Ethical Question

[WarpD 824]

The software is still protected. Any attempts to sidestep the EULA is a criminal act.

[tf51d 284]

>>>>>>The problem is that it is no longer supported solely>because>>>the author, albeit in ill health, didn't want to support it>>>any more. The author will most likely never attempt to>>exert>>>his rights if someone were to pass out activation codes. >>>Because of this, FSNavigator (up through v4.70) is>>>abandonware.>>>>>>>It's definitely not abandware.>>>>The Author contacted his distributer (simmarket) and>>specifically told them to 'stop' distributiong his software>by>>a specififed date.>>>>That clearly is the author asserting his right to stop>>distribution of his work.>>>>Regards.>>Ernie.>>>>Doesn't it go to intent? I don't know for certain, but I'd>guess he told them to stop selling his software solely because>he didn't want to have to answer questions and provide support>for more and more users while attempting to shut things down.>>If you decided to stop supporting FSBuild 2.x and told them to>stop selling it because FSBuild 3.0 is soon to be released,>that is a lot different than if you told them to stop selling>it because you were dropping out of the flightsim community,>no?>>I guess my point is that there is no reason why FSNavigator>couldn't continue to be sold with the clear understanding that>it is no longer supported.It's still the the developers/authors right under any circumstances to choose whether to continue to allow distribution or not. The only exception is if they have a contract or agreement with a distributer/publisher that gives them a irrevocable right to distribute/sell the item. Did you know AVSIM has just that kind of clause in their terms of use for anything we upload to their servers? (Not to sell though).

[jlohrenz 133]

Unless the law changes this is, what I feel a major downside to the industry. A business closes its doors and along with it everything that they have done.What we need to hope is that someone will come along and, if willing present an offer to buy the rights and begin publishing again.This isn't the first package to have this happen. One of my most favorite aircraft, the Saab 340 was made by Flight Factory Simulations. Granted they were running questionable practices with their programmers and payment, but now that they are gone no one will ever get to enjoy that aircraft again unless they are will to, and someone offers to buy the rights.

[Chuck_B 2]

Intellectual copyright as it applies to software is still under debate, both in the US Legislature and the courts. Most cease and desist actions are brought by companies still in existence so the prosecution by an entity no longer in business for a product which is admittedly no longer supported, distributed and/or sold in any way, adds yet another unknown variable to this debate. IMHO, and as it applies to FSNavigator, in the US, at least it seems to frequently come down to "what can I get away with before it becomes worthwhile for the vendor to prosecute", mainly because more often than not the action never goes to full trial but ends with equitable arbitrated settlement between the disputing parties. That being said, I'm not giving my paid FSN license away no matter how much help I think the product would be to others. Sorry -- just selfish that way. :+(EDIT:I post the following because I noticed there are vendors reading this thread and I would like to put forth the following ideas as a responsible consumer who supports flight sim software development BY PAYING FOR IT, and who does not believe in pirating software in any way.) No matter what the EULA says the courts have ruled both ways, and EULAs have been deemed both binding AND overly burdensome to the consumer, so anyone who gives you a definitive answer either way on this matter is either a vendor or an attorney for the music industry. :-)If the software industry is worried about copyright infringement and intellectual property, one answer which might relieve consumer anxiety about "paying full price" would be to give us a fair return policy for a product (unquestionably, FLIGHT1 has the best business model around for this, bar none). They could also give us more reasonable home testing limitations than those now imposed by developers of most down-loadable software.As a consumer, I see nothing wrong in giving away or selling a copy-written collectible (or non-collectible) toy or book that I've paid for in the past but no longer need or want (on EBAY, for example) without fear of retribution from the original retailer. Why a vendor of digital products thinks his product is forever owned by him even though I've paid the appropriate fee for it, and is thus exempt from that practice speaks to the current Microsoft mentality of the old rules of satisfying the customer and "I can do what I want because my pockets are deeper than yours", and is somewhat frustrating as a consumer. (NOTE: I, for one, have never given away or sold any digitally licensed software that I've legally paid for, and I am now stuck with megabytes of it sitting on my hard drive, simply because it wasn't apparent that the product didn't satisfy my needs until long after I'd pressed that "Finalize Transaction Now" button. Now _THAT_ is frustrating!) Copyright infringement has been around much longer than computers, and other industries have been dealing with it for decades and regularly treat it as a cost of doing business. Just because down-loadable software is very easy to distribute doesn't make it any less (or more) of a consumer commodity, subject to the same rules of warranty and good customer service.Just my two cents. Smooth skies, everybody!Chuck B.

[Guest]

There's a difference between selling or giving away a collectible book and selling or giving away hundreds of copies of some piece of software...The former is allowed, the latter is a crime. And that's why the sale of books on eBay is allowed, the sale of pirated software is not.Whether that software is still available for sale or not makes no difference whatsoever.

[btacon 1,794]

Jerone...ad-hominine attacks do not add to the discussion's integrity or usefulness.The OP that you replied to did not imply he wanted to give away or sell "hundreds of copies...". He stated that he saw no problem with selling or giving away a legally aquired, single copy.As a consumer, I see nothing wrong in giving away or selling a copy-written collectible (or non-collectible) toy or book that I've paid for in the past but no longer need or want (on EBAY, for example) without fear of retribution from the original retailer. Why a vendor of digital products thinks his product is forever owned by him even though I've paid the appropriate fee for it, and is thus exempt from that practice speaks to the current Microsoft mentality of the old rules of satisfying the customer and "I can do what I want because my pockets are deeper than yours", and is somewhat frustrating as a consumer. His premise is valid, and adds to the discussion. Your retort is made of whole-cloth, and suggests a lack of intellectual honesty.My 2 cents to this thread,bt

[ErnieAlston 33]

>As a consumer, I see nothing wrong in giving away or selling a>copy-written collectible (or non-collectible) toy or book that>I've paid for in the past but no longer need or want (on EBAY,>for example) without fear of retribution from the original>retailer. Why a vendor of digital products thinks his product>is forever owned by him even though I've paid the appropriate>fee for it, and is thus exempt from that practice speaks to>the current Microsoft mentality of the old rules of satisfying>the customer and "I can do what I want because my pockets are>deeper than yours", and is somewhat frustrating as a consumer.> You are not seeing the difference here.The difference is you cannot make a copy of that book at all. When you sell the book on Ebay no copy of the book is made. It is illegal for you to make 'any' copies of that book without permission. If you look on the first pages of any published book you will see it clearly written you cannot reproduce or make copies of that book without permission.The very same is true for software, you cannot reproduce or make copies of it without permission.However when you install software you are making a copy of it (either from a download, or off a CD).This download/install copy of the software is not legal unless the author gives permission to you to make that copy.This permission to make that software copy for the purpose of installation onto your computer is given in the software license agreement, additionally its is normal practice to allow the license holder to make additional copies for personal or archival purposes. But the software license does not give you permission to make copies for the purpose of distribution to other party's.Clearly the difference is when you purchase the book, you do not need any sort of copy permission to begin using it or to transfer or sell it. In either case unlike software no copy is being made of that book.Regards.Ernie.

[Chuck_B 2]

>>You are not seeing the difference here.You're absolutely right, I'm not. Because I'm not just talking about books. I sell a lot of things on eBay. And at yard sales. I also return things to retailers that I've had for 2 weeks or 30 days because it doesn't work like I thought it would, or was told it would. I'm not given that choice from most software developers.Further, simply because a product (in this case a piece of software) is easily accessible or copyable is completely irrelevant as to who ultimately owns it after the initial sales price is paid to the developer. What you're forgetting is that EULAs are one sided contracts, developed over the years by a single party to the contract with the single goal in mind of never *really* selling it to you, and then they have evolved over the years based on the consent of that one party only -- and we, as concumers, have just had to swallowed it hook, line and sinker. Even if customer service stinks; even if the product documentation stinks; even if the sales material is misleading; even if, etc., etc., etc. That's not the way we do business in America -- it never has been!In the interest of customer service and historical good business practice, although I adhere to EULAs, I don't buy into the argument any more.>>The very same is true for software, you cannot reproduce or make >>copies of it without permission.All dictated over the years by the developers and distributors. No one ever asked me how I felt about it and I now have no choice.>>Clearly the difference is when you purchase the book, you do not need any sort of copy permission to begin using it or to transfer or sell it. Yes I do, I need to buy it from the bookstore, or borrow it from the public library, who bought it. (I can hear the software developers response now: PUBLIC LIBRARY?? WHAT?? FREE information -- HOW'D THAT happen???)>>In either case unlike software no copy is being made of that book.How do you know? One of my points is that any other non-digital industry doesn't even ask -- it's built into their business model.The really interesting thing is that this isn't a new debate! These are the same arguments everyone had when movable type was first made affordable, and radio, and TV and VCRs, and color laser printers and copiers. And now they are everywhere -- and not once do I have to sign anything that says I won't copy anything with it, or lend a movie to a friend.The problem is everybody today wants to not only get rich . . . they want to get filthy rich. :-bluegrab Smooth skies!

[Guest]

in fact he was implying that, implicitly.He wants to publish license codes and product files on websites, which essentially means allowing unlimited distribution of material he doesn't own intellectual property rights to.

[Guest]

and if the law changes the industry is dead, over, terminated, as there will be no more way for anyone to enforce his ownership of his creation, ensure he gets paid for his work.As a result no commercial software development will take place, unless maybe one-off custom jobs.Retail software will no longer exist.

[Chuck_B 2]

>>in fact he was implying that, implicitly.I didn't get that, but I'm not sure that contradicts my intial post.Software development will not be dead, the abundance of free ware bears that out. I, and many others like me, will always pay for good customer service. No one on the developer side seems to believe that, but history bears me out. This is not a new argument.Believe me, I don't want to offend you, or your company in any way -- as I said originally Flight1 DOES THIS RIGHT. You're one of the few software developers that does. Smooth skies!Chuck

[3catcircus 1]

>and if the law changes the industry is dead, over,>terminated, as there will be no more way for anyone to enforce>his ownership of his creation, ensure he gets paid for his>work.>>As a result no commercial software development will take>place, unless maybe one-off custom jobs.>Retail software will no longer exist.It is obvious you don't quite understand the intent of the OP. People want to BUY copies; Helge still gets paid. The rub is that it is something people want to BUY but is no longer being made available. And since you brought up the topic of ownership, I've been reading that FSNavigator is based on Ted Wright and Ignacio Hernandez-Ros's GNU GPL'ed Nav 2.x/3.x source code. As such, people are free to redistribute FSNavigator - otherwise Helge is in violation of the GNU GPL.Here is the discussion on Helge's GPL violation, BTW:http://forums.vatsim.net/viewtopic.php?p=2...f41aa28fba4f9bd

[ErnieAlston 33]

>>>You are not seeing the difference here.>>You're absolutely right, I'm not. Because I'm not just>talking about books. I sell a lot of things on eBay. And at>yard sales. It applies the same to those other items as it does book. There's no copying or reproducing being done. You have every right to re-sellthose things there is no copying being done.But were you to make an almost exact reproduction of any of those items, and distribute them. You would no doubt soon hear from the manufacturer's attorneys asserting the patent they have on their invention/product you just reproduced and request you stop doing it.>I also return things to retailers that I've had>for 2 weeks or 30 days because it doesn't work like I thought>it would, or was told it would. I'm not given that choice>from most software developers.Many retailers have no refund policies. No doubt the laws the regulate this is different in various locations. Often retailers have a no refund policies on certain items(ex underwear) or to certain locations (overseas etc).>Further, simply because a product (in this case a piece of>software) is easily accessible or copyable is completely>irrelevant as to who ultimately owns it after the initial>sales price is paid to the developer. I agree its irrelevent how easily it is to copy.You cannot make any copies of it at all without permission.I understand your position though. You feel that since you paid money for it, that you should be able to re-sell it or transfer it. Like most other tangible items.I don't disagree with that view, but this cannot be legal without an assurance That the original copy is no longer available to the previous owner after the transfer or sale was made.We do not have a way yet to have this necessary assurance for downloable software. Perhaps in the near future individual software downloads will be encoded in such a way that it will not work for more than one owner of it at a time and this issue will go away.But so far the software pirates have found ways around just about every software protection scheme created. So its gonna be a long while before such a thing exists.But still as long as you know that is the situation 'before' you buy that downloadable product that you cannot re-sell it, I do not see the problem. If you disagree with it, you can restrict your purchase of software to CD versions only. Which you can legally re-sell or transfer.> What you're forgetting>is that EULAs are one sided contracts, developed over the>years by a single party to the contract with the single goal>in mind of never *really* selling it to you, and then they>have evolved over the years based on the consent of that one>party only -- and we, as concumers, have just had to swallowed>it hook, line and sinker. Even if customer service stinks;>even if the product documentation stinks; even if the sales>material is misleading; even if, etc., etc., etc. That's not>the way we do business in America -- it never has been!>>In the interest of customer service and historical good>business practice, although I adhere to EULAs, I don't buy>into the argument any more.Well I'm not really into the vast conspiracies regarding the why's ofEULA's etc.What I do know is the author of the work or product owns all the rights to make any 'exact' reproductions of their original works.>>>In either case unlike software no copy is being made of that>book.>>How do you know? That was an assumption of your honesty on my part. No doubt printed books are illegally reproduced as well, there's all sorts of fake copies of almost anything in markets around the world.>One of my points is that any other>non-digital industry doesn't even ask -- it's built into their>business model.Not sure what you mean by 'ask' ?Ask if someone is going to try and make illegal copies of it ? Does that really need to be asked ?If its a retail store, most of em have security guards for a reason.There are honest people in the world, and there are dishonest people in the world. Do we really need to go through extensive research to prove this ??If its available, someone is going to try and find a way to get it without paying for it.Regards.Ernie.

[Guest zzmikezz]

Folks,You have got to be kidding ...If I own a house but move out of it to take up residence someplace else, do you feel that you have squatters rights to move in and do whatever you want with my place?You might after perhaps 17 years under the doctrine of adverse possession, and as was pointed out earlier it may be possible to obtain a compulsory license for using/distributing the work in question, but absent formal legal action ...... You have no rights whatsoever to "share" or distribute or crack the software.Frankly, I'm amazed that the question is even asked. As I put it yesterday morning on a different forum ...If I had been running a daycare center out of my house that your child has been attending, but I then decide to close the daycare center, do you suddenly gain the right to enter my house and "share" my food with your kid?You know the answer.

[3catcircus 1]

>Folks,>>You have got to be kidding ...>>If I own a house but move out of it to take up residence>someplace else, do you feel that you have squatters rights to>move in and do whatever you want with my place?>>You might after perhaps 17 years under the doctrine of adverse>possession, and as was pointed out earlier it may be possible>to obtain a compulsory license for using/distributing the work>in question, but absent formal legal action ...>>... You have no rights whatsoever to "share" or distribute or>crack the software.>>Frankly, I'm amazed that the question is even asked. As I put>it yesterday morning on a different forum ...>>If I had been running a daycare center out of my house that>your child has been attending, but I then decide to close the>daycare center, do you suddenly gain the right to enter my>house and "share" my food with your kid?>>You know the answer.Ain't the same league, ain't even the same sport.When a car maker stops making a specific model of car, should cars owners be forced to go out and buy a new car? No. They can go and buy after-market parts for their existing car. FSNavigator is based on GNU GPL code stolen from the author of NAV. The GNU GPL *requires* that derivative works be freeware. FSNavigator is in violation of the GPL. If someone wanted to take FSNavigator and create "Super FlightNav" or some other such thing, they should be able to.Frankly, Helge should have done one of the following:1. Open up the source code and release it as freeware (which is what should have been done in the first place.)2. If creating a new product to support FSX, then say so.3. Turn over the rights to whoever wants to continue to support FSNavigator.