My scenery re-uploaded by another, at another website...

[LuisFelizTirado 33]

Copyright and enforcement of copyright are two different things.Microsoft claims copyright on their product; this is their right and their privilege, the fruit of their labor, if you will.But, as far as add-ons created by us are concerned, they do not enforce the copyright since they:1. are undoubtedly enthusiasts themselves and so are very happy to see us come out with enhancements to their product;2. perhaps they probably also see this as value that is added when we make add-ons based on the basic aircraft and scenery.In any case, a holder of copyright can either tolerate or not any violation of his rights. That is his prerogative, and Microsoft obviously does not mind.If, however, we were to decompile the flight and graphics engine, and come out with a new flight simulator based on their work, then you can be sure that the Microsoft legal team would come after us.But, this is not the case, so there is no point in worrying about it.But, the point of this thread is that Martin, along with many others, does have a right to his work, it is his copyright, and the person who packaged it and placed it in a library violated his rights.As Martin says, he is usually quite happy to allow this as long as he is asked first. Most designers in the freeware community do the same.But, he was not asked. Nor was he credited. This is the problem.Best regards.Luis

[mgh 89]

"What you are implying is correct - most add-on aircraft designers modify existing .air/.cfg files. Does this violate the EULA? I think not, since MS gave us the tools and instructions specifically to do this. I think that this is exactly what MS expects us to do!"Microsoft has not published an SDK describing the .air files. Indeed, Microsoft's official position is still "The .AIR files contain proprietary data that aircraft manufacturers have provided to us. To help protect that information, we don't release the internal details of the .AIR file." (See FSInsider/Articles/WhatPilotsAreAsking)Microsoft has only given a tool (FSEdit) to change an .air file in conjuction with a .cfg file. Making changes directly to the .air file (such as changing a table in it) requires knowledge of its structure that can only be known as a result of reverse engineering, decompiling, or disassembling it. I have never said that files created using only the tools provided by Microsoft are not legitimate. I still suggest, however, that files that rely on reverse engineering, decompiling, or disassembling Microsoft's files are not, and are in breach of the EULA. The EULA is pretty unambiguous and doesn't leave much room for interpretation.I absolutely support your position relating to unauthorised use of your files. The point I am making that is that although everyone rightly condemns such an infringement of your rights, there is ambivalence when it comes to infringing Microsoft's rights.

[rhumbaflappy 113]

Hi all.I'm not a lawyer, however I have an opinion about this.We are discussing 2 discreet concepts... copyright and EULA.Copyright:Its the legal protection given to creators which protects them against unauthorised copying of their work. There is nothing further to be implied about the studying, or the reverse engineering of this work. Violaton of copyright can lead to criminal prosecution in some courts. This protects the creator from someone ripping off the creator's work and passing it off as the work of someone else.Most courts would make provision for monetary compensation in this case. The thief also risks prison, as this is a criminal act.EULA:End-Users Licensing Agreement. A EULA is a licensing contract between a software manufacturer and the enduser. As a contract, it is binding by mutual consent. EULAs may contain elements found to be illegal, or not binding, by courts, even though they may be specifically stated by the grantor of the license. Violation of a EULA typically means the licensee no longer has the permission to use the software... but the EULA cannot imply illegality, or monetary compensation for it's violation... unlike a copyright violation. Using software in violation of a EULA simply means you are doing so without permission... not a criminal act in itself. Monetary compensation for the violation of a EULA may be decided by a court. Reasonably, a court would demand the end-user pay for the software. However, if you've already purchased the software, it's unlikely the court would have you pay twice for it... so compensation for the EULA grantor may be difficult to obtain. A court order to cease and desist further EULA violation could be obtained, and violation of that could lead to fines or imprisonment... for contempt of that court.I suspect it is far easier to defend a copyright than a EULA, as one is defended by law, and the other defended by a contract.As far as tools used for scenery or aircraft creation, as long as those tools are used for the FS series, why would Microsoft be offended by their use? Doesn't Microsoft encourage the creation of scenery and aircraft? And if a tool alters a default BGL file, if that alteration is an improvement of the default file, and if it is free, why would Microsoft care? In that case it would lead to an increase in value or usage of their product. If a default MS Word macro was found to be deficient, and a freeware alteration was made to improve the usage of MS Word, would Microsoft be offended? After all, they themselves allow macros and scripts, and provide tools and education to alter files.The copying of Martin's files was a violation of copyright... legally and criminally wrong.Altering a default AP*.bgl is not a criminal act, nor is it's freeware distribution. But it should be made clear in it's distribution that the new file is an alteration of the original, and not for sale, so that the copyright of Microsoft is kept intact. Is this a violation of the EULA or any other private agreement between Microsoft and the end-user? maybe, but a court would decide that... not us. We are not judges.==============================With all that said, this is a game.Microsoft's legal department can persue any course it wants in the world's courts concerning EULAS or copyrights, but I seriously doubt MS, or the courts, would go after freeware contributors to the Flight Simulator game.An odd circumstance could arise. A court may decide the violation of the EULA contract should require the return of the software to the manufacturer... and a purchase refund granted to the licensee! That would logically null and void the contract, and end the dispute. I don't think MS would like that scenario.Dick

[Guest Horst]

Hello Mr. Mgh!I do not get your point here!Seems you are a lawyer!And I normaly do not post on threads like this!Can you explain me this with international law?Or: Are you writing nonsense?With my humble Austrian English, I can say only: I am very proud to read this forum!And happy what people are doing here!And very happy what MSFT devs writing now in there

[mgh 89]

This is a matter of ethics/morality, not of law - copyright or otherwise.Your post confirms my argument. You say it was wrong to copy the original poster's files without his permission, possibly in direct breach of his README file, and I totally agree with that. But you then go to say say it's OK to decompile and change Microsoft's files without its permission and in breach of its EULA.There can be no objection to using the tools Microsoft has provided to make changes to its files. For example FSEdit and the .cfg files to change the .air file. But I know of no Microsoft tools to change the .air or .bgl files directly, and Microsoft has never published details of the structure of its default .air and .bgl files. This information can only be obtained by decompling these files.I don't believe your justifications are valid. - "...it would lead to an increase in value or usage of their product." That's for Microsoft to decide and, anyway, how would anyone who didn't already have Flight Simulator be aware that there was an improved .bgl available? - "Microsoft's legal department can persue any course it wants in the world's courts concerning EULAS or copyrights, but I seriously doubt MS, or the courts, would go after freeware contributors to the Flight Simulator game." Substitute "Developer" for "Microsoft" and read it again it relation to the original post. Would you accept that as a vaild response to the original poster's complaint? I wouldn't.

[rhumbaflappy 113]

Hi mgh.You stated that Microsoft should decide. That is not true. You or I or Microsoft do not decide if a contract or law is broken. That would be done by a court of law. If a website removes a file because it appears to violate a copyright law, that shows their common sense, as they wouldn't want to be involved in a possible legal dispute. AVSIM does this with their library.Microsoft, or any other software creator, can decide to persue a legal course to stop what they percive is a violation of a EULA or copyright, but they do so knowing the case may go against them. I know of no instance where Microsoft has done this concerning an addon developer to Flight Simulator.I would hate to think we cannot develop, evolve, or alter Flight Simulator for fear of violating someone's personal code of morals or ethics.By your standard of ethics, could anyone use FSUIPC ( just to name one program )? Didn't the creator of that software probe and backward engineer the simulator's files and runtime memory? Could anyone use LWM or VTP scenery when the ASM include files were originally devloped by backwardly engineering the default BGLs? Many times SDKs are released after the code is cracked, and that makes sense, in that the community of developers has demonstrated a maturity of knowledge that supports the release of an SDK... which is exactly what happened in the case of LWM and VTP scenery.In fact, all addon scenery BGLs have involved some use of knowlege obtained by decompiling, or examining default files. I would assume the same could be said of addon aircraft.My point is Microsoft has encouraged such activity, and supports it by adding ever increasing amounts of SDKs to fuel the process. They want us to investigate and alter the sim. They want us to have fun.Law is the expression of a community's morals and ethics. To superceed law with our own individual interpretations of morals or ethics is nonsense. Law is what we have agreed on as a group.Shaka did persue the protection of his legal rights by asking the website to delete the plagaristic files from their library. The resolution was to his satisfaction.If your standards of morality or ethics precludes you from downloading or using addons in the sim, that's your business. If you use some addons and not others, that's still your business... but don't fool yourself into thinking these addons, of which you approve, are not derived from tools or knowledge that have pushed the envelope of violated EULAs. And certainly, don't tell the rest of us how to behave, or publicly to try to reprove us because we do not steer by your particular moral compass.Dick

[mgh 89]

My last post on this matter.First, my reference to Microsoft deciding was in relation to "an increase in value or usage of their product" - not in relation to breach of contract etc.Second, the remainder of your post confirms the common view here that it's OK to ignore the specific requirements of the Flight Simulator EULA for the reasons that it's advantageous, and anyway Microsoft can't/won't do anything about it. Finally, The purpose of my earlier post was to point out the double standards that exist here. If it's wrong to disregard some peoples' readmes/EULAs then it's equally wrong to disregard others. I'm not telling anyone how to behave - only pointing out inconsistencies in attitudes.

[rhumbaflappy 113]

You are the one using a double standard. You use addon aircraft and scenery while ignoring the fact they were produced with tools and knowledge that violated Microsoft's EULAs.. there is no exception.Then you evangelize your belief that it is morally wrong to do just that. That is called a double standard.You cannot use ANY addon to Flight Simulator without being a party to a EULA violation.Dick

[mgh 89]

"You cannot use ANY addon to Flight Simulator without being a party to a EULA violation."Thank you - my point exactly.