PART 2: FSD! Im over add-ons with anti-piracy built in.

[Guest Ken_Salter]

Please keep it civil...http://saltydogfly2.avsim.net/images/avsim_sig.jpg

[hangar 661]

why not just come up with a new installer....something like the flight1 wrapper...something that would tie the install routine with the user having to enter several items of personal information that he would not likely give out to friends/neighbors such as credit card#, name and full address...you could sell it on cd ONLY as well and make the user register his personal info with your website so that when he tries to install with the cd, the installer will look for a match of his registered credit card#, expiration date, name AND full address...this will stop the majority of users who wish to SHARE their new toys with friends AND it would make a hackers job alot more difficult to crack all that requested info.To my way of thinking it is less intrusive to check the users hardware instead of his credit card info and address...but that may be an opinion left up to the end user...perhaps you could ofer a choice...the only problem would come in when a user stops/closes a credit card account that he once used for a flightsim purchase...so perhaps the industry could even come up with a universal type of credit/debit card strictly to be used for flightsim purchases online?...a flightsim debit card sounds like a neat idea to me, personally...where the user can credit any amount he wishes to be placed on the card for his online purchses (sort of like paypal does)...noones going to give out their debit card# and expir date along with their names and addresses, tel#'s etc.If all the online flightsim retailers get together on this then perhaps a deal can be worked out with a company like PAYPAL to make up the debit cards to distribute...perhaps avsim could even help...or MS themselves...doesnt sound like a terribly difficult thing to get done but all the online flightsim reatilers would have to agree to accept the card to begin with.Dave

[Gridley 257]

Civil it is! I apologize for reposting this from part one, but I'd personally like to see the thread go in this direction because it is really interesting to me...>>While a department supervisor of an international>corporation>>with approx. 150 computers in my department, I was surprised>>to learn from the IT guys that my MS Office 2000 upgrade on>>ONE computer required an INDIVIDUAL license to be purchased>@>>$650.00 US. I was told at that time that MS can visit>anytime>>they choose and examine INDIVIDUAL licenses for each machine>>and can levy large fines and in extreme cases deny existing>>licenses to the corporation.>>>You've lost me here. What is surprising about that? MS could>come around to my house any time they wish to look at my>licences. Far more preferable than product activation if you>ask me. I'd even put the kettle on for them.I've been lurking through this thread because I find it very interesting. What is being debated has nothing to do with FS or piracy, really. What is at issue is the difference between copyright and patents, and who has the authority to enforce law against abuses of either. Software AUTHORs grant an end-user a license because what is protected is a document - the code. The fact that a machine can use that code to simulate flight has no bearing legally. It is the civil right of the owner of that document do read and interpret it however (s)he feels fit. Whether I need to use this computer or another to make that interpretation is my business (bear with me, I'm speaking in legal perspectives here). Frankly, I'm shocked that anyone would be willing to grant microsoft the authority to police copyright law in any context, be it sending a guy in for tea or requiring activation of the product. This does illustrate a blurring of the law with respect to software. Since the code requires a machine to be of any use, should it be protected by copyright or patent? Its a grey scale. However, its the software developers that must realize that agreeing to this (referring to allowing developer-based tracking of software) shifts that grey away from copyright protection to patentable technology - soon (or never, we'll see) the software you write may not be a legally protected document, but a technology. This has ramafications. Are *you* going to patent an addon for FS? Microsoft will, and then you as the developer have no rights to the design... Great news for companies like intuit. Bad news for FSD. I find it interesting to see where small developers fall on this line. By proactively protecting the document they've created, companies like FSD are strengthening the case of corporations who want to make software a patentable technology. I'm not saying thats wrong, just pointing out that what is being discussed here is far deeper than what you're all reading.To summarize: there are two concurrent arguments here which can be separated.1.) Civil Rights argument - currently, software is considered a document protected by copyright. Does the author have the authority to protect his work by monitoring when/where/how that document is "read"?2.) Legal Definition - Should software be considered a document protected by copyright or a technology protected by patent?Thanks,back to lurking.sg

[Naji 5]

Thanks, Ken, for this second thread; the first was getting pretty congested!>Ian,>>See my post above. We did not know any such thing. >But given the cirumstances, we were certainly entitled to>inquire. It was the inquiry that the person in>question objected to. In a very impolite manner.>>by TimDHi, Tim. If I may put an opinion here: the mere fact of asking the guy to explain his usage can be upsetting; it hints that he might have done something wrong and makes him need to defend himself. Maybe it would be better in such cases to give the customer the benefit of the doubt; I mean how many such excessive requests do you get?I myself have had to install Ultimate Traffic and the Meridian several times for one reason or another, and I wouldn't have liked the developer to ask me to explain why all these installs! In fact the key was reactivated in both cases more than twice without any questions.All the best.

[Guest Bigshot]

Whether he barks or whimpers, the Customer is always right! Always!! No exceptions. The developer is not making any points with me on this one. From what I've read, the customer got hassled, got frustrated, responded in colorful english, and then was proven legitimate. Just apologize and give him a free airplane and let it go. Any good businessman knows that. Don't try to point fingers to satisfy an ego. You'll lose. Everytime!!

[Guest PAtom]

hi folks,interesting threat to read. first let me say that i dont blame fsd for their copyright policy. its up to them how they protect their legal rights. i took some time to figure out the basics. first to say is that we are talking about "standart software". thats a kind of software which is NOT special written or modified for a single person of company. and for this "standart software", the "United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods" is the base on which we are talking about. its accepted in US, german and (as far as i know) all EU nations, that "standart software" is seen as "commercial goods" covered by the CISG. you cannot write EVERYTHING you want into the license agreement and you cannot limit the amount of re-installations of the software done by the original purchaser of the software on his OWN computer. but its also the right of the salesman of the software to cancel the contract if the customer violates the contract. and i think FSD reacted very moderate by sending him an email to explain his requests, special because of the different adresses. so i dont see anything problematic in the way fsd dealed with this situation. i for myself wouldnt buy software which requires unlocking over the internet, just because i fear that the company couldnt exist anymore once i need to unlock, but thats just my personal opinion. cheerstom(ex- project airbus)

[Gridley 257]

>i for myself wouldnt buy>software which requires unlocking over the internet, just>because i fear that the company couldnt exist anymore once i>need to unlock, but thats just my personal opinion. >>cheers>>tom>(ex- project airbus)That's an interesting point - should it be legal for a company to sell an application that would cease to function if that company went out of business?

[Guest pilotsim7828]

Big Shot Is totally Right;1). THE CUSTOMER IS ALLWAYS RIGHT2).IF YOU DONT LIKE RULE # 1 ;REFER TO RULE #2.. The CUSTOMER IS ALLWAYS RIGHT If it was`nt for customer who gave the company thier hard earned money ,THEY WOULD be out of bussinessand for word of mouth to other propective buyers, Let me tell you...Word does get around

[Guest]

My experiences with FSD have been nothing but good. For reasons that are too long and boring to go into I 'lost' all my FSD software. So sent an email to Steve explaining the situation and within two hours had everything I needed to download and set up all the planes. This was despite the fact I had not used FS2002 for probably 8 months or more.They have, and will always have, my custom.Bill

[Guest PAtom]

thats the risk of normal life....think about your car. what would happen if you buy a car and one year later the company is out of busines. no guaratee, no spareparts, no help anymore. thats business.

[Guest product]

My experiences with FSD have all been fantastic- they put out great products with great support. As far as I can tell all they did here was politely question what, on its face, seems like very suspicious activity on the part of one of their customers. They then complied to help him out, regardless of whether they might, in fact, be losing money by doing so. I fail to see the arguments for the other side here, I only wish every add-on firm was as straight up about how they operate and the quality of product they provide to the FS community as FSD.Best,Joel

[Gridley 257]

>Think of your carMaybe that's a bad analogy. If ford went out of business, I could still walk out the door and use my car. Even if something integral went wrong with the car, I could pay to have it fixed without ford being in existance. However, if FSD went under (to keep with the current example), I could not reinstall, and hence never use, their product again...I'm sure an analogy exists, but I'm hard pressed to come up with one outside of a service industry...sg

[Guest PAtom]

>Maybe that's a bad analogy. If ford went out of business, I could still walk out the door and use my car

[Guest Id Rather Be Flying]

"think about your car. what would happen if you buy a car and one year later the company is out of busines. no guaratee, no spareparts, no help anymore. thats business."Anyone have a Yugo for sale?? :-lol

[Gridley 257]

Point well taken!