modifying software on your own PC as being "illegal."RegardsBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

Disagreement with any who would take the position that you and MGH have espoused in an FS Forum is hardly an offense to you Bob.While you may post your viewpoint, it is hardly an authoritive view that you or others could count on in a real life situation...As Ed has pointed out, lack of prosecution for illegal practices does not convey legallity to illegal practices. That is simply wrong headed reasoning.It's not like software makers are attempting to track individuals who violate legal precedent for individual use since there is no return to be had. :(

It's a view that I rely on in real life. It's backed by sufficient formal education and research to be worth some consideration in the face of unsupported claims by others like yourself, who offer non-authoritative viewpoints that fly in the face of both the law (as it's written and not as you imagine it or would like it to be) and of common sense.Over the years, we've seen software developers claim that so much as even altering a .cfg file in their product was an "illegal" mod, and I've even seen a few make inane (yet always empty) threats of prosecution for this supposedly heinous non-crime.This is a wrong-headed, or perhaps more accurately a big-headed, attempt to intrude on the rights of a purchaser to enjoy a product in a way that does no harm to the developer. Certainly thousands of us make modifications to the software we buy or are given, and many advancements in the hobby come as a direct result of that sort of modification. I can't imagine where FS would be without Adam Szofran and Pete Dowson's work on FSUIPC, for example--work which your position here would suggest is "illegal." I guess that's why Microsoft--certainly a company with the resources to defend their position even where there is no direct return to be had from the case in hand--made Pete one of their MVPs and hired Adam after seeing their work, right??Further, I can't imagine what sort of thinking motivates you guys to come in here and tell customers and potential customers that it's a crime to adapt the software they've paid to legally acquire, to work as best it can in their eyes, on their own machines. I view it no differently than the neighborhood "yard ######" that believes their taste in ornamental plants should mandate what everyone else on the block plants behind the fence in their back yards. RegardsBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

I have one question Bob. Are you an attorney licensed to practice law? More to the point, are you an attorney who's specialty is copyright law?If not, then your opinions hold no more nor less validity than anyone else's.As a matter of fact since to my knowledge no one participating in this thread is an attorney, much less one specialized in contract and copyright law, all opinions are just so much uninformed, amateur BS (to borrow your term)......including my own! :(

I have one question Bob. Are you an attorney licensed to practice law? More to the point, are you an attorney who's specialty is copyright law?If not, then your opinions hold no more nor less validity than anyone else's.As a matter of fact since to my knowledge no one participating in this thread is an attorney, much less one specialized in contract and copyright law, all opinions are just so much uninformed, amateur BS (to borrow your term)......including my own! :(

C'mon, Bill, do you also believe that only an ordained priest can discern the difference between right and wrong by reading the Bible? If a poorly-informed Mormon tells me the Bible says it's a sin to drink caffeinated beverages, I don't have to wear robes and a pointy hat to work in order to tell him "no, it does not say that."Course work like that which I've taken in business law, copyrights etc is part of many university curricula. It certainly doesn't make me an expert, any more than going to Sunday School makes someone an expert on the Bible. But it does make me better informed than the average bear.My point is that I am sufficiently well read--and educated--in copyright law to point out to Ron and Ed that "no it does not say that." No JD degree required to issue that challenge.CheersBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO