I agree completely - the early posts made it seem as though DSB is Foul and Unclean, but I read the posts at the other site (http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php?t=2403) and I now think that in all fairness we should wait to see how things turn out.Hopefully they will do The Right Thing, whatever that may be.Dave Blevins

WHY DID SIMMARKET wait almost 4 days before pulling it?>Hi Jose,>>Well, I did of course write to Simmarket.>But had NO REPLY yet (after 3 days).>>See attached picture of my report (for obvious reasons I>editted out most of the Ticket Id). Someone might get the idea>of editting it :-(>>To make it a little more "mysterious":>In this tollticket I refer to a "Max Monroe" , not "David>Brice".>See the signature on this page.>http://www.dsbdesign.com/harrier.htm>>Unlike the announcement on the News page>(http://www.dsbdesign.com)>done by David Brice.>>Which initially was my first "confusion": who to communicate>with at DSB Design ??>>There is probably a lot more to reveal on this "mystery".>But as said, I will state only facts. You may draw conclusions>:-)>>Cheers, Rob>>>>>Here is the Trouble ticket image, see for yourself.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/121958.jpgThis is very suspect. From Rob's post he posted an image of a Trouble ticket advising Simmarket of the violation and it appears that simmarket blew him off until this thread appeared.This to me means simmarket only pulled it due to this thread, and not because of the Violation, in my opinion.This is no way for a commercial entity to treat Rob or us.Look at the trouble ticket. Rob sent it on Thursday July 7th, 2005. The file was not pulled until Sunday, and he stated he received no response.Why was that?Why did simmarket ignore Rob's notification?This whole thing is only about one thing, In my opinion, dollars.SimMarket should not sell DSB's products at all, in my opinion, and need to explain why they ignored Rob's claim, only acting when it became Public.Those of you who desire this thread to be closed should look at what transpired here.I also still am very suspect of DSB, max, Sigma, david, Karen, whoever they claim to be today. Rewriting an xml code from scratch in 3 days. I doubt it. Misleading consumers by using fake names, why lie?Of course when you have the referenced code already, must have been easy to cut it up.The reaction of DSb is still pathetic, as is the silence of other developers and distributors in this event.It was only the public outing of this event that finally caused simmarket to act. Interesting they waited until then.As to the identity of the "contributor", DSB can keep him/her/it a secret if they like, but your integrity in this issue is GONE, in my opinion.I have never seen such backpedaling ever in this industry. It's somebody else's fault, we only make the money as long as we can and as fast as we can.I suggest consumers look elsewhere and boycott both simmarket and DSB/Sigma for their behavior in this event.They took the MINIMUM steps to try to make this go away, which tells me that as commercial endeavors , they could care less about the community and only care about themselves.Now of course, some will come in here, and state oh, they did the right thing and all. You think so, I don't, I think they blew this from the start and continue to do so.Send your money elsewhere to reputable developers who care about the community, care about stopping piracy and don't try to shove it under the community's rug as if it never happened.As for DSB, nice how they put in all this legal mumbo jumbo claims as if they are doing the right thing.Well DSB, in another thread, it states this about the Country you do business in:http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/con...act/fta1999117/Part 4 Division 3 of this Act covers non-contact sales agreements, which cover Internet sales.Section 68 defines a non-contact agreement.Section 69 sets out the requirements to be provided including the full business address of the supplier, and Section 70 makes not complying with Section 69 a punishable offence and makes the agreement unenforceable by a supplier who fails to comply with Section 69."WHERE IS THE BUSINESS ADDRESS....Where is the NameWhere is the Phone NumberFor an ALLEGED Company claiming legal reasons for not disclosing things you would think that following the laws of the same country they claim would be important on their list.http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/con...999117/s69.htmlThat link seems pretty clear to me.Face it folks, in my opinion they are trying to pull the sheets over our eyes and make it go away without any repercussions for their actions here.As a Community, are you willing to let this behavior simply go silently into their next product. DSb keeps selling the Harrier, Simmarket won't give refunds, and Rob simply gets taken advantage of just like the community with these charades by DSB and SimMarket.I have also listed a viable solution to this mess above in my first post for this event, which while some may not like my comments, at least I contributed a solution. http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...74&page=#263425Grab My FREEWARE Voice recognition Profiles here:[a href=http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID=fs2004misc&DLID=58334]Cessna 172 Voice Profile[/a][a href=http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID=fs2004misc&DLID=60740]FSD Avanti Voice Profile[/a].You will need the main FREEWARE Flight Assistant program to use it, get it here:[a href=http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID=genutils&DLID=39661]Flight Assistant 2.2[/a]

This whole situation smacks of the PT fiasco...scandals, piracy, people running around with 30 different aliases and business names, pointing to the far side of the room crying, "look over there," while they shuffle the pieces around on the board.Anything for a buck.

Rob,As Dave puts it so well, I think that basically the entire community of guys who create stuff on FS is behind you on this one, well obviously not the entire community.....It seems that this kind of thing never goes away does it, even in freeware it is important to seek permission and give credit and acknowledgement where due. I wonder just how many good and talented creators have decide to leave the hobby for just these reasons?I must also say that having discovered this thread somewhat later than everyone else it makes heavy reading, and I see replies that attempt to justify or at least excuse this kind of thing, shame on you flight1!Stick to your guns Rob you are right.Brian Franklin

Quite simply someone is not telling the truth.Rob quotes an email from DSB:"For your information, whilst Mr Brice has had a contributing part in DSB Design in the past, he no longer does, apart from assisting in enquiries from customers. He has no financial gain from DSB Design apart from any sales made from his own products since the business was signed over to me earlier this year."The Australian Business Names register shows that DSB Design, DSB Direct, and Sigma Simulation Products are all trading names of David Richard Brice who is registered as an Individual/Sole Trader. His registration number is 54 044 292 336 and he is located in the State of Victoria with postcode 3095. His ABN status is active from 1 July 2005 and was last modified on 11 July 2005, so it's up to date.Given that DSB said that Max Monroe was the Chief Executive Officer (of an Individual/Sole Trader!) when there is no such person, who do you believe?

Not involved in this in any way, except I have used some of Rob's excellent freeware gauges in the past.But I have to stand up for SimMarket (who again I have no connection with)They have as I understand it removed from sale the product about which a claim has been made.No claims have been made about other DBS products and were they to withdraw them, they would presumably be in breach of whatever agreements exist between them and DBS.This lays them open to penalties for a situation they have apparently had no hand in making - several correspondents have described them as being a reputable company.There are morals and natural justice and then there is the law. SimMarket have probably gone as far a they can without getting into the **** themselves.

Well said. The usual anti-payware crowd shouts the loudest as always.DSB tried to explain and rectify the situation, yet that's completely ignored and even explained away as being all lies and conspiracies.This is a very unhealthy trend in this hobby, that a single claim against one person or group by another can completely destroy one's reputation without any chance of self defence.Personally I feel pulled towards supporting DSB in this. They try to work towards a solution in private and as a reward they're slagged with posts intent clearly to destroy them on a long list of forums.If I were to encounter a customer or whomever who has a grievance and behaves like that I'd immediately stonewall.Such behaviour is clearly meant to drive DSB out of business by making it impossible for them to sell anything. And now some people are trying to do the same to DSB's distributors, who were probably even more surprised by all this than were DSB themselves.

No, the community is not behind him.He denies DSB the opportunity to figure out what happened and to rectify the situation by screaming out in public forum.That's a very worrying precedent in that it effectively makes it impossible for anyone to do business anymore.It shows how easy it is to destroy a company by making any old claim (whether true or not) and just shouting loud enough without ever waiting for a response.Rob may be right that someone used his work without his permission, but his methods are highly suspect and would in many places be illegal as they amount to slander.

Thanks for pointing this out, I have added a post about it in the other thread as well.Yep, the lies will get you everytime.Grab My FREEWARE Voice recognition Profiles here:[a href=http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID=fs2004misc&DLID=58334]Cessna 172 Voice Profile[/a][a href=http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID=fs2004misc&DLID=60740]FSD Avanti Voice Profile[/a].You will need the main FREEWARE Flight Assistant program to use it, get it here:[a href=http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID=genutils&DLID=39661]Flight Assistant 2.2[/a]

>I must also say that having discovered this thread somewhat>later than everyone else it makes heavy reading, and I see>replies that attempt to justify or at least excuse this kind>of thing, shame on you flight1!Huh???? What did Flight1 do?http://www.dreamfleet2000.com/gfx/images/F...BANNER_PAUL.jpg

It seems to me that DSB were in fact given every opportunity to answer before Rob 'went to press'. Please also read reply 108.I know David and can honestly say that I would not expect or believe this of him, however the evidence of someone's wrong-doing seems to be pretty impressive.At the very least I would expect reputable members of the community to condemn such actions immediately and comdemn the guilty parties should guilt be proved. Your reply seemed to imply that you did not see a problem at all with this and were very quick to attack Rob. Why?

I believe you may well find that with respect to software the situation regarding distance selling is different: You do not purchase goods, you purchase a license to use software within certain agreed limitations.If you buy insurance, or take out a loan, the insurance or loan can simply be cancelled. If you order "hard" goods, the goods can be returned. In either case, you no longer have access to them. The same cannot be said for software, which is beyond the seller's control (unless they have a "live connection" system or control over a key), thus explaining why so many places have this restriction and policy of no refunds on download goods.I didn't say you shouldn't have the right to ask or that they were 100% in the right, I said that I understand why they put the restriction in place. Whether it can be upheld in law I don't know and am not qualified to comment on.Personally, I'd hope that DSB provides refunds where people want them, directly, and that they come equally directly from the bank account of the person who created the mess in the first place! Wishful thinking, probably, knowing the way that laws often contravene common sense.Ian P.

Paul, please see reply 4. My apologies if this does not represent Flight1, but it does seem to imply that there is nothing wrong or even unethical with helping oneself to others work.It does however seem to present the message "It's happened get over it!"

Thats harsh. It's one man's take, not the whole company!Dan

Aaah come on Jeroen,Are you sure you are a programmer by proffession because any one with a bit of common sense can see for themselve that Rob has a very strong case against DSB.Just look at the published comments from DSB:You think that its normal to hide behind non existent persons and contradicting yourself in your own mail?That you are bind via a contract to secrecy even if the person you are protecting is almost certain a criminal that stole Robs code?Just count the non supportive posts in both treads if you like. If the community is not behind Rob than there must be a very large silent majority here.Futthermore watch out what you post with that very offical looking Flight1 logo you use some people might mistake the nature of your statements.