Good God! Every time I accidentally click on a 3PD post its as if I have been transported to the twilight zone. I am going to be even more careful what I click on in the future.......... :blink:

 

If I had paid more attention to the small type after the rather provocative title and seen P3D forum I would certainly have known better. Boo on me.

and I in no way see an ethical breach by installing software you paid for in a compatible program. Again, a breach and violation of the EULA ... yes. Unethical ... absolutely not!!

 

So you see no ethical breach in freely entering into an agreement and then choosing to ignore its terms because it suits your purposes?

I got some addons from Aerosoft to be used in FSX and if I follow what you are saying correctly I should be able to use them in XP-10, since I already paid for them? Is it right for Aerosoft to sell me the same addon twice?

 

I am surprised to see a comment like that coming from you, Alain. I think you will find that the XP10 products will comfortably not work in FSX, since they are two completely different sets of code. That is completely different to the FSX/P3D situation. Simply put....if your FSX version works in P3D, then I see no reason why you shouldn't use it. Simmy11 has explained the legal situation better than any of the rest of us could, and laserit has made a very good point with respect to "charging someone twice for the same product".

I see no reason why you shouldn't use it.

 

Even if you've freely accepted an agreement that says you can't?

So you see no ethical breach in freely entering into an agreement and then choosing to ignore its terms because it suits your purposes?

 

Ah, you see, there is the big problem. Did I freely enter into any restrictions in the licensing agreement when I PURCHASED the product? I made the purchase without agreeing to anything and only when I went to install the software I already paid for was I presented with the restrictions of its use. This is why laserit (who probably, like me, has actual experience dealing with EULAs) pointed out that they are sometimes unenforceable in court. Its called a shrink wrap or click wrap license and jurisdictions vary wildly as to whether or not they are enforceable. Additionally, some jurisdictions do not ascribe to the "licensed not sold" theory, and instead reason that I purchased the software, and did not purchase a license for it, and therefore, I can do with whatever I please. The EULA in those jurisdictions is completely meaningless as there is no license. Usually, these EULAs are only permitted to stand in court if they offer the licensee a means of returning the product for full refund if they do not agree to the terms. These software EULAs are called "contracts of adhesion" and are considered "unconscionable" and therefore unenforceable. I have written several of these during my career. FWIW, my EULAs with GEX and UTX have no such provisions.

 

As for me personally, I purchased GEX and UTX in late 2008/early 2009 and I checked my EULAs. Oddly enough, they say NOTHING about installing in software other than FSX nor do they have any restrictions on "training or academic usage". That is the EULA I entered into when I installed the software (if the EULA is even enforceable as written, which would be litigated). Even if they offer updates, they cannot materially alter the EULA that I originally entered when I installed the product. So, as for me personally, I am not even in violation of the EULA if it is enforceable. I personally can do whatever I please with these products in P3D and I challenge anyone else to prove me wrong. I am sure I am not the only one who installed this software years ago and is in this position. Now that I have checked the EULAs myself, I am even more convinced that this isnt even about liability and instead is all about the money. I am very curious about when Scenery Solutions and Flight1 inserted the provisions they claim prohibit installation into P3D. That, IMHO, will dictate who is in compliance and who is not.

 

I only entered this discussion to correct some of the terribly inaccurate armchair lawyering that has been going on in these threads and I was tired of seeing Ian, who is largely correct in his position, getting bullied over this. I would encourage the mods to be very careful when moderating these topics as you can't be sure that violations are occurring.

 

And I totally agree that FTX World will be a great addition to BOTH my FSX and P3D installs. Bye bye GEX and UTX.

 

 

 

I got some addons from Aerosoft to be used in FSX and if I follow what you are saying correctly I should be able to use them in XP-10, since I already paid for them? Is it right for Aerosoft to sell me the same addon twice?

 

P3D is made to be backward compatible with FSX addons. XP10 is not.

 

Did you ask the same questions when people where porting FS9 addons to FSX? That question also goes to the mods. Did you close topics when people where discussing how to get payware aircraft and scenery from FS9 to FSX?

The point made is about paying twice for the same addons, not about on what platform you can use them....right?

 

Any company has the right to restrict its use to that authorized in its EULA, and an end user does not have the right to knowingly break his word in any part of the EULA. If you agreed to it when you bought it, you legally still must agree to it when you use it. Ian, that makes you the party that is partial and partisan in an effort to protect your broken word, so dump the rocks from your pocket lest you knock your windows out.

 

 

With all due respect, this is not an accurate statement (as pointed out above) and you, sir, should really not be adding false information to a topic that already has one community member highly offended, and for good reason. As I said, I hardly ever post and am more of a lurker on this forum, but I could not stand to see Ian bullied by ignorant armchair lawyers anymore. Kudos Ian and I hope the admins and Avsim staff will take a good hard look at its policies in regards to moderating and/or hosting the P3D forums.

Ah, you see, there is the big problem....

 

The big problem is the failure to address the specific question. Note it refers to the situation when someone has freely entered into an agreement and chooses to ignore its terms

 

So you see no ethical breach in freely entering into an agreement and then choosing to ignore its terms because it suits your purposes?

 

There's really a quite simple Yes/No answer.

My experience of this forum topic, and many others like it, is that there is a good deal of confusion between a poster stating an opinion and actually suggesting that someone should break the terms of a EULA. I do, however, appreciate that Avsim has an almost impossible task in permitting absolute freedom of comment, without fear of straying into dubious territory. In those circumstances, it is probably best to err on the side of caution, ultimately in everyone's best interests. The marketplace will pass fiscal judgement on all developer policies related to software use in P3D.

 

Can we perhaps all agree on one thing and that is Microsoft's failure to ever completely iron out the many shortcomings/bugs in FSX and then, characteristically, doing an equally short-changed job of licensing said software to a third party with a series of very tight marketing restrictions that are leading to all colors of confusion in this wonderful community of ours.

Simmy11 has given one of the best perspectives I have read in this P3D forum.

 

Well done :clapping:

 

I do, however, appreciate that Avsim has an almost impossible task in permitting freedom of comment, without fear of straying into dubious territory.

 

Maybe AVsim should be hosted in Sweden or similar - similar to the pirate bay servers? (Am I correct there, cant remember)

Simmy11, thanks for your input. You're one of a small handful of people on this forum who actually understand the problem. And it's nice to find out that my expectation of what an actual attorney would say about the problem was correct.

 

Ian, you are not being bullied. I read your original posts and was a bit shocked that you'd go so far as to give instructions on how to violate the EULA, which is against the TOS of Avsim and the real reason the posts were edited. Avsim has to protect itself in these cases, and they have more to lose than you do.

 

Bottom line: do whatever you wish with your software, but don't talk about it in public.

 

Hook

The big problem is the failure to address the specific question. Note it refers to the situation when someone has freely entered into an agreement and chooses to ignore its terms

 

 

 

There's really a quite simple Yes/No answer.

 

No, its not simple, and that's why there are lawyers, judges and courts. In general though, since you demand a Yes/No answer, then I will say No, I do not. I can enter into a contract to buy goods from someone for a period of two years. 6 months later my situation changes and my business is no longer able to purchase these goods at said price. My only realistic choices are to renegotiate or breach the agreement. It would be unwise to allow a contract to further harm myself or my business. Likewise with a bad landlord ... I have the right to move out whenever I want if the situation warrants itself. If the landlord doesn't like, he can sue for damages, but if I felt unsafe, I have no moral/ethical dilemma breaking the agreement. Your right to breach is often leverage in renegotiation, because if the other party doesn't come to other more agreeable terms, they may be out the cost of the contract or the cost of the contract plus litigation costs. If they come to new terms, they still keep a customer and business and they avoid litigation costs. It is neither unethical nor immoral to break a contract. It is a RIGHT reserved to the parties in a contract, just like the right to sue for breach. If you cant accept that logic, then tough ... I guess I'm a bad person.

 

As for my particular case, Did you bother to read any of the other part of the post before demanding a Yes/No answer? MY copy of the software that I purchased and installed contained none of the restrictions on its use of the sort Flight1 and SS are claiming. I can read quite well and I checked. I will never be in violation of any EULA for GEX or UTX, and if Flight1 or SS disagrees with me, they are welcome to bring suit. I will post the contents of said EULAs if anyone is interested so that all of you IP law experts in this thread can tell me I'm violating the agreement or being unethical in any way.

 

allain -- since XP10 and FSX require completely different sets of code in order for the products to function in the respective sims, I would never consider an XP10 add on and a FSX/P3D add on as the same product and would happily pay twice for the amount of time spent developing on each platform. When you take what will essentially be the same product and update the installer and add a few enchantments, yes, I feel cheated by a greedy developer As I said, its their right to pursue this strategy but they lost a long time customer to FTX because of it.

I feel that Stephen and the rest of us have been unfairly attacked in this thread. I am more than a little disappointed at the OP, who is a long term member and really should know better.

 

....................

Did you ask the same questions when people where porting FS9 addons to FSX? That question also goes to the mods. Did you close topics when people where discussing how to get payware aircraft and scenery from FS9 to FSX?

 

Well, there are not many FS9 payware add-on EULAs I have seen forcing them not to be tried in FSX - probably because a lot of FS9 payware add-ons were created before FSX came into the fold.

These type of restrictions usually exist for add-ons that have both FSX and FS9 versions - and in those cases the FS9 version will simply not work properly in FSX and vice versa, no matter what you try.

If there is anything like that and someone violates it on the forums we would act (close and remove post/topic, punish offender, etc....), because we have to. I don't think you understand but we can't allow EULA's (any EULAs) to be violated publicly in our forums and we have to combat this to the best of our abilities, unless you want to see us gone that is.

 

With FSX add-ons there are some developers who have separate versions of their products for P3D and FSX, and there may be some developers who do not want their stuff used in P3D at all. When that clearly is stated in the EULA - we can't allow it to be broken and blatantly announced on the AVSIM forums. Every time someone does that it puts us in a difficult position, as violating a product's EULA and then blasting about it publicly is a serious matter, and we will combat this.

 

We can not tell developers what EULA to use for their products, but we must abide by them in order to use the product. If you don't like the EULA - all I can suggest is don't use the product and find some way to live without it (surely with an FS add-on that's possible). If there is a EULA I don't like that is what I do. In the end if you're unhappy with a EULA this is the best protest against it you can do.

 

To break a EULA and then post about it all, here on a public forum, is certainly not the smartest of moves (to put it mildly). If you do that don't expect us to stand idly by.

Could I also suggest to Mr Allensworth, that now there has been a number of shutdowns by moderators of this thread that you remove the entire category from your forum. After all any discussion except by a narrow group of full-time aviators would be caught up in this definition of a breach.

 

I am saddened, feel excluded and offended to be seen as putatively outside of the law.

 

I will answer you directly as you request. You are not going to like my answer, I am sure... Let me start with the easy part of my response; reminding you of our Terms of Service, which you agree to every time you sign on here and post a message. The ToS' are available for inspection throughout the system at the bottom of every page and I would remind you and everyone else to re-read them once in awhile. The applicable part of our ToS' is:

 

Piracy, Key Sharing, Link Sharing, EULA Busting, etc.: Any message, post or topic heading that appears to advocate or perpetuates piracy, shares cracked software, links to or other like material, advocates avoidance of or contravening of End User License Agreements (EULAs) or can be interpreted as approval of piracy or EULA "busting", will be immediately removed and the poster banned. Piracy of software destroys the basis of our hobby and AVSIM enforces anti-piracy policies strictly. If you are a pirate, advocate piracy, or use pirated material, do not register. We place EULA busting in the same category.

 

Secondly, and this is the part that I am sure you will take self-righteous umbrage to... Implying, accusing, or otherwise abusing our staff by calling them "mind police" is unacceptable behavior and had I come on the topic first, and not Stephen, you would be looking at a suspension, at the least. Applicable ToS to that?

 

Threats and Intimidation of Staff: AVSIM is operated by dozens of volunteers who enable your enjoyment and use of the AVSIM system. Any harassment, threats, or other objectionable behavior toward them will result in the harshest of consequences. This is a "One Strike and You are Out" offense. There are no excuses for abuse of our volunteers and none will be tolerated.

 

Funny thing is, it was also mainly about the same company that Avsim has removed me from the administrator position, among some other things.

 

That is not any where near being correct, and is a figment of your imagination. "That" company had nothing to do with your departure from our staff and you know it.

 

I do agree with Iain, due to apparent Avsim's position on this matter and the inability to maintain peace around EULA, it would probably be the best idea to remove the forums altogether.

 

AVSIM's position on this subject has been clear from nearly day one and you know that too. Read the ToS' again Word Not Allowed. I don't know what purpose you think is being served by making this stuff up or trying to rewrite history, but you need to stop. You are embarrassing yourself.

Piracy, Key Sharing, Link Sharing, EULA Busting, etc.: Any message, post or topic heading that appears to advocate or perpetuates piracy, shares cracked software, links to or other like material, advocates avoidance of or contravening of End User License Agreements (EULAs) or can be interpreted as approval of piracy or EULA "busting", will be immediately removed and the poster banned. Piracy of software destroys the basis of our hobby and AVSIM enforces anti-piracy policies strictly. If you are a pirate, advocate piracy, or use pirated material, do not register. We place EULA busting in the same category.

 

Again with all due respect to Mr. Allensworth, the admins and mods (and I think this is why Ian is offended at being termed a law breaker) the Avsim staff does not have the ability to figure out who is and is not violating their EULA. Like I pointed out in my post, I purchased and installed my GEX software many years ago and none of the EULA restrictions they are currently quoting as forbidding use in P3D exist in my EULA. I cannot be deemed a violator of that EULA if I install into P3D because I did not agree to the terms they are quoting. A developer does not have a right to terminate an EULA without cause and they cannot modify the EULA without my permission. Ian, being a long time member, is most likely in the same boat as me, and probably has an EULA that would allow him to install into P3D. Again, I read the specific language of my GEX and UTX EULAs on my lunch break, and it contains very, very little restriction on its use. These alleged restrictions were introduced after P3D came on the market and would not be applicable to any person who installed the software prior to the inclusion of that language. Find out from the developers when it was included and you might be able to start to make informed assumptions about who is and is not in breach.

 

That being said, I completely understand the policies that Avsim must implement to protect its own interests. I would, again, just encourage the staff to take a light hand to the moderation of posts and not make uninformed assumptions and/or comments about who is violating EULAs. I would just like to encourage the admins and staff to take the considerations and needs of the development and user communities into account equally when deciding on the right policies. Violating an EULA is not piracy. Violating an EULA is not a copyright violation. It is a violation of a contract and in my opinion the Avsim staff should treat this much differently and with a much lighter hand than the obviously necessary restriction on discussions of IP infringement. Thank you very much for the lively discussion and I'm glad that I could contribute meaningfully to it.