Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Robert Kirkland

I probably missed something... (Adobe Traffic Pack)

Recommended Posts

Guest m1k3n34l

>Mike:>>There are more than enough lawyers in the world, we don't need>more pseudo-law diatribe. True. In fact, in the example I presented, both Avsim and Adobe would have undoubtedly been contacted directly by counsel. The difference here is that the owners of the copyrighted material do not do this for personal monetary gain. What we have to protect is the integrity of our digital property, proper credit for its use, and assurance that all modifications and redistributions are known and approved. I think the only confusion is that some prefer to place Freeware and Public Domain in the same category, which is simply not the case by any stretch of the imagination.>In your example, EVERYONE KNOWS commercial software being>distributed when they see it. However, the freeware "put my>file here, don't put it there, except when I say so" is a tad>more obsure. The owners of the AI copyrights have made>themselves clear and are understood.Again, the license is Freeware. The limited nature of distribution and granting license for use is up to the owners of the copyrights. The "EVERYONE KNOWS" stance regarding commercial software only holds true if the original marks (copyright notices, company logos, etc.) are intact with the distribution. Beyond that, it is the same as in this case; it takes someone to recognize it and say, "Hey! That's MY work!" or, "Hey! That's so-and-so's work!". Therefore...>Today was the FIRST DAY that anyone made any claims about>Adobe. So now we know. And today was the first day I have come across this issue as well. "So now we know" is only a reality if the original (negligent, uninformed, misinformed, or whatever the case) praise is retracted as a matter of policy. For me, it is not a matter of thinking these comments were made with malice; I'm sure that was not the case. It is a matter of publicly stating that software piracy is not condoned, and that the rights of copyright holders are highly regarded by Avsim whether the material is commercial of limited distribution freeware. Otherwise, what motivation do the developers of freeware have to share our works through channels that do not support our wishes, rights, and licenses? I think that most of us enjoy offering high-quality alternatives to commercial packages (and in many cases, there aren't any quality commercial counterparts), but I hate the notion that it takes charging a price in order to protect my copyrights. All I'm asking is that you publicly acknowledge that piracy is piracy, and that those involved in acts of piracy are not condoned by you (as a voice of Avsim) or Avsim as an entity. To me, it is obsurd that the tone of this has become one that is so pointedly against those who own and wish to protect limited distribution freeware copyrights.-Mike

Share this post


Link to post

First this package is not being distributed to "friends and acquaintances" - it's freely available on the internet to anyone who wishes to download the package. I don't accept that argument at all.I have had some experience in the issues between Korea and Japan. I can sympathize with Adobe's feelings about being slammed on the forums of another country.The same two-faced attitude happens on many US and European English language forums when developers restrict distribution of their work to their home country. The current discussion over scenery for China is just one example of the "Okay for me but no okay for you" attitude of some people.However, I do understand, but not condone, the language issues involved.I'm sure I'm not the only one who has trouble with finding files on AvsimRu and Japanese sites - even though I lived in Japan for four years and can still recognize a few characters.The challenges for the non-English speaker must be horrendous.That alone would have been sufficient reason for me to grant permission to use my work which is in the Adobe package and the Tantris package.However I do resent (1) not being asked, and (2) having my work claimed as the work of Adobe and Tantris. In one case my name is still clearly visible on the texture file.There is an old phrase "It is easier to seek forgiveness than to ask permission"Having been through this experience and seen the opinions expressed here, my answer to any request for permission from these gentlemen in the future will be - NOCan I do anything legally about it? NoAll I can do is read these threads and form opinions about people's honesty, character and values based on their statements, which I will remember if they ask for my help in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest FiddleSticks

As someone who has 7 repaints in this "package" I'd like to respond to those who pile on freeware developers for complaining about things like this.If I were to purchase the PMDG 747 and give away free copies to anyone who wanted to download them I think we'd all agree that would be stealing correct? Sure it's stealing, PMDG created the software and owns the rights to do with it as they please, including selling it.Now because I choose to let people use my work free of charge does that somehow diminish my rights to have a say in how it is distributed? Of course not, I am still the owner of my work. If you spent many hours putting something together like a repaint (or 7) I'm sure you'd be a litte upset.Just because we choose not to charge for our work does NOT mean that we forfeit our rights to control how it gets distributed. That is the bottom line.Kelly

Share this post


Link to post

>As someone who has 7 repaints in this "package" I'd like to>respond to those who pile on freeware developers for>complaining about things like this.>>If I were to purchase the PMDG 747 and give away free copies>to anyone who wanted to download them I think we'd all agree>that would be stealing correct? Sure it's stealing, PMDG>created the software and owns the rights to do with it as they>please, including selling it.>>Now because I choose to let people use my work free of charge>does that somehow diminish my rights to have a say in how it>is distributed? Of course not, I am still the owner of my>work. If you spent many hours putting something together like>a repaint (or 7) I'm sure you'd be a litte upset.>>Just because we choose not to charge for our work does NOT>mean that we forfeit our rights to control how it gets>distributed. That is the bottom line.>>KellyKelly, I fully agree to this. I think you found the real problem here (also previous authors): Some confuse Public Domain with Freeware. I have the same rights in my work that every producer of payware has. Regarding copyrights, there's no difference between the two.Some good reading material:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain...ee_to_republishhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeware

Share this post


Link to post

I want to add something: I understand the need for easy packages. I would be willing to contribute my work to packages if I have a certain amount of control over the final product. I want to know that bugs will be minimised and that the overall quality of the final product is OK. And of course that everything is legal. I think most other developers would say the same.That's why I contribute to Ultimate GA. We publish allready complete packages with hundreds of repaints that are fairly easy to install: you just copy two files and one folder to the right place. What else do you want? You could easily install all our packages and all packages of World of AI in one hour.

Share this post


Link to post

Guys this is the final word on this subject and I will be locking this threadAVSIM neither officially or unofficially supports any form of piracy or copyright encroachment. In reading the posts I did not see anything that would indicate our staff did so. Mike merely expressed an opinion as to the content and problems with the product in question. Unfortunately there is no way to prevent individuals from downloading files from AVSIM or any other site and then compiling them into a new form. If the file Adobe Traffic Pack were posted at AVSIM we would remove it immediately. We have deleted the thread in order not to provide any publicity to the abusers of any copyright.We hope the creators of the ADOBE AI package get with the various authors and resolve these issues.And just so everyone is clear we have reminded our entire staff and I mean the entire staff of our policies and position on copyrights. We will not ever directly or indirectly support anyone who does not respect those rights.http://www.avsim.com/pages/robert/kirkland.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Guest benclark

Can I do anything legally about it? NoActually you can, the question would be is the cost worth it? Then the answer is unfortunately no.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest m1k3n34l

>Guys this is the final word on this subject and I will be>locking this thread>>AVSIM neither officially or unofficially supports any form of>piracy or copyright encroachment. In reading the posts I did>not see anything that would indicate our staff did so. Mike>merely expressed an opinion as to the content and problems >with the product in question.> >Unfortunately there is no way to prevent individuals from>downloading files from AVSIM or any other site and then>compiling them into a new form. If the file Adobe Traffic Pack>were posted at AVSIM we would remove it immediately. We have>deleted the thread in order not to provide any publicity to>the abusers of any copyright.>>We hope the creators of the ADOBE AI package get with the>various authors and resolve these issues.> >>http://www.avsim.com/pages/robert/kirkland.jpgRobert,This still does not address what I think is the primary and common complaint amongst the posting individuals in this thread; that Mike publicly cheered the Adobe pack and has not changed his position in light of his being informed of copyright infringement. This leads the community to believe that Avsim's stance is one of realizing that you have to "say" you support the rights of copyright holders, but that you don't really believe that we should be entitled to protect those rights. It's as if you want to appear compliant with the law, but in the same breath condone the illegal activity to your readers and the community as a whole. This "Shame on you, you can't do that, but I'm glad you did it" type of attitude is what concerns me, and I'm sure others reading this thread. Either you support the rights of copyright holders, commercial or freeware, or you don't; there is no middle ground of "we have to say we do, but we really don't"...Thank you for taking the time to consider this common view of the events that have transpired here.Regards,Mike

Share this post


Link to post

We have made our position clear, and publicly. Mike, and I for that matter, was unaware of Adobe or the compilation issues. We have now been made aware of that, and have so stated. Other than continuing to rake us over the coals, what is it that you would like us to do? I have a suggestion for you and the entire AI author community. Do not upload to AVSIM. Upload to somewhere else that can meet your expectations for the high standards that we obviously can't meet. That way, everyone will be happy, I am sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest m1k3n34l

>I have a suggestion for you and the entire AI author>community. Do not upload to AVSIM. Upload to somewhere else>that can meet your expectations for the high standards that we>obviously can't meet. That way, everyone will be happy, I am>sure.Wilco. It is unfortunate that your collective arrogance and poor attitude towards limited distribution freeware authors leads to a path where the community suffers. These are the points that I wanted you to address, and as you are apparently unwilling to do so but instead continue to insult and position against my colleagues and myself, it is now abundantly clear where Avsim stands on the issue.Final regards,Mike

Share this post


Link to post

Arrogance has nothing to do with it. Pragmatism has everything to do with it. We cannot apparently satisfy you (you didn't answer the question, by the way - what is it that you would like us to do). The pragmatism is simple; we can't make you happy, so go somewhere else that can. It is not AVSIM's arrogance on display here, but yours, with a whole bunch of prima donna thrown in. If the community suffers, it is because of you sir. Not AVSIM.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest David Cooper

>We have made our position clear, and publicly. Mike, and I>for that matter, was unaware of Adobe or the compilation>issues. We have now been made aware of that, and have so>stated. Other than continuing to rake us over the coals, what>is it that you would like us to do? >>I have a suggestion for you and the entire AI author>community. Do not upload to AVSIM. Upload to somewhere else>that can meet your expectations for the high standards that we>obviously can't meet. That way, everyone will be happy, I am>sure.Hi Tom,Thank you for making the Avsim position clear. I emailed the Avsim senior staff way before this issue got to where it is now.The two main points of my email were as follows...1.A complaint regarding a member of Avsim staff being seen to recommend pirated software in these forums. (As RFields has stated earlier, Avsim were aware that this product was pirated)2.Could Avsim do anything to help freeware developers in the fight against copyright violation?The response (from Robert) was a 'copy & paste' of an official statement, sent as a circular email to others who had submitted complaints. If you don't mind me saying, this was highly impersonal and did not answer any of my issues.Tom, you were aware of this pirated software from older (now deleted) threads, yet you failed to deal with it in this thread. See Mesg #24569 above, where you had edited the post to remove an attachment. I take it that you actually read the post you were editing.You would also have noticed this comment which was not edited...."Plus (shhhh) the Peter Max COA 777 is included"I'm sure I don't have to remind anybody here of the potential consequences of that statement by an Avsim staff member.A question for you, does Avsim view it's freeware library developers as customers or as assets?

Share this post


Link to post

Mike Neal asked that I post this for him as the thread has been locked. Thanks Mike it was a pleasure working with you.After e-mail discussion at length with Robert, I think we're finally at a good point of understanding now. The position Avsim has taken above and in e-mail to myself satisfies my questions and concerns about their stance on copyright infringement that it is not to be tolerated, condoned, or supported in the slightest, and that the type of communication I took issue with is an isolated incident that is now in the past. I look forward to contributing at Avsim in the future and am hopeful that everyone involved can put this behind us and focus on developing, supporting, and enjoying the hobby that brings us all together. As for the issues of copyright infringement concerning the packages that started this whole mess, I am hopeful too that the individuals -- named and unnamed -- will take the opportunity to follow the letter of the law as well as common decency, and that quality packages can continue to grow with integrity by those who develop, support, and enjoy these original works.http://www.avsim.com/pages/robert/kirkland.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...