Defeating Pirates should not be a chore for honest buyers

[mgh 89]

Yes, software companies allow you to return the software for a full refund if you don't agree to the EULA. Most every EULA I've seen allows for that. It's the 'middleman' that doesn't, the retailer. That stems from piracy. People would go into stores and purchase software, take it home and install it. Then they would return it to the store and want their money back. Last I checked, unopened software packages are still returnable via retailers. So... once again, piracy is the actual cause of the problem.

I appreciate the reasoning but the end result is that buyers are compelled to accept the terms of an agreement they've had no opportunity to read. I wouldn't accept that in any other transaction - would you? Sign here then I'll show you what you've agreed to!Anyway, there is a solution. Remember when software came on floppy disks? The EULA was in the box and the disks were in a sealed envelope with a sticky label saying "Opening this envelope means you have accepted the EULA" or words to that effect. The same principle could be applied to CDs/DVDs in their cases.Incidentally my FSX case says "You must accept the enclosed licence agreement" This is wrong on two counts. (1) I don't have to accept it - the actual agreement says I don't. (2) The agreement isn't enclosed - there are product keys, FSX Insider Information, guides for FSX and Acceleration, leaftlet with instructions in eight languages other than English but no agreement. It's hidden on Disk 1 under \program files\Microsoft Games\Flight Simulator X\eula.rtf

[WarpD 824]

I am not responsible for other companies decisions and you can't hold me accountable for them.I know why you can no longer return opened software... blaming the developer(s) for the selfish acts of others is misdirected. Piracy causes the problem. Period.

[scoob 18]

all this talk of automated cross-filed download systematic auto-click background updating and confirmation that 'im to busy to hit the 'install button' matched with a why don't you do it like the console games seems to forget one BIG HUGE GIANT thing -the money that the smallest console game company spends on advertising for one release is greater than than the GROSS INCOME of all FS addon developers in the last ten years.FS addons, especially for the higher fidelity aircraft, is not 'big money' and 'mega business'. the developers, in general, run a business model that is built out of love for a hobby and not for a high return on investment'. (in most cases FS addons are a zero return on investment project because the payment per hour of work is in the pennies.)--

[Guest veeray]

the money that the smallest console game company spends on advertising for one release is greater than than the GROSS INCOME of all FS addon developers in the last ten years.--

Yeah and guess what you guys still charge the same. Otherwise compared to "console content" most FS products would account for less than a dollars worth of content and is still delivered with bugs.

[WarpD 824]

Yeah and guess what you guys still charge the same. Otherwise compared to "console content" most FS products would account for less than a dollars worth of content and is still delivered with bugs.

Clearly you don't like developers, you don't like commercial products. Why are you here? This thread isn't for people to pick fights, which clearly you are intending to do.

[sluggy 3]

Yeah and guess what you guys still charge the same. Otherwise compared to "console content" most FS products would account for less than a dollars worth of content and is still delivered with bugs.

I'm certainly no developer, but I'm yet to buy a product from a reputable developer that wasn't worth the price of admission. To say most FS addons deliver less than a dollars worth of content is just plain idiocy, and pretty offensive to the developers out there that have transformed FS from a fun piece of software into a certified classic.Don't worry you developers out there, I can still find time in my busy day to press a button to install your program. Cheers, SLuggy

[Guest veeray]

That's reality folks that's not a spur at any developer. Seriously as they say you guys need to get out more and see what the console guys are actually selling for $60 bucks when they end up raking in half a billion in sales on one title.

[TPerson 15]

"Basically all the end user is doing is renting the software because it can never be owned."No it isn't rental, not unless that is clearly a condition in the EULA and some kind of renewing fee is paid. In most EULAs the implication is that the end user has the right in perpetuity to run legally-obtained software, but has no intellectual property rights over it (basic copyright law). The contract must be a legal one (so, for example, there can't be terms in the contract that allow the contractor to change the terms of the contract at some future time).If I buy a framed print to hang on the wall, I own it, that actual copy, but I don't own the right to duplicate & distribute it, make derivative works, and so on; but it isn't rented or leased. This would appear to be the case with the bulk of legally purchased software.

I did also say in another post I think this is the type of argument that has been going on for years because sometimes a EULA isn't as easy as black or white.So you want to go there? Okaaaay! Read the following:In recent years, EULA have become more and more broad in the scope of rights they seek to claim for themselves. Modern EULA often seek to limit the rights of the user in copying the software, even for backup purposes, even though 17 USC 117 specifically grants that right to users. Companies claim they are able to do this because 17 USC 117 says that the owner has that right, and companies are claiming that they are actually just renting the software to the user, and so the user never becomes the owner, as such.The law surrounding EULA continues to evolve. It is a very sticky area, and many courts have disagreed at the lower levels. The Supreme Court has lain down very little precedent in the area of EULA, and when they intervene they tend to do so with great caution, leaving the entire realm quite gray.If you like read "What is a EULA" and "What is Software Piracy" over at WiseGeeks:http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-an-eula.htmhttp://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-software-piracy.htmTodd

[Raindance 25]

I'm certainly no developer, but I'm yet to buy a product from a reputable developer that wasn't worth the price of admission. To say most FS addons deliver less than a dollars worth of content is just plain idiocy, and pretty offensive to the developers out there that have transformed FS from a fun piece of software into a certified classic.Don't worry you developers out there, I can still find time in my busy day to press a button to install your program. Cheers, SLuggy

For what it's worth I'll second that. Fiscal constraints mean I mostly have to go with freeware (whose developers I salute unreservedly), but I do buy the occasional payware product, and thanks guys for putting it out there -- there's probably more reliable hourly-basis money made shoving boxes in a packing depot (done that crap) than turning out add-ons for what is, ultimately, a minority virtual sport. I don't mind clicking the buttons either :(

[Raindance 25]

I did also say in another post I think this is the type of argument that has been going on for years because sometimes a EULA isn't as easy as black or white.So you want to go there? Okaaaay! Read the following:In recent years, EULA have become more and more broad in the scope of rights they seek to claim for themselves. Modern EULA often seek to limit the rights of the user in copying the software, even for backup purposes, even though 17 USC 117 specifically grants that right to users. Companies claim they are able to do this because 17 USC 117 says that the owner has that right, and companies are claiming that they are actually just renting the software to the user, and so the user never becomes the owner, as such.The law surrounding EULA continues to evolve. It is a very sticky area, and many courts have disagreed at the lower levels. The Supreme Court has lain down very little precedent in the area of EULA, and when they intervene they tend to do so with great caution, leaving the entire realm quite gray.If you like read "What is a EULA" and "What is Software Piracy" over at WiseGeeks:http://www.wisegeek....-is-an-eula.htmhttp://www.wisegeek....ware-piracy.htmTodd

"..and companies are claiming that they are actually just renting the software to the user, and so the user never becomes the owner, as such."Heh. Companies can, and do, claim all sorts of things, but high court rulings are the determining factor, which is why digital media corporations tend not to want to see these arguments actually to get to the point of a legal judgement -- they quite like the blurry grey area within which they can scarily operate, knowing (hoping) that their legal departments can monster their way out of threatened trouble before it comes to court rulings.None of this really applies at the level of FS content providers & users though.

[TPerson 15]

None of this really applies at the level of FS content providers & users though.

Why not?Todd

[sluggy 3]

That's reality folks that's not a spur at any developer. Seriously as they say you guys need to get out more and see what the console guys are actually selling for $60 bucks when they end up raking in half a billion in sales on one title.

I won't deny that perhaps I need to get out more, but don't you think that the market for a console game is just a tiny bit bigger than the FS addon market. By a factor of, say, a million or so? For Eaglesoft (for example, since they are involved in this thread) to 'rake in half a billion in sales' I'd imagine they'd have to sell a couple million copies of a product. As good as their SR22 or Citation II are, I don't think there's a couple of million FS users interested in those particular birds. I think you'd be surprised how small the FS addon market really is. I know I'm surprised at the quality of the addon market, both the standard of product and the range we've got to choose from. And I guarantee I'll get more than $60 worth of use from an addon GA or heavy metal addon than if I bought the latest console sensation.But all this is off the track of what this thread started off about. And the solution is not to remove the DRM or have a 'bill of rights', but to maintain your system and use a common sense approach to using addons. We simmers are a cut above the average gamer, I thought? :( When you see threads on what's the best defrag program, or what driver is best for a certain graphics card on a certain OS, you'd think that we'd also know about backing up a system so we DIDN'T have to spend our precious time reinstalling all our addons, only to find that we'd stuffed it all up again.Cheers, SLuggy

[mgh 89]

I am not responsible for other companies decisions and you can't hold me accountable for them.I know why you can no longer return opened software... blaming the developer(s) for the selfish acts of others is misdirected. Piracy causes the problem. Period.

You can't expect the rest of us to give up our rights to protect your rights - piracy or not.

[WarpD 824]

You can't expect the rest of us to give up our rights to protect your rights - piracy or not.

I don't recall expecting that at all. Retailers are not the developers. Retailers are refusing returns. Perhaps you should actually lay the 'blame' where it truly lies?Oh, and your rights don't override my rights.... it's called balance, and it seems that's something everyone forgets with regards to rights. NO ONE's rights overrides anyone elses rights. Balance.

[mgh 89]

I don't recall expecting that at all. Retailers are not the developers. Retailers are refusing returns. Perhaps you should actually lay the 'blame' where it truly lies?Oh, and your rights don't override my rights.... it's called balance, and it seems that's something everyone forgets with regards to rights. NO ONE's rights overrides anyone elses rights. Balance.

The EULA is a agreement between the developer and the buyer - separate from that between the retailer and the buyer. If the buyer can't accept the developers EULA then it's the developer's responsibility give a refund. How many developers follow Microsoft's example and say:"By using the software, you accept these terms. If you do not accept them, do not use the software. Instead, return it to the retailer for a refund or credit. If you cannot obtain a refund there, contact Microsoft or the Microsoft affiliate serving your country for information about Microsoft’s refund policies".I know there's no problem with developers who use the Flight1 wrapper but what about all the others?Rights are detemined by the law which decides on the balance. If the law decides I have a legal right to a refund then you don't have the legal right to refuse it.