Shaka

The truth is, I don't care enough to complain. I was merely pointing out an example here at Avsim.

It's in the link you provided. You chose to quote a portion of one paragraph from a 78 page document. The quote you chose defines an internet search engine, which wikipedia, youtube and avsim are not. These are "Internet sites", and the legislation only mentions "links" not "direct links" in reference to these sites.

Yes.

This is correct. I personally think wikipedia is being a bit alarmist about this, but their point is still valid. Even if a website like wikipedia links to another website that has links to copyrightable material, then it could be shut down. I imagine that this would probably be an unlikely scenario, as there would be a huge public outcry at shutting down wikipedia. Still, that appears to be how the law is written.Keep in mind that this doesn't just cover "pirate" sites - there are many "normal" websites out there that infringe on copyrights. Sometimes this is by accident. Sometimes it is on purpose, but without nefarious intentions. Should Youtube be shut down? I'm pretty sure that there's copyright infringing material there. If I link to Youtube in this post, should Avsim then be shutdown? That is what SOPA "could" make happen, and that is why some people are upset.What about the Avsim library? I am here to tell you that there is copyright infringing material in the Avsim file library. I know this because it is my material which has been modified (or sometimes not) and re-uploaded by others, which was against my wishes. So, I guess Avsim could be shut down too, to protect my intellectual property. Truthfully, I personally don't care, so I wouldn't take action, but I could change my mind, I suppose. Also, I acknowledge that the library managers work very hard to ensure compliance with copyrights, and I am sure that if I complained they would remove the offending material. But this is the point - under SOPA, the onus will be upon the library managers to ensure copyright compliance, not upon me to complain about it. This seems like a heavy burden to place upon Avsims library managers (all volunteeers, I'm sure).Anyway, I'm not against copyright enforcement, but this legislation seems a bit too broad to be enforced.

Do you mean that you are decompiling the scenery file and then adding your stuff? Why not just create your own scenery file? There's nothing wrong with enhancing somebodys scenery with some additions of your own choosing. As long as you are just uploading your own scenery parts you should be ok. What really irks me is when people make a small change to an AFCAD and then reupload the entire project as if it were thier own.I think you're ok as long as you only upload what you have created.

Also, your scenery is of a small, obscure seaplane base, so it might not attract a lot of attention. According to Airnav, it averages 37 flights per week. So, this might not register on a lot of peoples radar. There's nothing wrong with that. You've designed a scenery project around an airport that interests you and you've decided to share it. Don't be discouraged by the fact that other people have different interests than you.

This is a little misleading, as not everyone who purchased FSX bought $4000 worth of addons, so MS isn't getting just 2.5% of the pie, as you say. You would have to compare the total sales of FSX compared to the total sales of FSX addons, and we don't have those numbers. We don't even have good estimates of those numbers.Your point is still valid though - why would Microsoft ignore the sales of addon products when it has the ability to sell them exclusively through its own online store. Compared to the current situation (collecting nothing), controlling the marketplace and collecting royalties seems like a win-win situation for them. I'm surprised they didn't do this earlier. Apple did the same thing with its app store (albeit, not exclusive), and it has been very successful and popular with customers.Anyway, your positive "wait and see" attitude might be something that more people should adopt. There's no use getting worked up over something you can't change anyway. Flight is the future at Microsoft.

I'd like to compare video games to other forms of media, like t.v. or movies. Would Textron complain if a Bell helicopter was used in a movie? Would they expect licensing fees? What about all the other manufacturers of products in movies - the cars in the background, the clothes people wear, the furniture they sit on. Maybe some of that stuff is not as recognizable, and I understand that there is a lot of product placement in movies nowadays, but I'm sure that not every prop is licensed for use.I'm not saying that Textron has no ground to stand on here. I'm just saying that there has to be a line, and Textron and EA seem set to find out where it lies. I believe EA does currently license names and logos for its sports games (except NCAA players, of course), so it might be hard for them to explain why they do it for one game and not another.

I'm assuming you don't use Facebook. Other people can post things about what you did on a certain date - it doesn't have to be subject who posts it. That said, if you are unhappy with it, then you don't have to use it.

I didn't see anyone suggest that the price was going to be $150 per chart either. Sounds like something he came up with in order to fan the flames.My advice is "don't feed the trolls".

Some buildings enjoy copyright/trademark protection, but as a photographer I do not always require a property release to photograph and them. And really, it has nothing to do with whether I am profiting from the photo - it has more to do with the final use of the photo. The easiest example I can give is that of a freelance journalist who is taking pictures in a public place of a newsworthy subject and later sells those photos to various news organizations. They would never require a release, unless you are in North Korea, or some other country that does not enjoy freedom of the press.The opposite example is if I am taking a picture of a building to use in advertising - this is when I always get a property release. This doesn't mean that I need it - I'm just being careful.The use of well known landmarks within FSX probably wouldn't require a release, because of how they are being used. How many real-world buildings already exist in FSX? MS may have gotten a release for all of them, but I doubt it. In any case, I am sure that Microsoft would err on the side of caution when it comes to commercial logos and such on the side of airplanes. It's hard to say whether they would automatically ban them, or allow them until such a time as the trademark owner complained. Apple's App Store seems to have set the precedent by creating it's own rules and guidelines which are probably more stringent than the law requires.

Trolling

Thank you, that is exactly my point. I'm suggesting that the original question could be misread, misunderstood, or the Microsoft employee could simply be ignorant of the rich world of add-ons we have available, and therefore wrong. People sometimes misunderstand things, even if they are written in perfect English.Otherwise, I'm not sure what the intent of the original post was. Does Gerry think we should stop making commercial add-ons? Is he simply pointing out that we might be at risk of violating an EULA? I'm just curious if there's a bigger point to this topic.And who cares anyways? It is up to Microsoft to enforce the EULA. So, if Microsoft wrote it in such a way as to prevent commercial development, they could also choose not to enforce it, allowing 3rd party commercial development to continue.

I wonder if he truly understands the question, or if he is at all aware of the numerous commercial add-ons already in existence.

Is that supposed to be sarcasm, or genuine ignorance?...because, sarcasm doesn't always translate through message boards as well as it does face to face.

When I consider the phrase "pioneered the use of the home computer and mouse-driven computing", I would have to agree. More Apple II computers were sold than TRS-80/ZX-80/PET combined. Also, the Apple II preceded the 5150 by 4 years, and it was many more years before I saw many IBMs in peoples homes - it was more of a business computer. No one was saying Steve Jobs invented the mouse either. However, the Apple Macintosh was the first commercially successful home computer to feature a mouse, which I suppose might qualify him as a "pioneer". - Martin

It's not really the same thing - you can get add-ons for COD Black Ops for $15. These next two points make more sense to me. FSX is a niche market, and the market for add-ons is even more so. I'm not sure what the percentage of FSX users are that actually buy add-ons, but I get the feeling it's not as huge as the percentage that buy COD add-ons. As Gerry points out, add-on companies are operating a business, which tend to be focused on making money. If they think they will make the most amount of money at a certain price point then that is what they will choose. The COD guys figure they will maximize revenue at the 15$ price. They also sell millions of copies every year, and thus have many more potential customers to sell add-ons to. I try not to debate whether a product is expensive or not. I only think about whether it is expensive to me. There will always be ###### of every product (PMDG, Apple, BMW) who will insist that a product isn't expensive for what you are getting. I'm sure those are all quality products, but I have to look at whether they represent value to me. - Martin

I can't help but think that the OP is just on an anti-union rant. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like a biased post without presenting both sides of the situation, so it is hard to come to a conclusion based on what he has written. He doesn't seem to give any specific examples as to how "Unions here in Australia involved with the aviation industry just seem to get more stupid by the day", or the "ridiculous perks and conditions" that the unions are trying to get. It would be nice to know details. A quick search reveals a few things that unions are asking for: - job security (due to some jobs being moved offshore or to contractors)- pilots flying for Jetstar to be paid the same as Qantas pilots (apparently Jetstar is the low-cost airline owned by Qantas)- 3% wage increase for Engineering union (already agreed to before Christmas)- Engineering union also list some job protection demands regarding licensing, who works on electronic systems, right to appeal disciplinary procedures, etc. There is obviously strong language being used on both sides, but some of it seems overly dramatic. As for the job action being taken by the unions, that is their right. Yes it makes it difficult for the company - that is the point! As long as the union is acting legally, you kind of have to deal with it. - Martin

So, not many expenses then. Stationary seems to be the highest definite cost. - Martin

I'm curious - what specific expenses would be involved? - Martin

Well said. When I first started reading this thread, I expected the PMDG fans to come to the defense, which they did. From my reading of your original post, my impression wasn't that you were upset with the price of the aircraft, it was more disappointment that you would have to pay a little more to get the specific model you want. That's a legitimate concern on your part. I don't think it matters what PMDG charges, whether it is $50, $100, or $150 because we all have a different sense of value, and it may be worth more or less to you than to me. But the logic in saying "I want to fly the 700 for the same price as what the 800/900 costs" is not unreasonable, and I don't think people should be bashing you for this. PMDG is a business, and they have adopted a pricing model that they feel will provide the maximum benefit to their company, which is their right. But you also have the right to express your displeasure at their business practices and point out an alternative pricing model that may please customers. I've always respected PMDG products, but I don't buy every release, mainly because of price. The video of the cockpit that was released is incredible, and I get the feeling that it was really just a taste of what the NGX has to offer. I might buy the 800/900, but I don't want to end up investing in a lot of additional packages that eventually far exceed what I would have originally paid. We have seen this from different vendors over the years, and it always irks me somewhat, sort of like when the phone company tells me my phone is only $40 per month, and the bill comes and is almost double that with all the mandatory extras I must pay.

Perhaps they could employ some sort of automatic search algorithm that would check postings as they went up to "flag" certain auctions for approval. Like, if it was for a certain type of product that was often pirated, or from a certain IP address - whatever. I'm not sure how reliable this would be, or what reasonable expectation we have that EBay "had enough information to judge an offer was unlawful". I mean really, what do we expect them to do (specifically). EBay is so big, they could never possibly verify every single posting by having a human read it. That seems unreasonable, but so does ignoring the problem. Could we extend the same principle to this site? Should AVSIM verify that all software uploaded is not in violation of anyone's trademarks/copyrights? Should AVSIM verify that any posts in this forum are not libelous, or otherwise illegal? Or is it better for AVSIM to allow us to upload and post freely, in order to enjoy the flexibility of such a system, with the understanding that when inappropriate behavior occurs, users can complain to AVSIM staff? I would suggest the latter. Certainly EBay has a responsibility to police it's auctions to a point, but there's a line somewhere (for the courts to decide, I guess). Slightly related - The guy who sits next to me at work often surfs EBay looking for a Tablet to buy. He's been doing this for 6 months, so I'm not sure it's ever going to happen. However, he often comes across the same ad that gets posted several times a day, which is obviously fraudulent. He always reports the ads, which get taken down, only to get put back up again. He finds it satisfying, somehow. He figures if enough people start doing this during their breaks, we can get rid of the scams. Seems ambitious.

The AI aircraft supplied with the product will show various damage effects.Regular AI aircraft will not show damage, except for basic stuff like smoke. They don't just disappear, unless you hit them hard enough that they explode. If you just damage them badly enough, they will stream smoke and then crash into the ground, leaving a smoking hole in the ground.

You can download the manual from their website. It gives a few more specifics about how exactly it implements weapons. It's only 15 Euros, so I imagine we will see some reviews up here later tonight.

Seriously? Would this even be legal? Even if it was, I imagine that not many users would be willing to risk their entire system to install your software, thus impacting your sales. Good luck.- Martin