Devs call for Flightsim.to boycott over proposed changes

[Tom Clayton]

As long as I'm here, let me put in a little proactive comment... This thread is still civil, but the potential is there for it to go south real quick. Please read your reply, then re-read it before hitting the Submit button. Thank you in advance.

[DennyA]

It's a great site, design wise. They provide a valuable service. The premium package is optional and worth paying for some people, and I have zero objection.

But to claim they're not claiming any ownership of files, and then refusing to let the file owners remove them, is ridiculous. Their explanation of not wanting to break things sounds fine, but it's not within their rights as a host. If anyone wanted to get the vicious EU legal protection folks involved (and my Flightsim.to emails indicate they're based in France as a company), I'm sure their policy would not stand up. (IANAL)

I don't understand why this is the sword they're choosing to fall on. They're doing so much more damage to themselves by being stubborn here compared to the slight issues some file deletions could cause down the road. Some of their most popular and highest-quality contributors have already pulled their content. Henrik's shipping, GotFriends, I think I saw Emerald Scenery Design's stuff is gone.

If someone else can come up with a modern alternative, I'd just write this off as karma for their stubbornness if this tanks them as the go-to resource. But as a user, I've loved having a mostly one-stop place, and I'd hate to lose that.

This is a helluva opportunity for Flightsim.com or AvSim to modernize their 1990s-era file library interfaces and regain their significance as download resources.

[DennyA]

And it looks like they're looking at revising the terms to try to make creators happy but protect users who want to grab popular files and libraries before deletion...

https://discord.com/channels/7459464...67664219017327



Tom, I can't believe you aren't bothered by AvSim's file library interface. I found it frustrating 20 years ago! (When it looked like it does now...)

[Stearman]

That's exactly what it is. I'm just downloading the latest update for the WBSim/JPLogistics C152 mod from their own google drive "Due to the drama with flighsim.to" as they phrase it on their Discord channel.

Wow, that's one of the very few add-ons I was following on that site.

Would you please post a link to such Google Drive?
Thanks in advance, best regards.

[tiger1962]

Wow, that's one of the very few add-ons I was following on that site.

Would you please post a link to such Google Drive?
Thanks in advance, best regards.

Sure, here it is: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qmK...usp=share_link
This link may only work for this particular update, it would be worth getting future links direct from their Discord channel: https://discord.gg/XSb7c67F6W

I've just read on the MSFS forums that the outstanding G36 Improvement Project may be getting pulled from flightsim.to, future updates will still be available on their Github page: https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t...4/2709?u=gbtaw

[Stearman]

Sure, here it is: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qmK...usp=share_link
This link may only work for this particular update, it would be worth getting future links direct from their Discord channel: https://discord.gg/XSb7c67F6W

I've just read on the MSFS forums that the outstanding G36 Improvement Project may be getting pulled from flightsim.to, future updates will still be available on their Github page: https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t...4/2709?u=gbtaw

Thanks Tim

[YoYo]

[tiger1962]

And here's the response I (GBTAW) got this evening from Flightsim.to's spokesman on their Discord channel discussion:

In response to @GBTAW "They state clearly that they do not claim ownership, copyright, or intellectual property of any uploaded content. Therefore they have no right to refuse to delete such content at the time it is requested by the content creator and owner."

Well, yes, we do. The conclusion you are drawing here is, from a legal point of view, simply wrong. Some companies would even go so far as to sue you for making such a statement because it is defamation and has no legal basis. Intellectual property and copyright are not the same as the distribution licenses you are grating pretty much to every website which intends to share your upload, and has absolutely nothing to do with IP or copyright. Obviously, not every pilot is a lawyer for a good reason and we're not blaming anyone for missing that legal understanding of quite complex terms because legal language and instruments can be complex, but it becomes quite funny as soon as pilots pretend to be lawyers overnight. It's important to read and understand the terms before drawing conclusions, and if someone draws that conclusion, to verify whether that conclusion does even match the reality to the slightest extent - which it doesn't in our case. Let me bring up this example: Ironically, I've seen some creators move their content from Flightsim.to to Nexusmods, despite their terms are exactly the same - if not being even more permissive. We've pointed out various times that terms like ours are in place on pretty much all sites that allow users to upload content, because they are required. Take Nexusmods for example:"When you upload or post content to our site, you grant us [...] a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, transferable licence to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform that user-generated content. In particular, we may retain your content indefinitely and are not obliged to delete your content if you so request. The rights you grant us continue after this agreement is terminated or your access to the site is withdrawn by us."

GTA5Mods has pretty much the same terms. So does mod.io - and every other website that is created for sharing mods. Take mod.io as another example:

"You grant mod.io a perpetual, non-revocable, non-exclusive worldwide right to use, reproduce, process, modify, create derivative works from, distribute, transmit, transcode, translate, and otherwise communicate and display and distribute all such User Generated Content on the Services (License). The License authorizes us to make your User Generated Content and any derivative works of your User Generated Content publicly available through the Services including for broadcast, distribution, promotion or publication on other media for users of our Services to use, share and access. Nothing herein shall restrict mandatory local copyright law applicable to you."

Our terms do not allow even 10% of the typical industry clauses. Now, does that mean that Nexusmods, GTA5Mods or Mod.io do have bad intentions in regards to the mods which users upload? No. Have they ever used any of the rights granted? No. Are these terms legally required? To run a business, most likely, yes. Has any of the creators ever complained about these terms? No.

It is tragic and ironic at the same time that we see quite a few creators have their mods deleted on Flightsim.to because we are allegedly trying to modify, rip-off and sell their files, even though our terms expressly forbid all of these things. Then they upload their content to Nexusmods though, while Nexus' terms explicitly allow both selling and modifying their file. So what we're clearly seeing here is the effect of the misinformation that has been circulating, some of which may even qualify as "fake news", because people start reading our terms, don't have the legal understanding, and think they're abusive. Compare our terms to the terms of other modding sites and our terms will sound like heaven to creators. I agree that it wasn't a wise decision on our part to introduce changes simultaneously with the launch of our premium membership though, as this obviously have compounded the confusion and concern.

Okay, this was getting pretty off topic here, but I wanted to give my five cents a go. As I said before, we don't want libraries to just be deleted overnight, even though other creators base their mods on them, just as we don't want an add-on that we recently featured in our news to be suddenly gone. Hence the deletion periods, which will be listed clearly and transparently in our terms. This is not because we're eagerly trying to generate money - To be honest, I myself couldn't care less whether a single file gets deleted or not, we've chosen this approach to protect the community from sudden deletions, and we've explained it a dozen times.The majority of feedback we have received appears to be in agreement with these suggested changes. There are still people who think this will make them lose their copyrights, GDPR rights or intellectual property, or who still might think this allows us to sell their files but unfortunately there's nothing much left to say, it's like trying to explain someone that 2 + 2 is 4 and not 5. Like people said before, this minority, who has absolutely no legal clue but comes up with GDPR concerns, is very, very small but loud. I addressed our lawyer today with the GDPR concern brought up the days before, he smiled and literally refused to answer. Guess why. Let the lawyers do their job, we will do our job, which is to serve the flight simming community, like we've done in the past three years. If you want to jump off, we won't stop anyone, but we'd advise to read the terms of other platforms first.I'm getting the revised terms done and will post them here before getting them live so you can also address your concerns to the most-likely final version. We plan to have these in effect before March 5 and users who have deleted their file can re-enable it if they wish to do so, we'll get back to you with more information soon. Please note after March 5 there will be no way to re-enable deleted files."

[TiAr]

The deletion of my 178 addons with 80.000 downloads on FS.to is now finished after three days. For me these were three sad days and I am anything but proud of it. But in the end I have lost all trust in FS.to for the future. And they have themselves to blame for that.

Don't underestimate the deletion process and the time it takes. You have to enter a reason for each addon under Visibility/Deletion. I have not found any other way.

How I will make my addons available to the community in the future, I'm looking at.

Thomas

[Navy Chief]

Just reading this, yes I have a few paints there. I never realised I was not allowed to remove them, which is sort of bugging me. If I'm not allowed to remove my own work, then it's no longer my work, as they decide what happens with it...odd, that.
On the other hand, removing everything and uploading it here or on avsim, jeezz, just the amount of work...
Maybe I should just find another hobby, my wife won't complain...

Oh please don't quit making and sharing your outstanding paints! Your artistry is much appreciated! NC

[DennyA]

They at least seem to be trying to revise the policies to take the feedback into account, so I won't delete my piddly two sceneries until early March, when I see how this lands. I did make them "hidden" for now in support of the developers pushing for revised policies.

If I had hundreds and I was concerned, I might start now, but if they DO end up with reasonable policies hopefully the big deletions by TiAir and others will at least have influenced that decision and will at least be the fire that lit the change.

I'd hate to see someone delete dozens of files if they do revise their policy appropriately. As a user. I hope this gets worked out and we keep this resource.

[Tom Clayton]

Tom, I can't believe you aren't bothered by AvSim's file library interface. I found it frustrating 20 years ago! (When it looked like it does now...)

It may not be the easiest place to find what you want, but if you have a good keyword, their search generally works. I can still find my three uploads from way back when just by typing my name in the search. The thing that concerns me more is that once a file is uploaded, it can't be updated in place - at least not that I'm aware of. That's the one thing that F%^&sim.to has going for them - dev's can update their own files with ease. But I still don't mind Avsim's interface, especially since there are zero ads when you're on their Library server.

[ryanbatc]

I'm done with them. Something always bugged me about that place. Being a developer, ex-developer now, I understand the trust that was held between myself and where I placed my work. .TO stepped on many toes. Fire up SOH, AVSIM and FS.Com. Worked for 20+ years. .TO CAN be replaced.

Don BP

The libraries at all of those sites are pretty antiquated though. The look and feel of FSTO is a lot nicer.

I've got a few files at each of those sites anyway....but was surprised to see hardly any MSFS files.

[Bushpounder]

The libraries at all of those sites are pretty antiquated though. The look and feel of FSTO is a lot nicer.

I've got a few files at each of those sites anyway....but was surprised to see hardly any MSFS files.

Totally agree. The older sim sites are VERY antiquated!! They would need a fresh look and smoother workings. .TO is smooth and has a clean look, which is why so many immediately started pouring add-ons into it. It would cost some bucks to get set up for another batch of files and modernize the older sites. Just looking at SOH, the donate bar isn't rocketing to the right. The other sites would also ask for $$ to refresh, and I am afraid with today's financial climate, it may be hard to see a big update come to fruition. I just hope that today's artists find a place for their work. There are some great ones, many right here, that make a difference in improving our past time.

Don BP

[dvj]

I'm done with them. Something always bugged me about that place. Being a developer, ex-developer now, I understand the trust that was held between myself and where I placed my work. .TO stepped on many toes. Fire up SOH, AVSIM and FS.Com. Worked for 20+ years. .TO CAN be replaced.Don BP

All is not lost. Can FS.to be replaced? Sure it can. But the user interface on .to has been very easy to navigate, download and update files for the consumer of such items. Those other .coms? Need a major update if they think they are going to serve the millions of new MSFS users to the level that .to has.

[tiger1962]

The whole website has had a facelift, and the library has become much more user-friendly:

"The new and updated file manager offers a variety of flexible options. Content creators are encouraged to upload their creations and explore the new features. As the creator, you have complete control over your work and can determine how it's presented and updated.
We would greatly appreciate your input in expanding and creating categories for easy file navigation. For example, a category specifically for 'PMDG DC-6 Liveries' would be more useful than a generic 'FSX Aircraft' category.

The new upload options include more specific details for each file type, such as aircraft origin, manufacturer, paints, aircraft, ICAO code, and country for scenery.

Compared to the old format where files were uploaded manually by a librarian, the new system is fully automatic, allowing the author to have complete autonomy over their work. Users can now engage and comment on files, with ultra-high resolution screenshots available for better visualization. Additionally, the new site integrates files and discussions, while the old system used a separate platform."

[K5083]

Yes, flightsim.com's new UI is much more modern and user friendly. I have a few issues with it is a user, such as the fact that hardly any text fits under the thumbnail for each addon, so you can't really know what it is until after you click on it. But with a few tweaks it could be a contender. It was disruptive that they had to break every old link to the site on the internet when they renovated, but it will be worth it.

August

[Stearman]

I admit I've got used to look for MSFS freeware only in flightsim.to for (many) months. It has been the reference site during all this time, and the rest deemed virtually useless. All in all, it was easy and convenient (to me anyway).

Now, under the new circumstances, I guess we'll need to surf a number of library sites as we did in the past, in order to make sure not to miss anything important.

At least, until someone comes out with a comprehensive "freeware info" page or something of the like. Let's cross fingers...

[jmig]

I admit I've got used to look for MSFS freeware only in flightsim.to for (many) months. It has been the reference site during all this time, and the rest deemed virtually useless. All in all, it was easy and convenient (to me anyway).

Now, under the new circumstances, I guess we'll need to surf a number of library sites as we did in the past, in order to make sure not to miss anything important.

At least, until someone comes out with a comprehensive "freeware info" page or something of the like. Let's cross fingers...

I have been reading these posts and those on other sites for a couple of days. My opinion is that all this brouhaha will eventually die down. It seems to me that all parties are victims of over protective cover your ass lawyers who are doing their job, which is to be over protective cover your ass lawyers.

If you read the terms and conditions of ANYTHING on the web, you get the same BS. It is only when a company tries to enforce the T&Cs that no one reads that things get sticky and people rebel.

Yes, creators have a right to be alarmed. FS2 has a right to protect itself and our future ability to download creator’s content.

All we need is both groups to recognize the other’s fears and find a compromise that everyone can live with.

FS2 admitted that they didn’t handle the release of the changes well. Hopefully that will start the healing.

[YoYo]

They changed something. I recived the @ with links like this:
https://7g5i4.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk...u_ptWp_6k5_0Ps .