flightsim.to premium

[virtualstuff 758]

6 minutes ago, bobcat999 said:

Wow!  The ATR community project was deleted by the author, and flightsim.to have put it back up listing themselves as the author!  

https://flightsim.to/file/12249/atr-72-600-community-version

I don't have enough information to decide what to think about that...  At the moment.  

Wow... makes you wonder...

I removed also my files done with the whole stuff makes all the fun out of making freeware... prefer the old ways 🙂

Edited February 20, 2023 by virtualstuff

[superspud 450]

What's really mind blowing is the dev carried on uploading there. If that was pulled on me I would've tossed my cookies higher than the troposphere. 

[mrbill38119 15]

I thought this might amicably be resolved but this is an indication it will not. It is shameful and serves no purpose for fs.to. going forward. Guess I'll do a wholesale download of my downloads as a backup. Very disappointed to see this happening.

[ndts 59]

It's actually impressive how badly the .to administrators have handled this.

It sounds like they could have worked this out if they were willing to open a dialogue with various uploaders/creators, but they somehow decided that the best approach was to make the PR nightmare even worse by re-uploading something that had been removed from the site, without even an attempt at explaining why they did so.

[leprechaunlive 1,852]

We dont really have proper sources for this, it MIGHT be an agreement beetween the authors and FS.TO. We dont kn ow for sure, unless the original author has spoken somewhere i dont know about. And it isnt recent, back in July, they already had their name on it. (source:waybackmachine)

Edited February 20, 2023 by leprechaunlive

[B777ER 2,486]

7 minutes ago, leprechaunlive said:

We dont really have proper sources for this, it MIGHT be an agreement beetween the authors and FS.TO. We dont kn ow for sure, unless the original author has spoken somewhere i dont know about. And it isnt recent, back in July, they already had their name on it. (source:waybackmachine)

Yes, but people in here love to jump to conclusions based on speculation alone. It’s an Avsim hallmark.

[superspud 450]

7 minutes ago, leprechaunlive said:

We dont really have proper sources for this, it MIGHT be an agreement beetween the authors and FS.TO. We dont kn ow for sure, unless the original author has spoken somewhere i dont know about. And it isnt recent, back in July, they already had their name on it. (source:waybackmachine)

Image 4 in this selection is, or was, the creator's view - 

TLDR - Unimpressed. 

[leprechaunlive 1,852]

5 minutes ago, superspud said:

Image 4 in this selection is, or was, the creator's view - 

TLDR - Unimpressed. 

ok, this is bad lol. Poop certainly seems to be pilling up. About to reach the fan, take cover!

Edited February 20, 2023 by leprechaunlive

[BrammyH 447]

And I thought Twitter self imploded quickly.

[leprechaunlive 1,852]

Althought, to be fair, on that Discord screenshot, theres a reference to FsAdni being in the credits, but as far as i can see, he never went anywhere near an ATR. So thats weird. Too shady with these blacked out names. 

 

 

[superspud 450]

Going on the number of files they host it's clearly a super rare occurrence.

I guess aircraft are a lot more likely because there are so few of them, especially anything passenger ish. I don't think our coffee cup makers have much to fret about. 

And I hadn't noticed that bit so it could all be bilge. Since I think the ATR was a conversion from someone else's work I don't how that poster could sell anything and the original uploader offloaded the code onto Github so might have renounced it completely. 

Edited February 20, 2023 by superspud

[Dominique_K 10,138]

18 minutes ago, BrammyH said:

And I thought Twitter self imploded quickly.

well, I use twitter everyday so it seems to me to be still here, as some millions of users minus your usual drama queens who flew to mastodon before coming back 

Edited February 20, 2023 by Dominique_K

[Waldo Pepper 1,952]

[Waldo Pepper 1,952]

 

58 minutes ago, BrammyH said:

And I thought Twitter self imploded quickly.

Only a matter of time before that dude implodes spectacularly.

[F737MAX 5,599]

2 hours ago, bobcat999 said:

Wow!  The ATR community project was deleted by the author, and flightsim.to have put it back up listing themselves as the author!  

https://flightsim.to/file/12249/atr-72-600-community-version

I don't have enough information to decide what to think about that...  At the moment.  

2 hours ago, virtualstuff said:

Wow... makes you wonder...

I removed also my files done with the whole stuff makes all the fun out of making freeware... prefer the old ways 🙂

1 hour ago, leprechaunlive said:

We dont really have proper sources for this, it MIGHT be an agreement beetween the authors and FS.TO. We dont kn ow for sure, unless the original author has spoken somewhere i dont know about. And it isnt recent, back in July, they already had their name on it. (source:waybackmachine)

1 hour ago, superspud said:

Image 4 in this selection is, or was, the creator's view - 

TLDR - Unimpressed. 

  

Flightsim.to's TOS allow them to upload creator content to their own account as per the following clause (my emphasis in bold) :

Quote

(4.7) If you decide to end this Agreement with us, to close or delete your User account, or if we discontinue your access to the Website, Flightsim.to will either archive your User Content, or, in Flightsim.to's sole discretion and based on its legitimate interest, transfer your User Content to an account set up by Flightsim.to if you decided to close or delete your User account. If your account is deleted, deactivated or suspended, this will not affect or terminate the licenses you have granted. 

I don't care that other popular and prominent content hosting websites have similar TOS, it is for all intents and purposes the same as IP theft.
Hosting sites know that they can get away with it, as nearly every single content provider won't have the means to challenge this legally.

"BuT yOu ShOuLd HaVe ReAd ThE tErMs AnD cOnDitTiOnS bEfOrE uPlOaDiNg..." is a rubbish argument. It should not excuse ripping the rights away from the creators of freely-made content.