Simmy11, the original post was edited to remove instructions on how to contravene the EULA, as per Avsim's TOS. As far a I know, beyond Stephen's original comment in that thread, no other action was taken.

 

From everything I've seen, they handled it correctly. While I may not agree with everything they do, they're almost always doing the right thing, and if they discover they've made a mistake, they'll correct it promptly. They are not unreasonable. Hang around a bit, watch these things unfold in real time, and you may come to agree.

 

Stephen's public warnings to people have evolved into a high art form. I always get a smile out of reading them.

 

Hook

 

Edit to add: Don't advise people to break the EULA. Your opinion carries more weight than the normal forum member. Don't tell people HOW to break the EULA, that puts Avsim in a bad position. Other EULA discussions, while discouraged (mostly because they're done invariably by people with no understanding of the law) are probably OK. Your input on this matter is extremely valuable, but just keep in mind that Avsim needs to be protected.

 

H.

 

 

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.

 

Simmy11 you and Ian are two of the most educated straight-shooters on these forums and it's a breath of fresh air. Agree with everything both of you have said.

................ the Avsim staff does not have the ability to figure out who is and is not violating their EULA.

It was pretty clear in this case.

 

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........

In the end its not like we started this topic, you have Ian himself to thank for that along with all the comments and assumptions. I don't understand what exactly you're taking offence at.

The EULA was plainly violated and the offender warned, he could have just as easily been banned you know, as its a pretty serious offence - Read our ToS, there's a link to them in my signature. Tom's also provided the relevant part for your perusal - the part about EULA busting and banning offenders. All things considered Stephen was more than lenient here and all he got for his troubles was a public attack from Ian.

 

..................... A developer does not have a right to terminate an EULA without cause and they cannot modify the EULA without my permission. .............................

Actually depending on what is written in the EULA they can. Take a look at this extract from the EULA of Corel:

 

........................governed by this EULA. From time to time, We may in Our sole discretion update or modify the EULA. The most recent version of the EULA is located at: http://www.corel.com/eula

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

 

If you really want a headache feel free to read the full version.

 

Many others have similar clauses in their EULAs nowadays.

Simmy11, the original post was edited to remove instructions on how to contravene the EULA, as per Avsim's TOS. As far a I know, beyond Stephen's original comment in that thread, no other action was taken.

 

From everything I've seen, they handled it correctly. While I may not agree with everything they do, they're almost always doing the right thing, and if they discover they've made a mistake, they'll correct it promptly. They are not unreasonable. Hang around a bit, watch these things unfold in real time, and you may come to agree.

 

Stephen's public warnings to people have evolved into a high art form. I always get a smile out of reading them.

 

Hook

 

Edit to add: Don't advise people to break the EULA. Your opinion carries more weight than the normal forum member. Don't tell people HOW to break the EULA, that puts Avsim in a bad position. Other EULA discussions, while discouraged (mostly because they're done invariably by people with no understanding of the law) are probably OK. Your input on this matter is extremely valuable, but just keep in mind that Avsim needs to be protected.

 

H.

 

I do understand that and thank you for the kind words on my posts. I apologize if I was out of bounds and I AM NOT advising anyone to violate any EULA. What I am saying is that violating an EULA is up to each individual and does not necessarily equate with "breaking the law" as some have made it out to be. It a decision each person should make on their own and with the language they agreed to in mind. I would advise everyone to read their own specific EULAs and come to their own conclusion (not the conclusion of the developers or Avsim staff) as to whether or not they are in violation. I myself am more than comfortable installing into P3D with the EULA I agreed to, if I ever decide to do so.

 

I also wasn't talking about the bullying in this specific post or the post in question, but more of a pattern that I have noticed over the last weeks. It just seems when the OP expresses his opinion on this, people (and some might be developers who are bullying him) have resorted to basically calling him a criminal, unethical and immoral. That is why I came to his defense as well as to correct some of the misconceptions concerning EULA and IP law. I want Avsim to continue to provide this great community to all of us and in no way want to harm its interests. I also dont want to be banned for expressing my opinion that devs do not have the right to limit our use of a product when we agreed to a EULA which does not contain the language they are citing today. Thanks Hook. I look forward to catching more of Stephens artful warnings!

I look forward to catching more of Stephens artful warnings!

 

Better his than mine. I don't have an artful bone in my body.

May I say that from quite vitriolic beginnings and a rather unpleasant title, doubtless composed in the heat of the moment, this thread has generally evolved into the most intelligent discussion of these issues that I have yet read. I think it proves that a balanced debate can be conducted on this matter, provided everyone remains mindful of the TOS by which we have all agreed to be bound and which Avsim has to ensure are enforced.

 

Particular thanks to simmy11 for raising a number of quite fascinating and thought provoking points.

 

I don't understand what exactly you're taking offence at.

 

Actually depending on what is written in the EULA they can. Take a look at this extract from the EULA of Corel:

 

........................governed by this EULA. From time to time, We may in Our sole discretion update or modify the EULA. The most recent version of the EULA is located at: http://www.corel.com/eula

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

 

 

I apologize if my tone implied like I was taking offense at the Avsim staff with that comment. That was not my intent. I just hope that Avsim ensures that the rights of users and developers are balanced and that would mean allowing meaningful discussion of whether or not an EULA is being violated. As I have said, its not the situation in question, but more of a pattern I have noticed, and I for one do not want to be banned for discussing these aspects. This is not a commercial forum, its a community forum, and I would hope we would be able to continue to have these types of discussions.

 

As for your EULA example, I understand that devs (and their lawyers) put those terms into the agreements but that does not mean they are enforceable (and fwiw my GEX and UTX EULAs contain no such provision). A clause like that would be very tough to convince a judge to enforce. Say I buy a 3dsMax subsrciption with that language in it. If they decide to materially alter the agreement a week after I buy it and install it, to the point that I cant use it for what I intended to use it for (say, commercial distribution of work product, which was allowed when I purchased, installed, and agreed to the EULA), do you think a judge would say tough, you cant use the software and the developer can keep the money? It might work that way overseas, but US courts call that an unconscionable contract. One party cannot have a unilateral right to modify the material terms of a unequally bargained EULA without prior consent of the other party. The agreement can be written that way, but that does not mean its enforceable. EULAs for all practical legal purposes are worthless. The real teeth comes in copyright and patent law which, in the US, is a DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) violation.

 

Thanks for all your work to keep the community strong!

As I have said, its not the situation in question, but more of a pattern I have noticed, and I for one do not want to be banned for discussing these aspects. This is not a commercial forum, its a community forum, and I would hope we would be able to continue to have these types of discussions.

 

The pattern you have noticed is that we shut down topics that ALWAYS evolve into someone saying "disregard" the EULA, or, here is how to break it. That will shut down a topic on the subject every time. That's the pattern you have noticed.

 

As for your EULA example, I understand that devs (and their lawyers) put those terms into the agreements but that does not mean they are enforceable (and fwiw my GEX and UTX EULAs contain no such provision).

 

This is where we start to have a problem in terms of our ToS. It is not a matter of enforcement... implying that it is not enforceable is implicitly encouraging people to break them. Frankly, I don't give a fig what you do with your add-ons, but if you come into these forums and even hint that it is "okay" to bust a EULA, License or whatever, we're going to have issues.

EULAs for all practical legal purposes are worthless. The real teeth comes in copyright and patent law which, in the US, is a DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) violation.

 

Send me the bill Simmy11

 

This is where the real law is, There are alot of Eula's that attempt to create their own law and many including ones by big rich software giant's get thrown right out of court.

 

here's a huge example of an unlawful Eula. http://www.destructoid.com/eu-court-rejects-eulas-says-digital-games-can-be-resold-230641.phtml

As for your EULA example

 

I had to laugh when I read the Corel example because I knew exactly what was coming. But I agree with Tom's post above.

 

Hook

Frankly, I don't give a fig what you do with your add-ons, but if you come into these forums and even hint that it is "okay" to bust a EULA, License or whatever, we're going to have issues.

 

How to sum up 3 pages of posts in a single sentence! Sort of an excellent paraphrase to the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

 

Unfortunately, some individuals fail to grasp that concept.

 

Vic

Err from my understanding of the P3D EULA the vast majority of people running that are in breach of the license agreement, either that or there are suddenly a vast number of "educational institutions" and "Developers" on this forum. That's before you start adding the addons (sorry about the sentence structure).

 

It's all on the "Don't ask don't tell" policy as stated above!

It is not a matter of enforcement... implying that it is not enforceable is implicitly encouraging people to break them.

 

This is why people are advised to consult their attorney. We already know what the attorney will say.

 

Frankly, I don't give a fig what you do with your add-ons, but if you come into these forums and even hint that it is "okay" to bust a EULA, License or whatever, we're going to have issues.

 

And this is how is should be, although many people have said in the past that the shrink-wrap EULAs are unenforcable, just not with any authority.

 

Hook

And the summary of the whole thread? We are talking too much? :-)

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

Lord safe me i love the debate, it just seems a little pointless when the whole enterprise with P3D is under the radar

What I am saying is that violating an EULA is up to each individual....

 

At last you seem to be accepting that EULAs are being violated. But no - it's not up to each individual. If the EULA doesn't licence use with a particular application then it's not up to each individual to decide it does.