I thought it was an option to pay for premium and if you didn’t, you still use the site as you always did. What am I missing?

19 minutes ago, B777ER said:

I thought it was an option to pay for premium and if you didn’t, you still use the site as you always did. What am I missing?

You are missing the below part from the Terms of Service which strips the content creators of the rights to their work. The new Premium business model has been introduced without giving content creators the chance to remove their content if they did not agree to that new model. Flightsim.to is changing into a store and the freeware developers content is now being sold.  In practice the below means that Flightsim.to are free to do whatever they want with the work different freeware developers have created - and that  for all eternity.

 

(4.3) Licenses you are granting us: By submitting or posting User Content to the Service (either directly or through a Third Party Service) you grant this Site a royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, sublicensable, assignable, unrestricted, worldwide license to use the User Content, together with all consents or waivers (if any) necessary to distribute, publicly perform, publicly display, transmit, communicate to the public and modify the User Content, by any means and in all media formats and channels now known or hereafter devised in perpetuity, and to advertise and promote such use, without further notice to, or permission from, you or any other person, and without compensation or reference to you or any other person.

Edited February 18, 20233 yr by KL791

Ah, gotcha. I’m sure if enough headwinds develop they may change that. 

Just now, B777ER said:

Ah, gotcha. I’m sure if enough headwinds develop they may change that. 

I hope so - but it requires that both developers and users request the change. I have nothing against premium models, but Flightsim.to needs to respect the rights of the content creators.

 

I paid $5 for the premium thing tonight (before reading about 4.3) and they sent an email asking for feedback on the site.  I laid it on them in terms of how poorly they are treating the devs that are the entire reason their site exists and that they really need to rethink their approach there.

I have no issue with a paid premium service but I have huge issues with what I've subsequently learned tonight and won't be giving them any more money until they rectify the issue.

Is it possible to "update" Global AI Ship Traffic on the site and the new update is simply a text file telling the user to go to simviation or whatever? Surely they don't check every upload to make sure it is what it says it is other than to check for malicious spyware and the like?

I lost all respect for flightsim.to. I will no longer support such a site that treats people this way. If it wasn't for those people, there wouldn't be a flightsim.to.

4 hours ago, ParisHL said:

Is it possible to "update" Global AI Ship Traffic on the site and the new update is simply a text file telling the user to go to simviation or whatever? Surely they don't check every upload to make sure it is what it says it is other than to check for malicious spyware and the like?

In theory yes, but they do have back-up, but we are ready with the next version within weeks - actually it is ready but am on a week connection, so I can't upload right now, but no later than next weekend there will be a new version which can not be found on Flightsim.to.

I have already spoken with other developers who will do what you suggest

My initial thoughts were also along the lines of "this is perfectly reasonable". After all, why should we expect to get such high quality stuff and service for free? Flightsim.to knocks all other freeware sites, present and historical, clear out of the water as far as I'm concerned.

But that clause 4.3? Unbelievable. I have stuck a comment on the f.to page as suggested by Henk, and would add my suggestion to his. Go there and say what you think. It's always possible that this has just been a lawyer-led mistake (and let's face it, they're not the brightest of folk in any real-world sort of way) and maybe f.to will amend things to a more equitable situation without too much of a fuss.

But if they insist on this approach, it's just down to each of us how we approach this. Personally, I'll probably reluctantly stop using them. It's not like I need any more sceneries or liveries anyway <grin>

I really can't see, what is it now all about, sorry.

They talk about to make our stuff "sublicensable", and more important is §4.2. to me:

"You retain all of your ownership rights in your User Content. In short, what belongs to you stays yours. "

 

That you can't delete your files is since the beginning as far as I can say ... at least since mid of last year. details have changed, but they always have said that they'd like to keep stuff uploaded. In the FAQ there is a good explanation, why.

Here’s the response I got back from .to, FYI 

“Thanks for bringing this to our attention. In fact, these terms are not fairly new, this policy has been in place since quite a few months. As you can see, it has had no impact on Flightsim.to. The fuss is now, I suspect, only because of the introduction of the premium membership. However, I will make efforts to make the terms clearer and better worded.”

why is there actually no msfs2020 library on avsim?

12 minutes ago, pilotter said:

why is there actually no msfs2020 library on avsim?

Perhaps you missed it because it has been given the correct name of "Microsoft Flight Simulator".

Edited February 18, 20233 yr by Reader

Forum hiccup, duplicate post

 

Edited February 18, 20233 yr by Reader

13 hours ago, B777ER said:

Ah, gotcha. I’m sure if enough headwinds develop they may change that. 

They may host in Tonga, but they are german based. And as such they absolutely have to follow EU regulations. Their new Terms of Service are in violation of these regulations.

If they don't change them, a simple lawsuit will force them to change them back.