Flightsim.to new business model and terms of service leaves content creators without rights to their own work

[Truelz]

Sorry? First off, let me observe that you are micro dissecting Henriks conversation with people who are not here to represent themselves and I in turn, am dissecting your dissection, we should all be careful to avoid such things and now I apologize.

In your terms then he is 'micro dissecting' the ToS and not a conversation he has had with them, I'm just responding to his comments on the ToS, nothing wrong with that for neither of us... That is part of having a discussion!

Throttling bandwidth is a technique used by a large number of flight simulator freeware/subscription sites. In fact, the practice is so ubiquitous and so removed from the dial up associated costs that inspired it, the presumption of doing so, except by you, is taken for granted.

I honestly do not now of any flight simulator websites that hosts content where the bandwidth is throttled to "close to zero" which is what Henrik suggested that flightsim.to could in principle do... That would kill any site! Theres a difference between throttling speeds to say 10 mbps and them being throttled close to zero i.e something like 0.2 mbps... The first is tolerable the latter would quickly make that website a turnoff for the majority of it's users. But if you have any examples of flight sim websites that does so, please do link them!

When you mix profit with free content, invariably the content will become less free, it is an axiom of capitalism.

How is it less free because somebody can get it x minutes faster than you because they pay a monthly fee for that extra speed? In the end you got the files for free, even if you had to wait a bit longer than those who paid... No?

Also, flightsim.to is not YouTube. To make the comparison slightly more relevant, fs.to would have to not only serve files, it would have to run them in your web browser for you. Flightsim.to is a file server, it is not a content platform like YouTube and fs.to is most assuredly not nearly so prominent, mainstream

Doesn't matter how the content is served, be it streamed or downloaded, it's the principle of uploading something with the intention of it being free for others to access, Youtube can put it behind a complete paywall if they so choose, flightsim.to cannot! But I can quickly find other content hosting websites that are more comparable with flightsim.to, and have already done so earlier in this thread, and then you'll be able to see that flightsim.to ToS wasn't/isn't that different from other modding/add-on/content hosting sites at all.

 

[KL791]

How can you find 4.1 problematic? That basically just says you aren't allowed to upload stuff you do not have the permission to upload and it's your ass on the line if you upload stuff that you do not have the right to, that seems perfectly reasonable no? Without that third parties could for example upload GAIST to flightsim.to and it would be a bit harder for flightsim.to to have it removed on your behalf.

4.1.1 elaborates on 4.1; if you upload something you don't have the right to and the sites get sued or otherwise asked for compensation because of that upload they are allowed to send the bill on to the uploader... Also perfectly reasonable no? Why should they be held accountable for stuff you've uploaded that you didn't have the rights to?

4.3 Is pretty standard on content hosting websites, Sketchfab for example has something very, very similar as pointed out earlier in this thread. Even this forum has the same kind of clause:

They also need the right to share your file, otherwise they wouldn't be allowed to make it available to download for other users, making the whole idea of the site pretty useless

4.3.1 - 4.4

Sorry but that is just thinking that they have bad intentions and would slow down the speed of users who aren't premium subscribers, the likelihood of them doing that is near zero as that would be the death of the platform. And again not a unusual clause, Youtube have something similar well worse actually, they explicitly state that they keep the right to put your videos behind a paywall without compensation i.e it wouldn't even be available to users at all without paying.


4.11 That is also just them saying if you upload stuff you do not have the right to then you'll be responsible for any cost flightsim.to might incur because of it. Perfectly reasonable and normal (and I dare say you'll be hard pressed to find serious content hosting websites without this clause) avsim.com have something similar:



With all that said, I completely agree that the way they communicate about all this is very, very lacking and unprofessional. But I do not think that the ToS is so bad or different from other big content hosting sites out there, and with the new deletion policy in place I personally don't have any problems with them. But each to their own

Hi Truelz, they have the right to protect themselves. This is fair and I even wrote so in my suggestions for a fair agreement some days back. And no, it is not so different from others.

However, I believe it is important to underline that it is not that their terms, now they have discussed with part of the developer community, has gone soft in any way. If you are a 17 year old developer doing repaints you need to be aware. Don't just think now the "old guys" made noise and Flightsim.to is all fine and you can do what you want. No, if there is a copyright twist you will be up against both them and the original copyright holder.

And lets' face it. The wast majority of their content if we look in numbers of uploads is in one or another way in breach of copyrights. They know it, you know it, I know it. No one, or almost no one, will contact Lufthansa before making a repaint of one of their planes. Who will contact Santiago Calatrava before doing a model of the airport in Bilbao? I have permissions for some of my stuff but not for all. While some stuff even detailed technical drawings was provided by shipping companies or eg the German sea rescue, not every single logo, model or repaint is checked with the shipping companies or shipyards, which is also one reason I am really cautious that GAIST doesn't start generating a revenue stream AND that I can delete in the same second someone complains. And the agreements I do have in place clearly state "distribute for free" so the Premium and associated Creators Program with revenue sharing to the creator is not for me.

 

[Truelz]

However, I believe it is important to underline that it is not that their terms, now they have discussed with part of the developer community, has gone soft in any way. If you are a 17 year old developer doing repaints you need to be aware. Don't just think now the "old guys" made noise and Flightsim.to is all fine and you can do what you want. No, if there is a copyright twist you will be up against both them and the original copyright holder.

Yeah, but that is just how copyright works, even if that wasn't stated in the ToS it's you as the creator that has to assure that you have the rights for the things you make. And yes I know the reality is that a lot/most repaints for example doesn't actually have the necessary agreements to do so, and so far it seems it has been accepted by the aviation/airline industry and hopefully it'll continue this way

And the agreements I do have in place clearly state "distribute for free" so the Premium and associated Creators Program with revenue sharing to the creator is not for me.

Totally fair! But as far as I know being a part of the Creators Program is entirely voluntary so nobody is forcing that upon anybody? And one could also argue that even with the Premium subscriptions your work (if it was on flightsim.to) would still be distributed for free as all the Premium subscription really does is removing ads and wait times for downloads. It isn't providing exclusive access to GAIST for example so it would still be free to access regardless if you paid for the premium or not. Well that's just my take on it anyways

 

[=rk=]

I honestly do not now of any flight simulator websites that hosts content where the bandwidth is throttled to "close to zero" which is what Henrik suggested that flightsim.to could in principle do... That would kill any site! Theres a difference between throttling speeds to say 10 mbps and them being throttled close to zero i.e something like 0.2 mbps... The first is tolerable the latter would quickly make that website a turnoff for the majority of it's users. But if you have any examples of flight sim websites that does so, please do link them!

Why is what you honestly know, or not know, relevant? Your awareness of the flightsim community defines it? Is that how a reality bubble works? The fact that payshare sites exist somewhere out there in the hypothetical void of what you cannot possibly imagine, is not my responsibility to validate, Google is the gateway for the intrepid explorer.

How is it less free because somebody can get it x minutes faster than you because they pay a monthly fee for that extra speed? In the end you got the files for free, even if you had to wait a bit longer than those who paid... No?

Clearly you do not understand discrimination, you've never read "Animal Farm" and everybody gets exactly what they've earned so only lazy people get slow internet. "Equal access," is a core tenet of the concept of "equality" and suffice to say, if you do not understand it, you have not yet learned about it.

Doesn't matter how the content is served, be it streamed or downloaded, it's the principle of uploading something with the intention of it being free for others to access, Youtube can put it behind a complete paywall if they so choose, flightsim.to cannot! But I can quickly find other content hosting websites that are more comparable with flightsim.to, and have already done so earlier in this thread, and then you'll be able to see that flightsim.to ToS wasn't/isn't that different from other modding/add-on/content hosting sites at all.

This must be you doubling down on"brilliance," once challenged, proving your opponent wrong. The comments aren't about YouTube, the conversation isn't about YouTube, the only person that even CARES whether fs.to and YT are the same, is you.

 

[Truelz]

Why is what you honestly know, or not know, relevant? Your awareness of the flightsim community defines it? Is that how a reality bubble works? The fact that payshare sites exist somewhere out there in the hypothetical void of what you cannot possibly imagine, is not my responsibility to validate, Google is the gateway for the intrepid explorer.

Clearly you do not understand discrimination, you've never read "Animal Farm" and everybody gets exactly what they've earned so only lazy people get slow internet. "Equal access," is a core tenet of the concept of "equality" and suffice to say, if you do not understand it, you have not yet learned about it.

This must be you doubling down on"brilliance," once challenged, proving your opponent wrong. The comments aren't about YouTube, the conversation isn't about YouTube, the only person that even CARES whether fs.to and YT are the same, is you.

Wow... I must say I see no point in further discussing with you as it seems that you are incapable of having a civil discussion and instead resort to personal attacks and belittling.

 

[rhumbaflappy]

I'm going to close the thread now as we are wandering off the topic and onto personalities and opinions. Should there be new developments at flightsim.to, then start a new thread.

To sum up, it appears flightsim.to is now allowing deletions of content by their uploaders, and that solves the issue of control. If you don't like the terms of service or anything else about that website, then you can delete your stuff. I think we can all take to heart the lesson of reading the TOS, and keeping up with changes to it. I think a good job was done by the detractors of their original deletion policy, and successful influence in changing the deletion policy at the website.

Like thousands of simmers, I very much like the Flightsim.to website. They fill a void for both freeware and now payware addons that the Microsoft Marketplace has been unable to fill. Flightsim.to gives an opportunity for content developers to be found on the web. Good for them, and good for us. They messed up in their policy and seem to have fixed the primary objection concerning the right to delete. As far as other TOS suggestions, that would be better discussed at their discord channel I think.