8 minutes ago, leprechaunlive said:

We get it, you dont INTEND on doing it NOW, but still have a ToS that says you could so....

I like they way they are not answering the one guy clearly. Still not a good luck. Re read 4.6 and some other points still seems bad.

Wow, the overreaction on this just nuts.  Take a breath and really review what they have done and the options available.  Or better yet, go shoot a few balloons out of the air with an F22 and a Sidewinder missile.   

 

Just  overkill.

If you do a quick Google search of their TOS, it is fairly standard for websites that distribute content. Look familiar? https://www.lawinsider.com/clause/user-content-license

Should flightsim.to hire a bunch of lawyers to tweak this so they need to charge even more for their services? I agree this has been blown way out of proportion.

Just now, Funky D said:

If you do a quick Google search of their TOS, it is fairly standard for websites that distribute content. Look familiar? https://www.lawinsider.com/clause/user-content-license

It wasn't the case until late last year.

Whatever the legalese is, or they believe they need to have in place, they still have the discretion to follow the wishes of uploaders. 

And they've now made it clear that it's like it or lump it. Nowt wrong with lumping. 

3 minutes ago, superspud said:

Whatever the legalese is, or they believe they need to have in place, they still have the discretion to follow the wishes of uploaders.

In reality, they need to protect themselves from the lone litigation-happy individual who tries to sue or file a cease and desist, destroying 3 years of effort flightsim.to put into building their website, all because a boilerplate TOS didn't exist.

8 minutes ago, Funky D said:

In reality, they need to protect themselves from the lone litigation-happy individual who tries to sue or file a cease and desist, destroying 3 years of effort flightsim.to put into building their website, all because a boilerplate TOS didn't exist.

Absolutely. If there's a full blown squealing nutter then they need something to stand behind and point to. Which doesn't mean you have to treat it like it's set in stone with a more reasonable request. 

I had deletions denied 2-3 months ago. They were already long unlisted and were probably largely forgotten. Having the deletions turned down did not impress. 

With a site like that, with vast amounts of work swirling, some with questionable origins, then you'd better have a solid framework to cover yourself. But there should also be some leeway heading in the opposite direction too. 

Edited February 18, 20233 yr by superspud

14 minutes ago, superspud said:

I had deletions denied 2-3 months ago. They were already long unlisted and were probably largely forgotten. Having the deletions turned down did not impress.

Lots of pieces to the puzzle, and I agree it shouldn't be difficult for a creator to request content removal. I'm wondering if it comes down to something more technical, like what happens if people have that content in their downloads list, etc. It would be nice if flightsim.to directly addressed that concern.

This whole thing is a much ado about nothing. Some people in this forum like getting their shorts in a knot for nothing. 

1 hour ago, diajohn said:

Wow, the overreaction on this just nuts.  Take a breath and really review what they have done and the options available.  Or better yet, go shoot a few balloons out of the air with an F22 and a Sidewinder missile.   

 

Just  overkill.

I agree completely.  It's just a typical TOS written by a lawyer.  It's fine to take things seriously and perhaps FSTO should have explained things a bit better but people with pitchforks wanting to boycott them is silly.

17 minutes ago, ryanbatc said:

I agree completely.  It's just a typical TOS written by a lawyer.  It's fine to take things seriously and perhaps FSTO should have explained things a bit better but people with pitchforks wanting to boycott them is silly.

From the perspective of a normal user, I would agree. However, as content provider I feel that FS.to has just shown us the middle finger. The legal thing is one thing, I accepted that, albeit not happily. But the fairly useless creators program adds insult to injury.

5 minutes ago, qqwertzde said:

From the perspective of a normal user, I would agree. However, as content provider I feel that FS.to has just shown us the middle finger. The legal thing is one thing, I accepted that, albeit not happily. But the fairly useless creators program adds insult to injury.

I don't see it.  You can continue uploading things like you always have.  I have over 100 items on that site and 45K downloads.  Don't join the content creator program if you don't want to.  Also from my reading FSTO has had the ability to keep our files for quite some time.  Maybe people didn't realize it until now and have freaked out a bit.

The fact that many devs decided to pull their stuff out when they finally were allowed says something tho.

1 hour ago, Funky D said:

If you do a quick Google search of their TOS, it is fairly standard for websites that distribute content. Look familiar? https://www.lawinsider.com/clause/user-content-license

Should flightsim.to hire a bunch of lawyers to tweak this so they need to charge even more for their services? I agree this has been blown way out of proportion.

But..but...but threads like this just taste yucky if they don't contain exaggerated drama🤣

23 minutes ago, leprechaunlive said:

The fact that many devs decided to pull their stuff out when they finally were allowed says something tho.

What, that they finally got around to reading boiler plate ToS language that is fairly standard across the internet that has been in place for quite some time? The problem as I see it is people listening to someone’s opinion on this new Premium program and not independently looking and evaluating it clearly for themselves.

October 2020
https://web.archive.org/web/20201030113009/https://flightsim.to/legal/terms

It has been in their TOS for almost as long as the site has existed.
"Moreover, 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."

 

As other people have stated, it's in most file sharing websites, it's what gives them the ability to host your file with your permission.

For example, there's a very similar section here on NexusMods probably the most popular mod hosting site on the internet. That third bulletpoint is even in the flightsim.to ToS almost word for word. And Nexus doesn't even allow you to sell addons, there is a premium service, but it just lets you skip countdowns and get faster download speeds, like Flightsim.to is doing.

https://help.nexusmods.com/article/18-terms-of-service

 

Microsoft Service Agreement..
https://www.microsoft.com/en-ca/servicesagreement/

 

Edited February 19, 20233 yr by Tuskin38