Too late. The damage is done. They f’d up. It’s not like even if you let this livery issue go, things are fine with the aircraft otherwise. This is just one of MANY problems for them.
18 Likes
Congrats community, the union makes the force! 
6 Likes
Wait!! Are you saying that people were distributing the 777 for free as in the actual Model? If so that’s got nothing to do with the community! That’s free loaders and thieves. Whilst it is sad that people think it is ok to steal stuff, A person repainting the 777 is not stealing anything from CS!!! In fact it does them a favour!
What point are you trying make? because you are not making a good one, if this is what you mean?
If people Pirate the full 777 package, then thats sad, but CS acting like this over repaints is a joke. People take time to do these paints for everybody, for free!!! Some people have done it and they dont even own the product, they do it so others can enjoy it. What has repaints got to do with piracy? In fact I do not see how that connection can be made. And I am sorry but there is no need to punish your customers and the community because your product gets stolen
1 Like
Well the thing is that this is how the internet works. If you start to behave in a bad way the internet will start to shoot back with DDOS on your store, trashing you on social media, pirating your software ect.
I’m not saying that it’s the right thing to do. I’m saying that everyone who is making business online needs to be aware that it can become a “free for all” really quick.
Another thing is that the market for MSFS content has a huge range. You have the whole scale from the once a week casual pilot all the way up to the hardcore simmer. If a dev would release a study level 777 for 150 bucks i can guarantee you that it will be pirated in no time.
The hardcore simmer is saying “Yeah it’s worth my money” and the casual player will say “I want a 777 but not for 150. Where is the free download?”.
Wow, that’s crazy… smh
Well that took a less time that I expected. 
Next stage we shall see will probably be a PR damage limitation exercise where they try to claim this was a “rogue” member of staff who overstepped their authority, and the situation has been resolved internally.
They dipped their toe in the water to see what they could get away with, and got it bitten off by the piranha.
7 Likes
DMCA doesn’t mean squat outside the US unless MAYBE they’re hosting in the US.
All indicators point to CS being in Ukraine.
“where did you read of Spitfire made from wood?! Close this book forever and don’t read it anymore”
2 Likes
Why do people keep implying the plane itself is a scam? Its clearly represented as being paired with the default 747 on their website, there is no deception here.
We can argue it’s a lazy move but they haven’t misrepresented the product they’re selling.
Just move on. drama over.
1 Like
They said the instruments were ADAPTED from the 747, not so blatantly ripped off that they still show 4 engines instead of 2.
Sure if you feel so strongly about it, keep fighting that good fight. I’m sure you’ll win on semantics…
The product isn’t going away, people will keep buying it. It’s really on you if you rushed in and purchased it without looking at any reviews or ignoring the drama over the last few days.
Better addons are coming just ignore these guys and move on.
1 Like
Because it was weak sauce. It really should have been a freeware mod, since it was built off of something Asobo had produced and people do not want to encourage that business model.
3 Likes
Hmmm… those „rules“ generically talk about „items“ (lawyers just love to sound very specific, but be very fuzzy in their wording), but I believe the core subject are mostly „YouTube videos“. Or specifically: videos that contain game elements - well: „screen captures“ - and specifically sound elements from the specific game.
And yes, also „story elements“: so if you tell a cool story in your video MS has - apparently - the right to tell the same story in an upcoming game. Without the fear that you may actually sue them.
It possibly also covers stand-alone games - or extensions for a specific game - where you re-use their „3D assets“ (if that was possible at all - the rules also forbid „reverse engineering“).
IANAL, but it very much boils down to the definition of „item is based on“. Sure: if I create a video of the game, that video is based on the game. If I create my own game with assets from an MS game (again: assuming that those assets were available without reverse engineering): that game is based on an MS game. Even if I tell a story and use names, characters etc. from the game - that „item“ (the story) is based on the game.
I would say that in those cases the rules apply.
But if I create a livery „from scratch“: is it really based on FS 2020? I don‘t think so. It is based on an empty bitmap that was created with some graphical editor. And while I didn‘t read the SDK license conditions in detail (I am creating an open source add-on in a non-commercial setting, so that should be fine ;)) I would go as far and say: „Products created with or using the SDK / SimConnect are not based on the game (here: FS 2020) and are hence the intellectual property of the respective creator“.
Or in other words: if you create an aircraft, scenery or airport „from scratch“ - or also liveries, of course - then the intellectual property belongs to you, not MS.
There are of course interesting cases like aircraft which are indeed extending an existing game aircraft model: I have the FBW A320neo in mind, which at least initially simply partially overwrote the base model of the A320neo.
But other than that I don‘t see how those rules could empower Microsoft to claim intellectual property of 3rd party addons and simply re-use them by themselves. Just thinky about it: what if MS (Asobo) would say that „from now on all existing 3rd party aircraft are free and part of the upcoming world update“? I don‘t think that would stand a chance anywhere in a court. Same goes for the liveries.
Nope. If the EULA contradicts existing laws then it becomes automatically invalid. Even if you „agreed“ to it.
At least that‘s the case in most civilized countries.
The problem is though: you - or specifically in this case flightsim.to - have to bring this to court. That costs money. And you always risk of losing the case nevertheless.
That brings us straight and without further ado to the biggest lie in the world - which is: „I read the EULA“ 
1 Like
I do not agree with such actions. No one in the community should. Regardless of whatever „miss-step“ a 3rd pary vendor did.
2 Likes
Well, is there a bullet proof definition for the word ADAPTED?
I can say “i adapted the 747 avionics to the 777 cockpit model”. I wouldn’t sell you a wrong promise.
An experienced user would have seen the cockpit pictures and knows what’s up. The only “victims” are newer users who don’t really know what to look for.
yes I agree. I found the CS777 joke livery quite funny but what happens when people start to bring their drama and politics into FS2020. Ok the greenpeace paint vandalism actually occurred but I don’t want people really invading this world with their politics. I was happy watching a Youtube live flight and then in the live comments section some jerk makes a comment about recent events in the middle east that have nothing to do with the live flight event. I bought CS777 last night and enjoy it, despite all THE DRAMA. I have stated before I think CS was a bit shocked by the hate and acted unwisely. If it should be freeware then 90% of airports in marketplace should also be freeware by that same logic. Actually the D R A M A is the thing that turns me off the forums. If it isn’t rants about about people with ultra machines getting 5FPS then it the usual tantrums about fix this fix that. Micro$oft asobo. Bah hate those posts. and I didnt get ripped off. One thing that really bugs me about some aircraft is that effect where you go from cockpit view to wing view when theres no cabin, Yikes that is scary man, haha
3 Likes
I found the whole debacle educational. I learned never to buy a CS product. Thanks CS! 
12 Likes
If MS or ASOBO don’t do it, we as a community can protect each other along with protecting the entire community by forming an organized watch group. Sort of a consumer protection site that collects info on software as well as hardware.
CS have also changed their activation procedures - may have been a while ago now, can’t remember, for FSX/P3D models.
I tried to install the models I bought 13 years ago for FSX (yes, I still use it for a number of reasons, in addition to the current sims, in VR) and I was unable to activate them. I found they were saying that if you install their product more than 3 times you have to have your activations reset.
That’s not really a problem - if they have a good system to reactivate licenses. But you actually have to explain to them why you have installed the product 3 times before they will reset it - and you have to do this for each product/purchase.
That would have meant me writing another 18 explanations of why I’ve installed their products 3 times over a period of 13 years! Needless to say I wasn’t happy, and told them so - I also congratulated them on policies promoting piracy.
Next day I found my inbox full - all 19 purchases had been reset. In fairness, I’d expected them to ban me and block my licenses, but I was past caring.
I used to like CS airliners - not being a tube fan, I only used them for making money in Air Hauler and they were great for that. They looked good and the VCs were fun to use in VR, without having to go too deep into systems, FMC etc (I prefer the classics like Dave Maltby’s models for systems etc) - I mostly fly them visually/by hand and only use the MCP for heading and altitude AP on long trips. It’s much more fun to me, getting an approach right by eye and hand than letting the onboard silicon do it and these were perfect for that. But they screwed up since the old days. Maybe a change of personnel? Or some experience that made them change their policies?
3 Likes