Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

z4me

Defeating Pirates should not be a chore for honest buyers

Recommended Posts

Guest jahman

Customer Add-On Bill Of Rights of 2011Preamble - We the Customers purchasing Add-Ons for Microsoft FSX, in Order to form a more perfect simulator ecosystem, establish software stability, insure Add-On tranquility, provide for the common re-install of Add-Ons, promote the general Welfare and state-of-mind of the add-on customer and his immediate family, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Personal Computer, do ordain and establish this Customer Add-On Bill Of Rights of 2011.Title I - Add-On InstallationArticle 1. - All Add-Ons to allow for automatic updating via the web.Article 2. - An Add-On update shall never, ever, require the customer to uninstall the Add-On.Article 3. - All Add-Ons to unequivocally read the FSX installation path from the registry.Article 4. - All Add-On installers to allow the customer to install the Add-On in a drive and directory diferent from the drive and directory of FSX.Article 5. - All Add-Ons installers to go silent upon re-install and not ask for activation information and End-User Licensnse Agreement OKs that were provided upon first installation, because as the number of Add-Ons we purchase increases, re-entering activation information and repeatedly clicking EULA OK buttons becomes burdensome.Article 6. - Recognizing the occasional necessity to rebuild an FSX installation due to a storage device crash, an untractable CTD, migration to another operating system or a new PC build, and considering current grievances customers have when rebuilding said FSX installation due to being required by Add-On installers to repeatedly re-enter activation information and clicking on unnecessary EULA and end-of-install OK buttons, thus keeping the customer enslaved to the rebuild task for hours upon hours of untold drudgery an toil without end, keeping the rebuilder from his significant others for the duration of said rebuild process, it is heretoforthwith ordained that all Add-Ons to allow for automated re-installation, without exceptions.Article 7. - All Add-Ons to implement an intelligent uninstaller that removes the Add-On from the computer and restores the state of FSX to the state prior to Add-On uninstall, and never to the state prior to Add-On installation.Article 8. - All Add-On installers to never dump Add-On files of any kind into directories created and owned by FSX, instead creating a sub-directory where necessary clearly identifying the Add-On and place the needed files in that subdirectory.Article 9. - All add-On installers to add comment lines to any and all statements added to fsx.cfg, xml.cfg and other similar FSX configuration files to properly identify the Add-On.Article 10. - When an Add-On is identified in a comment statement, a subdirectory name, the name of the installer or otherwise, the Add-On shall be identified in the following manner: "<DEVELOPPER NAME> - <Add-On Name> v. <Major Version>.<Minor Version>.<Build Number> (Release Date in the format "YYYY-MM-DD")". The developper and Add-On names shall remain invariant as version numbers increase.Title II - Add-On OperationArticle 11. - All Add-Ons to implement switch and knob mouse commands the same way. We the Customers are tired of having to adapt to your general lack of uniformity regarding the use of the mouse when we switch from an aircraft Add-On from one developper to an aircraft from another. Since we recognize standarization will be difficult and individual customer tastes vary, we request you make mouse actions on your aircraft Add-Ons user-configurable, or collectivelt issue a free Add-On that will allow simmers to reconfigure mouse actions for each Add-On.Title III - Add-On ComplianceArticle 12. - Add-On Developers, Resellers, Magazines and Forums to rate Add-Ons as to compliance with the full articles of this Add-On Customer Bill Of Rights of 2011.Hear Ye! Hear Ye! The Add-On Customers Have Spoken! Hear Ye!Cheers,- jahman.

Share this post


Link to post

You do realize that no one who understands software development agrees with you, right? A bill of rights requires something to back up your demands. You have failed to produce anything resembling a solid, valid reason for developers to comply.

Share this post


Link to post

Since my first reply was quickly deleted (sorry mods! :( ), I'll have another go.Retort #2 : You've got to be kidding me.Cheers, SLuggy

Share this post


Link to post
Guest veeray

Actually I don't see the problem here.... most of what Jahman just asked for are REQUIREMENTS for Games for Windows to begin with and you can't get the Logo without..... and you certainly won't be in the new Flight store without them.Get up to speed here if you are a so called developer the documents are only as old as Vista.... GAMES FOR WINDOWS

Share this post


Link to post

.... The other side of the story is some payware developers have the attitude "You'll take it or leave it" Even when the software has bugs in it. bugs that freeware do not have. Or it's simply broken, (not written properly)I have a few , one model, a few switches will not work from the VC , your required to go to the panel view or pop up to get the switch to flip on or off. I found a fix for it on one model, When I wrote the developer they denied the problems I mentioned at first. I pinned them on it they wrote back saying ok yes some reports have indicated a problem ... and this tug of war went back and forth a few times ( long story)in the end I posted a video to prove I found a solution to flip the switches from the VC , they never wrote back asking how I did it.I would have thought they might be interested, I doon't know... so So maybe they could share the info with all the other buyers of the model who are still having to change views to flip the switch ??? )Guess if I'll do business with them again. ....I doubt it will bother them one bit.I think that makes them as much a thief as the people who DL software with out paying for it.PS I don't want to hear about FS limitations. My A2A Strato. has a ton of flipping flipping switches ..... all work from the vc.(and no I didn't duplicate flipping , each has it's own meaning.)Also anyone who would use this as a justification to steal software.... don't. If it ain't yours don't touch it. and if it's shite, well,.... why would you want that?

Share this post


Link to post
Downloaded software has no shrinkwrap... thus your argument is moot.
I never said it did. I specifically referred to shinkwarp you really should read what posts actually state. Clickwrap is a different concept. With downloaded software you still must be given an opportunity to accept the EULA at some stage. Ideally, that should before you download it when you can have now complaints. If it's later then you are still entitled to a refect the software and get a refund.

Share this post


Link to post

"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.

Share this post


Link to post
Really what part of "all rights reserved" isn't understood from the outside cover?
That's a meaningless phrase and "void for uncertainty". What rights does that give me? You seem to recognise that point - we're entitled to know what our rights are before we accept an EULA.
I think people are forgetting that the EULA is extending rights to users and isn't neccesary if you don't plan on doing so. Take a look at the Windows 7 SDK.. the entire EULA is about your rights and very little to do with Microsoft except to indemnify themselves from any risk. caused by the use of the SDK.
It's acknowlegding the rights we've paid for.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest veeray

You don't need a EULA buddy... they don't exist on the Xbox , PS3, DVD, Bluray... should I go on? You really have no clue so sorry if you think you can return opened product unless it's defective.

Share this post


Link to post
Ed, I am demanding no mythical DRM and EULA system spanning all add-ons from all developpers, but before you continue to rabidly go after me I do insist you re-read my posts with attention: Nowhere have I advocated for a universal DRM and EULA solution spanning all add-ons. Nowhere! Paul got it right (previous paragraph), and if you also try, you will see you can too. It is possible for each add-on to store its activation data "somewhere" and it is possible to go for the installer to go silent on a re-install, so it is possible to make add-ons re-install-friendly and then of course it is possible to develop a KISS-type of Add-On-Manager.Cheers,- jahman.
Storage of keys and other such nonsense in the registry, encrypted files... whatever the choice... opens the 'door' to piracy. I realize you don't think so, but I know so. Been fighting software piracy for many, many years. I have book upon tech sheet upon disertation upon thesis regarding piracy, crackers and software protection. The more information you install and provide access to, the easier it is to crack the protection.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest veeray
Storage of keys and other such nonsense in the registry, encrypted files... whatever the choice... opens the 'door' to piracy. I realize you don't think so, but I know so. Been fighting software piracy for many, many years. I have book upon tech sheet upon disertation upon thesis regarding piracy, crackers and software protection. The more information you install and provide access to, the easier it is to crack the protection.
Really so you are admitting you are a pirate? I don't get it you do realize it's illegal to remove any copy protection be it for "academic" pursuit or not. Or do you not practice the so called theory?

Share this post


Link to post
Really so you are admitting you are a pirate? I don't get it you do realize it's illegal to remove any copy protection be it for "academic" pursuit or not. Or do you not practice the so called theory?
No genius... I'm a software developer. To combat piracy you have to know how they crack the protection. Yeesh!

Share this post


Link to post
Guest veeray
No genius... I'm a software developer. To combat piracy you have to know how they crack the protection. Yeesh!
Whatever, and I can count to infinity....

Share this post


Link to post
You don't need a EULA buddy... they don't exist on the Xbox , PS3, DVD, Bluray... should I go on? You really have no clue so sorry if you think you can return opened product unless it's defective.
No EULAs for Xbox - what's this?Xbox LIVE and Games for Windows Live Terms of Usehttp://www.xbox.com/...S/legal/livetouand this from Simplifying Game Installation"Think About Your EULA The DirectX EULA can and should be appended to the game developer's EULA. There is no point in allowing the user to agree to the developer's EULA and not the DirectX EULA. Either the user must agree to both EULAs or not install the game. If a developer feels she must offer the user the choice, the whole installation should fail if the user chooses not to agree to the DirectX EULA. If possible, consult with your legal department to see if you can avoid EULAs altogether, and use a shrink-wrapped EULA like console games use. This will avoid needing to ask users if they want to accept the EULA. The DirectX EULA needs to be appended to the shrink-wrapped EULA; otherwise, the DirectX EULA must be displayed and accepted which defeats the purpose of using a shrink-wrapped EULA. One exception to a shrink-wrapped EULA is for a content editor. Any editor needs to display a EULA during the editor's installation or when the editor is started for the first time. Many gamers are only interested in playing and not in making content, so the installation of an editor should be a separate process."http://msdn.microsof...about_your_EULAWhether the seller will give a refund is a different matter and a reason why I have ambivalent views about EULAs where the software indudtry insists on its rights but attempts to deny buyers their rights. You are entitled to a refund if you don't accept the EULA and don't install the software. That is settled law. Microsoft accepts that. Almost all its EULAs hve terms like:"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 it were not so, sgftware companies could include any terms they chose in the EULA and then claim the buyer was bound by them even though the buyer had no opportunity to read them.And that is nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Whether the seller will give a refund is a different matter and a reason why I have ambivalent views about EULAs where the software indudtry insists on its rights but attempts to deny buyers their rights. You are entitled to a refund if you don't accept the EULA and don't install the software. That is settled law. Microsoft accepts that. Almost all its EULAs hve terms like:"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 it were not so, sgftware companies could include any terms they chose in the EULA and then claim the buyer was bound by them even though the buyer had no opportunity to read them.And that is nonsense.
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Share this post


Link to post

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.)--

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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. LOL.gif Cheers, SLuggy

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
"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

Share this post


Link to post
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. LOL.gif 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 :(

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
×
×
  • Create New...