Just now, regis9 said:

Is clause 4.3 above new or has that always been there?

I believe it's relatively recent. 

I linked to this earlier in the thread from Jan 2021 - https://forums.flightsim.to/thread/182-terms/?postID=481#post481

A good explanation of some of the terms and why they exist. And at that point you could ask for deletion. 

36 minutes ago, pmb said:

Did we have capchas above a certain limit of downloads/time until now? I never saw one, and there were days where I downloaded quite a number of files.

Kind regards, Michael

Not sure, I haven't seen those in a while, though I do remember getting them during some very busy times.  I didn't see the other note that's being mentioned about content  ownership though.  That's a little concerning for sure.

ignore, dup post somehow

Edited February 18, 20233 yr by flyinion

8 minutes ago, superspud said:

It's definitely tone deaf and it'll ultimately have far more of a detrimental effect than agreeing to pull files when requested.

Someone called DennyAtkin currently has the most recent comment under the 'Our approach to Flightsim.to Premium and Creators Program' announcement over on flightsim.to.

Quote

"I understand that your lawyers likely wrote the rights section to protect you. However, I'm assuming most legal teams aren't really familiar with a donation/freeware environment like the MSFS community. KL791 cited many legitimate reasons an author might want to delete content. It's also possible that content could break with a sim update (boy is that possible!), and an author may want to delete that broken content if they've chosen not to maintain it due to priorities, better alternative content, etc. I would encourage you to discuss with your legal team how to protect your own rights while not infringing on those of content creators."

I agree here. The clause very much reads like the lawyers who drafted the T&Cs for content creators have zero understanding of how the freeware community operates. Instead, they are focused solely on the commercial aspects from flightsim.to's point of view and haven't considered the ramifications.

My own thinking is that we'll either see a climb down by flightsim.to on the rights conferred onto them by clause 4.3, or we'll see a notable decline in both new content and traffic on the site.

I do not have a real problem with a choice to pay for premium access per say as bandwith does cost money and I do not think anyone would disagree that flightsim.to has really been a godsend in trying to manage all this excellent freeware we have been able to enjoy.
I use it almost daily, even up to 10 times a day to see new content and update my files and I even have a couple of meager offerings I have uploaded myself to try and contribute something back to the community I have been a part of for so many years.

I really do hope that the content continues, I have not really looked at the creator content clauses that most people seem to be commenting on and I don't really mind about my files I have on here.
But I cannot stand adverts, I mean I am staring at some right now whilst I am writing this for totally random stuff I am not remotely interested in, so $5 a month seems a good deal for me just for the adverts alone.

Edited February 18, 20233 yr by Steve_Ellis

2 hours ago, KERNEL32 said:

What about AVSIM? I used to use the file library here all the time (FSX, etc) But why not now? Am I missing something?

I was thinking the same thing but I feel the reality is that the AVSIM file library is a product of the 90's and couldn't compete with flightsim.to. .To offers a far more friendly user interface and funcationality. AVSIM would require some serious uplift to match it.

3 minutes ago, flyinion said:

Not sure, I haven't seen those in a while, though I do remember getting them during some very busy times.  I didn't see the other note that's being mentioned about content  ownership though.  That's a little concerning for sure.

I downloaded dozens of the Short VFR flights series by FederFlyer in several versions (there were a number of updates over time) over the last couple of months or so. Sometimes 20 or more per day, and I never saw a captcha. Precisely, I can't recall having ever seen a captcha from flightsim.to so far.

But the content ownership thing is probably more serious, I agree.

I have seen numerous ambitious projects like this one growing and growing and going South finally, during my life. Recall airdailyX?

Kind regards, Michael

1 minute ago, KL Oo said:

I was thinking the same thing but I feel the reality is that the AVSIM file library is a product of the 90's and couldn't compete with flightsim.to. .To offers a far more friendly user interface and funcationality. AVSIM would require some serious uplift to match it.

The library here would probably burst into flames with 1% of flightsim.to's demands. 

I don't see where competition could come from now. Existing old school options simply wouldn't want to compete I expect. 

This is definitely something of an inflection point. I wouldn't want to be the one deciding how to progress constructively. 

The only no-ad, no-pay solution I see is Microsoft creating its own portal for freeware uploads and downloads. Hosting costs are not free, but they are basically free for MS... I'm sure the entire library size of flightsim.to is a drop in the bucket compared to the Azure storage that even mid-sized companies pay for. I really doubt flightsim.to is making any kind of profit after paying for hosting and development costs.

I see the writing on the wall for other services out there as well (Discord, I'm looking at you, unfortunately).

As for flightsim.to's TOS, is your contact information in the readme of the ZIP file you upload? If so, European residents can likely use GDPR to request content removal, and California residents can likely use the CCPA.

5 minutes ago, Funky D said:

The only no-ad, no-pay solution I see is Microsoft creating its own portal for freeware uploads and downloads. Hosting costs are not free, but they are basically free for MS... I'm sure the entire library size of flightsim.to is a drop in the bucket compared to the Azure storage that even mid-sized companies pay for. I really doubt flightsim.to is making any kind of profit after paying for hosting and development costs.

I see the writing on the wall for other services out there as well (Discord, I'm looking at you, unfortunately).

Agree with everything after your first sentence.

Really can't see MS wanting to get involved with freeware hosting, though.
They would need to hire a team to vet all the uploads (weapons, profanity and unlicenced items would need to be filtered out)—more expense at a time when they are cutting headcount across the business.

Photogrammetry cities from Google assets would be a no-no, as would the Google replacement map tool.
Airlines might get uppity again about their trademarks being used (even if only freeware) by a big, rich, tech firm. They would be arguing that their branding/liveries/names provide MS with sales and continued Xbox subs for MSFS without appropriate financial compensation.
What about those freeware mods that are better than payware developers' products? e.g. freeware airport sceneries that are far better than equivalent payware options. That would impact MS' earning potential due to lost sales.

There's very little upside for MS in freeware, in my view.

5 hours ago, vbazillio said:

As a small amateur uploader of a dozen of small airports, I take this new strategy quite seriously.

My first reaction is that I don't feel concerned by the Creator Program due to the level of amateur production and number of download. But I'm very much concerned about how potential users of my amateur work will be able to access it. If flightsim.to will directly or indirectly force regular users to get premium account, I'll switch to something different even very basic services. Although I'm a professional in IT and know about hosting and web dev cost, I feel that the freeware spirit of the days of flightsim.to is slowly vanishing.

I'll pay attention of the future development "This is only a first outline of our project, we will get back to you with more details in due course" and other feedbacks here as well as on the comment section of the announcement.

 

If you don’t buy Premium, you can still download as you always did with the timer and ads on the website.

Clause 4.3 as quoted here may well have been drafted by fs.to lawyers but, assuming this clause is indeed a new clause and was not present at the time a freeware author published his or her work, this is a clause that would fail dismally in any legal challenge brought by a content creator. That makes it a pretty poor effort on the part of the fs.to lawyers. A “bull in a China shop” approach.

What will happen now is that because content creators may not wish to go to the legal expense of challenging this clause, they will move away. A case in point is Hendrik Nielsen’s excellent Global AI Ship Traffic. Because of the new policy, he has requested and been denied removal of his freeware from the site. He (and other freeware content creators) can however render these packages obsolete by refusing to update fs.to and keeping their content updated on other hosting platforms.

Fs.to needs to axe their lawyer and start consulting with the freeware content creators that PARTNER with them, rather than treating them like 2nd class citizens. It s the freeware creators that give life to fs.to, not the payware ones. There are already enough payware stores for flight sims.

Hopefully it gets resolved as fs.to is a great site that has continued to mature and improve. Fs.to has a right to protect themselves and one can’t argue that they must have a right to cover all operating costs but you cannot do it by limiting the legal rights of the people that give you a reason to exist in the first place.

Edited February 18, 20233 yr by RaptyrOne

20 minutes ago, F737MAX said:

There's very little upside for MS in freeware, in my view.

I agree it would be a longshot,,, a realistic first sentence would be "A no-ad, no-pay solution for the amount of data hosted on flightsim.to isn't possible without a dedicated corporate sponsor or rich doner."

Even Wikipedia seemingly has issues every year making enough in donations to keep their content free... and their data is text and images. Single freeware MSFS downloads easily hit 500MB, and many more are in the gigs. Storage is cheap... until you have tens of thousands of people accessing it over the internet 🙂

23 minutes ago, RaptyrOne said:

He (and other freeware content creators) can however render these packages obsolete by refusing to update fs.to and keeping their content updated on other hosting platforms.

I think this is what's going to be the demise of fs.to. Creators will no longer upload any future projects or updates to current projects. Let's fast forward 3 or 4 Service Updates later to MSFS and a majority of the files on fs.to will no longer be compatible with MSFS. Essentially fs.to will become a host of airports and liveries of the past. 

While I wont unlist my addons, I will no longer upload anything to the site.

If all creators would get a free premium account that might not have been my decision. There are also some other tearms and conditions I begin to dislike.

I will maybe host my future creations on my own website or just even just keep them to myself. 
All my mods are in the low mb size, so hosting and bandwith are no issue.