Matt Davis striked by IVAO

[DaveCT2003 1,820]

There is no copyright protection that dictates use. None. You purchase a book, they don't get to control where and how you read it. If you download the MTL from IVAO, they don't get to control how or where it's used on your system. They really don't. Copyrights don't cover that! They never have!

 

Aerosoft provides financial support to IVAO... so... based on how IVAO has connected one YouTube account to another and another for "ownership"... then by the same twisted logic... Aerosoft is just as responsible for this farcical behavior. (No, I don't really believe that... but, well... get the point? LOL).

 

 

That's an interesting supposition. Sincerely and respectfully, I'd like to understand more about your belief here.  It just conflicts with that I was taught, what I was professionally trained in - that being that copyright protections were all about how the copyright protected material are used, and that that's precisely what a copyright is for.  In other words, that's what copyright protection exactly is... it governs how someone can use copyrighted material regardless of weather they paid for it or not.

 

Now, I'm not calling anyone out here, but I'm pretty sure a Google search will provide a lot of sources which will back this up (okay, I'll admit it, I did checked to make sure before writing that). If one would like to see that, it's here.

 

I'd like to be clear that I'm not calling anyone out, we're all entitled to our own opinions.

 

I don't care for IVAO or what they did. But also think that we need to keep things as accurate as possible, for the sake of the community.

[scotchegg 4,240]

I think Warp D is a bit confused. 'Use' is paramount in copyright, perhaps the most obvious indicator being 'fair use' to denote usage which won't trip copyright protections.

 

Try using a shop-bought Blu-ray in a cinema rather than sourcing from a film distributor and see how far that gets you.

[leghorn 76]

Interesting. Speaking of copyrights, I painted several aircraft for the IVAO MTL, they were approved and included (i started using it both on IVAO and VATSIM). Yet, nobody asked me if it's ok for VATSIM users to use them. So how come the MTL is IVAOs property, anyway? I always used VATSIM more, but frankly i'd prefer them combined..

[Holdit 551]

IVAO is the Betamax when it comes to networks. VATSIM is VHS

 

PilotEdge must be early DVD then.  :smile:

[tjstreak 53]

I think Warp D is a bit confused.

 

 

Actually, I think Warp D basically has it right.  Others, like DaveCT2003 have it wrong.

 

Copyrights only give the ORIGINAL creator of a work a certain bundle of rights.  As the name "copyright" suggests, its all about the rights to make copies.  Also note, you can only copyright stuff that you created, and cannot claim a copyright on something someone else created, unless, you purchase the copyright.

 

One of the rights a copyright holder has, is the right to control derivative works.  So if Boeing designs a 737 airliner, it has the right to control works derived from its design.  According to this logic, they have the right to control the sale and distribution of models of that 737, including both plastic models and digital models.

 

Similarly, if an airline designs a livery, they not only have a copyright on that livery, but also a trademark.  Someone else, including someone who copies that livery for a digital model, may not have the right to use that livery or distribute copies of it in any form.  I have found it amazing that some people actually think they have the right to use an airline's intellectual property, or even more brazen, think they have some sort of ownership interest in an airline's intellectual property.

 

Now some of these copyright claims verge on the ridiculous.  Someone has already mentioned Taylor Swift claiming a copyright on "this sick beat" and other phrases.  Obviously, Taylor does not want these words appearing on T-shirts and the like.  But it's ironic that another performer sued her for using the words "haters gonna hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate.  Players gonna play, play, play, play, play, play."  Now, that last claim got booted out of court pretty quickly.

 

Of course, these are not simple issues, which is why they are so expensive to litigate.

 

But this is not the point.  The point is IVAO has launched an attack on the flightsim community.  Matt has over 50,000 subscribers, including myself.  I suspect some of IVAO's members also subscribe to his channel.  There are those of us who like Matt's videos.  Some of us find them instructive.  Many of us find them useful or entertaining.  It is an inexpensive way to learn how to do many things in a flight simulator.

 

Now, IVAO comes along and tells me that I am not entitled to enjoy these videos.  They have a number of the videos taken down, and they take steps to insure that Matt will not post any more videos.  But in stopping Matt, they are taking something away from me, and the other 50,000 plus people who derive some enjoyment from these videos.

 

Then I ask myself, "who are these Richard heads, who are trying to  control what flightsim videos I am entitled to watch?  Ad who gave them the right to censor the informational materials that I want to access, to the point of preventing me from accessing it at all."  They really need to have a pretty good reason for doing this.  Censorship is bad enough coming from a government, but private individuals trying to censor materials is pretty offensive.

 

This has a real chilling effect on the community.  At some point, someone like Matt could get quite fed up with the harassment, and simply stop making new videos, not matter how this particular case is resolved.  If he stops making videos, then I can no longer enjoy them.  And even though I have never had any sort of relationship with IVAO, I see them taking something away from me.

[ErichB 3,651]

What a fine mess about absolutely nothing really.  

 

Silly models being created by people who love doing it in their spare time, packaged into a MDL file by a group of people who love doing it in their spare time for use by people who love simming in their spare time, who also happen to create videos for the enjoyment of many in their spare time.

 

Trust an idiot to introduce concepts like infringement, copyright and violation to stop the enjoyment for all.  This hobby seems to be peppered with people who take their fiefdoms and themselves soooo seriously that they absolutely miss the point of why we are doing things in the first place anyway.

[WarpD 824]

I think Warp D is a bit confused. 'Use' is paramount in copyright, perhaps the most obvious indicator being 'fair use' to denote usage which won't trip copyright protections.

 

Try using a shop-bought Blu-ray in a cinema rather than sourcing from a film distributor and see how far that gets you.

The copyright defines terms under which it can be viewed which actually define the concept of private versus public viewing. It does not tell you what room you can watch it in, it does not tell you who you can and can not watch it with, it does not tell you what brand of player you can use to view the disc.

 

IVAO can not tell you that AI models installed on your computer for personal use can only be used while on their network. How they appear on your computer is not something they can control. To claim they can would mean that a slide show of AI models being displayed on your personal computer would be a violation of said copyright. It clearly wouldn't, and isn't even remotely enforceable.

 

IVAO's copyright is a distribution/organization copyright. They don't even hold the copyrights to the physical models nor the paints being used with said models.

[JRBarrett 3,121]

The strike against Matt was bad enough, but the recent strike against Musicalaviator goes beyond all logic and reason. Apparently IVAO claimed that merely because he placed a link in the comments section of one of his videos referencing Matt's video on using MTL, that the mere presence of that comment gave IVAO "ownership rights" to Musicalaviator's video - which was all about his OWN custom AI model set, created from a variety of commercial and freeware packages.

 

That claim is beyond ludicrous. I have to wonder if Peter Tishma is secretly sitting on the IVAO board of directors! This whole situation stinks of something P.T. would have done back in the day...

[alpha12125 213]

What "work" did they do?  It's not just the installer, it's correlating all the different AI Models from many different sources, editing them, ensure they are duplicated, and checking / testing each one and selecting the one that is best. I know how much work this is because I once did this for over 6000 models for a PRIVATE group - and the work was never made public.  I made sure that my work here was permissible under the Fair Use Doctrine.

 

Well its a very liberal use of the word "work" they did   At the moment we know of three freeware/liverey modellers that found their stuff beeing used in the MTL without any sort of contact from IVAO or their persmission regarding the usage. God knows what else just got copied from the internet into this MTL. This thing isn't audited this thing isn't checked and the biggest irony of all is that all the attention they receive atm brings all this problems with their MTL to light.

 

You can't claim copyright on something if you just claim Fair Use of the models.

That's an interesting supposition. Sincerely and respectfully, I'd like to understand more about your belief here.  It just conflicts with that I was taught, what I was professionally trained in - that being that copyright protections were all about how the copyright protected material are used, and that that's precisely what a copyright is for.  In other words, that's what copyright protection exactly is... it governs how someone can use copyrighted material regardless of weather they paid for it or not.

 

Now, I'm not calling anyone out here, but I'm pretty sure a Google search will provide a lot of sources which will back this up (okay, I'll admit it, I did checked to make sure before writing that). If one would like to see that, it's here.

 

I'd like to be clear that I'm not calling anyone out, we're all entitled to our own opinions.

 

I don't care for IVAO or what they did. But also think that we need to keep things as accurate as possible, for the sake of the community.

 

 

It is something that is heavily discussed in the software industry. At the moment if you own the software you can use it any way you want and no company can forbid you that. That is something that software companies dont like. Microsoft for instance lost multiple cases in Europe where they said OEM software is bound to the PC and cannot be sold afterwards alone. Reason beeing that they dont want a secondary market of used software.  They lost multiple cases that once you own the software you can use it the way you want it.  Thats one of the reasons you see all software companies offering software as a service so you never own the product only pay for access to it.

I think Warp D is a bit confused. 'Use' is paramount in copyright, perhaps the most obvious indicator being 'fair use' to denote usage which won't trip copyright protections.

 

Try using a shop-bought Blu-ray in a cinema rather than sourcing from a film distributor and see how far that gets you.

Using your analogy though is that the shop owner is IVAO and that they are sueing you for showing it in the cinmea.  End of the day the owner of the film has to sue you not the shop owner that sold it to you.  That is the point Warp D is trying to make

[scotchegg 4,240]

The copyright defines terms under which it can be viewed which actually define the concept of private versus public viewing.

Yes, I can see you're working very hard to avoid using the word 'use' to support your earlier claim that copyright doesn't mandate against use, but common practice is to talk in terms of 'use'. Standard DVD copyright warning:

 

"Use in other locations such as airlines, clubs, coaches, hospitals, hotels, oil rigs, prisons, schools and ships is prohibited unless expressly authorized by the copyright proprietor."

[alpha12125 213]

Yes, I can see you're working very hard to avoid using the word 'use' to support your earlier claim that copyright doesn't mandate against use, but common practice is to talk in terms of 'use'. Standard DVD copyright warning:

 

"Use in other locations such as airlines, clubs, coaches, hospitals, hotels, oil rigs, prisons, schools and ships is prohibited unless expressly authorized by the copyright proprietor."

but who is the copyright proprietor ?  That is the thing. It is not IVAO.

[ErichB 3,651]

but who is the copyright proprietor ? That is the thing. It is not IVAO.

That really is the question. Don't you have to legally register a copyright? You can't just claim it because you say so.

 

If you borrow a book from the library (the library owns the book) and photocopy and distribute its contents without permission, the library can't sue you for copyright infringement. It's the book author's claim on misuse that is valid. As far as I'm concerned, IVAO is the library and the model creators have a valid claim on any so called copyright

 

It's a bit like a library suing the reader of the book because he took the book to a library in a neighboring county and read it there. Lunacy

[scotchegg 4,240]

but who is the copyright proprietor ?  That is the thing. It is not IVAO.

 

TBH that's kind of beside the (or at least my) point. The original claim was that copyright protection never mandates against use. 10 seconds googling should show you that's clearly not true.

[ErichB 3,651]

alpha12125, on 08 Dec 2015 - 1:10 PM, said:

but who is the copyright proprietor ?  That is the thing. It is not IVAO.

TBH that's kind of beside the (or at least my) point. 

 

But I think if you cut all of the convoluted mess out of this melodrama, that is exactly the right question to ask.

[alpha12125 213]

TBH that's kind of beside the (or at least my) point. The original claim was that copyright protection never mandates against use. 10 seconds googling should show you that's clearly not true.

i think it should be a little be more defined. In germany the law states "copyright protection never mandates against personal use"   playing a blu ray in a cinema is not personal use however.

That really is the question. Don't you have to legally register a copyright? You can't just claim it because you say so.

 

If you borrow a book from the library (the library owns the book) and photocopy and distribute its contents without permission, the library can't sue you for copyright infringement. It's the book author's claim on misuse that is valid. As far as I'm concerned, IVAO is the library and the model creators have a valid claim on any so called copyright

 

It's a bit like a library suing the reader of the book because he took the book to a library in a neighboring county and read it there. Lunacy

As the copyright owner you can transfer rights to someone else to enforce them. This is regularily the case when law firms sue piracy users on the internet.  In germany there have been some cases where the court decided against the law firms because at the time of sueing the pirates they didnt have any mandate to do so. It used to be a practice that law companies would get eg. 5000 potential pirates and then go with that list to the copyright owner and ask them for permission.