flightsim.to premium

[F737MAX 5,599]

13 hours ago, honanhal said:

I don't really think that's a fair characterization of what's been said in this thread. What I'm seeing instead is people pushing back on the idea that there are viable alternatives to fs.to today, so it's no big deal if a lot of people take their uploads elsewhere. To say that no, actually, it IS a big deal* doesn't necessarily mean that fs.to is in the right, or that the creators in revolt are in the wrong.

For example, my own slightly more complex view is that

• fs.to has handled this very poorly and deepened the crisis
• some, but not all, of the initial outcry was overblown or perhaps disingenuous (as the TOS was not a new issue), and
• if this isn't generally resolved, users will end up as the big losers. Speaking solely as a freeware user, fs.to has been a wonderful thing to have, something we were sorely missing in the previous FS era. It would be a real shame for it to fall apart.

*Because there 1) aren't really any alternatives of close to the same quality/user experience and 2) because none of the existing alternatives are dominant, freeware would then fragment and scatter, as we've had in FS for the vast majority of its history.

It's not this thread, but elsewhere there has been pushback against content creators. Some even going as far as calling them "unstable mod makers" and "prima donnas".

Examples:
https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/flightsim-to-and-3rd-party-developers-dispute/576666/171
https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/flightsim-to-and-3rd-party-developers-dispute/576666/185
https://www.reddit.com/r/flightsim/comments/116mq00/comment/j9869gh/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3
https://www.reddit.com/r/flightsim/comments/116mq00/comment/j98veby/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3
https://www.reddit.com/r/flightsim/comments/115telm/comment/j958thu/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3
https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/flightsim-to-and-3rd-party-developers-dispute/576666/214

I fully understand the need for flightsim.to to cover it's hosting costs and for having the appropriate rights in place to share content makers work.
I also agree with you that It would be very disappointing and be a huge backward step for the community if we lost a well-designed resource in flightsim.to.

However, I fully support the content creators rights to be unhappy with the previous TOS and the effective loss of control over their uploaded content.
I can even understand some freeware content creators' concerns at flightsim.to 'moving away from being a community file hosting site to a more pay-for-access' business model, even though I don't agree with them on that point.

Hopefully, the new clauses in the TOS and some constructive conversations with content creators can resolve their most pressing concerns and start to rebuild the goodwill that was unnecessarily lost by flightsim.to's initial tone deaf adherence to "industry-standard TOS".
 

Edited February 22, 2023 by F737MAX

[B777ER 2,486]

2 hours ago, DigitalJonx said:

To answer your question in short, Yes, we were directly terminated by Flightsim.to, their decision.

Long Story:

On February 19th, we issued a statement that we would be removing our freeware from Flightsim.to in response to them not changing their deletion policy. We've been silently battling it out with them for a few months in regards to this policy. So when this "boycott" issue got loud, we decided to take advantage of the extra visibility and take some action. 

We only wanted Flightsim.to to change their deletion policy, we directly emailed them prior to releasing our public statement. After the statement, we removed our freeware. We did not remove any payware. Our plan was to only remove freeware because our vendor agreement for our payware was not affected.

Sometime throughout the night, news of Got Friends leaving flightsim.to spread like wild fire on Reddit, Forums, Discord, Etc.

When I woke up, first thing I did was check my Got Friends Support Email. I saw a Termination Notice from Flightsim.to., stating that we were being terminated as partners and we would not be allowed to sell anymore. Due to a confidentiality clause, I can't list the exact legal reasons for their decision in terminating us. I can simply share one statement on their behalf:

"I (Flightsim.to) hereby grant you permission to disclose this information to your customers as required. This grant allows you to share that the agreement was terminated due to the permanent disturbance of trust between our companies."

 

 

So we have 1 side of a 2 sided story. 

[JabbleWok 96]

1 hour ago, St Mawgan said:

Good question. My Optica for example. A Got Friends product purchased at fl.to

Is there anyone familiar with legalese who can explain the rights of consumers with regard to the TOS?

GotFriends stated they would be continuing to support products purchased on .to, but I don't know if/how that may be affected by the termination of the contract.

In any case I'll be downloading and archiving my purchases from the site.

[Gazzareth 808]

1 hour ago, JabbleWok said:

Is there anyone familiar with legalese who can explain the rights of consumers with regard to the TOS?

GotFriends stated they would be continuing to support products purchased on .to, but I don't know if/how that may be affected by the termination of the contract.

In any case I'll be downloading and archiving my purchases from the site.

No legalese, but developers I have used that moved away from stores for one reason or another have normally gone on to support directly.

 

G

[JabbleWok 96]

36 minutes ago, Gazzareth said:

No legalese, but developers I have used that moved away from stores for one reason or another have normally gone on to support directly.

 

G

Indeed I reckon GF would do so if it came to that.  However, legally (in most countries) consumer rights apply to the vendor, not the creator of the product.  Hence I'm wondering what consumer rights we have with Flightsim.to.  It's not just GF products I've bought from them.

[Stearmandriver 2,295]

6 hours ago, Sonosusto said:

Not sure who still is blowing this out of proportion as the internet and misinformation make it difficult. Still trying to find proof of FSTO terminating freeware/payware devs or reuploading content without their permission.

We've already heard proof of devs being removed, from the Got Friends folks.

Here is proof of a freeware mod being "undeleted", and re-published with the author credited as "flightsim.to."

 

This has absolutely happened, and I sure don't blame creators for not wanting to use a site with such practices.  I agree with an earlier comment: it is disheartening to see some in the community rally around .to because they value their convenience in finding a free mod for a video game, over the ability of the creator of that mod to control their own work.

Hopefully, the changes .to has become willing to make after the exodus will fix things for the site.  If not... Oh well, it's the Internet. I can click on one site just as easily as another!  😁

[simmershome 61]

23 minutes ago, Stearmandriver said:

Here is proof of a freeware mod being "undeleted", and re-published with the author credited as "flightsim.to."

These are crooks who feel safe in Tonga, knowing that one can sue like Father Christmas.

[RALF9636 1,955]

What people consider a "proof" these days on the internet.

We should be more open minded and critical towards both sides and not blanketly side with one party without having all the information and being presented both sides of the story. In particular when it comes to complex legal matters we have no deeper knowledge about (and I am blaming myself here as well).

Of course it is easy and en vogue to identify the big internet "monopolist" as the evil incarnate. But reality is always more complex than it seems in an internet forum.

I don't think though we will ever get to hear both sides of the full story because flightsim.to can do fine without coming here, valorizing the whole drama which gets more and more absurd.

 

Edited February 22, 2023 by RALF9636

[JRBarrett 3,070]

5 minutes ago, simmershome said:

These are crooks who feel safe in Tonga, knowing that one can sue like Father Christmas.

Tonga has nothing to do with anything. Their website is registered in Tonga, but the company itself is headquartered in Germany, and subject to German law. 

[F737MAX 5,599]

4 minutes ago, JRBarrett said:

Tonga has nothing to do with anything. Their website is registered in Tonga, but the company itself is headquartered in Germany, and subject to German law. 

Correct.

Quote

(13.4) These terms are subject to German law and the parties agree to the exclusive jurisdiction of the German courts. The law of the Federal Republic of Germany shall apply exclusively to the exclusion of the provisions of the UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG). The negotiating language is German.

 

[simmershome 61]

16 minutes ago, JRBarrett said:

Tonga has nothing to do with anything. Their website is registered in Tonga, but the company itself is headquartered in Germany, and subject to German law. 

According to German law, you would have to show an imprint with a deliverable address and place of jurisdiction.
Where the website is hosted is irrelevant.

Do you have a link for me?

 

Edited February 22, 2023 by simmershome

[F737MAX 5,599]

4 minutes ago, simmershome said:

According to German law, you would have to show an imprint with a deliverable address and place of jurisdiction.
Where the website is hosted is irrelevant.

Do you have a link for me?

https://flightsim.to/legal/contact

 

Quote

Legal Notice

Website Operator

Sepehr Habashi
Flightsim.to
Winterhuder Weg 29, 7. Stock
22085 Hamburg
Germany

Umsatzsteuer-Identifikationsnummer / VAT number

DE342494172

 

[PuffinFlight 302]

Like this? https://flightsim.to/legal/contact

Domain of a website doesn't mean the business have to be registered there. 

Edit: F737MAX was faster 🙂

Edited February 22, 2023 by PuffinFlight

[Stearmandriver 2,295]

33 minutes ago, RALF9636 said:

What people consider a "proof" these days on the internet.

You literally saw photographic evidence of a freeware mod, re-published after being removed, with the ownership changed to "flight sim.to."

What more proof would you like?  Oh, I don't doubt that this was legal - certainly they wouldn't be dumb enough to do something like that if their lawyers hadn't cleared it - but is it ethical?  Should anyone in the freeware community be supporting it?

[Reader 2,021]

1 hour ago, simmershome said:

These are crooks who feel safe in Tonga, knowing that one can sue like Father Christmas.

 

45 minutes ago, simmershome said:

Where the website is hosted is irrelevant.

For those who can see beyond the tiny, enclosed and self-obsessed world of flight simulation freeware,
there are far more important things going on in the world and the energy being wasted on posting contradictions
this could easily be better spent.

Edited February 22, 2023 by Reader