Matt Davis striked by IVAO

[avgaskoolaid 292]

I think the worst part of this is that YouTube restricted Matt's account until the issue is resolved. Remember, kiddies; according to the google corporation you're guilty until proven innocent! 

[Augustin320214 4]

They are just hurting themselves really...

[Lashrathius 49]

This is complete B.S.  Matt has not violated their copyrights in any way, shape or form.  He is not distributing their files.  The AI aircraft are not even the subject of, or even a major part of his videos. (I have never even noticed them.)   And IVAO really does not have any rights to these models in the first place.

 

Let's see how ridiculous we can get!  Froogle makes videos of flying PMDG models.  I guess he needs to shut off his site.  He also uses Aerosoft aircraft and airports.  Ditto.

 

Someone makes a video.  On that video, they are wearing clothes.  The clothing manufacturer claims a copyright violation because the person on the video is displaying (i.e. wearing) their clothes.  I guess if you are going to appear on YouTube, you must do so being naked so you do not violate the clothing manufacturer's copyrights.

 

And when it comes to things like aircraft and liveries, who really owns the copyright?  Is it the person who made the aircraft model or the livery?  Actually, the aircraft manufacturer would claim that they own the model.  So if you want to make a model of a Boeing 737, you probably need to clear it with Boeing.  PMDG certainly did.

 

With respect to liveries, do those belong to the livery painter, or to the airlines?  There is a reason why Microsoft made up their own fictitious airlines.  They did not want to have to negotiate with real world airlines to use real world liveries.

 

Actually, copyright laws exist for the benefit of the big boys, and not little schmucks like us.  Disney does not want people making pornographic cartoons with Mickey and Minnie Mouse.  The NFL does not want people using their trademarks to take away business from their own franchisees.  Sony does not want people downloading illegal copies of their music.  These laws exist for the benefit of the likes of Disney, the NFL and Sony, not for bit players like IVAO.  The twits at IVAO really are showing a lot of hubris here!

 

Generally a fair amount of latitude has been given to little schmucks like us who want to make YouTube videos when there is no real economic harm to a copyright holder.  (Of course, don't use one of Taylor Swift's songs as your background music!)  The Big Boys are not interested in us little schmucks for the most part;  they are after the big time infringers.  (Although some of the big boys, like Sony, have been known to send threatening letters to little schmucks like us.)  Airlines are not interested in suing livery painters who use their "intellectual property" in painting liveries, for the most part; although, they could.

 

Fortunately, Matt has a simple remedy.  He can send a counter-notice to Youtube.  These forms can easily be found using Google.  After Youtube receives the form, they should restore the video.

 

Part of this is understanding how the Digital Millenium Copyright Act works.  A provider like Youtube is given a safe harbor (that is, they cannot be sued by a copyright holder) so long as they follow the requirements of the act.  Upon receiving a take down notice, they are required to remove the content.  They do not make a determination as to whether the claim is valid;  that is determined by courts (and usually Federal courts).  They just remove the offending video.  If they receive a counter-notice, in the required form, they can restore the video.  If the alleged copyright holder still feels aggrieved, they can file a lawsuit for the copyright violation.  But so long as Youtube follows the requirements of the act, they are pretty (but not 100%) safe.

 

Now, most people do not file the counter-notice, either because they are not aware of it, or because it is too much of a pain in the butt.  But once it is received, most alleged copyright holders don't take any further action for the same reasons.

 

But all of us should be thankful to IVAO for protecting us from harmful and illegal videos showing people enjoying our hobby.

 

Very very well said. More people need to read your post. 2 thumbs UP! 

[carlito777 712]

This is all about IVAO being jealous that Matt is using VATSIM for most of his flights and thereby promoting VATSIM. They are like small children crying because you took away their toy. The whole thing is absolutely ridiculous and will hopefully backfire at IVAO.

[TheFlightSimGuy 514]

So I guess we should all start using an "unnamed" traffic package that repackages freeware files in a single installer? 

 

Many people here are missing the point, IVAO developed this AI package in coordination with freeware developers for use on their network. To think that using their product while flying on a different network is ok, is frankly crazy. That's like me taking MyTraffic and Traffic360 packages and rebundling them for my own payware. You cant use their package on another network, plain and simple. It isnt freeware, its a free tool for use on their network. 

 

People can come up with as many excuses as they please, but the rule has been clear for years and I dont think its fair to point the finger back at IVAO for enforcing their rights. They made the package, they made the installer, you use it as instructed. If you dont like it, use another traffic package. Plain and simple. 

[avgaskoolaid 292]

So I guess we should all start using an "unnamed" traffic package that repackages freeware files in a single installer? 

Matt wasn't redistributing and modifying files against the wishes of the developers. He was telling people how to do something anybody could figure out in an hour or two, whether via a forum or by themselves. Making a youtube video saying "here's how to download a torrent that somebody else uploaded" isn't the same thing as illegally distributing commercial software. And the thing is, it doesn't MATTER. What negative impact will doing something like that have on IVAO or the developers? Tell me, please, about a quantifiable negative impact that me using some models for me to see planes on VATSIM rather than IVAO will have on anybody. People using a free software on their own personal computers without modifying the models and distributing them in any way? The horror!! I'd bet money that some IVAO guy was ###### off because Matt is more popular than him and VATSIM is more popular than IVAO, so he did what any loser can do and shut down Matt's channel using the embarrassingly bad YouTube copyright system. 

[sgreen91 182]

Who is Matt Davies??/

[Guest JustanotherPilot]

Who is Matt Davies??/

He produces  informative youtube videos on most things flightsim,spanning all platforms. ironically, he produced a very good tutorial series on getting started in vatsim.

[ErichB 3,642]

 

 

Many people here are missing the point, IVAO developed this AI package in coordination with freeware developers for use on their network. To think that using their product while flying on a different network is ok, is frankly crazy.

 

That is precisely the point. This is more about the principle than it is about actual legal infringement.

[Nuno Pinto 1,395]

So I guess we should all start using an "unnamed" traffic package that repackages freeware files in a single installer? 

 

Many people here are missing the point, IVAO developed this AI package in coordination with freeware developers for use on their network. To think that using their product while flying on a different network is ok, is frankly crazy. That's like me taking MyTraffic and Traffic360 packages and rebundling them for my own payware. You cant use their package on another network, plain and simple. It isnt freeware, its a free tool for use on their network. 

 

People can come up with as many excuses as they please, but the rule has been clear for years and I dont think its fair to point the finger back at IVAO for enforcing their rights. They made the package, they made the installer, you use it as instructed. If you dont like it, use another traffic package. Plain and simple. 

 

There you go.

 

I did enjoy reading the network 'fans' comments too

[tjstreak 53]

 

This is more about the principle than it is about actual legal infringement.

 

No this is more about malice and spite than it is about copyright.

 

I wonder what Matt did to so anger them.  This is not the type of thing one does casually.  It is a calculated and malicious piece of vandalism.  It is little different than someone hacking the IVAO website because they were mad about something IVAO did.

 

 

but the rule has been clear for years and I don't think it's fair to point the finger back at IVAO for enforcing their rights.

 

What rule and what rights?

 

Understand that copyright law provides the original creator of certain items (software, books, music, movies, etc.) with a certain bundle of legal protections.  It also provides people who use these items with certain rights as well (first sale doctrine, fair use, etc.)

 

Often a person who holds a copyright starts claiming rights that they, in fact, do not possess.  Someone does not get to "make up" their own copyright "rulez."  One has to distinguish between a violation of copyright rules, which are established by legislation and/or treaty, and the "rulez" that someone simply makes up.

 

IVAO was not the original creator of any of these models, and they have no basis for claiming to have any intellectual property rights in either the models or the liveries because those are possessed by someone else.  In effect, IVAO "stole" someone else's intellectual property, and now they are complaining that someone "stole" it from them.

 

But their defenders recognize that this is really not about copyright, but some "rulez" that IVAO basically pulled out of their butts.

 

The problem is, they filed a copyright infringement notice with YouTube.  YouTube is required to take certain actions when a copyright notice is filed.  However, YouTube is not required to act when someone claims a violation of "rulez" that they pulled out of their butt.  In effect, IVAO lied by claiming a copyright where there was none, and by claiming infringement of that non-existent copyright, when there was no infringement.  In the process, they hurt a hobbyist who had done them no harm.

 

This was just pure malice.

[Jarkko 59]

In effect, IVAO "stole" someone else's intellectual property, and now they are complaining that someone "stole" it from them.

 

References please as this is quite a hard argument.

[WarpD 824]

There is no copyright infringement. You can't actually copyright usage.

[BestPlane 18]

They made the package, they made the installer, you use it as instructed. If you dont like it, use another traffic package. Plain and simple. 

 

I disagree on that one. Nobody should be (and in fact they arent) allowed to tell me what I do with files on my PC and what not, As long as I dont harm any REAL laws like making it available elsewhere or selling it. But to claim a copyright here and disable Youtube accounts is not quite legal in my opinion. I bet Matt gets his channel back soon, without any consequences 

[Holdit 551]

I disagree on that one. Nobody should be (and in fact they arent) allowed to tell me what I do with files on my PC and what not, As long as I dont harm any REAL laws like making it available elsewhere or selling it. But to claim a copyright here and disable Youtube accounts is not quite legal in my opinion. I bet Matt gets his channel back soon, without any consequences 

 

I think he's back up already.