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

Bob, a few courses at university hardly qualify you to make legal arguements as to what others can or cannot legally do with software.Every legal and antipiracy thread I've ever participated in brings forth the "closet lawyers" from the community who endlessly argue the pros/cons and relative merits until the rest of us have a headache. :( I have all the legal advice I need readily at hand and would hardly come to an FS Forum where they practice "Barbershop Law" if I really wanted to know about a legal question.Let's agree that you are not a legal authority even if you did stay at a Holiday Inn last night. :(

Bob, a few courses at university hardly qualify you to make legal arguements as to what others can or cannot legally do with software.Every legal and antipiracy thread I've ever participated in brings forth the "closet lawyers" from the community who endlessly argue the pros/cons and relative merits until the rest of us have a headache. :( I have all the legal advice I need readily at hand and would hardly come to an FS Forum where they practice "Barbershop Law" if I really wanted to know about a legal question.Let's agree that you are not a legal authority even if you did stay at a Holiday Inn last night. :(

So what's your point here? One has to be a lawyer to be able to use something they buy, or to use their common sense? That people should quake in fear when a petty tyrant with an absurd legal claim (anyone remember a guy named Peter Tishma??) wishes to reach into their homes or offices?I quote the law and cite cases, but you choose instead to go for the personal attack. This is classic ad hominem subterfuge--the common response resorted to when one lacks capacity to argue on the merits and facts. Thinking people can see that. Coercion by corporate bullies trying to force people into compliance with their overreaching terms and conditions by intentionally overstating their legal rights is a common and recurring problem. I don't need to convince the bully, but rather I am trying to reach the bullied.Once again, modding a legally-acquired gauge file for aesthetics on your own PC (bitmaps, sound, interoperability with other gauges etc) is legal. If you have an argument to the contrary, make it. Bob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

Hmmm, modding gauges for personal use is legal because Bob says so or because Bob cites obscure case text?Sounds like you may be trying to set legal precedent in an FS Forum rather than before the proper Authority.Really Bob, you might want to consider dropping the free legal advice to the "bullied" until you are actually a member of the Bar.This is starting to wear thin... :(

Hmmm, modding gauges for personal use is legal because Bob says so or because Bob cites obscure case text?Sounds like you may be trying to set legal precedent in an FS Forum rather than before the proper Authority.Really Bob, you might want to consider dropping the free legal advice to the "bullied" until you are actually a member of the Bar.This is starting to wear thin... :(

The law is the relevant portion of the DCMA in Title 17, and the case I cited here is actually well-known in academic studies of application of copyright laws to software. The funny thing is that when you call out the exaggerations and misinformation, and point people to what the law actually says, some truth is exposed. If you look upthread you'll see that Ed wrote that copyright law says nothing about modification, so in response I posted the text...taken verbatim from the law...and lo and behold, it says that adaptation of software is indeed permitted. You can try to color it otherwise all day...the words are still there. You can throw rocks at me all you want...the words are still there.I learned to do my own legal research when I was a new field-grade staff officer in the AF and I had a GAO auditor trying to make a name for himself by raking one of my programs over the coals. I took away a couple things from the experience: very few people take the time to do their own research (and as a result have an incomplete understanding of the operating environment), and the law often doesn't say what other people are telling you it says.Legal advise? No, I'm offering an educated opinion that I think it's wrong to call software adaptation "illegal" when it in fact is provided for specifically in the relevant law as a legally permitted use. Just in case you didn't get it the first time, the actual law: 17 USC 117CheerioBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

Here is the section of 17 USC 117 you claim gives you the right to change software:"

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 suppose on that basis, opinions on other matters by those who aren't qualified pilots, aircraft engineers, air traffic controller, etc are are just so much uninformed, amateur BS?

Bob and MGH,Let's all agree that OPINION is NOT Law shall we? Despite Bobs vast knowledge and experience in the AF and at University it is rather clear that all of this "Barbershop Law" boils down to not much more than another exchange of OPINIONS in an FS Forum.As mentioned before, I have all the legal advice I could ever neeed at my disposal and would suggest that those who have a real case pending should ignore the "legal opinions" as set forth in FS Forums. :(

I am curious... why does 'mgh' hide?? :(

I am curious... why does 'mgh' hide?? :(

I don't hide - nor do I have any need to revert to personal attacks to try to make my case.

Violation of a law is illegal.

Section 106 defines the rights of the copyright holder. Section sets out the remedies for infringing those rights. Nowhere does the law say that infringing those rights is illegal. There is a good reason for this. Lawmakers avoid making acts illegal unless they can be enforced and sanctions imposed. Otherwise it brings the law into contempt if it's seen to be flouted with impunuity. That's a fairly fundamental principle of law makingSection 504 deals with the rights to damages and property. However it states "The copyright owner is entitled to recover the actual damages suffered by him or her as a result of the infringement, and any profits of the infringer that are attributable to the infringement .." This means in the case of infringement for purely private and personal infringement that no damages will be awarded - the copyright owner hasn't suffered any actual damge and the infringer hasn't made any profit. That's why it isn't enforceable and is not made illegal. It's not the difficulty of taking action that deters people - it's the fact that a court would not impose sanctions. Millions of people every day down load copyright pages from the internet and then print them to look at later. I have and I guess every one has. On your interpretation we all all doing illegal acts - copying is an exclusivee right of the copyright holder. The law realises that there is no way it could take any action which is why the law doesn't make it illegal. The law isn't such an &@($* as some people think!

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

EULAs have been defeated - see SoftMan Products Co. v. Adobe Systems Inc, Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology,and Novell, Inc. v. CPU Distrib., Inc, where US courts held that the transactions constituted sales and not a license, and therefore that the first sale doctrine applied. In SoftMan Products Co. v. Adobe Systems Inc, Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc the court said that "a single payment for a perpetual transfer of possession is, in reality, a sale of personal property and therefore transfers ownership of that property, the copy of the software. "

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.

US Copyright Law. section 1099(a) states "Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord.". See also my point above relating to the EULAs that have been defeated in court.

Yes... you hide... and if you feel that's a personal attack... then it merely proves my point further. No name, no profile. You hide. Through the years I've found that those who want be anonymous have agendas and they are usually counter to the collective 'good'. So... how about using your real name... just the first. Show you're not hiding. :(Regarding your case lists... the little snippets you tossed up do certainly indicate that the EULA was defeated. Except... like most stories... there's a lot more to it than that.1 - One case showed that the EULA wasn't even in effect because the software had never been installed, you can't void that which isn't even in effect.2 - The other cases showed that restriction of transfer of license/ownership rights by a EULA was not enforceable. It did not defeat the entire EULA, in fact in subsequent cases the courts upheld that only the parts of the EULA that attempted to override the Copyright laws were void.3 - Not all courts agree with the claim that selling a license is selling physical property... thus that's neither a win nor a loss on either side.It is, in fact, normal for contracts/licenses and agreements to have the legal standing of not being voided completely simply because a given section is considered void.So... no, the EULA still stands.

Does anyone know of a program that can open and edit gauge (.gau) files? I am trying to edit some gauges but cannot open them. Any help is greatly appreciated!Thanks,Matt

Why don't the Administrators end this thread. It has become a real fiasco! You asked a valid question and it has been answered but some want to make it a stupid legal issue. Regards, Bob.

The adaptation is what you're claiming you can do as you please because this paragraph says so. Except... "essential step" is required to be met. Changing bitmaps for asthetic purposes is a difficult 'sell' as an "essential step". FYI... that section is not part of the DMCA of 1998 which is actually just Appendix A of Title 17. :(As for citing actual cases... you haven't. That would actually require court document references... actual case numbers, etc.... not just ambiguous claims.

First you tell us that the law says nothing on the subject, and now you're interpreting the language you say isn't there? How quaint.If it's essential for me, the user, to use the software as I intend on my machine, that meets the requirements of essential. Again, I challenge you to find us a court case anywhere that has the courts intruding on a customer's ability to use the software they have paid to acquire. OTOH, there actually is court precedent where reverse engineering for the purpose of making one company's program compatible with another has been held as a fair use of copyrighted material.As far as citing actual cases, see my post #36 in this thread, re: Step Savers Data Systems, Inc vs Wyse Technology (939 F.2d 91) That's a specific case, nothing ambiguous there.

Bob and MGH,Let's all agree that OPINION is NOT Law shall we? Despite Bobs vast knowledge and experience in the AF and at University it is rather clear that all of this "Barbershop Law" boils down to not much more than another exchange of OPINIONS in an FS Forum.As mentioned before, I have all the legal advice I could ever neeed at my disposal and would suggest that those who have a real case pending should ignore the "legal opinions" as set forth in FS Forums. :(

I will if you will. That means you and your minions not showing up whenever the topic comes up telling people that software adaptation is "illegal." That's your opinion, and not the law. Which is my point exactly.RegardsBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

Yes... you hide... and if you feel that's a personal attack... then it merely proves my point further. No name, no profile. You hide. Through the years I've found that those who want be anonymous have agendas and they are usually counter to the collective 'good'. So... how about using your real name... just the first. Show you're not hiding. :(Regarding your case lists... the little snippets you tossed up do certainly indicate that the EULA was defeated. Except... like most stories... there's a lot more to it than that.1 - One case showed that the EULA wasn't even in effect because the software had never been installed, you can't void that which isn't even in effect.2 - The other cases showed that restriction of transfer of license/ownership rights by a EULA was not enforceable. It did not defeat the entire EULA, in fact in subsequent cases the courts upheld that only the parts of the EULA that attempted to override the Copyright laws were void.3 - Not all courts agree with the claim that selling a license is selling physical property... thus that's neither a win nor a loss on either side.It is, in fact, normal for contracts/licenses and agreements to have the legal standing of not being voided completely simply because a given section is considered void.So... no, the EULA still stands.

...and some courts hold that federal copyright statute preempts EULA contract clauses, too.Glad to see you finally acknowledging that some EULA provisions have already been overturned in court. They're not nearly as bulletproof as your earlier post made them out to be.And now we're back to the ad hominem personal stuff, this time with you attacking MGH for his user name rather than his argument. Once again, that's a clear sign of a losing position in a discussion. Don't like the message? Then smear the messenger.RegardsBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

Yep... wanting to know who someone is when talking with them is a smear. :(As far as the rest of your post, you're repeating yourself and there's no reason to respond to that since I responded to it the first time.

Yep... wanting to know who someone is when talking with them is a smear. :(

Whether the guy uses his initials, a made-up name (all names are made up, actually) or an unpronouncable string of letters and numbers, it's irrelevant to the discussion. "MGH" is as good a name as "Mike" in this sort of forum.

As far as the rest of your post, you're repeating yourself and there's no reason to respond to that since I responded to it the first time.

Thank God.Bob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO