https://steamcommunity.com/app/314160/discussions/2/530646080866254806?l=german&ctp=3

There's nothing new under the sun. You apparently also believe that these freeware AI packages were also legal.

Fair use on computer software

Quote

Reverse engineering of computer software often falls under both contract law as a breach of contract as well as any other relevant laws. That is because most end user license agreements specifically prohibit it, and US courts have ruled that if such terms are present, they override the copyright law that expressly permits it

Quoute from wiki, no time to check the court rules so far.

5 minutes ago, Kaiii3 said:

Quoute from wiki, no time to check the court rules so far.

Wikis aren't a good source for anything. Incidentally, neither of the parties involved is in the US. Fair use is a lot more complex and involved than that. Incidentally, courts have also ruled that Eulas are not legally binding in several cases.

7 minutes ago, jabloomf1230 said:

There's nothing new under the sun. You apparently also believe that these freeware AI packages were also legal.

As I mentioned "legal" isn't a proper term for copyright disputes, which you don't appear to know much about considering that you're pointing at this as "shoplifting" which is, with all due respect, a pretty ludicrous comparison. Fair use doctrine is a bit more complex than pointing at things and rising a paddle with "legal" or "not legal" on it. 

Edited December 4, 20214 yr by Abriael

Can we please get back to the original intention of this thread for once without all this nonsense? I feel like this is just going in circles and not getting anywhere. They stated that they have tried contacting the original authors multiple times without any sort of response, if they disagree with it then it should be up to them to contact FSLTL to hopefully reach some sort of agreement and squash this nonsense once and for good so that the community can benefit from this project. I would hate to see projects like this going to waste. It has so much potential. It's not like FSTLT didn't try. They did reach out but got no answer.

It just feels as though teams like FAIB & TFS likes to make things difficult for the community. While FSLTL's philosophy is to be opensource so that everyone can benefit and enjoy from it. I can understand the restrctions, permissions and copyright thing, but sometimes I feel it's a bit too much.

2 minutes ago, captain420 said:

Can we please get back to the original intention of this thread for once without all this nonsense? I feel like this is just going in circles and not getting anywhere. They stated that they have tried contacting the original authors multiple times without any sort of response, if they disagree with it then it should be up to them to contact FSLTL to hopefully reach some sort of agreement and squash this nonsense once and for good so that the community can benefit from this project. I would hate to see projects like this going to waste. It has so much potential. It's not like FSTLT didn't try. They did reach out but got no answer.

It just feels as though teams like FAIB & TFS likes to make things difficult for the community. While FSLTL's philosophy is to be opensource so that everyone can benefit and enjoy from it. I can understand the restrctions, permissions and copyright thing, but sometimes I feel it's a bit too much.

Indeed. The bottom line is that if people cared exclusively for what is good for the community, this discussion would not exist.

Jorg has been fighting this battle also.  Hope there is a good answer eventually.

Regards

bs

Just now, captain420 said:

Can we please get back to the original intention of this thread for once without all this nonsense? I feel like this is just going in circles and not getting anywhere. They stated that they have tried contacting the original authors multiple times without any sort of response, if they disagree with it then it should be up to them to contact FSLTL to hopefully reach some sort of agreement and squash this nonsense once and for good so that the community can benefit from this project. I would hate to see projects like this going to waste. It has so much potential. It's not like FSTLT didn't try. They did reach out but got no answer.

It just feels as though teams like FAIB & TFS likes to make things difficult for the community. While FSLTL's philosophy is to be opensource so that everyone can benefit and enjoy from it. I can understand the restrctions, permissions and copyright thing, but sometimes I feel it's a bit too much.

You're a sensible poster, but maybe you better reread what you wrote. Erez Weber produced (at the time) groundbreaking models for FSX for Boeing and Airbus aircraft. And all at no cost to the user. These models are and remain free to download. Mr. Weber has also  given a few people permission to modify his models. But he seems content to have people download the models from the FAIB website. That doesn't seem too hard to comprehend.

 

 

This whole copyright and EULA thing has always been a huge headache. It's complicated. I understand. I don't know the specifics and details but if what you say is true then I can appreciate that, but what I don't understand is why make it difficult then, if the community can benefit from it. What do they get from keeping it this way? If I were them (FAIB/TFS), I would be flattered and more than happy to see my work being used in ways that could benefit the community greatly. What sort of satisfaction does one get by preventing this?

Edited December 4, 20214 yr by captain420

I wonder if anybody discussing copyright issues here has any education or professional experience in the specific legal field of copyright law.

There's hardly anything more pointless than laymen discussing complex legal matters based on some snippets they found on the internet.

Let's leave this to the lawyers and return to what's relevant for flight simming.

 

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/09/043654P.pdf

Quote

3. Interoperability Exception
The DMCA contains several exceptions, including one for individuals using circumvention technology "for the sole purpose" of trying to achieve "interoperability" of computer programs through reverse engineering. See 17 U.S.C.
§ 1201(f). Subsection (f)(4) defines interoperability as "the ability of computer programs to exchange information, and such programs mutually to use the information which has been exchanged." 17 U.S.C. § 1201(f)(4). Appellants argue
that the interoperability exception applies to any alleged infringement of Blizzard games and Battle.net. To successfully prove the interoperability defense under §1201(f), Appellants must show: (1) they lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program; (2) the information gathered as a result of the reverse engineering was not previously readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention; (3) the sole purpose of the reverse engineering was to identify and analyze those elements of the program that were necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs; and (4) the alleged circumvention did not constitute infringement. See 17 U.S.C. § 1201(f).

There is one way of using "Fair use" as a ground to make changes when it is to keep "compability". The fact here is that the MDLX Models do work in MSFS without issues, so there is no need to make them compatible and use "fair use" as the reason.

In the end the EULA can limit the "fair use"

Quote

If your access to the code or computer system you are studying is conditioned upon agreeing to any contractual terms (e.g. End User License Agreements (EULA), terms of service notices (TOS), terms of use notices (TOU), a non-disclosure agreement (NDA), developers agreement or API agreement), you are at greater legal risk if your research activities do not comply with their stated terms and conditions. You should talk to a lawyer before agreeing to any terms and before studying any software distributed with such terms and conditions, even if you have come into possession of that code without agreeing to anything.

https://www.eff.org/de/issues/coders/reverse-engineering-faq#faq6

22 minutes ago, captain420 said:

Can we please get back to the original intention of this thread for once without all this nonsense? I feel like this is just going in circles and not getting anywhere. They stated that they have tried contacting the original authors multiple times without any sort of response, if they disagree with it then it should be up to them to contact FSLTL to hopefully reach some sort of agreement and squash this nonsense once and for good so that the community can benefit from this project. I would hate to see projects like this going to waste. It has so much potential. It's not like FSTLT didn't try. They did reach out but got no answer.

It just feels as though teams like FAIB & TFS likes to make things difficult for the community. While FSLTL's philosophy is to be opensource so that everyone can benefit and enjoy from it. I can understand the restrctions, permissions and copyright thing, but sometimes I feel it's a bit too much.

Whilst there is a good chance of fair use, there is a much safer option if needed.

If, and I don't know if they are, but if the authors of the new package are in either the UK or in Europe, then there is no  issue..  as long as the authors have tried to get in touch and received no response from one or more origional author, and they have proof, then under UK and EU law, they may publish under the rules of Orphan Works.   This was introduced in 2014.   Depending on whether you are commercial or freeware, the rules can change as to whether you need to apply to your government for a license or not, but rules are shown, from the various governments as to what you need to have done to claim this.

This doesn't care if the origional copyright holder is even still alive or not..  all it relates to is have you tried to contact them and not had a reply.

This was specifically introduced to stop people from using their copyright to either avoid bad reviews, or to stop others from using derivative works, or copies, by pretending to not be contactable.

This also covers a user in the UK or europe using works derivative from outside that region.

Graham

Edited December 4, 20214 yr by Moria15

Wonder if any of these law abiding citizens used the academic license? Just a thought

10 minutes ago, Kaiii3 said:

the MDLX Models do work in MSFS without issues,

Your idea of "without issues" is extremely elastic. And I'm fairly sure you know that. I'm also fairly positive instability and crashes to desktop fit rather nicely into the definition of "issues."

Eulas have been ruled in court as not legally binding in a myriad of cases, so we can sit here discussing on it until we're blue in the face, but it's certainly not a one-sided issue as you describe it. One thing is for sure: you're so adamant in trying to pin negativity on this that it's pretty obvious that your claims of having "nothing agains FSLTL at all" don't ring very honest.

Edited December 4, 20214 yr by Abriael

6 minutes ago, Abriael said:

 I'm also fairly positive instability and crashes to desktop fit rather nicely into the definition of "issues."

The MDLX crashes were fixed a couple patches ago.

Copyright law is a very complex area of law, which is why it is a specialized area of law.  I take no position as to FSLT, but I truly don’t understand the effort to discredit a program no one thinks is bad but is very good.

I understand, I think, why Kaii sees this as a threat to his program but it seems many just want to see it fail and I’m curious why?