The "activation servers" are multi-product, not just FSX. They aren't going anywhere.

 

And if they do, MS will release a patch to ensure it can be activated. Much ado about nothing.

The "activation servers" are multi-product, not just FSX. They aren't going anywhere.

 

Exactly. I believe Office, Windows, and GFWL activation servers are the same as FSX's.

 

 

 

 

And if they do, MS will release a patch to ensure it can be activated. Much ado about nothing.

I'm not too sure about that. But again, the servers aren't going anywhere.

The "activation servers" are multi-product, not just FSX. They aren't going anywhere.

 

And if they do, MS will release a patch to ensure it can be activated. Much ado about nothing.

Yes, this is exactly what I thought.

 

 

There it is, ladies and gentlemen. TS2015 coming out September 18

 

...which is faaaar too short of a time period for Dovetail to really utilize any of the technologies they may now have access to. Add to that Dovetail's reprinted post above (#788), and it sounds like they might not even be licensed to use the technologies for anything other than a flight platform.

 

Wasn't the flight simulation world a lot simpler before all this Dovetail mumbo-jumbo? FSX was what it was.... P3D was up-and-coming.... X-Plane kept tootling along... 3rd party developers kept cranking out innovation after innovation...   Now that I think about it, nothing really has changed.

 

Huh!

TS2015 only includes three routes?? :huh:

In most EULA's provided by MS and others, there are generally exclusionary rights that the developer retains that basically say "we can nullify your rights to this software usage at our discretion".  That's not what it says precisely, it's wrapped in legal-ese wording.  However, were this the case, you still have rights.

 

Correct on both counts.  Autodesk tried similar restrictions on customers' right to own and re-sell their seats onwards and was roundly defeated in the resulting court actions.  Essentially the publisher retained the rights to the software with regard to mods, decompling, etc, but the customer absolutely had rights to truly "own" what they'd purchased.  The "right to use" terminology didn't fly.

 

Methinks I need to use "right" one more time in that paragraph... B)

TS2015 only includes three routes?? :huh:

 

They're planning 100 DLC, surely there will be more routes in the future.

No one remembers Phoenix Simulation Software which closed its flight simulation validation servers? That resulted  in buyers being unable to use their purchases and all the court cases in the world didn't change that.

 

They're planning 100 DLC, surely there will be more routes in the future.

 

Yes, but the base simulator should have a lot more than that.

 

 

No one remembers Phoenix Simulation Software which closed its flight simulation validation servers? That resulted  in buyers being unable to use their purchases and all the court cases in the world didn't change that.

 

Did Phoenix Simulation Software go out of business?

Correct on both counts.  Autodesk tried similar restrictions on customers' right to own and re-sell their seats onwards and was roundly defeated in the resulting court actions.  Essentially the publisher retained the rights to the software with regard to mods, decompling, etc, but the customer absolutely had rights to truly "own" what they'd purchased.  The "right to use" terminology didn't fly.

 

Methinks I need to use "right" one more time in that paragraph... B)

 

Nah... I think you're right on the money... ^_^

 

Regarding DRM, if it comes to that, we can cross that bridge when we get there IMO.  I can't say anything I'm thinking without violating AVSIM's TOS... :ph34r:

Autodesk tried similar restrictions on customers' right to own and re-sell their seats onwards and was roundly defeated in the resulting court actions.

 

I thought that  U.S. Supreme Court declined a request to grant certiorari in the case of Vernor v Autodesk, which meant Autodesk won its case.

 

Is there there another one?

 

Did Phoenix Simulation Software go out of business?

 

It claimed it was loosing money because of piracy.  There are a number of threads on the matter.

No one remembers Phoenix Simulation Software which closed its flight simulation validation servers? That resulted  in buyers being unable to use their purchases and all the court cases in the world didn't change that.

Please correct me if I'm wrong about this, but I just searched Phoenix Simulation Software on Google and they seem to be a company that made planes for flight simulators.

Whatever the outcome of court cases, my opinion is that anyone who has legally purchased software has a legal right to use it at any time.

I thought that  U.S. Supreme Court declined a request to grant certiorari in the case of Vernor v Autodesk, which meant Autodesk won its case.

 

Good point, though the EU went the opposite direction and determined that first sale applied.  Going a bit off topic, the Vernor case was a bit more complicated in that there were valid questions as to whether Vernor actually owned the software (purchased from an entity that had upgraded, which per A'desk's terms at the time didn't release the prev version, etc). 

 

More generally, even the skewed USSC would have a hard time supporting a publisher waving a TOU and revoking a buyer's right to use the software.

 

 

Please correct me if I'm wrong about this, but I just searched Phoenix Simulation Software on Google and they seem to be a company that made planes for flight simulators.

 

Yes and it shut down its validation servers.

 

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/94726-pss-press-release-1612008/page-3