Not really difficult now that you have revealed the fact the you prefer freeware Gulfstream aircraft for FS.As to your argument that there should be a "major fight on with international scope" to circumvent what is clearly a common and accepted business practice, we doubt that you would be able to muster more than a few folks here and at other FS forums. There would likely be long threads calling for "change to the system" along with the obligatory rants about the "evils of commercial entity ABC" and the "even more evil developer XYZ"Add a pinch of disgust over MSFS/ACES, two pinches of how much we all can't afford to upgrade hardware for Vista/DX10 and you could have a recipe for the sourest of sour grapes for eveyone to savour.Good day to you sir:-)

No, I said I prefer to make freeware aircraft for FS...as a user I have no preference either way for freeware or payware if the work is good. Of course all things being equal, free is always better."Common and accepted business practice." No, the attempt by some aircraft manufacturers to exact royalties from modellers, be they computer models or the plastic/wooden variety, is neither common nor accepted. This is a relatively recent development of the uncommon and unacceptable variety.No call for change to "the system"...but if we allow this to become accepted practice then it becomes "the system." We aren't there yet. 90% of international law is based on customs and tradition...that's why the US Navy routinely steams warships right up to the 12-mile international maritime borders of other--even friendly--nations...to prevent another nation's claims beyond the 12 mile standard from gaining standing in international law based on customarily observed practice. It's a use-it-or-lose-it proposition.I often wonder where the American people would be if, in 1776, the citizens of the american colonies had instead decided that taxation of the colonies by the British royalty without representation was really "common and accepted business practice." Or that quartering British troops in their homes was "common and accepted business practice." We probably wouldn't have ended up with that "obligatory rant" known as the Declaration of Independence.Certainly submission and compliance with demands, no matter how unreasonable, made by the attorneys of others, is the more expedient and less risky path. And conversely, from the other side of the fence, those lawyers know that the submissive and compliant can be expediently controlled with very little risk.Sour grapes are what sheep eat while they're cowering in fear of the wolf.CheersBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VSantiago de Chile

Wow, mixed metaphors aside, your position on the "system" is very clear. The "system" is simply a means for different business entities to coexist and even cooperate on a fairly even footing. Nothing in the "system" is sinister and we doubt that you will garner much support for your "change the system" viewpoint other than a few folks in forums who can't resist the latest call to arms over some imagined wrong by the "evil empire" of "corporate greed".Our 1776 forefathers did choose the correct direction and we are all the better for it.An attempt to change history to support your own viewpoint is...well, it's a bit preposterous if not ludicrous.:-)As to sheep eating sour grapes, that's a new one on me. Perhaps you could support that argument with an animal husbandry brief from an Agricultural University in Santiago.:-)

>The "system" is simply a means for different business entities>to coexist and even cooperate on a fairly even footing. The thought of all those little companies that Microsoft destroyed on their way to the top doesn't give me much faith in this idea.>Nothing in the "system" is sinister I think the tidal wave of litigation in the US is stifling productivity and personal freedom, and it is indeed sinister. What's worse is the number of sheep...errr I mean people...that will flee and comply rather than hold their ground when the first letter from a lawyer arrives. Like I said, they are expediently controlled, at low cost and low risk.>and we doubt that you will>garner much support for your "change the system" viewpointNot "change" the system. Control the system. It's our system..."of, by, and for the people" right? In theory, we control it, not the other way around. In practice...not so sure any more. >Our 1776 forefathers did choose the correct direction and we>are all the better for it.Yes they did...yes we are.>An attempt to change history to support your own viewpointNo, wrong, consider it an attempt to take a lesson from history to support a viewpoint. The lesson is that one doesn't have to submit to the demands of the powerful just because they demand it. Or at least I don't anyway. You seem comfortable with it.BTW, grapes are a $billion dollar business here.RegardsBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VSantiago de Chile

>Not "change" the system. Control the system. It's our system..."of, >by, and for the people" right? In theory, we control it, not the >other way around. In practice...not so sure any more.The difficulty you have in understanding the basic premise of all the arguments in this thread is related to the fact that you have a "theory" that cannot be supported by fact.We are familiar with the "theory" that consumer rights advocates espouse that they some how "control the system" by witholding their participation while in reality they have no "control of the system" whatsover. It's a losing argument Bob, let it go buddy:-)

>The difficulty you have in understanding the basic premise of>all the arguments in this thread is related to the fact that>you have a "theory" that cannot be supported by fact.>We are familiar with the "theory" that consumer rights>advocates espouse that they some how "control the system" by>witholding their participation while in reality they have no>"control of the system" whatsover. It's a losing argument Bob,>let it go buddy:-)I'm having no difficulties understanding anything here.I'm not talking about consumer's rights or consumer control of the markets. Where in the world did you get that from??!? I'm talking about us getting a grip on a legal system run amok, where corporate lawyers impose their will on others with the mere threat of litigation, and where the weak among us prefer to acquiese and flee whenever faced with that sort of coercion. Ed seemed to think that we should pee our pants and quiver before the terrible retribution that would be exacted if someone were to sell a computer-generated picture of a Gulfstream without a papal blessing from GD.And I'm talking about preventing those same lawyers from establishing a potentially far-reaching precedent, at least for those of us who enjoy contributing to the modelling hobbies.This is one of those arguments that only gets lost if I let it go. Not a chance of that happening.RegardsBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VSantiago de Chile

>I'm talking about us getting a grip on a legal system run amok...>And I'm talking about preventing those same lawyers from establishing a potentially far-reaching precedent...Well, we hope you are prepared to spend a LOT of time, energy, and cash to accomplish your goal because that is exactly what is required for you to "prevent those same lawyers from establishing a potentially far-reaching precedent".As mentioned earlier, we doubt you will gather much support for such a lofty goal from flight simmers who are ill prepared to join the cause with their own time, energy, or cash outlay. It is quite apparent that this goal will not be accomplished just because you present it to simmers in an FS Forum.It is also obvious that "personal baiting" of those who disagree with your position accomplishes nothing and the fact remains that Gulfstream has the legal right to prohibit commercial FS Development of its products if it so chooses. No amount of complaining or crusading is going to change that fact.See, we told you it is a losing argument:-)

>As mentioned earlier, we doubt you will gather much support>for such a lofty goal from flight simmers who are ill prepared>to join the cause with their own time, energy, or cash outlay.>It is quite apparent that this goal will not be accomplished>just because you present it to simmers in an FS Forum.What, you think that my discussing the topic here means I think I'm going to have some far-reaching effect on the legal system? I sit at the bar and talk about lots of much larger worldly problems with the captains of industry here, and certainly don't expect that to produce change.OTOH, if one international developer shows up at the table with a Gulfstream add-on, that'll be a step in the right direction.>It is also obvious that "personal baiting" of those who>disagree with your position accomplishes nothing It's debate. If you can't take the idea of someone disagreeing with you, don't engage in it.>and the fact>remains that Gulfstream has the legal right to prohibit>commercial FS Development of its products if it so chooses. They have the legal right to try, and nothing more.>No amount of complaining or crusading is going to change that>fact.It isn't a "fact" simply because you believe it to be. One of the central themes of my discussion here.>See, we told you it is a losing argument:-)And once again, you've gotten it all wrong.RegardsBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VSantiago de Chile

Two things of point:1) Developing a commercial release of a Gulfstream aicraft for MSFS goes far beyond the concept of an artist's rendering both legally and philosophically.2) If you think someone should stand up against Gulfstream, then so be it... I now lay your own challenge at your feet. It's time for you to release a commercial add-on of one of the Gulfstream jets. If you truly believe all you keep saying, then it's time to put up or shut up.

Ok Bob, you win:-)

>Two things of point:>>1) Developing a commercial release of a Gulfstream aicraft for>MSFS goes far beyond the concept of an artist's rendering both>legally and philosophically.No more than a commercial lithograph or a commercially made scale model. Both of which have, until recently, remained unmolested by these sorts of attempts at overapplication of IPR law.>2) If you think someone should stand up against Gulfstream,>then so be it... I now lay your own challenge at your feet. >It's time for you to release a commercial add-on of one of the>Gulfstream jets. If you truly believe all you keep saying,>then it's time to put up or shut up.No, not my style. But a very nice freeware project is already underway.RegardsBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VSantiago de Chile

Hi Bob,I find the discussion interesting but I wonder something about the "model" industry: are you sure they are not purchasing / licensing aircraft blue prints to do what they do? I can't imagine they are doing all this only from photos or internet downloaded drawings and I wonder how in fact involved are the aircraft manufacturers.

AFAIK, all plastic model manufacturers have a licensing agreement (for which they pay of course) with the various a/c manufacturers...Anyone remember the case of UBISOFT having to pull a commercial package a few years ago because of one specific manufacturer's threat of legal action?The flap occurred over Northrop's insistence that they owned exclusive rights not only their own original aircraft, but to that of all aircraft they had acquired through mergers and acquisitions. Specifically the involved a/c was the Chance-Voight Corsair model UBISOFT had commissioned for their 1C product, if I remember correctly. Evidently, since their product was alread post-production, UBISOFT caved in and paid the demanded fees, and deducted them from the Russian developer's percentage. Here is an extended thread with factual information on the case:http://tinyurl.com/43hbrWhile I'm here, I will concede that Bob's made some very valid points in this (so-far) civil thread hijacking..., er, discussion...The entire purpose of trademark law is to prevent Company B from selling its goods on the reputation of Company A. Does there breathe a soul on the planet who thinks, when buying a Revell model kit, or a flightsim addon that he's actually buying a Gulfstream, which will fly and perform as a real Gulfstream will? Of course not. This whole thing is garbage; it stinks on ice. It's the same kind of blackmail that personal injury lawyers indulge in. Forcing you to evaluate the cost of enduring litigation in the face of a false or seriously tenuous claim, versus the cost of just giving in...Here is one prime example of the ultimate in gall:Sikorsky Battles Unlicensed Modelshttp://www.vtol.org/news/nov03-6.html

Further to the above discussion re: IP laws and enforcement, have you ever wondered why so few cities in FS are precisely detailed with realistic representations of buildings?The answer is that MS/ACES has to obtain written permission and - in many cases - pay licensing fees to the architectural firms that OWN the IP for their building designs......alternatively, there are extensive databases that they can license that solve the problem, where someone else has done the leg work in either modifying buildings enough to make people happy, or aquired the rights to use the buildings.

The base issue becomes... who owns the word (and hence the rights to use) 'Gulfstream' when used in the association of aicraft real or imagined?If one were to make a model and call it the Frankfurter Special... and said model happened to have the appearance of a Gulfstream aircraft... it would be difficult (to say the least) for Gulfstream to claim you were impinging on their namesake.However, you can rest assured that no one would be interested in downloading and/or purchasing a 'Frankfurter Special'... after all, it's not a real aicraft. If anyone, and I do mean anyone, tied it to the name 'Gulfstream'... the legal issues would return.