It's anybody's guess whether or not he bothers reading the readmes and licence documents.

One thing is certain though - he has the opportunity and time to do it. Look at his screenshots. He's modified mine (and several others up there by the look of it) so he'd had to have unzipped it and spent time doing the revised shot.

Th B1B graphics are actually very good I have to have say, but the layout and animation is not the work of I3D - Ferdy or one of his associates has devoted a good deal of time to that. If he'd have spent 5 minutes of it e-mailing the authors, he'd possibly have been granted the licence to publish it legally too as you and other have stated.

Inexcusable to me I'm afraid.

Quote:


I actually do put that disclaimer in my readme files - if you look at the readme for my PC9, T-6II you'll see that.

Okay guys, I've made this a sticky, its getting serious. I really DON'T know all the legal stuff we can do against this twit (Pete might), but I do know this, if he'd just had the courtesy to ask there would have been no problem, and the fact that some members of planet have posted in this thread just shows what a loyal and decent bunch everyone here is.

Right On
Ozzy 8)

Quote:


I agree.  Anyway, as I understand it, legally the game's designer/distributor (in this case Microsoft) is the rightful owner of any files associated with their game.  I never claim copyright over any add-ons I produce - it's pointless.  Not only do I have no rightful claim to such copyright (as far as I'm aware), but the reason I make files is 1; so I can enjoy the game as I prefer it, and 2, to get good work distributed on the web to people who want it.  Copyright doesn't help me achieve those goals, in fact claiming copyright only serves as a barrier to free distribution and a restriction on quality.  Sure, if I wanted use of my files to die out I'd start to impose restrictions on their distribution, but why would I (or anyone else) want to do that?

As I always say, if anyone finds files I've created on the internet, they are welcome to alter them in any way they see fit.  They can even remove my name from the files and distribute them as their own work if they want.  I don't care about recognition.  I only care that my best work is as freely distributed as possible.  If everyone took that attitude there would be a lot more freedom to create better versions of 3rd party patches, and everyone would be better off for it.  Placing restrictions on people's ability to modify game files (for what I can only assume to be reasons of pride) can only serve to stifle creativity in the community.

Freeware should be free.  Copyright restricts freedom, so I'm against it.  I urge all add-on creators NOT to restrict use of their files.  The fact that we create something doesn't mean it can't be improved upon by others.  If we allow others to freely use our work as a base, we will create a thriving community of add-on authors, and we'll get the best quality work as a result.  If we don't make our work freely available, we create a community where progress is stifled.  I would prefer not to be a part of a community in which my most mediocre efforts would be protected and their use enforced.

It's your opinion and you are entitled to it, as I am entitled to mine.

Beery - no offence, but your understanding of copyright law (as it pertains to in the U.K. anyway) is wrong. Microsoft have no automoatic ownership rights of anything just because they produce the product the add-ons work in.

Let us not forget that this is an issue over distribution licences - not copyright. Whilst the two are closely linked, they are not the same thing.

I've already explained why I choose to restrict distribution of my files in the last thread where this came up. I'm not going to repeat it all again. It's my choice to restrict it as it is your not to, and the law does exists to protect such rights.

without offence to anybody.
So if the law exhist as you think - what are you waiting to take action??? rather than keep posting pointless messages at this board - - and wait for Italian Embassy to do if for you!!  Can you see you are make yourself simply look like a fish out of water??

balbo

Quote:


You're right.  It's your choice to seek to restrict access to your work in any way you see fit.  I think it's a short sighted decision on your part, but you're entitled to make that mistake if you want.  I seriously doubt that the law would be of any help to you in this case, but that's another issue - I'm not a lawyer, and presumably neither are you.  I have had dealings with lawyers who did explain the issue to me regarding fair use and copyright, but that was a while ago, and I live in the US, not Britain, and this is the internet, not the real world with all of its national legislations etc., so this part of the discussion is fairly useless.

As to why anyone would limit access to an add-on, you may have your reasons, but I see a lot of add-on files on this and other websites which illustrate why files should never be copyrighted.  There are a lot of very mediocre downloads that could really fly (no pun intended) if others were able to tweak them just a little bit.  I estimate that 90% of user mods could easily be improved if they weren't stagnant due to restrictive licensing requirements that basically ensure that a person's creation cannot have life beyond the limited and often flawed existence that he or she enforced upon it by including a copyright clause.

If this were an issue of commerce - if your livelihood depended on your authorship - I would be on your side in an instant, but as far as I can see, these copyright issues, where they pertain to freeware add-ons for computer games, seem to me to be all about bragging rights and a selfish striving to control and restrict full and free access to people who might benefit from your work.  What can be the harm in just distributing the work and letting it be?

When a creator copyrights or otherwise restricts access to his creation, he virtually ensures its death.  Add-ons only survive in the long-term if they can evolve.  They can't evolve if they're tied down by copyright or distribution restrictions.  That may be why there are so many files floating about for FS98 and FS2000 that have not been upgraded to FS2002 - the creators may have moved on to other games, etc., but instead of giving their work life, they chose to tie their product to a copyright clause so that now people are afraid to upgrade their work to FS2002.  Their work dies as soon as the version it was built for dies.  The same will happen to your work if you're not around to update it.  Mine, on the other hand, may still be around in perhaps 10 years because I choose to give my work a life beyond the restrictions of my authorship.