Carenado likely doesn't care about risk in P3D because laws may be different in Chile. Developers in the US or Europe; another story.

 

 

True but if LM didn't want us 'pesky' simmers around, they could have easily restricted their licensing and charged a rate that only flight schools could afford. :lol:

 

That is an argument you can consider using when working as part of MS Legal.

 

 

 

The Purdue system sounds like what I had at ERAU, tho flight training time for each level and academic year didn't always mesh

 

Yeah I figured it would be similar at places like Embry, UND, etc.

 

When I was at Purdue, you did not have to actually be in the PP program to take the flight / ground courses.  Myself... I was in the Av. Maint. side of the house using "Flight" as a minor.  I think it was just a matter of the courses having "room", with priority given to the PP students.

No he doesn't ... LM have no risk (and I'm assuming most 3rd party content providers include very similar statements).

 

 

 

This thread is most likely going to get locked, but I need to clarify for accuracy.

 

Cheers, Rob.

Google "contract of adhesion."

 

Sorry, but that language won't prevent expensive lawsuits.

 

And the cost of defending is similar whether the suit has merit or not.

 

There's more to this than copying and pasting boilerplate.

 

 

Certainly they could absorb it... then pass the costs on to the end user.

 

You are making the assumption LM would lose the case ... which I highly doubt given their EULA, so the legal costs (of both sides) could indeed come from the plaintiff and not a dime out of LM's pocket.  Even with "American Rule" in place there is no guarantee the losing side will not have to cover the legal costs for the winning side.

You are making the assumption LM would lose the case ... which I highly doubt given their EULA, so the legal costs (of both sides) could indeed come from the plaintiff and not a dime out of LM's pocket. Even with "American Rule" in place there is no guarantee the losing side will not have to cover the legal costs for the winning side.

LM might make that decision but the risk picture is different for A2A and PMDG, whose pockets aren't nearly as deep, and who might well be put out of business while on the road to the eventual victory you're certain of.

 

EDIT: By the way, I apologize to Rob and others if I sound abrupt. I'm typing this on an iPad during a rain delay at the Nats-Reds game, so I'm not as expansive as usual. Basis for my viewpoint - I'm not an attorney but I'm married to one. Of more relevance - I'm a corporate communications adviser, including litigation support communications (announcing and managing news about lawsuits) sometimes for big companies you've heard of. So this is sort of my territory and there's a basis for my pessimism. I wish things were otherwise but they ain't.

As a "friendly reminder" discussions of legal matters is very much out of line here at AVSIM. Please consider this carefully before posting...

Google "contract of adhesion."

 

Sorry, but that language won't prevent expensive lawsuits.

 

And the cost of defending is similar whether the suit has merit or not.

 

There's more to this than copying and pasting boilerplate.

 

Nothing can prevent expensive lawsuits, wasn't my suggestion.  Heck people sue eating establishments because they (the consumer) spills hot coffee on themselves.

 

I quoted the Eula provided with purchase of product ... I'm not an LM legal rep so you'll have to take it up with them if you believe this is "boilerplate" and without "adhesion".

 

What I see repeated by some is the use of fear of legal consequences to steer people away from a flight simulation platform ... I find that disappointing.  EULA are for end users license agreements and it's up to the user to decide if they do or don't agree.  EULA fear mongering would appear to me to have ulterior motives behind it ... so in that sense I agree there is more to this than really exists

 

Cheers, Rob.

Rob - agree with you about that (and see also my edit to my previous post).

 

At the risk of getting crosswise with Fr. Bill (which is the last thing I want) - too many people talk about EULA violations as though they were criminal matters. Sometimes they are (as in the case of piracy) but in those cases they invoke other laws. For the most part EULAs are commercial agreements of the kind that people argue about all the time. Civil law, not criminal.

 

However, these points are a little bit askew from the main discussion, which is about the litigation risk to small companies like A2A and PMDG and their need to license and price accordingly.

 

Oh, one last point for everyone's benefit. A contract of adhesion is a standard agreement where all the power is with one party - for example, the waiver on your baseball ticket that says you accept the risk of getting hit with a foul ball. Courts don't like them because it's essentially a take it or leave it. They often set them aside and allow people to sue. That's why I said that the language on indemnify and hold harmless probably wouldn't keep an expensive suit from happening.

 

Ah, tarp coming off. Gotta go. More later...

The LM website seems pretty clear to me, although I have not read the license fine print as I do not own it yet. The base price for the software is $199 and can be used for simulation, learning or training. I've spent months trying to learn how to fly the Eaglesoft Citation X correctly in FSX. Even though I do have a private pilot's license, it appears that I qualify to use P3D just based on what I use the software for.  If I was a student up though the undergraduate level I could get a discounted price of $49 provided I used it for the same purposes.

 

The military is increasing it use of pilotless aircraft. The airlines would probably do the same if they thought the public would accept it. Where are the pilots for these pilotless aircraft going to come from? P3D looks like an excellent drone pilot training platform to me. LM and its clients could hire people and then train them from the ground up or....LM could make P3D available to the public for a fee, let people train themselves to a point, and then pick from the best without having to pay the initial salaries and benefits. In addition, the more copies of P3d that are out there increases the chances or more 3rd party addons being developed. Sounds like a good business plan to me. Too bad Microsoft couldn't see it.

 

As soon as the first company posts a help wanted ad for potential drone pilots with P3D experience I think we are going to see a flood of "learners" and potential pilots in "training" whether they be "academic" or "professional"....and a lot of changed tunes here.

 

I've never seen this argument presented in all the "licensing" threads I've read here so I though I'd put it out there.

 

Ted

This type of problem was inevitable once LM decided to try to get folks like us to buy the program and not just flights schools, etc. How many of us are there? How many flight schools are there? They need simmers like us to prop up the economics of developing the program. They of course know very well how the majority of purchasers will be using the program.

 

But what A2A is doing is just infuriating. They are punishing those of us that were honest enough to read the license agreement as it was written, with no "wink wink, nudge nudge" involved.

William J.S.S, on 21 May 2014 - 11:14 AM, said:  Doesn't the profession version have multiple copies?

 

 

 

Yes, and the code path is not identical.  Not sure if A2A are aware of this, you do actually get a few more things in the Professional version of LM's P3D.

 

The professional version ($199) provides for multiple licenses, meaning we can install on multiple machines?  I'm asking again, because I don't see this mentioned on the LM website.  Only thing I see that comes with multiple licenses within a single purchase order is the developer lic.

No, the "Professional License" is for one computer, period.

...but only on no more than one computer at any one time, only by no more than one user at any one time...

 

Only the "Developer's License" has two activations allowed, which makes perfect sense because any developer worth his/her salt will want to ensure "Shared Cockpit" compatibility, as well as test for peer-to-peer multiplayer.

 

The other advantage is the "Developer's License" guarantees that all updates, including major releases are at no additional charge.

I'm almost an attorney (pending bar) and just wanted to add that I think A2A's licensing is more than generous. Please take this with a grain of salt (caveat) but if I were representing the next-of-kin of someone who died in a C-172 crash when the pilot was known to use P3D and own the product that can be licensed professionally, you can bet your butt I'm at least going to serve a discovery request. That said, I'm greener than spring grass so don't rely on that as gospel. 

 

It occurred to me that new EULAs and pricing schemes aren't necessarily bad. Rather, I think they indicate a maturing of our hobby from strictly game entertainment to potentially accurate and believable enough to be considered suitable for training. How cool is that!?

It's not cool at all if you have to pay more for the exact same product, used the exact same way as others are using it.

 

 

Rather, I think they indicate a maturing of our hobby from strictly game entertainment to potentially accurate and believable enough to be considered suitable for training. How cool is that!?

 

Lots of games are getting that way.