Sorry to see the PSS theft thread locked

[Guest wathomas777]

One final word on this subject.I would like to applaud AVSIM, not only for their support of the flight sim community, but also in acting in clearly a responsible and professional matter.Not only did they lock the original thread, but also removed it in a very timely manner, so that the "accused's" private information was no longer available to those who had no business with it in the first place. The moderators were quick to identify that AVSIM could have legal liability as well, were they to continue to host clearly private information without the persons consent, and acted quickly to remove it from view.AVSIM, "get's it". It's a shame that PSS does not.

[Guest SoarPics]

"Not only did you not do this, but you were the ones who willingly leaked it.We are not supporting the actions of this "pirate". It is wrong and reprehensible."Good post, Will.At this time, given Phoenix 1's continued bashing of anyone who finds PSS's actions unacceptable, it's difficult to discern who has committed the most heinous act... a possible pirate stealing their IP or PSS for prosecuting him in public without due process.In the end neither act is any better than the other.Greg

[John_Cillis 2,406]

"GROW UP MAN THIS IS CRIMINAL ACTIVITY and I dont believe so many of you are defending it ????????"You know, with that comment, I wouldn't touch one of your products if you gave it to me. First you post the identity of someone who may indeed be guilty of what you claim. Fine--but to equate concern for that action as defending criminal activity is a slander to everyone who has offered an opinion on the subject. No one is defending criminal activity. They are disputing the method you chose to report it--since as far as we know, no one's been convicted of a crime. There's a number of equally valid circumstances that could make the person who purchased the product an innocent bystander in all of this. Even though "Looks like a Duck, Walks like a Duck" likely applies here, there is still doubt. But you're convinced otherwise, and you label those who aren't "defenders" of criminal activity. You have all the answers, eh?It disturbs me greatly that a payware vendor--an entity that processes personal information about their customers, would adopt such a blind and ignorant attitude, then turn around and shift the focus on someone else. You may control the agenda in your forum, but you don't control it here--certainly not with statements like that.I'm lucky it's late here. I could go on all night, I'm fuming over this one. What next--will you settle this on the street with anyone you dare accuse of ripping you off?Geesh...Rant over...

[Guest IanP]

Certainly not here in the UK. The registered keeper of the car is liable for the fine unless they can prove it wasn't them. The onus is moved, because they are responsible for the vehicle under law. If you read the EULA that your agree to every time you install software (they may be slightly different, but they all contain roughly the same language), it will say that you are responsible for the security of your code, key and/or software. The onus is on you to prove that your security precautions are good enough.As I have said all the way through, I believe that PSS could have handled this better. I'm just sick of people using rather pathetic "it wasn't me sir!" excuses when they get caught. If people want to live in an anarchy, they're welcome to. They still have no right whatsoever to take anyone else into it with them.Ian P.

[Guest IanP]

OK, it's time to put a stop to this ranting on both sides before this thread gets locked.No-one here is saying that what he did was right. What they are saying is that PSS could and possibly should have dealt with it differently.Incidentally, I have no idea how old this person is. Under UK law, it is illegal to disclose the name or personal details of a minor, whether or not they have broken the law, without permission from a court. The same does not stand for adults, unless a court order prevents disclosure of the name.On the other hand, the agreement between a company and any individual is just that - an agreement. If one side decides to unilaterally break that agreement, for example by publishing documents they do not have the right to, the agreement is broken and the other side is not bound by it either.My personal opinion is that this could and should have been handled better, but I understand how hard it is to get any form of justice in these cases, so can see both sides of the argument.So... Maybe everyone bickering on this thread should start shouting at their representatives instead, to try and come up with a workable international body to oversee the internet rather than it being a total "outlaw" in the truest sense of the word.Ian P.

[gosta 0]

>Certainly not here in the UK. The registered keeper of the car is liable for the fine unless they can prove it wasn't them.http://www.hifisim.com/images/as2betateam.jpg

[Guest IanP]

> ...but the police still has to prove that an offence was committed.The proof is the camera picture - or, in this case, the presence of the individual license on a P2P site. I know a lot of people who have been caught by speed cameras (why do teenage males think they are immortal?) and a lot have said "Weren't me mate", only then to have to pay the fine because they could provide no proof whatsoever that they were in control of the vehicle.The fact remains that the EULA agreed to by the customer that triggered this thread states that he is reponsible for the security of his files. His identifiably personal files were on the P2P site and, as such, he personally is in breach of the EULA, not anyone else.Ian P.

[gosta 0]

>The proof is the camera picture I know a lot of people who have been caught by speed cameras (why do teenage males think they are immortal?) and a lot have said "Weren't me mate", only then to have to pay the fine because they could provide no proof whatsoever that they were in control of the vehicle.http://www.hifisim.com/images/as2betateam.jpg

[Guest wathomas777]

"The fact remains that the EULA agreed to by the customer that triggered this thread states that he is reponsible for the security of his files. His identifiably personal files were on the P2P site and, as such, he personally is in breach of the EULA, not anyone else."The fact also remains that PSS deliberately and with malice aforethought violated it's own privacy statement in releasing the individuals name and e-mail adress without his permission.I hold PSS to a higher standard because they are responsible for safeguarding their customers private financial information, regardless of what the EULA says or what the customer may do to "break" that EULA.Revoke the license, fine. Ban him from your site, fine. Agree never to sell anything to him again, fine. But release his private information to the public, in violation of your own stated policies? Sorry, you've crossed the line.I don't trust a pirate, and never will. That is why I do not willingly give a pirate my personal financial information. Yet a merchant, I HAVE to trust will do the right thing with my financial information. Irregardless of what beef they may have or evidence that I may have wronged them. This trust is vital to commerce. I EXPECT a pirate to be a crook. What I don't expect is a trusted merchant to stoop to a pirate's level, and abuse the trust that has been given to them by their customers.

[Guest IanP]

>> I hold PSS to a higher standard because they are responsible for safeguarding their customers private financial information, regardless of what the EULA says or what the customer may do to "break" that EULA.They don't even see your financial information. The financial institution that handles the transaction does and they transfer the money to the vendor/licensor.>> Revoke the license, fine. Ban him from your site, fine. Agree never to sell anything to him again, fine. But release his private information to the public, in violation of your own stated policies? Sorry, you've crossed the line.I would be inclined to agree with you there.Ian P.

[Guest IanP]

Personally, I have not seen any defence to the accusation. Nor do I ever expect to see proof that they didn't upload it or a defence as to why it was uploaded (by them or anyone else).PSS cannot be held liable for their customers' security. Whether the files were released by this person, or someone else released the files from this person's possession, it is still that person's responsibility.Ian P.

[Guest Binkles]

Which of these two stories would be read on TV?Joe bloggs has been arrested on suspected theft charges and will appear in court on Tuesday.ORJoe bloggs was suspected of theft and his email account is joebloggs.com and his phone number 0800 happy?I'm assuming the former.No-one I have seen supports the pirate, or that it was released, just the way Phoenix has handled it.I have yet to see Microsoft release the contact details of anyone they have taken to court over piracy - nor have the record companies released the email addresses of everyone found on a p2p network. I suspect there is some legal argument against publishing it.I remember reading that PMDG were pursueing individuals etc for piracy, but I have never seen them post the email address of the thieves.I repeat everyone here supports you chasing the pirates, but most are against your company posting the contact details of the pirate.

[Guest wathomas777]

Which is why I am voting with my dollar.I figure at least 10 "potential" customers were lost by PSS. Either because they disagree with their handling of the situation, or because thay can't trust them to safeguard their personal information.Either way. Bad economic move on their part. Capture one pirate. Lose 10 customers.

[Guest Binkles]

That one pilot may of cost them 10 sales or more.Personally the concorde wasn't something I was going to get anyway, but wouldn't now, and will most likely not look at much of theirs in the future, but a lot can change, and if learn from this when they deal with the next pirate things may change.Regardless of whether they have certain proof or not - it hasn't been proved in the courts, and with a site like avsim.com they would be careful like any other journalistic venture to avoid outright claims.Even on TV and courts they are careful to say the alleged thief etc until the person has been found guilty.I applaud Pheonix trying to find these pirates, and protect their software, I just didn't like the way Phoenix dealt with it - and even after the threads had been deleted they continued to abuse potential customers by claiming we supported the pirate.

[Guest]

>"If I get caught speeding by a traffic camera, I get the fine>through the post. It is then up to me to prove that I was not>driving my vehicle at the time it went through the camera in>excess of the speed limit. They know it was my car, because>they have the registration number. The same applies to this>piece of software. They have the specific license key assigned>to that individual.">>>Works a bit differently here in the States--the penalty is not>enforced until the accused has a chance to defend themselves>against it. Also, if a minor is involved, it is a criminal>act to publish information about that minor in all but the>most serious circumstances. >>-JohnIt works that way in Europe and PSS is a European (to be specific a UK) company, therefore the sale of that license was under UK law enforcable by UK courts.If a photo with your license number turns up in speedtrap it's up to you to prove that you didn't do it.Guilt is automatic. In this case of piracy there's hard evidence linking the person to the crime.The cost of bringing the case to court would be too high so public exposure of the guilty parties is the only thing that can be done.The criminals work in the shadows, they don't like their identities known (except for an anonymous Paypal and eBay account and a handle on some IRC box to accept orders... The typical P.O. box scam operation).Maybe when there is more communication between software companies regarding exposed pirates several together can create larger cases which can be brought to court without massive financial losses (which need to be born by the legitimate customers...).