Animation export to glTF?

[arno]

Let's keep the discussion nice indeed.

But just keep in mind that the laws of all countries have articles on prosecution for creating tools for hacking and reverse engineering, and accomplices in crimes are punished no less than those committed by criminals.

I don't think it is appropriate to compare MCX with a hacking tool. This tool has been developed with the needs to genuine developers in mind. To be able to take their content from older version of the sim to newer versions. Or to support developers to work with other modelling tools than 3DS Max which is supported by the (note that many people can't afford 3DS Max and would like to work with SketchUp or other tools as well). As long as the SDK is focussed only on specific tools, there is a need for developers using other tools to convert their content.

I don't consider that hacking at all. The point of discussion is that these functionalities are very useful for developers who are converting their own work to a different format. It can save them a lot of time. But the same functionality can also be used by people with bad intentions to steal the work of others. So I think the classic hammer example fits here, the tool can be used to build something, but also to break into it. Because a few people misuse a certain tool, does not mean all the genuine developers who also use the tool should suffer and be restricted in their functionalities.

 

[Deleted member 1281]

"Genuine developers" is the right word.

Allow me a personal take on this. My (our) most popular model is (was I should say) the freeware FSX/P3D C-47. It took us several years developing and improving. Then people approached me showing me various MCX-generated mods, one had a Pinoccio nose, one a bathtub water pannier, one an AWACS type rotating dish, all created with a few mouseclicks. I vetoed them all, but at least I was asked (we have a 'necessary permission for mods' clause in the readme). Then bang! with the advent of MSFS what happened without prior notification or requests for permission was this announcement:

Plenty of YouTube vids were posted. 'Reputable' sites accepted the illegal upload based on aliased and therefore untraceable uploaders (one such site owner claimed anonymous uploaders meant progress), not to mention several 'irreputable' sites which did not respond to any requests and offer the model to this very day (luckily MSFS updates ensure that it is basically unflyable). My worry is that if MCX opens up we may still see that fabulous AWACS DC-3, or worse. So, how to prevent this from happening. Clearly, one way is to convince me and people like Kai to not care. But that's a tall order.

On a more constructive note … if I understand correctly, Arno already allows original developers to use MCX's extended animation export functionality. Would it be an idea to ask other users – "genuine developers" -- who want that extended functionality to provide proof of permission by the original dveloper?

 

[=rk=]

On a more constructive note … if I understand correctly, Arno already allows original developers to use MCX's extended animation export functionality. Would it be an idea to ask other users – "genuine developers" -- who want that extended functionality to provide proof of permission by the original dveloper?

On a more constructive note; your software was never actually "sold," correct? You freely uploaded your creation and now you are disputing your "stolen valor," of original credit for creating the model? Because you don't think everyone who is anyone in this flight sim business, knows Manfred Jahn created this?

I don't intend to disparage your feelings, if you feel your life has been lessened by these derivative works, I am sorry. Yours is an excellent addon and until this very moment, I thought you'd willingly commissioned all the derivatives. This gives me a new opinion about you, the original developer. Despite all this, your financial losses appear to be zero, so the whole idea of "stolen" content is a bit amiss, imo.

And it is on this basis, that someone appropriated your freeware and released yet more freeware, that MY development should be curtailed, not to mention Arno's development path and literally that of countless others.

My feeling is that you are incredibly selfish.

 

[rhumbaflappy]

Then bang! with the advent of MSFS what happened without prior notification or requests for permission was this announcement

If the issue is FSX products being ripped and passed off as MSFS products, it is already occurring.

And this is done without any use of MCX, as Rick points out in an earlier post. As I understand it, just about any FSX aircraft can be converted to MSFS. In fact hundreds already have been. These converted aircraft, for the most part, are severely crippled. As I pointed out in an earlier post, the "collectors" will add these to their stockpile of aircraft. The distribution of these conversions is illegal in almost every case. And yet, this poses no monetary threat to the commercial developers. The collectors would never have bought them in the first instance.

"Enthusiasts" want fully working, quality aircraft, and are the actual market. They want a plane they can study and master, and receive support from the developer. You can't study and master a crippled ripoff. The enthusiast will buy the fully functioning original. A much greater threat is someone simply selling the original work under their own name to steal the content, and the profit.

Regarding ripoffs of original MSFS content, the use of glTF presents a problem as it is an open-sourced format. Blender already has MSFS to Blender glTF importers. This is an issue that Asobo is studying in order to protect publishers that create original products for MSFS.

So where does MCX sit in this regard? Nowhere. This is all being done without MCX being used, and I fail to see how MCX would increase the distribution of illegal ripoffs or ports of FSX aircraft by adding additional animation capabilities. I think the concern of a few developers here is quite misplaced. MCX' animation abilities is not the problem, or the solution.

 

[KAI31]

Gentlemen! Let's be clear. None of the developers of simulator platforms does a full import of models from the formats they use! Why? Yes, this is done in order to protect against fraudsters and to develop progress, because as soon as the creation of a new one is progress, and using the old in a different format does not give development. Creating a full-fledged model requires knowledge and experience that real developers get for years, spending a lot of time, money and effort on it. In addition, if we take a separate model for a sim with a high degree of elaboration, optimization, animation, instrument complex and compare it with analogs on the market of 3D models, it turns out that the cost of one model for a sim is at least from at least 5 to 100 аnd more thousand dollars per unit of product as 3D Model. Agree, these are not the prices that simmers see and I hope you understand why the developers themselves assign a scanty cost to their products or no payment at all, they do not distribute them as 3D art development and their models in the format of simulators can only be used in simulators, and there is no need to force developers set the real cost models of 3D art products.

Now what MCX does:

1. The protection provided by the creators of the platforms is removed and no alternatives or replacements to this protection are provided.

It would be very useful and I think everyone would really like and support for MCX to add protection against opening or hacking by unauthorized persons to the model code.

2. By making it simple to dissect models, animation and code, it removes a huge amount of necessary knowledge, skills and experience that are needed for development, mastery and improvement. As a result, it turns out that users simply write off what was invented and developed by someone and at the same time do not receive proper development and skills. It got to the point that some 'Supernova developers' do not even know what an SDK is and simply copying what others have done flood the market with low-quality consumer goods, while harming others and not developing absolutely, they also treat everything irresponsibly.

3. Models that are actually created over the years become available to anyone, with practically no restrictions and requirements, they can be opened, distilled into any formats, do anything with them, while the years of work and funds invested by others are simply destroyed, the minimum cost that is set To purchase for users or even a free option, they lose not only cost, but even authorship, while users practically do not receive skills and abilities and I do not see any benefit in this for progress, on the contrary, this only worsens the situation.

And in general, even if the risk of harm or theft of someone else's is even assumed, one should try to avoid or remove it altogether, and not develop and expand making it even more simple and accessible.

As you can see, one pop-up warning is not enough for irresponsible thieves and it does not work. One incident of theft is enough to think about protection. And in general, the issue of this topic should not depend on the general voting, the developers of models and add-ons should first of all decide the main question of whether to allow others to hack their models, animation, copy, convert to other formats. The author of a program that can open other people's models, first of all, should take an interest and ask the authors of these models. The opinion of the townsfolk is not considered here because it is dishonest and wrong that instead of authors and owners consumers make decisions and there is no guarantee that among those who voted, there are no malicious users, irresponsible or short-sighted users who aim to cause harm in the first place.

 

[Deleted member 1281]

So where does MCX sit in this regard? Nowhere. This is all being done without MCX being used, and I fail to see how MCX would increase the distribution of illegal ripoffs or ports of FSX aircraft by adding additional animation capabilities. I think the concern of a few developers here is quite misplaced. MCX' animation abilities is not the problem, or the solution.

Maybe search for ModelConverterX or MCX on the official MSFS forums. For that matter, search for it on this forum. But let me sketch a few steps:

1. Load FSX model in MCX.
2. Adjust parts, merge in parts of another FSX model.
3. Let MCX convert it to MSFS-compatible gltf, complete with animations.
4. Adjust textures etc as needed.
5. Here you go, a new native model for MSFS.

No need to push a single vertex. Correct if I am wrong on any of those steps. I'd also be interested to know how this could be done using Blender, or Max, or pen and paper.

My feeling is that you are incredibly selfish.

Thank you, Rick, even though I thought we had a kind of politeness rule here. Maybe I was misinformed. What can I say except that I am not Milton Shupe, who offers the gmax source of all of his models for free use of everybody. Entirely his decision, and he must be admired for it. Indeed, Tom Faulds and I have a conversion utility here in this very forum that allows gmax code to be converted to Max. Did not really "curtail" anybody's creativity, right?

 

[=rk=]

Maybe search for ModelConverterX or MCX on the official MSFS forums. For that matter, search for it on this forum. But let me sketch a few steps:

1. Load FSX model in MCX.
2. Adjust parts, merge in parts of another FSX model.
3. Let MCX convert it to MSFS-compatible gltf, complete with animations.
4. Adjust textures etc as needed.
5. Here you go, a new native model for MSFS.

No need to push a single vertex. Correct if I am wrong on any of those steps. I'd also be interested to know how this could be done using Blender, or Max, or pen and paper.

You are not wrong, if an empty shell, with working flaps, is all someone needs. There is NO direct conversion of literally anything, beyond model, texture and if I get my way, animation. Instruments, effects, FDE, all must be changed and while there may not be a “vertex” to move, MCX does not turn a pirate into an instant developer, the way you describe.

Because, beyond your one experience, all you have to convince is the broad strokes of extremism, “if MCX can allow my model to be stolen, then it most certainly must be very bad,” however the real world is more complex than your extremes. For example, you neglect to account for interpretations of “free” and the fact you defined it such.

Thank you, Rick, even though I thought we had a kind of politeness rule here. Maybe I was misinformed. What can I say except that I am not Milton Shupe, who offers the gmax source of all of his models for free use of everybody. Entirely his decision, and he must be admired for it. Indeed, Tom Faulds and I have a conversion utility here in this very forum that allows gmax code to be converted to Max. Did not really "curtail" anybody's creativity, right?

I think you misunderstand and at this point, I wonder if it intentional. I could give a hoot if you donate your software. What I take particular concern with your comments, is that you use the anecdote of your experience, to convince Arno to prevent me, from having a similar experience. That is a kind of self assured effect on my life, I do not support.

 

[rhumbaflappy]

Maybe search for ModelConverterX or MCX on the official MSFS forums. For that matter, search for it on this forum. But let me sketch a few steps:

The process I was describing is here:
https://msfs.touching.cloud/mods/msfs-legacy-importer/

This is the actual tool used by dozens, if not hundreds of collectors to shoehorn FSX aircraft into MSFS. They show up all over the Net as downloadable ripoffs, and flood forums with tips to make them more complete. Some are even being sold. My introduction to this tool was in MSFS' own official forum, where it still exists as a discussion!

I'm not trying to outshout objections to increased animation abilities in MCX. The whole purpose of this thread is to give Arno feedback on the direction of the tool's development. What I am doing, is pointing out that restricting the tools abilities will have zero effect on the distribution of unauthorized FSX to MSFS conversions. Go to nexusmods or flightsim.to and you will see this is true.

 

[Deleted member 1281]

I had voted Yes for everybody.

On thinking further, I now believe MCX should not export animations to glTF. Almost 99% of animated models will be FSX aircraft. If the original developers of these aircraft wish to provide them for MSFS, they can most probably convert their max files to the new sim (although with some difficulty). If animation of these models were to be freely obtained, then hackers will push FSX models onto the community and there will be a mess of partially working airplanes (in fact it's already happening). The original developers will be robbed of the ability to convert these airplanes themselves, and lose the potential income they might make.

Arno is right that there is a potential for an ethical crisis. It is easily avoided by not providing animation export.

This is your own comment of roughly a year ago (20 Nov 2020), this forum and this thread, reply #39. As far as I am concerned your description of the problem was and is pretty accurate. And the issue clearly extends beyond the confines of that terrible utility called the Legacy Importer.

 

[rhumbaflappy]

This is your own comment of roughly a year ago (20 Nov 2020), this forum and this thread, reply #39. As far as I am concerned your description of the problem was and is pretty accurate. And the issue clearly extends beyond the confines of that terrible utility called the Legacy Importer.

Yes. And a year later, I have reverted to agreement of my original vote of Yes for everybody, a year later of working with the sim and participating in forums and development. I understand MCX' exclusion of glTF animation has zero effect on stopping the unauthorized porting of FSX models to MSFS. You are barking up the wrong tree. And you might want to stay on topic.

 

[KAI31]

Well, well, I see the decision has already been made in spite of all the arguments against it. Now watch what 'progress' you have made.

During the discussion, I had several conversations with the developers and due to the fact that now they need to protect not only the license for renting the add-on, but also the 3D model itself, their development will be stopped while the no created protection against hacking. This may lead to the closure of projects, including free ones.

One of the masters said today that he is closing his project completely and will not conduct development for simulators, but will simply expose a 3D model in a 3D art store at the cost of a 3D product with an editorial license, so there is no need to at least explain to users the difference between a rented 3D model and a 3D Art product.

I myself now assume that it is possible to terminate the project if I do not make a defense.

There will probably be more similar solutions.

You like to use copied and stolen products, stuff your collections with low-quality consumer goods without getting anything new, soon everything will be littered with copies of copies and alterations of old stuff from the times of FS2002 and of the same quality. After a while, copying what was copied, there will be nothing to copy, and there will be no one to create a new one. Then, at a broken trough, remember what you shouldn't have done.

You have made 'progress'! Congratulations!

 

[arno]

Clearly, one way is to convince me and people like Kai to not care. But that's a tall order.

No, that's not what I am saying. I think it is important the people respect the copyright of each others work. So I am not saying that you should not care about your work being used. But I don't think this can be blamed on the tool only. I think it would be much more important that the user community takes this more serious and takes action against such actions. So if you report this to a website it should take the content or announcements down. In the end the users should respect the work of a developer. But it seems many people don't care anymore nowadays. I mean if a burglar uses a hammer to get into your house, nobody will complain to the factory that made the hammer that it should not make hammers anymore or make them less heavy. Instead as a community we take action against the burglars.

On a more constructive note … if I understand correctly, Arno already allows original developers to use MCX's extended animation export functionality. Would it be an idea to ask other users – "genuine developers" -- who want that extended functionality to provide proof of permission by the original dveloper?

Yes, I have given a few people access to this functionality now. But like I mentioned a few posts above, it is very hard for me to determine which developer is OK and which not. Also I don't think as the tool developer it is my responsibility to judge who is worthy of using a feature or not. Who am I to decide which developer is OK?

On a more constructive note; your software was never actually "sold," correct? You freely uploaded your creation and now you are disputing your "stolen valor," of original credit for creating the model? Because you don't think everyone who is anyone in this flight sim business, knows Manfred Jahn created this?

The fact that something is released as freeware does not mean that people can do with it what they like. The addon will still have the copyright of the developer. So you can not derive work from it without permission. It does not matter if it was sold or not in that case.

Gentlemen! Let's be clear. None of the developers of simulator platforms does a full import of models from the formats they use! Why? Yes, this is done in order to protect against fraudsters and to develop progress, because as soon as the creation of a new one is progress, and using the old in a different format does not give development. Creating a full-fledged model requires knowledge and experience that real developers get for years, spending a lot of time, money and effort on it. In addition, if we take a separate model for a sim with a high degree of elaboration, optimization, animation, instrument complex and compare it with analogs on the market of 3D models, it turns out that the cost of one model for a sim is at least from at least 5 to 100 аnd more thousand dollars per unit of product as 3D Model. Agree, these are not the prices that simmers see and I hope you understand why the developers themselves assign a scanty cost to their products or no payment at all, they do not distribute them as 3D art development and their models in the format of simulators can only be used in simulators, and there is no need to force developers set the real cost models of 3D art products.

I think you have developers of complex flyable aircraft in mind here. MCX is also used by scenery developers, AI aircraft developers, etc. These do apply different workflows and might use different tools than you have in mind for the complex aircraft.

1. The protection provided by the creators of the platforms is removed and no alternatives or replacements to this protection are provided.

It would be very useful and I think everyone would really like and support for MCX to add protection against opening or hacking by unauthorized persons to the model code.

I think the real problem is that for Flight Simulator the platform creator never added any protection. There is no mechanism to sign your model or somehow detect changes to it, the sim will just load any file. The fact that the MDL format is a binary format that can't be read with a normal text editor is not protection from my point of view. And now with MSFS this has even got worse, since the glTF format is 1) a fully open file format 2) the glTF part can be read and modified with a simple text editor.

If I could think of a way to let MCX not open files by unauthorized persons I would have added it a long time ago already. A few years ago I did a test to only allow MDL animation export if your modeldef.xml file includes all definitions. This should rule out people who are not the developer. But this was too restrictive, I was flooded with complaints from developers. So that change was reverted in the end. It is just nearly impossible to separate genuine developers from the copy-cats.

2. By making it simple to dissect models, animation and code, it removes a huge amount of necessary knowledge, skills and experience that are needed for development, mastery and improvement. As a result, it turns out that users simply write off what was invented and developed by someone and at the same time do not receive proper development and skills. It got to the point that some 'Supernova developers' do not even know what an SDK is and simply copying what others have done flood the market with low-quality consumer goods, while harming others and not developing absolutely, they also treat everything irresponsibly.

I think every developer has learned from looking at the work of other. That's how even the best developers have gathered (part) of their knowledge. And I am convinced that to make a high quality product you can't just copy-paste something from another developer. You will have to truly understand the sim and the SDK.

But is it not up to the user community to filter out the low quality products from the high quality ones? If users are happy with the low quality addons it is their right and if they want higher quality they will ignore the low quality ones.

3. Models that are actually created over the years become available to anyone, with practically no restrictions and requirements, they can be opened, distilled into any formats, do anything with them, while the years of work and funds invested by others are simply destroyed, the minimum cost that is set To purchase for users or even a free option, they lose not only cost, but even authorship, while users practically do not receive skills and abilities and I do not see any benefit in this for progress, on the contrary, this only worsens the situation.

And in general, even if the risk of harm or theft of someone else's is even assumed, one should try to avoid or remove it altogether, and not develop and expand making it even more simple and accessible.

This is the tricky point. You see opening and converting a model as theft. But what about a developer who lost his source files or has his sources in a legacy tool? Should they not be allowed to open their own work and take it somewhere else? MCX is saving many genuine developers a lot of time in their workflows. But I do fully understand that this ability can also be used by people with bad intentions to just rip somebodies work. But is it then fair to also restrict the genuine developers in what they can do because some people misuse it?

I started with MCX a long time ago because in the scenery project I was working on we had thousands of objects and we want to take them into the FSX format for performance optimizations. Doing that for so many models by hand was no option, so the conversion tool was started. That use case is not theft, it is a developer taking his own work forward to another format.

As you can see, one pop-up warning is not enough for irresponsible thieves and it does not work. One incident of theft is enough to think about protection. And in general, the issue of this topic should not depend on the general voting, the developers of models and add-ons should first of all decide the main question of whether to allow others to hack their models, animation, copy, convert to other formats. The author of a program that can open other people's models, first of all, should take an interest and ask the authors of these models. The opinion of the townsfolk is not considered here because it is dishonest and wrong that instead of authors and owners consumers make decisions and there is no guarantee that among those who voted, there are no malicious users, irresponsible or short-sighted users who aim to cause harm in the first place.

Is that not why we are having discussions like this thread? For the development of MCX I only talk with developers. All the features added over the years have been added because a developer has requested it. I see the FSDeveloper community as a representative voice of the overall developer community. So it's not the consumers that decide the direction MCX goes. But as I noted above, I think your view of a developer is a bit narrow, as you focus on developers of complex aircraft model it seems. While there are many other types of developers as well.

 

[KAI31]

Hi! Arno. I wrote just above what it all led to and what will happen next. These are the real words and actions of the developers in the current situation.
I do not suffer from narrow-mindedness and I understand everything.
The results of a progressive approach already exist and are not in favor of new and high-quality and complex developments and developers for simulators and for users.

 

[=rk=]

If I could think of a way to let MCX not open files by unauthorized persons I would have added it a long time ago already. A few years ago I did a test to only allow MDL animation export if your modeldef.xml file includes all definitions. This should rule out people who are not the developer. But this was too restrictive, I was flooded with complaints from developers. So that change was reverted in the end. It is just nearly impossible to separate genuine developers from the copy-cats.

You could provide each developer a unique GUID, which could be recorded into the model. No key, no access. You’d have to decide whether to maintain a database on their behalf. You could code your user ID so it couldn’t be hacked out of the model.

I think the real problem is that for Flight Simulator the platform creator never added any protection. There is no mechanism to sign your model or somehow detect changes to it, the sim will just load any file. The fact that the MDL format is a binary format that can't be read with a normal text editor is not protection from my point of view. And now with MSFS this has even got worse, since the glTF format is 1) a fully open file format 2) the glTF part can be read and modified with a simple text editor.

Are we to think this is merely an “oversight?” That Microsoft, the undisputed icon for software profits, forgot to provide its content creators with, dare we call it, “security?” The franchise that has twice been reinvented by MS, Flight and MSFS, now has an even more open architecture?

Everything about the sim has always been incredibly transparent, to the point it seems humorous that people claim authorship over effects.

The argument against all this “activity,” copyright infringement, whatever you call it, is that it stifles growth, development. Yet last I looked, the official store is booming. As described above, we have unofficial sites selling derivative works. I never really saw this in the height of FSX and I do not see a lot of complaints from the commercial community - about the way patches are affecting sales, yes, but about the way lax security is draining profits? Nada.

 

[Deleted member 1281]

And you might want to stay on topic.

Sorry, I am struggling with this. Please explain?

 

[Deleted member 1281]

Sorry to be persistent. "You might want to stay on topic" is a fairly serious challenge and I would like to know what occasioned it (other users may wonder about this, too) and perhaps get a chance to defend myself.

Here are some facts that may contribute to clearing this up.

Shortly before administrator Rhumbaflappy passed his comment member unc1rlm had posted a question that was directly addressed to me. I posted an answer. Moments later both my and unc1rim's posts were removed from the thread, and Rhumbaflappy told me to stay on topic. Actually, there was an earlier sequence of similar question and answer posts which were not removed and no one was told to stay on topic.

I appreciate that Rhumbaflappy in his role as administrator has certain privileges. In this particular thread he also has strong opinions which happen to be opposed to mine. Okay: we are exchanging suggestions and arguments, just as Arno has asked us to.

However, once administrative privilege is used to challenge and mute voices from the opposing side we clearly no longer have a level playing field.

 

[=rk=]

Persistence rewarded. At the risk of digressing the topic myself, it is not, "should we pursue personal agendas by quoting old comments in an attempt to invalidate arguments that support allowing MCX to export glTF?"

As a further example, you recount some previous experience, that you determine was an irresponsible application of admin privileges, to invalidate this message from the same admin, nothing of which has anything whatsoever to do with this topic. It does not take an admin to determine this is not a good look for you.

We get that you don't want glTF export. If you never posted another message about it again, we would still know your opinion, firmly. You may want to convince further, please bear in mind that we should try to stay on topic in our efforts to support our personal agenda.

 

[rhumbaflappy]

And... both of the above posts are off topic. Please stay on topic. This isn't a chat room. This is a forum. and in this case with a specific thread topic.

 

[KAI31]

You could provide each developer a unique GUID, which could be recorded into the model. No key, no access. You’d have to decide whether to maintain a database on their behalf. You could code your user ID so it couldn’t be hacked out of the model.

This is what I support. It would be great!

Are we to think this is merely an “oversight?” That Microsoft, the undisputed icon for software profits, forgot to provide its content creators with, dare we call it, “security?” The franchise that has twice been reinvented by MS, Flight and MSFS, now has an even more open architecture?

Everything about the sim has always been incredibly transparent, to the point it seems humorous that people claim authorship over effects.

The argument against all this “activity,” copyright infringement, whatever you call it, is that it stifles growth, development. Yet last I looked, the official store is booming. As described above, we have unofficial sites selling derivative works. I never really saw this in the height of FSX and I do not see a lot of complaints from the commercial community - about the way patches are affecting sales, yes, but about the way lax security is draining profits? Nada.

GLTF is an open format, but in the original description of the format there is a separate graph with possible encryption, until I figured out how it works and whether the sim will accept encrypted files. In the description of exporting the standard Babilon plug-in from the MSFS SDK, encryption is not yet described.

 

[=rk=]

This is what I support. It would be great!

GLTF is an open format, but in the original description of the format there is a separate graph with possible encryption, until I figured out how it works and whether the sim will accept encrypted files. In the description of exporting the standard Babilon plug-in from the MSFS SDK, encryption is not yet described.

Microsoft clearly does not support encryption, or the means to secure intellectual property. Microsoft conveys the message, "we will protect our own software. You may create software that is a derivative of, or dependent on our software, but we will not provide the means to uniquely secure any software. Intellectual copyright, is another matter, because our store is very secure."

This makes sense, in the inevitable accusation of "facilitating the theft of IP (intellectual property)," essentially the argument of this thread, Microsoft cannot be accused of compliancy, since it does not participate.

Think in terms of auto theft. If our car is stolen, we do not blame the manufacturer for making the car insecure. We call the police and we litigate in court. You are asking Arno to take the role of law enforcement, a role Microsoft clearly defers.