7 hours ago, vbazillio said:

    

 

 

Hey guys, you're going to put too much light there... c'mon, I'm just a passionate and really (really) amateur freeware scenery developer 😉 At first, I was suspicious on how regular users would get treated on flightsim.to (premium), then was concerned by the ToS. AFAIK, I never announced anything 😉. For those interested: I've decided to stay on flightsim.to.

I benefit widely of the exposure, publicity, features and ease of use of the fs.to platform. Part of my dedication and passion of sharing my amateur work is also having the simmers feedback and building a community (other developers build object for my own scenery for free). Flightsim.to played a big role there, as well as forum like AVSIM, official MSFS forum and Facebook groups, just to name a few. All participate to create a new exciting momentum to give back to the sim. community. For example, I receive a message from within flightsim.to platform from a passionate simmer asking me to continue to share my sceneries on fs.to. 

I fully understand that some freeware or payware developers decided to leave fs.to. Fair enough. I respect their choice. No misunderstanding, I also benefit from this buzz allowing some room for improvement on fs.to. Personally, I can easily make all my uploads at fs.to, useless and outdated.to. And I really pay attention to the users of my work via fs.to and was initially much concerned by the Premium access which seems finally a no brainer. But I’ll keep paying close attention there.

All this story, burn off too much of my spare time, yet sparse as I have to work to pay the bill (and the flight hours), nor I have ambitious to make a sim. business 😉. I prefer getting back to my Blender/MSFS Scenery Editor/Gimp and continue my future Page, KPGA airport. 

You simply make some of the best airports!!!

7 hours ago, mamu82 said:

Wrong, TOS changed, without a notice or approval to NO ONE (developers and users)

in autumn 2022 (november 2022 iirc)

tos was still ok in August 19th 2022

Proof:

https://web.archive.org/web/20220819150640/https://flightsim.to/legal/terms

 

That tos was ok for Developers, cause contained the ability to remove user content avoiding .to transfer their hard work under another (theirs) username.

This is the core of the problem

Luckily the drama happened, user reacted, Dev reacted, .to reacted, and now the TOS is ok back again ☺️

Hope .to had is lesson and will avoid sudden terms of services changes without express confirmation (illegal in most of the civil world)

 

 

 

Interesting. I read both the terms of service before and after the change, and I note that they also mentioned giving a grace period before changing those terms of service and that they would serve notice before doing so. Was that done?

17 hours ago, Funky D said:

These creators had no issue uploading to a site that was made available for free to them, without reading a TOS that was likely copied from a boilerplate template. They had no issue with the free publicity their uploads received, and some even profited from this popularity. They took full advantage of the search, comments, changelog, version tracking, and other website features that weren't available anywhere else.

To reverse your argument: creators only had access to flightsim.to due to the generosity of the fs.to developers. If someone were to pay a web development company to design and implement a site with fs.to's scope, it could easily cost $20k+, and yet all creators had to do was upload a file and write a description and their content was now available to thousands. Not to mention the ongoing bandwidth and storage costs, which fs.to have obviously struggled with given the increased hurdles to download files and finally now, a premium plan.

I had more sympathy for creators before finding that most sites of this natures have the same TOS and restrictions. To me it comes across as creators biting the hand that feeds.

That argument goes both ways. The host has no problems hosting files that creators labored and made for free. The creators put their efforts into creating those mods (the same as the host put the effort into hosting those files). Both parties put the effort in and if you only have one side (creator or host) then you have nothing. Yes, there is a lot of cost and programming effort on the host, but without freeware modders/creators that put in their own money, time and effort then it means absolutely nothing.

 

As for TOS, a creator/modder can add one to their own work as they wish (usually a license included in the text of the mods files). In fact, mods commonly have licensing in them. Creators can in fact make the TOS/license to read that it rules over any other licenses granted and that the ability to host such file is contingent upon acceptance of the terms of such license. While a host may say you agreed to their terms of service, don't forget that they also agreed to yours in accepting the file in the first place.

Not sure if anyone has seen this. If this has been shared already, my apologies. 

 

Lol, they handed THAT gracefully....

7 hours ago, honanhal said:

Your argument is that if someone is legally allowed to do something, then no one is allowed to criticize them for doing it? Sorry, that’s pretty wild! Maybe think through all the implications of that proposition.

You can side 100% with the IP creators without needing to make the claim that “we aren’t even entitled an opinion.”

James

Of course not; my position has nothing to do with legality but simply with ethics.

You're trying to have an opinion about what someone else should do with work they created, that has absolutely nothing to do with you.  If you build something in your workshop and then position it under a certain tree in your yard, what would you think of a vocally annoyed contigent of neighbors yelling at you that it needs to go under the OTHER tree, instead?

Pretty silly (and rude) of them, yes?  😉

 

34 minutes ago, Stearmandriver said:

Of course not; my position has nothing to do with legality but simply with ethics.

You're trying to have an opinion about what someone else should do with work they created, that has absolutely nothing to do with you.  If you build something in your workshop and then position it under a certain tree in your yard, what would you think of a vocally annoyed contigent of neighbors yelling at you that it needs to go under the OTHER tree, instead?

Pretty silly (and rude) of them, yes?  😉

 

Everyone loves a good metaphor.  The trouble is when the metaphor doesn't exactly fit the scenario its trying to shed light on, engendering emotions that don't match what's being discussed.

If I take your example, the quality product - if made and solely placed under a tree in the craftsmans's backyard.. that's kind of like a modder making a mod and putting in his/her own website.  In this case, I'm not sure who the angry neighbors are because unless the craftsman went door to door to let them know about this beautiful thing in his yard, they wont know about it and have nothing to be angry about.

Now if that very talented craftsman decides he wants to share his creation with the world .. obviously he does, cuz thats what this is all about...  he's only going to have limited reach with something placed in his backyard unless he was already really famous and had interested parties banging on his door. Instead he finds a company in town that agrees to mass produce quality copies (work with me here.. just assume they are EXACTLY like the original and take no effort to copy 😉 ) and will accept orders, handle shipping and free delivery, etc etc. He's obviously going to have a bigger reach and if he makes good stuff will have a large fan base using his quality product.  If he's really generous and give it for FREE (which he obviously does, because.. again that's why we're here), he's not going to really get anything out of the deal except for the satisfaction that people in the world are enjoying his wonderful creation, which I presume is reward enough for the craftsman or else he'ld be selling it.

If then suddenly things change, the company starts charging fees to the people to cover shipping costs, handles customer relations in ways that doesn't fit with the craftsman's "Kum Ba Yah" worldview.. or whatever.. the generous craftsman has every right to say.. I'm done, don't want to ship with you I'm pulling out and go back to sending copies out from under his tree. 

I think the difference in what comes next differs on you choose to read into the words of the posts above.  I don't see anyone saying that the craftsman doesn't have a right.  They (including me) are expressing a sadness (not anger) that its going to be harder to continue to enjoy the talents of the artist.  Its easy for the craftsman to say that his fans should just tough it out and come find him at his backyard .. and if the stuff is really good, we just might.  But in reality most of those fans have day jobs with limited time to search and are following hundreds of these craftsman at once, so the more likely scenario is that wonder product just vanishes from sight and is no longer used.

That's not cause for anger.. its cause for sadness.

Which is why the fans are taking the time just to ask the question if it was all really worth it...

... and scene...

1 hour ago, VFXSimmer said:

They (including me) are expressing a sadness (not anger) that its going to be harder to continue to enjoy the talents of the artist. 

Not aimed at you personally, but there are those on this thread who have expressed annoyance / anger at what they perceive as an inconvenience to them.  

There was a question asked and repeated early on in this thread: "how does this help ME?". (The asker was a user of freeware.). 

The obvious answer is: it doesn't.  The obvious QUESTION is: why did that person ever think it should?  Why would it even occur to someone to ask that question?

I'm not sure your analogy fits better, but I'll take a crack at correcting mine:. Instead of displaying a creation in his yard, let's say the craftsman voluntarily displays it at a local park, where you come to enjoy it.  Let's further say the park makes or changes some rule the craftsman disagrees with, so he moves his creation to a different park.  Now maybe you're a little disappointed it's not in your local park any longer, but you can still go see it if you wish.  Or not, entirely your choice.  

Either way, the craftsman has made his decision, regarding HIS work.  Why would your opinion matter?  It doesn't really have anything to do with you.

Witness the post here quoting the Got Friends explanation for their departure, and then simply commenting "Bye.". Boy that sure told them, didn't it?  You show those guys the error of their ways, by not freely downloading their work.  😁

The childishness inherent in this comment is obvious, but so is the logical fallacy: they don't CARE if you download their work or not; they aren't getting anything either way.  They were simply being generous, and you (the commenter I'm referencing) were simply being... Ungrateful?  Could we agree on that?

3 hours ago, VFXSimmer said:

Everyone loves a good metaphor.  The trouble is when the metaphor doesn't exactly fit the scenario it’s trying to shed light on, engendering emotions that don't match what's being discussed.

Your post covered everything I wanted to say in reply (and then some), but much more eloquently. Thanks!

Whilst I agree that freeware developers should have the final say in what happens to their creations, I also think that if you put something out there for the entire world to enjoy, then you should accept that the end user's opinion actually does matter.

9 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

 I also think that if you put something out there for the entire world to enjoy, the end user's opinion actually does matter.

The discussion, as is vividly clear in this topic, is not about the freeware, it is about the hosting of the freeware. 
Where the freeware developer chooses to host their work really is not the concern of the end user.

1 hour ago, Reader said:

The discussion, as is vividly clear in this topic, is not about the freeware, it is about the hosting of the freeware. 
Where the freeware developer chooses to host their work really is not the concern of the end user.

The creators that have almost no downloads (because their product is of little or no interest and there are a lot of them on FS.to) have no voice or are not interesting.

The "big" creators have a very loud voice and get aplauded by many. Those creators all have their own reasons for publishing things. But without the end user they get no regognition. So I appreciate what creators do but some of them are wearing to big shoes.

 

Why do I feel this thread has run its course 😉 ?

13 hours ago, Bdub22 said:

Not sure if anyone has seen this. If this has been shared already, my apologies. 

 

 

4 minutes ago, Dominique_K said:

Why do I feel this thread has run its course 😉 ?

Probably because of Bdub22's post highlighting the FSTO point of view which seems pretty reasonable and overwrites a lot of the rhetoric.  FSTO raises a point that a few recalcitrants have been at the head of this 'FSTO bad' backlash which makes me wonder who they are and what FSTO also have to say about Got Friends. I have no doubt they will say nothing but for GF to effectively be removed from the site is not a decision I would have thought FSTO would take lightly and without some reasonable cause. Oh well, we will never know but I'm sure it is not helpful for GF, FSTO or any of us mere users that the situation escalated so quickly and reached a precipice.

Perhaps then before this thread finally runs it's course we might look into the abyss from that cliff edge and ask ourselves what we have learnt from all this? My personal takeaways are that FSTO is an excellent repository of data for our hobby, it is the one stop shop, the Amazon of MSFS , but without the costs . I have also learnt that FSTO existence relies on developers not pulling the pin and doing a run on the bank so to speak, just as developers ability to reach their audiences relies on FSTO's existence.  As I stand on the edge of this crumbling cliff, I also realize  that there is no other freeware hosting site of any decent caliibre on the horizon should FSTO collapse. FSTO is a freeware island oasis surrounded by a vastness of nothing. Neither users nor freeware devs really have anywhere else to go. Accordingly we should do two things. Firstly, we should look after our island of freeware or else we will loose it. Secondly we should encourage  another hosting service to sail over the horizon into our view and,  with the same or similar levels of service, take some pressure off FSTO. Not as a competitor but to provide mutual redundancy.

 

Cheers

 

Terry 

        

    

There is far too much hysteria in this discussion.

There was a thriving freeware community before fs.to and there will be one after fs.to as well, I am sure.

Fs.to is a great place for both consumers of freeware as well as for creators of freeware (I am one of them). I hope they continue to exist as they offer a convenient way to check for new freeware and track updates.

Maybe too convenient though. I am surprised how many people are scared that they might suffer from having to follow a number of sites on internet instead of one single webpage. Seriously? That was always the case in the past and to me it looks like such statements are made just to cover laziness. Use google or your favorite search engine to check what's new and use bookmarks of webpages of your favorite freeware creators who are not on fs.to. 10 minutes job if I do it slowly. And if this is the only price I have to pay to get a mod that is offered to me free of charge, I am happy to pay it.

Some of my preferred freeware mods were never on fs.to anyway and the situation with payware is not any different. I bought stuff from a number of vendors (that I have to track for updates and new products) and it never occurred to me I should complain that there is no one single store that has it all.

I understand that consumers of freeware mods have wishes when it comes to conditions under which they consume (e.g. files should be available forever) but they have no rights to require just that, unfortunately. Let's face it and stop moaning.