MSFS portover piracy

[norman_99 209]

2 hours ago, harrry said:

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.

I think the point is not so much people “updating” their own copy for personal use, but releasing an illegitimate version for the public to download.

Using your example, it’s like taking a tape recording, digitising it and burning it to CD, and then making a 1000 copies and selling them at the local shops.

[harrry 322]

4 minutes ago, HighBypass said:

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...

Actually you would have to ask Boeing which exists still for a little while.    They bought the assets of Doubglas and this includes of course their copyright tights.

[harrry 322]

1 minute ago, norman_99 said:

I think the point is not so much people “updating” their own copy for personal use, but releasing an illegitimate version for the public to download.

Using your example, it’s like taking a tape recording, digitising it and burning it to CD, and then making a 1000 copies and selling them at the local shops.

These were not sold....

Yes it would have been better if it had been made available.   I think the courts have in similar cases not required that the individual using did the conversion..someone else could have done it for them but they would have to each own a copy of the software or music.

[DPSimulation 235]

2 hours 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.

No wonder the poor guy wants to retire when having to address guff like this.

[HighBypass 2,339]

3 minutes ago, harrry said:

... Boeing which exists still for a little while.....

My emphasis - no need to bother then.. 🍻

However, what about the corporations who no longer exists an not part of a larger conglomeration?

[harrry 322]

Well if copyright is good for one creater it is of course valid for the original oqwner too so not guf.

 

[DPSimulation 235]

Just now, harrry said:

Well if copyright is good for one creater it is of course valid for the original oqwner too so not guf.

Then shut the hobby down right now. No planes, no liveries, no scenery.

What you seem to be saying is because Douglas weren't consulted when this aircraft was created, it's therefore fair game for someone else to take the models and redistribute as they see fit.

Which is completely wrong of course, don't try to legitimise it with such a weak argument.

[harrry 322]

1 minute ago, HighBypass said:

My emphasis - no need to bother then.. 🍻

However, what about the corporations who no longer exists an not part of a larger conglomeration?

Generally someone would still have the assets,  

Of course the remedy would be for them to show their copyright was registered theb take Manfred to court.  As no money was lost they may have got $1 nominal damages.  

The same if Manfred had a registered copyright (which it has to be for it to be taken to court) and won proving his right was abused and they damages would be based on the financial loss.

[cepact 517]

8 hours ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

Why is stealing someone else's work not a big deal to you? 

You make it sound like he lost his work, or anything else. There is a difference between stealing a physical object, a source code you've been working for years, a digital product that you expected to make financial gains to make a living ... and illegally distributing a freeware product that's been available for years, a "port" with 99% same files in it and credits to the author. 

The latter is not a big deal to me, yes. Why ? Because I did not lose anything, no one claimed being the author of my work either.

But I just saw that the individuals distributing it are making money through the file sharing website, which I didn't know. This obviously makes this a bigger deal and I would be indeed frustrated if someone is making money from my work.

 

[harrry 322]

5 minutes ago, DPSimulation said:

Then shut the hobby down right now. No planes, no liveries, no scenery.

What you seem to be saying is because Douglas weren't consulted when this aircraft was created, it's therefore fair game for someone else to take the models and redistribute as they see fit.

Which is completely wrong of course, don't try to legitimise it with such a weak argument.

I am pointing out that the people had the same rights to distribute it as Manfred probably had.  

What upsets me with this is the quick way people throw names and abuse to the people  who converted it....which I do not think they should have done without asking, but feel their action when they made the software originally was not totally without question for the same.

Edited September 8, 2020 by harrry

[DPSimulation 235]

Just now, harrry said:

I am pointing out that thew people had the same rights to distribute it as Manfred probably had.  

What upsets me with this is the quick way people throw names and abuse to the people  who converted it....which I do not think they should have done without asking, but feel their action when they made the software originally was not totally without question for the same.

Completely wrong. The lack of understanding here about the most basic of copyright laws is astounding.

[HighBypass 2,339]

This might have more traction if the model wasn't Freeware, I guess: The only "profit" is the enjoyment of the flight sim users which doesn't have a monetary value for a corporation to be aggrieved by..

Unless it's Games Workshop of course! 

[wim123 758]

46 minutes ago, Wobbie said:

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

We need HONESTY, that will protect products.

i never suggested thats the only way to get stuff.

[Reader 2,009]

This is what is included in the legitimate freeware software package. It doesn't need further explanation.
 

Quote

 

The C-47 models were created under Microsoft's Game Content Usage Rules using assets from
Flight Simulator X Deluxe Edition, (c) Microsoft Corporation. See www.xbox.com/en-
US/Community/Developer/Rules

Redistributing this archive with any files added, removed or modified is prohibited.
 
This archive (or any parts of it) may NOT be included in other packages without the written
permission of the authors.
 
No specific charge may be made for this archive and it may not be uploaded to any server that
specifies that the server owners hold a copyright (of any sort) on this archive when stored on that
server. You may NOT use the archive (or any parts of it) for commercial purpose without all the
authors' explicit, written permission in advance. This includes "free" CD or DVD compilations with a charge of any kind.

 

 

Edited September 8, 2020 by Reader

[harrry 322]

11 minutes ago, Reader said:

This is what is included in the legitimate freeware software package. It doesn't need further explanation.
 

 

These rules found here may be worth reading

https://www.xbox.com/en-us/developers/rules

 

This means that if it had been the DC3 in FSX there would have been no problem.

 

Edited September 8, 2020 by harrry