"I choose to BUY the software I want out of respect for fellow programmers' work."ditto.

I haven't considered purchasing from aerosoft, but occasionally flight one has products I'd purchase...until I read the security procedures that Vilk has outlined above. Result? No thanks, bye.I have no interest in purchasing products which the supplier dictates terms and buggers me around. Easiest answer is vote with your wallet.LPXO

Greg,Actually, I don't think we're all that far apart in our positions ! I should state that I haven't bought any of the Aerosoft products, so am not fully familiar with their exact take on the subject. If they do impose an absolute limit on how many times you can install their software then I'd agree that this is taking the copy protection too far. If you have a valid purchase there shouldn't be the need to impose an absolute limit on the number of installations.In the case of Flight1/DreamFleet products you CAN install/reinstall as many times as you want. You do have to verify the licence online, and you can only reinstall a number of times before the licence "expires" and needs to be renewed/replaced, but there is no absolute limit. The same applies in general to FSD, who use a different system. You may have to contact them and demonstrate ownership, but again with reasonable proof there is no limit as far as I know.If you feel that requiring proof of ownership before a reinstall makes you feel "dishonest" then I think we'll have to agree to differ. It comes down to how much validation you feel is reasonable when co-operating with the software vendors, so we only really disagree on the extent rather than the principle. I appreciate that some simmers feel the need to religiously reformat their PCs every six months and so will inevitably run up against these imposed restrictions more than a user who doesn't (troublesome installations not withstanding.)I don't find it unacceptable for software developers to impose reasonable safeguards to prevent pirating of their products. Where you and I may differ is in what is considered "reasonable".Best wishes,Alastair

Hi Vic,As in my other reply, I guess it comes down to what can be considered "reasonable". There are always going to be hackers who can circumvent any safeguard. It may well be "the cost of doing business" but if the software developers DON'T at least try to make it more difficult to pirate their products, what is the alternative ? Throw up their hands and accept that 80% of the copies in use are illegal ? Most of them are more like "cottage industries" than multi-nationals with, I am assuming, relatively thin profit margins.One alternative would be to give up on the safeguards and price their products to take into account the lost revenue due to piracy. Would you consider this a more acceptable approach ? I understand that most high street shops sell their mercendise for around 20% higher than they would if the shoplifters didn't steal the products. This is their way of recouping their lost revenue. Just for the record I appreciate the way that, so far, the topic has been dealt with in an adult, restrained manner. I think this is an important topic that needs to be discussed, if for no other reason than it provides feedback to the developers as to what their customers think. We're never going to completely aggree, so it comes down to what compromise between usability and protection is bearable.Best wishes,Alastair

please assume that if i have the setup program on my disk i acquired it legally. i shall be innocent until proven guilty...would you say i'm unreasonable? maybe. but some of the greatest achievements of our society stem from the principles of trust and respect. and i'll stick to those.there will always be dishonest people and there will always be business ventures going bankrupt. sometimes even the good guys lose. tough luck.:)

Hi Everyone,Interesting questions to be sure.Is it an invasion of our rights?I am inclined to say yes.I have bought exactly 3 pay ware items. The FSD Porter & C115, which is a Fine Compnay, IMHO.And some other plane from another developer I WILL NEVER BUY FROM AGAIN.By the way, the State bird in Illinois, where I used to live is a Cardinal, did you know that? Very Cool State Bird. Link Here:http://www.50states.com/bird/cardinal.htm :)I don't buy from these developers precisely because of these *schemes, and my Integrity forbids me from sending MY MONEY to those who don't trust me. I wonder how many others don't buy because of these schemes? Developers should think about that. I know I am not alone, but pretty soon with schemes like these, these developers may very well be alone.Here are my thoughts. 1) Some in this thread and many many others cry about the developers rights to prevent piracy. That is fine, but if companies like Electronic Arts seem to have found a way to deal with it, why can't these sim developers?A) How many times has a developer outed a download site that offers these files, or post the users information publicly?:( How many times has a developer actually sued someone whom they know or suspect have stolen their work? Have they no Integrity to protect their work by going after the pond scum that steals from them?I'm sorry, but the silence on those questions is deafening. If they can't even prosecute to protect their rights, all they care about IMHO, is their own PARANOID Views of ALLEGED PIRACY.2) What happens when the developer goes out of business, or decides to stop support?A)What then? Well, you are out of luck, no more installations for you. And don't say it won't happen. It has happened, and we lose developers all the time.3) Or maybe they will try to pull a fast one, and simply delete the files on your system as one developer allegedly did. Maybe they will institute a scheme that if you try to install, and accidentally put in a wrong key number, it deletes the files until THEY verify you are who you say you are.Yeah your money means nothing until you RE-PROVE You own the product. Oh, and don't lose your electronic receipt, oh and don't change your original email address, and hope they know you from their forums. Don't even think about moving either. 4) How many hoops are you willing to jump through. How much INTEGRITY, rights, and privacy are you willing to depart with because these developers and their scheme don't trust you ONE BIT? 5) If they had any REAL Concerns, they would follow it up with action, instead of these STUPID requirements of the user to continually check in with BIG BROTHER DEVELOPER. A)Well, where are the lawsuits? B)We frequently here about users going in to forums asking for support, and the Big Brother Developer checks and suspects they have a pirated version. Well, don't come crying to us. Go sue the Loser Thug that stole it from you. And until you start doing that, I am not going to buy your products and will encourage others not to do the same.Me, I won't buy anything from any company with a similar *SCHEME.These folks need to get over themselves, as I suspect that the ones doing the pirating most likely will NEVER buy their products anyway.Or those that do pirate the product may actually spawn a purchase from their friends or out of their own guilt. In other words, someone said something about INTEGRITY above. My question for you is this.6) Do you expect us to trust the INTEGRITY of any DEVELOPER who uses SCHEMES like this when they basically tell us in their user agreements they will take our money but will not trust us? NOT I.TRUST is a two-way street, but apparently not in the eyes of some of these developers.Think about that and read it twice.7) Why would ANYONE trust their money with a small time developer who is as paranoid about piracy enough to basically say SCREW the customer, we don't trust you, and we'll basically IMPLY that in our disclaimers, by enacting the following.A) We will decide when enough installations are enough.:( We will inconvenience you allowing you to install on our schedule, not yours.C) We will take your money, but guess what. WE DON'T TRUST YOU. 8) I'm sorry, but IMHO, the buyers have the integrity here, by purchasing the product. not these developers who use this SCHEME.I would encourage everyone not to support developers like these and instead go find a FREEWARE similar product. There are enough out there, IMHO. All you have to do is check the library here at Avsim, or make a post about someone helping you to develop these products.As for the original Author, I can appreciate where you are coming from, and my only suggestion is do without.If you enjoyed MSFS2004 before the purchase, you will most likely still enjoy it without this purchase. Good luck getting a refund as this company you listed may not offer one. If there is a pay ware product you enjoy, find one that does not employ this scheme, or one similar.In closing, I suggest this. If the developers used the money they spent to use this scheme, and if they actually sued the ones that pirated these programs, IMHO, they would gain more business by setting an example that they don't settle for pirates, and they go after the ones that do steal. Scare them straight as it were. But what they are doing now is IMHO, Unacceptable and I will not spend my money supporting a product that employs this kind of scheme.One more thing. from their website, for all of you on dial-up or not very good servers, read this:I post the following excerpt under Fair Use laws of The United States of America where I reside.*********************From:http://aerosoft-shop.com/conditions.php?PH...1a0f18983579760"SPECIAL POLICY FOR DOWNLOADABLE PRODUCTSAerosoft Online will provide customers the software products purchased for download. We guarantee the download availability of a product for 15 days from the day of purchase. Within this period of time customers are granted four (4) download processes. Customers shall be responsible for saving and keeping download products after that period of time and Aerosoft will not be made liable or held responsible for loss of the product on customers side."**********************In other words, don't screw up, don't wait more than 15 days to do a download, and if you ever suffer a hard drive failure, (Yep it has happened to some of you, IMHO), Aerosoft will not be held responsible or liable for your loss according to their site. I wonder if that means they will not allow another download for a product you bought. saying one thing and then having an agreement like the one above is something else. Another example of no rights for the consumer, and all rights for the developer. Sorry, my business goes elsewhere when I read something like this.And some of you talk about Integrity. Yeah right...Regards,Joe ********************DISCLAIMER FOLLOWS:********************* Scheme is defined as a systematic course of action according to American heritage Dictionary.http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=schemePS - I claim this post as my own opinion, and under the Laws of California, where I reside, under fair use comprised in The United States Copyright law of 1976 [17 USC

And that is exactly what happened a LOT with software (and music and movies) which is why those are excluded from the law in Germany (and many other countries).If people weren't being asses and giving away their license keys (or licensed products in the days that no keys were required) to others this wouldn't be needed.Sadly 75% of all software and over 90% of games and related items ARE pirated, costing software companies a lot of money.Even if everyone visiting these forums has a legal copy of FS and all addons (something I severely doubt given those numbers) that would still not mean that there is no problem.If you want to support the companies, don't "share" your software and don't accept pirated software.In fact I'm in somewhat of a moral dilemma at work because I know of considerable music and software piracy going on between colleagues (and I work in a software company...).

And now you give the program (or rather a copy because you want to keep it yourself as well) to a friend.According to your logic he also has it legally because he also has it on his harddisk.

>Is it an invasion of our rights?>>I am inclined to say yes.>No, unless you consider it your right to commit a crime!>I don't buy from these developers precisely because of these>*schemes, and my Integrity forbids me from sending MY MONEY to>those who don't trust me. >They have good reason to. 90% of their customers in the past turned out to be criminals and steal from the store, that's worse than the worst shoplifter gang.Do you also not buy from stores that use RFID tags or other tags to protect their property?>I wonder how many others don't buy because of these schemes?>Developers should think about that. I know I am not alone, but>pretty soon with schemes like these, these developers may very>well be alone.>Even if it costs them half their sales from the sales they'd have without piracy protection it will bring in 5-10 times that number from people who'd otherwise use pirated versions.>1) Some in this thread and many many others cry about the>developers rights to prevent piracy. That is fine, but if>companies like Electronic Arts seem to have found a way to>deal with it, why can't these sim developers?>Last I checked EA shipped software only on CD and often requires elaborate license keys to be entered (did they stop using the scheme where you have to enter a code every time you start the program which was printed on a card that under a copier wouldn't work?).>A) How many times has a developer outed a download site that>offers these files, or post the users information publicly?>:( How many times has a developer actually sued someone whom>they know or suspect have stolen their work? >A) not often if at all:( several times in the last year alone, and that's just in Europe and just in the FS addon business. Typical sentence was several months in jail plus a hefty fine and compensation.>Have they no Integrity to protect their work by going after>the pond scum that steals from them?>See above. Just about ONLY pirates and wannabe pirates complain vocally about piracy protection because it harms their business.>Me, I won't buy anything from any company with a similar>*SCHEME.>Most likely you didn't buy any software anyway except "compilation CDs" with thousands of dollars worth of software shipping for $10 or so.>These folks need to get over themselves, as I suspect that the>ones doing the pirating most likely will NEVER buy their>products anyway.>So we should just give in and make it even easier on the pirates?Quite a few people buy software because they can't get a pirated version, and quite a few of those who now don't think of piracy will do it if they can do it more easily without being caught.>Or those that do pirate the product may actually spawn a>purchase from their friends or out of their own guilt. >That's the oft-heard excuse and it's completely bogus.You just said before that pirates wouldn't buy anyway if they can pirate, so why should they suddenly buy? And their friends won't buy either, they'll just get a "free" pirated copy.>TRUST is a two-way street, but apparently not in the eyes of>some of these developers.>The customer has already proven he cannot be trusted.>8) I'm sorry, but IMHO, the buyers have the integrity here, by>purchasing the product. not these developers who use this>SCHEME.>The buyer has absolutely NO integrity. >As for the original Author, I can appreciate where you are>coming from, and my only suggestion is do without.>You apparently can't. You expect us to work for free, to give our work out without any means to assert that only those who pay for the right can use it.>If you enjoyed MSFS2004 before the purchase, you will most>likely still enjoy it without this purchase. Good luck getting>a refund as this company you listed may not offer one. >90% of FS2004 copies were never purchased. And of those that were a good many were gifts to the eventual users a good many of whom would have used a pirated copy otherwise.>If there is a pay ware product you enjoy, find one that does>not employ this scheme, or one similar.>There is, but you'd not want it either, calling it an invasion of your privacy.It's a subscription service where you pay per use for the software.In such a scheme piracy is impossible because the software itself is never sent to your machine and you can get the results of the processing only after paying for the privilege. If you now hand out your account to someone else (piracy...) you will pay for his use as well and that of everyone he gives the account to.>In closing, I suggest this. If the developers used the money>they spent to use this scheme, and if they actually sued the>ones that pirated these programs, IMHO, they would gain more>business by setting an example that they don't settle for>pirates, and they go after the ones that do steal. Scare them>straight as it were. >You're still thinking the developers add these procedures for fun and to spite you.If you're a real paying customer they add them to reduce the eventual cost to you.Without anti-piracy protection piracy would rise from the current 90% to about 99% or more causing a 90% drop in sales. To receive the same income that would mean a 10-fold increase in the purchase price (minus a bit for the protection no longer needed).I doubt you'd pay (if you pay even now) $500 for FS2004, $250 for an addon?

Hi,Yeah, one company was so smart their (most likely expensive)IMHO, copyright scheme was defeated with a simple hitting of certain key allowing users to copy their purchased music CD's to their hard drives so they can put their purchased music on their MP3 Players.And I have no problem with a consumer copying their Music Cd they bought at a store to their MP3 Player. Do You?Read about it here:http://www.drmwatch.com/drmtech/article.php/3093371Regards,Joehttp://aboutpolitics.net/images/bannerav.gif.About Politics.net - FORUMShttp://pub162.ezboard.com/baboutpolitics.Contribute to the Richard Harvey Scholarship Fund.http://www.avsim.com/pages/scholarship.shtml

Alastair,"Actually, I don't think we're all that far apart in our positions!"I agree. My greatest concern in all this is that many developers, because of their overzealous paranoia, will put themselves out of business by disenfranchising their paying supporters.Many of these protection schemes and policies may indeed serve to make it difficult for the pirate, but at the cost of driving away folks who are willing to show their support by putting their money up for the products. Awfully poor business doctrine.It's happening as we share this debate... more an more consumers unwilling to submit to such copyright protection. Sad for both parties, buyers and sellers alike.

>>Is it an invasion of our rights?>>>>I am inclined to say yes.>>>No, unless you consider it your right to commit a crime!READ IT AGIN, If a consumer buys it, they should get rights.>>>I don't buy from these developers precisely because of these>>*schemes, and my Integrity forbids me from sending MY MONEY>to>>those who don't trust me. >>>They have good reason to. 90% of their customers in the past>turned out to be criminals and steal from the store, that's>worse than the worst shoplifter gang.Where is your DOCUMENTED proof of that? Sheesh, you expect me to believe that? Prove it. >Do you also not buy from stores that use RFID tags or other>tags to protect their property?>Of course I do, but guess what, I don't have to go back to the store every time I wash my pair of jeans either.Would that be an ok requirement for you. before you put on a pair of jeans you have to walk naked to the store, prove who you are, provide your reciept, your address, your email, and maybe they will let you dress, but only if the jeans still fir you?>>I wonder how many others don't buy because of these schemes?>>Developers should think about that. I know I am not alone,>but>>pretty soon with schemes like these, these developers may>very>>well be alone.>>>Even if it costs them half their sales from the sales they'd>have without piracy protection it will bring in 5-10 times>that number from people who'd otherwise use pirated versions.>>>1) Some in this thread and many many others cry about the>>developers rights to prevent piracy. That is fine, but if>>companies like Electronic Arts seem to have found a way to>>deal with it, why can't these sim developers?>>>Last I checked EA shipped software only on CD and often>requires elaborate license keys to be entered (did they stop>using the scheme where you have to enter a code every time you>start the program which was printed on a card that under a>copier wouldn't work?).That is absurd, putting in a code every time you run it. Please....I have never had to re-enter a Code on a card unless I reinstalled, and I did not have ot contact the company to do it.>>>A) How many times has a developer outed a download site that>>offers these files, or post the users information publicly?>>:( How many times has a developer actually sued someone whom>>they know or suspect have stolen their work? >>>A) not often if at allExactly my point. Prove to me that this piracy is so prevelant.>:( several times in the last year alone, and that's just in>Europe and just in the FS addon business. Typical sentence was>several months in jail plus a hefty fine and compensation.Links please, who were the companies, what add-ons? Should be pretty public info if you have it.>>>Have they no Integrity to protect their work by going after>>the pond scum that steals from them?>>>See above. >Just about ONLY pirates and wannabe pirates complain vocally>about piracy protection because it harms their business.>That is rubbish. I've NEVER EVER pirated or used pirated commercial software add-ons for ANY flightsim in my life. I'm in Temecula, Ca. If someone wants to come over and verify that, come on over. That statment of yours is UNSUBSTANTIATED in fact and simply rubbish.>>>Me, I won't buy anything from any company with a similar>>*SCHEME.>>>Most likely you didn't buy any software anyway except>"compilation CDs" with thousands of dollars worth of software>shipping for $10 or so.>Now you are simply making a fool of yourself. Go to the FSD Forum and ask them if I bought Their Porter and their C115, Go ask Steve Small, or Owen, or Jim, or Tim, or anyone else over there.Here is the Link: http://fsd-international.com/>>These folks need to get over themselves, as I suspect that>the>>ones doing the pirating most likely will NEVER buy their>>products anyway.>>>So we should just give in and make it even easier on the>pirates?Nope, never said the developers who employ THIS SCHEME should ever give in. Some companies get along just fine without these SCHEMES >Quite a few people buy software because they can't get a>pirated version, and quite a few of those who now don't think>of piracy will do it if they can do it more easily without>being caught.>>>Or those that do pirate the product may actually spawn a>>purchase from their friends or out of their own guilt. >>>That's the oft-heard excuse and it's completely bogus.>You just said before that pirates wouldn't buy anyway if they>can pirate, so why should they suddenly buy? >And their friends won't buy either, they'll just get a "free">pirated copy.>>>TRUST is a two-way street, but apparently not in the eyes of>>some of these developers.>>>The customer has already proven he cannot be trusted.You are kidding right, NO CUSTOMER CAN BE TRUSTED, huh. Wow, you have a dim view of society there. Very Noble. I disagree. Not me, I am a good customer, and one who has not pirated, and I am willing to bet that others here are just as trustworthy.>>>8) I'm sorry, but IMHO, the buyers have the integrity here,>by>>purchasing the product. not these developers who use this>>SCHEME.>>>The buyer has absolutely NO integrity. Ok, now the buyers have no Integrity either, huh? Are you serious, you really believe that? I truly feel sorry for your view of our hobby. I sincerely do.>>>As for the original Author, I can appreciate where you are>>coming from, and my only suggestion is do without.>>>You apparently can't. You expect us to work for free, to give>our work out without any means to assert that only those who>pay for the right can use it.>Nope, not what I said. I suggest you read my post again, and stop IMPLYING words that are not there. take my word sliteraly or not at all if you want to imply meanings that are not there.>>If you enjoyed MSFS2004 before the purchase, you will most>>likely still enjoy it without this purchase. Good luck>getting>>a refund as this company you listed may not offer one. >>>90% of FS2004 copies were never purchased. And of those that>were a good many were gifts to the eventual users a good many>of whom would have used a pirated copy otherwise.More proof please. Where do you get this rubbish from 90% are never purchased. Where do get that from.. How is anyone supposed to take your posts seriously with such outlandish claims. PROVE IT or retract it please.>>>If there is a pay ware product you enjoy, find one that does>>not employ this scheme, or one similar.>>>There is, but you'd not want it either, calling it an invasion>of your privacy.>It's a subscription service where you pay per use for the>software.>In such a scheme piracy is impossible because the software>itself is never sent to your machine and you can get the>results of the processing only after paying for the privilege.>If you now hand out your account to someone else (piracy...)>you will pay for his use as well and that of everyone he gives>the account to.>>>In closing, I suggest this. If the developers used the money>>they spent to use this scheme, and if they actually sued the>>ones that pirated these programs, IMHO, they would gain more>>business by setting an example that they don't settle for>>pirates, and they go after the ones that do steal. Scare>them>>straight as it were. >>>You're still thinking the developers add these procedures for>fun and to spite you.>If you're a real paying customer they add them to reduce the>eventual cost to you.>Without anti-piracy protection piracy would rise from the>current 90% to about 99% or more causing a 90% drop in sales.>To receive the same income that would mean a 10-fold increase>in the purchase price (minus a bit for the protection no>longer needed).>I doubt you'd pay (if you pay even now) $500 for FS2004, $250>for an addon?You are one funny person. I hope this will suffice for your proof that I did pay, and My INTEGRITY IS IN CHECK. Always has been, always will. I await your proof for those comments you made. And if you want proof I paid for my add-ons I'll provide that too.Enjoy The Pics,JoeTaken less than Five Minutes Ago, I still have my receipt if you want to see that. I also added that. :-)Nice attack, can't defend the developers, so you choose to attack me. very Adult like, very adult like. My rights to criticize any Company are enforced by law. http://www.pbase.com/image/25395331.jpgAnd here is a copy of my receipt too. :-)Oh yeah, I bought ACTII Kettlecorn Popcorn on that day, but I can't prove that anymore because I ate it, :-lol I hope that is ok with you too..http://www.pbase.com/image/25395500.jpghttp://aboutpolitics.net/images/bannerav.gif.About Politics.net - FORUMShttp://pub162.ezboard.com/baboutpolitics.Contribute to the Richard Harvey Scholarship Fund.http://www.avsim.com/pages/scholarship.shtml

sorry, i am afraid you may be missing the point. your statement establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt and the case itself has little to do with what i was saying.:)

jwenting wrote:"The customer has already proven he cannot be trusted."and"The buyer has absolutely NO integrity."Sad to think that other software developers would feel this way. Great public relations attitude.

hey joe, calm down.:)i'm with you on the customer integrity and assumption of good faith, but hey, easy on the horn! let's relax and go shopping where they will like our money...:D