Sign in to follow this  
Guest lawyerpilot

Please excuse my ignorance, but can we rewrite the executable

Recommended Posts

There's a no_cd patch available for FS9 which circumvents the CD check.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Or you can make a virtual CD/Drive with "Virtual CD".Tho' this is copying the CD- I don't believe it contravenes copyright because - 1- it's for your own use and to protect CD4, and - 2- you still can't actually copy the image to a CDR.( in other words - the image remains only on your PC - you can't copy it and sell it even if you wanted to)Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a legal perspective, should you ever find yourself in trouble with the Justice Department, moving data to another storage unit, (for example, let's say CD4 became scratched beyond use) but you could still copy it over to your harddrive, could easily be argued as a valid purpose, as the copyright infringement clause in the EULA is there to protect revenue for Microsoft...not to make your life hell.....period.P4 2.81024 DDRAM800 Bus36 gig SATA hardrive80 gig harddriveATI Radeon 9700 ProCH yoke/pedalsElite Multi quadrant19" inch monitor-Soundblaster PCI 512Win XPInstrument rated ASEL -270 hoursAOPALawyerPilots Bar Association"Men without dreams are never free, twas thus this way and thus will ever be."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where is the workaround patch? And I assume that this requires the contents to be loaded over onto the drive with the patch to the executable that is looking for the data in the first place.>>>>P4 2.8>1024 DDRAM>800 Bus>36 gig SATA hardrive>80 gig harddrive>ATI Radeon 9700 Pro>CH yoke/pedals>Elite Multi quadrant>19" inch monitor->Soundblaster PCI 512>Win XP>>Instrument rated ASEL -270 hours>AOPA>LawyerPilots Bar Association>>>"Men without dreams are never free, twas thus this way and>thus will ever be."P4 2.81024 DDRAM800 Bus36 gig SATA hardrive80 gig harddriveATI Radeon 9700 ProCH yoke/pedalsElite Multi quadrant19" inch monitor-Soundblaster PCI 512Win XPInstrument rated ASEL -270 hoursAOPALawyerPilots Bar Association"Men without dreams are never free, twas thus this way and thus will ever be."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so that we can put the disk 4 contents on the harddrive and access it on our computers? Is there a workaround like there was for 2k2?P4 2.81024 DDRAM800 Bus36 gig SATA hardrive80 gig harddriveATI Radeon 9700 ProCH yoke/pedalsElite Multi quadrant19" inch monitor-Soundblaster PCI 512Win XPInstrument rated ASEL -270 hoursAOPALawyerPilots Bar Association"Men without dreams are never free, twas thus this way and thus will ever be."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You deleted Peter's post too. As a legal professional, I am just curious what Avsim has to gain or lose by preventing a no-cd patch from being disseminated. It is legal. It is helpful. And it does not break the EULA or any other copyright laws. But, as you are not the end-user, why are you preventing others from utilizing this legal shortcut that saves time and increases performance of FS9?P4 2.81024 DDRAM800 Bus36 gig SATA hardrive80 gig harddriveATI Radeon 9700 ProCH yoke/pedalsElite Multi quadrant19" inch monitor-Soundblaster PCI 512Win XPInstrument rated ASEL -270 hoursAOPALawyerPilots Bar Association"Men without dreams are never free, twas thus this way and thus will ever be."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just search google with some fitting searchwords to locate the no cd patch. The only thing Microsoft acheives by their strategy is to annoy the average legitimate user, pirates always find a workaround anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's how I found it on the Greenland Flightsim site, but I have to reiterate that a no-cd patch is not pirating. Pirating is illegal use for profit, or giving something away for free to another user without just compensation (more or less). We are simply achieving a better delivery system for our own use that affects no other users or MS. Some people overclock cards, some people choose to have data on harddrive. Another example would be the downloading of payware aircraft. Some like downloading, some like CD. Some like to put their panels on two different monitors, on two different systems, with WideFS (which prevents having to use two different copies of FS) Is that pirating, because it is not on the original system? No. And AVSIM SUPPORTS WIDEFS HEAVILY!P4 2.81024 DDRAM800 Bus36 gig SATA hardrive80 gig harddriveATI Radeon 9700 ProCH yoke/pedalsElite Multi quadrant19" inch monitor-Soundblaster PCI 512Win XPInstrument rated ASEL -270 hoursAOPALawyerPilots Bar Association"Men without dreams are never free, twas thus this way and thus will ever be."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"It is legal. It is helpful. And it does not break the EULA or any other copyright laws...."No offense, but that's a legal interpretation that would put me out of business. One of the reasons our legal budget is so dang high--because there's always a lawyer willing to haul us into court trying to tell us what rights we don't have--thinking we'll balk at the expense of taking the issue to court. Wrong....A hack of Microsoft's code is a violation of copyright, and a criminal act. Allowing the passing of information about that hack on a website could be construed as aiding and abetting. I won't even argue the point beyond that, but if you want to challenge Microsoft or my company, feel free to have at it... Otherwise, this isn't a courtroom, and I suspect I'm as highly trained in the legalities of my profession as you are yours... I bristle when I see posts like this, and believe it or not, I'm "containing" myself....:-8 :-8 :-8 And a short edit--I am by no means slamming those who use the hack--just those that say it is "legal", as such fallacy hits me in my pocketbook...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John, I respect your post, and as I have before and will continue to do so, I will admit when I am wrong. And I was just about to say that you were in fact right. Until I thought of one point. About 30% of the files in Avsim's libraries, are modifications to files that MS originated. For example, a Lear Cockpit VC color correction. That isa modification of a FS9 file (code) that was created by MS, but is now being offered to the community, and endorsed by Avsim who carries it on the site, for others to use. The same thing goes with texture corrections, scenery enhancements, lighting corrections, clouds (FSW), etc. The difference between right and wrong however, many times is found in the fact that no one is profiting from them. FSW lighting and cloud corrections are based on MS code. Yes, some companies use the authorized SDK to make changes, but many do not. They simply modify a file that makes our world better, and can be used by any user as an add-on. When you overwrite the file that you are replacing, like a new moon, etc., you are as the end-user, changing the "code" that makes up the sim, and changing, however small, the structure of the sim on your machine, and how it operates. Thus, if you want to get technical about it, almost 100% of the Avsim commnunity has "hacked the code" of MS at one time or another. Furthermore, as GM has a copyright on the GM symbol, there is nothing to say that you,a s the owner of your car, can't spraypaint that symbol, tear it off, and hang it from your rearview window, or wear it as a necklace. That is a different use of the copyrighted material, but not one that is a violation. In that case you could even sell the symbol if you wanted to. Nothing prevents me from selling a copyrighted material to someone either. I.e. In the Avsim buy-sell forum, people sell the software that they have purchased all the time. They just can't copy it and give it away to others for free. Unlike yourself, I am in the business of trying to interpret language. And furthermore, I am trying to find the truest answer without antagonizing other people. I am a thinker, a dreamer, and a seeker of efficient, honest solutions. Even if you are right, you took an incredibly wrong tack to the situation. I am not sure if that is how you run your business, but I sincerely hope not. I simply like to offer solutions and then through feedback, attempt to find one that suits as many people as possible. I love to problem solve. And, that is what I am doing. This hobby, and site, is about trying to come up with creative solutions to move forward and make it as real as possible. I hope to continue to do that and help all of those in the community who spend A LOT of time doing what we love to do.Thank you to all who have lent a helping hand in the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was a well crafted response to my post--and thanks for recognizing my emotion in the matter--I went out on a limb.You have a very valid point.... I think the difference though, is that Microsoft doesn't see a risk in someone using the Lear as a default for a repaint, or flight dynamics improvements. But allowing hacks that could allow people to freely pirate software, and not prosecuting those responsible for distributing them is a risk I wouldn't take. And I do run my business with a heavy hand--not against my staff, but I have used all our resources to put hackers out of business..... We have a different system of copy protection--key based. Personally, I feel that's enough. I'm not worried about the person who wants to run my software on his home system and his laptop (it's financial software anyway, and meant for servers :) ). I'm worried about the person who wants all his buddies to have it too. By using the key system, we've traced the few who've tried to make a "business" of our business. Edit : Every time a key is distributed publicly, the next build incorporates that key and locks down the software involved, and transmits the user information back to my home office. Why Microsoft chose not to do this is beyond me--but I suspect they'd rather not hire any lawyers and waste as little resources as possible tracking people who steal their software. It backfired, and legit users are caught in the crossfire.Still, going back to software copyright, the courts have protected the software industry. If they didn't, no one could make money in the business. You'd have users all over the place making slight mods to code and pirating it right and left. And the same goes for a book of poetry, or "Star Wars". I'm not allowed to deface those and distribute it on my own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>A hack of Microsoft's code is a violation of copyright, and a criminal act.http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/images/wxrebeta.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With all due respect, the assertion that files in the library some how make valid the argument that AVSIM should allow discussion of and links to cracks doesn't hold water. They are two very different things. The crack under discussion, and the link that we will always remove, is intended to render MS' copy protection scheme useless. Whether it has a collateral benefit of making life for the user easier is also irrelevant. Send us a check for $50,000 and put in writing that you will further indemnify and protect AVSIM against all lawsuits and prosecution for linking to or providing a crack, and we'll happily do as you suggest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gosta...I'm glad you joined the discussion.... I'm curious about this statement:"As far as free distribution of such a crack goes, recent court decisions would indicate that this is not actionable."Do you have any links supporting that? I'd like to know the circumstances. Here's an example: imagine someone who defeats a reg key system by running code through a debugger. The intent: simple piracy--the desire to run the code throughout an internal WAN, which would cause a loss of approx. $40k in revenue to the distributor. You are saying that's not actionable? I know it is in the US.... The problem with the cracks is they may have a personal, private use for archival purposes, but most often they serve a public, criminal use for pirates. I suspect those making them aren't doing it out of the desire to see our rights to archiving protected. -John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi John,>Edit : Every time a key is distributed publicly, the next build incorporates that key and locks down the software involved, and transmits the user information back to my home office.http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/images/wxrebeta.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi John,depending on the nature of the crack, it may well not be actionable - in your example, I would have a look at the fact that the crack generates a key, this may go beyond what's permissible. However, in any case, the piracy itself is a criminal offence - you can certainly go after the person who used the crack for illegal purposes, but not neccessarily after the author of the crack. One of the cases that springs to mind was in Norway a couple of months ago, which dealt with a program circumventing DVD copy protection. This was widely reported in other countries as well - I'll try and find a link for you. Other (civil) cases I know of are from German courts, I'll see if I can find English translations.>I suspect those making them aren't doing it out of the desire to see our rights to archiving protected.:). This is where it becomes somewhat foggy. Recent legislation in Germany, explicitly forbids commercial copying services for media other than paper, i.e. you can open a photocopy shop, but not a CD or DVD copy shop. Although I haven't seen many 'Kinko DVD' shops around, there are businesses that would be affected, for example video shops that convert your camcorder tape to normal VHS etc. How this legislation would affect programs like CloneCD is anyone's guess. Prima facie, I would say that it does not constitute a service (unless it charges on a pay-per-use basis). How this works out in pratice, remains to be seen.In the case of the hacker, you'd have to establish intent, i.e. show that the crack was developed primarily for piracy purposes, then you can go after him, otherwise your legalrecourse will be limited to the person who is using the pirated software. Another thing, it's very important to separate between private and corporate use - as far as businesses go, software companies have a lot more legal powers to regulate the use of their software, and they can prohibit the making of backup copies (an alternative safeguard may be required, such as a service agreement). Consequently, cracks for corporate use are illegal. So, someone who distributes a crack for a software that has no real purpose for individual users (for example, some accounting software that compiles an annual income statement for public companies), may be deemed to act as a pirate.Cheers,Gosta.http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/images/wxrebeta.jpg EDIT: I found a link to a BBC report about the Norwegian case, unfortunately the only proper legal documentation I could find was on legal subscription sites, so I can't post the links here.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/2635293.stm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our key system is based on simple info--a unique user name, address, phone number, and one other component which I can't discuss. All that info generates a lock code, which can be phoned or emailed or even snail mailed to our team. We run it through our software and generate a key code.We could have locked it down more, but I don't care for online activation schemes, IP based schemes, or HW key based schemes. In the field I still run into clients running Novell and DOS based apps dating back to the early 90's--businesses don't retool as often as simmers do.Also, I know my customers, and they see any threat to 24x7 ops as reason to go with another provider. Use a HW key, and swap out a mainboard or cpu, and you make a bad issue even worse for someone w/downtime.We do have a "squealer" feature. I didn't code any of this (wouldn't know how), but I did help spec it. Basically, if someone attempts to deploy over multiple workstations by using the same key in an internal WAN, we'll know about it. And we let it happen--for a period of time. After which, one of our sales people calls and says "I see the product's exceeded your expectations" :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom, Fair enough. While I have good intentions and others do I'm sure, I did forget that this renders the copy protection element useless, and others may not want to simply limit their use of the DVD. Anyway, would it be possible to have discussions of where to place the files, without catering to those who want to distribute it or have it for distribution? This may also breach your fine line, but I am curious. BTW, to everyone else, I love a very vigorous well thought out debate any day of the week, and I appreciate all inputs and thoughts that have been expressed.Christopher P4 2.81024 DDRAM800 Bus36 gig SATA hardrive80 gig harddriveATI Radeon 9700 ProCH yoke/pedalsElite Multi quadrant19" inch monitor-Soundblaster PCI 512Win XPInstrument rated ASEL -270 hoursAOPALawyerPilots Bar Association"Men without dreams are never free, twas thus this way and thus will ever be."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi John,> After which, one of our sales people calls and says "I see the product's exceeded your expectations" :). I know what you mean about companies not upgrading very often. Some time ago, I found an old HD lying around, and I did a search on the internet to find out how big and how fast it actually was (1.6GB at a speed of 2000rpm or so, can't remember). I was surprised to find some sites still selling them for quite a lot of money (the same price as a 40-60GB 5400rpm HD). The reason was that older computers can't hadle drives bigger than 2GB and a lot of companies still use that hardware, thus there's still a market...Strange, but true :).Cheers,Gosta.http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/images/wxrebeta.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do a google search forFlight Simulator 2004 v1.0 [ENGLISH] Fixed EXE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for saying this. This is something that I have thought about for a long time and I agree with you 100 percent.Ed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For reasons I think Tom has articulated quite clearly, no :) 5 minutes with Google will point you in the right direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BRAVO!!!This has been one of the most compelling and well thought out threads I have ever read. After so many of the recent "we need a patch" "this sim is horrible" "what was Microsoft thinking" posts, it is nice to read one that is so heated with no one losing their cool and berating the other posters. At times I am ashamed to be a part of this community with the mudslinging and personal attacks. I am proud to be a part of this thread! BTW - If I ever get into legal trouble, I've made note of who I'd like representing me!EddieKSLC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this