MSFS portover piracy

[LHookins 3,103]

I believe the best way to combat this would be for the Manfred Jahn team to update the C-47 for MSFS themselves.  No one would use the broken version if there was a working official version available.

It is highly unlikely that A2A will ever make a DC-3 with Captain of the Ship, considering how long the community has been requesting one, and this would be my preferred option.  PMDG may eventually make one.  There is another payware DC-3 but while it is attractive it doesn't suit my needs.  Right now, our best DC-3 for P3D is the MJ version, and the team has done an incredible job.

I'm not sure if all the features in the P3D version could be implemented with the current state of the SDK.  If this is the case, a decision to make a C-47 for MSFS doesn't have to be made any time soon.

Hang in there, @mjahn you know we love you.

Hook

[skully 1,045]

On 9/6/2020 at 11:08 AM, kaosfere said:

On the other hand I would also say that, while IANAL and IA definitely NA copyrght L, my favor falls very strongly on the side of the folks adapting Google Maps/Earth imagery for photogrammetry, especially if it's given freely.

1. To the purpose and character:  On the one hand you have a commercial product that is meant to provide an aerial overview of the entire world for navigation and other purposes, on the other free scenery intended specifically to create 3D representations of the real world in a particular piece of software.

2. To the nature of the copyrighted work: The original product is aerial scenery of the surface of the earth.  This is hardly an original, unique, or scarce product.  There are plenty of places it can be obtained, and one can even produce one's own by hiring a plane.

3. To the amount and substantially used portion:  This one isn't remotely a contest.  The land area of earth is about 58 million square miles.  Google Maps doesn't cover all of that, but it covers a large chunk.  Compare that to the average photogrammetry project which currently is covering a couple square miles at best.

4. The effect of use on the potential market:  The amount of business that Google will lose because people have used a sub-sub-sub-percent of their 2D imagery to product a 3D model in a flight simulator is pretty darn close to 0.

Putting aside that Google themselves have a provision for free re-use in their T&S, if this were to go to court... well, Google would probably still win because they have billions of dollars they can spend on lawyers if they want to.  But I feel any reasonable person would say both the letter and the spirit of the law is on the content creators' side.

To simplify in this instance of FS addons- If someone is making money from their use of your intellectual property without the authors permission (whether it be freeware or commercial) you do have enforceable legal recourse.

This also applies to clickbait youtubers and scetchy FS add on websites.

[mjahn 61]

5 hours ago, cepact said:

I understand your concerns @mjahn but honestly I'm having difficulty to understand the level of your anger in regard to what happened, because this doesn't seem to be such a big deal to me. Because as you said in the first post, the main (and only) problem seems to be " these faults attach to my name". No one is making money by distributing your product, you aren't losing any either. I haven't found any payware product from your company either, so even if this does hurt your image, I don't see what can you lose. Plus I'm quiet sure everyone in the flight sim community is aware that these are ports and they are buggy and you are in no way responsible for that.

I did not download this product and I'm not defending those who distribute without permission. I just don't understand why this is such a big deal, am I missing something ?

@cepact, maybe you are right, but indeed you are missing something. They deny it's buggy; and they are making money on the portover, the upload server they are using has a section that tells you how you can "Earn MONEY - you can earn money by sharing your files".

In our readme we state that no portover or indeed any mods may be made without permission, and no money was to be made from it in any form or shape. I happen to stand by that. Wouldn't you?

@skully, do you really think, seeing where that organization operates from and how it behaves, seeking "legal recourse" would help one little bit?  (I fear I may may regret that comment... )

--Manfred

Edited September 7, 2020 by mjahn

[AugustsEve 2]

@mjahn

Your C-47 has been my favorite aircraft and by far my most used, with well over 2000 hours, for years. Thank you for all the time and effort you put into that amazing project. I'm sorry to hear this person has spoiled the experience and the project for you and the rest of the flight sim community - but your aircraft remains a standard of quality for sim aircraft, a source of inspiration for many and a damned good time for the rest of us.

[MatthewS 761]

2 hours ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

The rampant theft of software (someone else's work) is why I've moved away from software engineering into hardware engineering

Yeah, but it's a lot harder (impossible) to copy SaaS based systems (where a lot/most of the business logic is safely on the server).

But ofc that's irrelevant for 99% of MSFS based products.

 

@mjahn Are you releasing a MSFS version in the official store? IMO you sell a bundle at $10, even if it's just a "lite" version.

Edited September 8, 2020 by MatthewS

[Wobbie 938]

14 hours ago, LHookins said:

I believe the best way to combat this would be for the Manfred Jahn team to update the C-47 for MSFS themselves.  No one would use the broken version if there was a working official version available.

It is highly unlikely that A2A will ever make a DC-3 with Captain of the Ship, considering how long the community has been requesting one, and this would be my preferred option.  PMDG may eventually make one.  There is another payware DC-3 but while it is attractive it doesn't suit my needs.  Right now, our best DC-3 for P3D is the MJ version, and the team has done an incredible job.

I'm not sure if all the features in the P3D version could be implemented with the current state of the SDK.  If this is the case, a decision to make a C-47 for MSFS doesn't have to be made any time soon.

Hang in there, @mjahn you know we love you.

Hook

You are saying that a developer must update his own work to stop his work from being pirated?

Seriously? What happens, just if for some reason, he has other projects on the go, must he put up with piracy until he has completed all his other projects, or must he drop everything to work on updating an old project?

Really!!! That is a bit demanding, & putting the issue on piracy onto the developer. He is not responsible for his work to be pirated, it the the many simmers that just do not care.. Thats where the responsibility sits, with the guys that download pirated software, NOT the developer!!

[harrry 322]

In some countries (eg Australia)  it has been written in copyright legislation that a person who owns digital media is allowed to convert it to suit new hardware and software compatiblities.  Of course the person mustr own a copy to use it.  It does not take much of a leap of faith to think that the court would probably interprit this to cover freeware too.  (Adding terms to stop this to licences is not permitted)This was due to the change from tapes to cd and also to problems changes cased business software.  

The best would be if the author does the conversion himself to save feeling the conversion was inadequate as he did outstanding work on the original,

I appreciate the work the original team did in making this software as I do the Douglas corporation which held the copyright to the design.  I presume of course that this was obtained by the software team.

Edited September 8, 2020 by harrry

[MatthewS 761]

31 minutes ago, harrry said:

I appreciate the work the original team did in making this software as I do the Douglas corporation which held the copyright to the design.  I presume of course that this was obtained by the software team.

The design was for a real aircraft, not a piece of software.  I think you're comparing 🍏 and 🍊.

[harrry 322]

Actually not,  Whether it is a toaster, a building o an aircraft the copyright remains with the author just try making a photo with a Disney doll particuarly one which shows it in a bad light..  He can control the use of this.  As an example last year Beechcraft and Cessna default P3d aircraft were removed from the sim presumable because Microsoft had negotiated a deal with Textron to include these with MSFS2020.

Edited September 8, 2020 by harrry

[mjahn 61]

1 hour ago, harrry said:

I appreciate the work the original team did in making this software as I do the Douglas corporation which held the copyright to the design.  I presume of course that this was obtained by the software team.

Gack! Of course we didn't. Didn't ask Lockheed, Boeing, and Blackburn either (don't mention any models). I guess we better run for cover...

Guys, to put one matter to rest. Whilst I am retiring from the hobby I have passed the source files on to a well-known modeller, who has my full permission to do with them whatever he wants. But the what, and the if and when, will be up to him to announce in due course.

--Manfred

Edited September 8, 2020 by mjahn

[LHookins 3,103]

12 minutes ago, mjahn said:

Guys, to put one matter to rest. Whilst I am retiring from the hobby I have passed the source files on to a well-known modeller, who has my full permission to do with them what he wants.

Thank you, Sir.

Is there any objection to letting us know who the well-known modeler is?  Thanks.

Hook

[Wobbie 938]

13 minutes ago, LHookins said:

Thank you, Sir.

Is there any objection to letting us know who the well-known modeler is?  Thanks.

Hook

Enough already (nag, nag)...Manfred do an update, Manfred tell us!!!! etc..( Manfred would have told us if he wanted to share that information now! 

 

[Wobbie 938]

Thanks Manfred for what you have done for our hobby. It is very much appreciated and your add-ons, for all the sims, are a great legacy to leave.

Thanks for all your support, and best wishes to you, wherever your flight takes you..

[Wobbie 938]

On 9/6/2020 at 10:40 AM, wim123 said:

we need a freeware tab in the ingame shop, where the products have been tested  (like farmsim does), and the products can be

protected .

 

 

No we do not!! We need open access & choices to where we can get freeware & payware..

We need HONESTY, that will protect products.

[HighBypass 2,339]

2 hours ago, harrry said:

...Douglas corporation which held the copyright to the design.  I presume of course that this was obtained by the software team....

That would be rather hard to do as Douglas Aircraft ceased to be in 1967... 

Did anyone ask Sopwith Aircraft for details of their Camel? They'd have to go back to 1920 or so...

Disney, Cessna and Beechcraft still exist as corporations.. there is a difference. Also Manfred's products do not convey the original real aircraft in a bad light, far from it, they celebrate the fact that these planes existed. Only the scummy port over thieves put the product in a bad light...