flightsim.to premium

[bobcat999 8,623]

7 minutes ago, BrammyH said:

That is an interesting change of heart, since the Headwinds A330 folks recently reported they were denied from adding their aircraft to the FBW launcher.

I suppose they can pick and choose who they let in, based on their perceived quality of the product etc.  Or maybe they have their own plans for a 330 eventually. 

Edited February 19, 2023 by bobcat999

[Ron Attwood 3,603]

4 hours ago, lagaffe said:

And moreover it was a person who had published a repaint of one of my planes.

Lower than a snake's belly.

I caught someone doing that with one of my paints. I reported him to the .to staff and he was dealt with promptly and harshly. He was moved to PM me and apologise most profusely.

[mrueedi 702]

5 hours ago, doudou said:

There are such a large number of new products created every day that the substitution of the .to site by a multitude of free mini sites - as solution adopted by some creators who have removed their product from .to - would only lead to a gasworks which the vast majority of users in practice will turn away from.

At least for me freeware, which can not be found on fsto is not existing. I will never find it and I will not search for it.

Imho this sounds reasonable...

[TonyD 132]

I hope Ethnicfs finds somewhere to upload his libraries soon - removing them from f.to is going to break a lot of other people's sceneries.

[Nemo 1,317]

5 hours ago, simmershome said:

No one has ever turned away in the last 30 years because they had to look for something. If the developer can work on an add-on for 6 months and then give it away, a user can also search for 10 minutes to find it. If that's too much, he doesn't deserve the add-on. Some see us developers as rather stupid people, because something that costs nothing is also worth nothing in their eyes.

Users who value it are not afraid to search and know quickly where to find you.


 

But searching for something w/o knowing that it exists is rather meaningless ... I love the function of fsim.to where I could search for small airports of a specific country just to see what exists and if I could be interested.

Edited February 19, 2023 by Nemo

[Nemo 1,317]

The very recent statement of flightsim.to (q&a) explains a lot  https://flightsim.to/help/website-related/frequently-asked-questions-terms-of-service

Sorry, if this has been already posted.

 

Edited February 19, 2023 by Nemo

[RALF9636 2,047]

https://flightsim.to/help/website-related/frequently-asked-questions-terms-of-service

Here is an excerpt of what flightsim.to themselves say. I think it speaks for itself - unless someone wants to claim they are openly lying to our faces.

 

Quote

What has changed?

In short: Nothing. Flightsim.to and our services, missions and concepts haven't changed since 2020, and our terms haven't changed since half a year. Regardless of whether you uploaded your mod recently or two years ago, or whether you plan to upload it tomorrow, there has effectively been absolutely no change at all. 

Although we have revised our terms to increase transparency, we have not made any modifications to our licenses or policies. We have noticed that some creators were still not aware of our policy despites it is in place for quite a few months now, which is why we are now explicitly highlighting it again. If you heard or read somewhere that we have recently changed our terms in order to sell, modify, take ownership of or otherwise abuse your User Content, you have most likely heard fake-news or the opinion of a user with no legal understanding. 

 

Is it true that I transfer all rights to my content to you?

No, this is not true. Creators retain complete ownership of their respective works and their associated copyrights. We only receive the rights to distribute and advertise the work. It is important to understand that there is a legal difference between copyrights and distribution rights; and obviously, as a mod distribution platform, we need distribution rights, otherwise we couldn't operate.

 

I have heard that you are leaving all creators without rights to their contents?

This claim is false. Creators retain complete ownership of their respective works and their associated copyrights. Our terms are industry-standard terms for pretty much all mod distribution platforms. We are not allowed to sell, lease, rent or otherwise use this User Content outside of Flightsim.to or directly make money out of it, nor do we plan to do so. We would like to emphasize that since 2020, our services have been designed with creators in mind, developed by creators, for creators. Our primary objective is to make modding accessible to everyone, to make our joint hobby flight simulation even more enjoyable. A thorough reading of our terms reveals that we do not possess the authority to sell or appropriate creators' content or utilize it beyond the confines of Flightsim.to. As a result, it is incorrect to claim that we have unrestricted control over the content, or that we plan to abuse the creators content. Flightsim.to has only one mission: To make sure everyone can use and download your mod.

 

Why can't I delete my file if I want to delete it?

You can still delete your file, you only need to request it. Although you can request to delete your file, there is a possibility that the deletion may be denied, especially for popular files that have been previously featured or advertised by us. Please read this article for a detailed statement on our core concepts. Our terms are industry-standard terms for pretty much all mod distribution platforms. However, you can still permanently hide or archive your mods.

 

Do your terms violate EU law? 

No, our policy is not in breach with EU law. Our terms have been both designed, reviewed and approved by international lawyers. It is easy for users with no understanding for law to misinterpret things. If you have concerns regarding the legality of our policies, we recommend consulting with an qualified attorney. Legal matters are not our job, it is the job of your and our lawyers. While the terms of service and licensing agreements can be complex, we have ensured that our terms are in compliance with the law. These terms are standard and common for modding websites and nothing unusual. 

 

 

Edited February 19, 2023 by RALF9636

[F737MAX 6,040]

42 minutes ago, Phantoms said:

How does the above stating they do not intend to make profit from any user content jive with their new TOS?

 

(4.4) You grant to the Platform the right to monetize your User Content on the Service, which may include displaying ads on or within User Content. For the sake of clarity, this Agreement does not entitle you to any payments.

This is part of 'the industry standard terms'.

Simply put, all tech firms have horrible TOS which grant them royalty-free licences to do whatever they want with the content consumer-level users upload onto their sites.

What is problematic is the widespread acceptance of such a word not allowed business practice. The big tech firms are making *a lot of money* from their users' content. Funny how the business account I have for Microsoft's cloud services doesn't grant them a royalty-free licence to my business' content that has been uploaded.

Given how fs.to are part of the reason why the freeware community is so strong at the moment, I want fs.to be able to receive enough financial support to keep the site up and running.

However, there are justifiable reasons why a content creator may want to remove content. Denying them the right to do so is riding roughshod over the creators' goodwill when they uploaded free content to the site.

Just because the terms are widespread, doesn't make them any less problematic.

[carlanthony24 620]

Latest post from .to

 

 

Edited February 19, 2023 by carlanthony24

[superspud 479]

I don't recall anyone bemoaning the possibility of files being sold.

They have modified some in the past but for reasons that made total sense - the otherwise mass die off of liveries that only required a couple of line changes if I remember rightly 

Edited February 19, 2023 by superspud

[leprechaunlive 1,861]

4 minutes ago, carlanthony24 said:

Latest post from .to

 

 

"Current" being the keyword here.

[edu2703 298]

58 minutes ago, RALF9636 said:

https://flightsim.to/help/website-related/frequently-asked-questions-terms-of-service

Here is an excerpt of what flightsim.to themselves say. I think it speaks for itself - unless someone wants to claim they are openly lying to our faces.

After reading this, I'm convinced that this 'boycott' of certain developers is nothing more than a massive overreaction.

My understanding is that ToS are not meant to be read by ordinary people but by lawyers. There are several complicated terms that raise various speculations and generate multiple interpretations, causing these 'controversies' when they are read and 'interpreted' by people without legal knowledge.

It seems that ever since flightsim.to announced the premium membership, some people have engaged in the ''mission'' of ''assassinating'' the site's reputation and painting them as 'greedy developers wanting to make money off the others' work'.

People don't read, distort what was announced, or casually ignore what was said to present their own narrative. Even after saying that besides Premium membership, absolutely nothing would change for core users, there were comments from people saying they would throttle/limit downloads to make Premium attractive. Even people saying they would put the entire site behind a paywall.

Same thing is happening now. Even after everything has been clarified, there are still people who insist on not wanting to understand and force their narrative on the facts. I think some people are hot-headed and acting on emotion. It's best to calm down and carefully analyze what was officially said. The above link is quite illuminating and leaves virtually no room for any other interpretation, unless you want to call them liars.

About the 'controversy' of not being able to delete mods, it's another overreaction. Honestly what's the practical difference in being able to permanently hide your mods instead of deleting the files? Why do you care so much about the files? It's not like they can unhide your addon without your permission as that would be a ToS violation by them. If flightsim.to wants to keep defunct addon files in their database, that's their problem. Your addon will no longer appear on the site, and for me that's all that should matter.

Flightsim.to is simply one of the best things to ever appear in the flightsim community. A centralized platform for addons, without having to spend hours searching for mods spread across multiple sites, was something I dreamed of since the days of FS2004. It's a pity that some people are engaged in destroying the site because of an overreaction over a misinterpretation. I don't want to go back to the days of scattered mods

Edited February 19, 2023 by edu2703

[B777ER 2,670]

2 hours ago, guenseli said:

Or all passengers had a panic attack, seeing an iceberg. Captain and crew had no issues, just a few degrees starboard to avoid the collision. 

But passengers didn't believe them and sunk the ship just to be sure 

🙄

I hope you’re not pulling your stuff. You’re one of the main reasons I first went to that site and will continue to do so.

[guenseli 1,653]

2 minutes ago, B777ER said:

I hope you’re not pulling your stuff

Of course not. There is no reason to do that 

[B777ER 2,670]

https://flightsim.to/help/website-related/frequently-asked-questions-terms-of-service
 

Just put out today.  At this point those creators wailing on the altar probably should reconsider their massive over reaction. What a bunch of needless drama.