The possibility of that happening is infinitely small. So super super infinitely small. They are hosting a freeware site. If they went completely paywall, they would lose developers, and they would lose customers, and they would lose advertisers. They would then have all this infrastructure and staff that now is serving a much much smaller community. Basically, unless they made the subscription fee significantly large, they would put themselves out of business. Basing decisions off an extremely remote hypothetical wouldnât do anyone in the community any good.
1 Like
But people are focusing on the âwe retain a licenseâ piece of the TOS. And they are suggesting that it will be used in malicious ways. And again I point out, developers downloaded their addon so that the hosting site could allow users to download it. The end user is users of flightsim.to. The license that flightsim.to retains isnât so they can repost the content. It is because they are the middle man of the actual users, and it stops a developer from insisting that flightsim.to must make sure that all users comply with a delete request.
And yes, we donât have many difficult content developers. But remember Captain Sim requesting liveries be removed from flightsim.to for their plane, and wanting to sue over it? If as broad a definition as developers are asking for is put in the TOS, then it not only effects flightsim.to, but to all users of the site too.
I think the other thing is, some people are looking at the âthey couldâ side. But lets go worst case scenario. Say you do remove your content, and later flightsim.to reposts it. Lets look at what happens AFTER. Well, outrage like now would happen. There would be lots of developers removing their content. That costs support money. Having support technicians doing the removal is not free. The Contact Us people are busy responding to customer complaints. Again, that costs money. The developer themselves may decide to sue. That costs money. So if we follow along with the âthey could do thisâ scenario, yes, they could, but the business reality is they wouldnât because it would ultimately cost them money.
I just donât see this as malicious as others see it. The TOS has been updated to reflect a waiting period before removal of content. Developers have the right to remove their content, it just happens based upon a time after the request. As far as the license they retain, its to protect the users. I certainly donât want to download any addon that at some later point a developer can state I must remove from my system as long as I downloaded it legally. Most developers also download other content developers stuff to see what they do. Do you as a content developer want another content developer to have the right to tell you what you can have on your systems?
And I suspect someone may say âThat would never happenâ. But actually, THAT scenario is much more likely than flightsim.to reloading content. Suppose a developer makes a piece of content, uploads it to flightsim.to. They get feedback, keep making modifications, and the content gets better and better. Suppose that developer then decides this really should be payware. There have been cases of this before. So now that developer wants to sell their content as payware. But all those people who have the freeware arenât likely to purchase it. So yes, theoretically, a developer may want not only the content on flightsim. to removed, but from all users machines too. What protects flightsim.to from that?
There has to be some mechanism in the TOS that protects users so they can have a worry free download.
1 Like
To clarify, I donât think there was malicious intent. Flightsim.toâs lawyers went with TOS that are common on other sites like NexusMods, and the site removed the ability to delete mods. Nobody really noticed till they offered the pay tier. Then someone actually read the TOS, some developers noted potential issues with the inability to remove content. Flightsim.to took too long to take things seriously, likely figuring that since they were following pretty standard terms that it would just blow over.
Developers felt they had to take action to make thier concerns be considered, and now Flightsim.to seems to be trying to come to an agreement with good intentions behind it.
But in the meantime, the siteâs problematic and ill-advised initial dismissal of the initial concerns, and some of the actions taken after devs protested, have engendered ill will among some of the siteâs contributors.
Part of this issue is that this is clouded by misinterpretations, worst-case scenarios, and protests by people freaking out that the site may go all-paid. None of this does anything positive towards getting the problem solved. âBut they COULD go all pay!â Sure, they could, and they might make a profit off the 27 people who would stick around and the 4 who would keep contributing. Itâs not a realistic concern, and just distracts from the real issue at hand.
TL;DR: Hopefully theyâll revise their terms to the satisfaction of Henrik, Got Friends, ESD, and other key contributors, life will go back to normal, and we can all get back to pretending to fly airplanes over a cyberspace world.
2 Likes
But the key concern of these developers from what I understand is still that flightsim.to retains a license. They donât like that. They feel that if they request their content to be removed, that the license that flightsim.to retains could be used maliciously. However, if flightsim.to allowed that license they hold to be revoked, flightsim.to has conferred a copy of that license to every person that downloaded the addon. Now, the developer has the right to request that each individual user who downloaded the addon remove it based off that it is a now revoked license of the addon. The license they retain separates the users from the content developers. Flightsim.to was granted a license that they could in exchange grant to individual users who download. Without retaining that license, a content developer who now wants to go payware with their content could insist that their rights of the revoked license be upheld and all users remove content.
What some content developers are asking for is just unrealistic. They themselves are attempting to protect themselves from their content being misused. But they are overlooking the ultimate users of their work. If they have complete and utter unlimited rights to their work, that also opens the door to another developer taking action against the very users of the site. Truthfully, if I as a user knows that a content developer has complete utter rights to tell me to remove something that I downloaded in agreement with flightsim.to, Iâm not going to use the site. I donât want the possibility of having to hire a lawyer because I downloaded something at one point legally. I dont think anyone wants that possibility. But the very thing developers are arguing over is what ensures that that scenario canât happen.
I do respect your opinion. I am guess I will say I do not believe a host has the right to keep, indefinitely, someone elseâs intellectual property, if that IP owner insists on it being removed.
You cannot do this if you pay for something - that is why copyright holders cannot turn around, after youâve bought a book or downloaded an album, and demand it be returned. You and the holder have transacted and exchanged demanded payment for product or service.
I hope they will ease the license to a degree. A lifetime, irrevocable (basically) universal license of distribution, usage, and retention, in perpetuity is too much control of content, for hosting said content. But again, As for deletion, the notice would be on the addon, as they are now - a generic statement would work - At the content creatorâs request, this addon will be deleted in 30 days. Provide notice, but give time - especially with libraries and sceneries that are used in many, many addons.
I can assure you the concerns about licenses being revoked and users sued to remove content are unfounded, unrealistic, and not precedented in law. A little googling about revoking free/open source/etc licenses will clarify this. Again, this is distracting from the real issues around this. For a real-life reason devs might remove downloads, search on âDassaultâ and âflight sim.â
1 Like
With so many of the big nice projects gone now there is no need to go Premium⊠downloading a few textures doesnât make it worthwhile to invest in a high speed premium account. How could Flightsim.to mess it up so much?
2 Likes
I cant recall who it was but I saw a comment by a freeware dev on one of the forums who said somethibng along the lines of:
I treat the freeware I create like a bird. Once its ready I release it, it flies away and I forget about it.
3 Likes
Iâm no lawyer but it looks like that site wants to monetize itself beyond selling ad space based on traffic volume.
Probably some entities behind the original startup looking for some return on their investment - either greater than, or faster than projected at the outset. That site has grown fast - stores and delivers large files effectively, and while it has a marketplace of its own for payware, the percentage compared to the free files hosted is small.
OK - I suppose the 3rd party freeware contributors never intended to sell their wares at all, and would not like to see others profit from their own generosity. Also these free ware developers are right to want to maintain control over the files they make available on any hosting site - either to improve them or remove them - without interference. Seems reasonable.
We all understand the way free markets are supposed to work. And we all understand the generosity and spirit of the 3rd party freeware developers when it comes to content for any PC/Console game.
It just seems to me that a direct discussion between the hosting site shotcaller and the 3rd party freeware developers (maybe they can agree on one voice to represent them) is needed here.
As said above this situation seems to have erupted suddenly and explosively - and that always leads me to believe some shortcuts to understanding have been taken. Thatâs where the fuss is so thatâs where there needs to be a calm, reasonable discussion.
1 Like
Good luck to anyone attempting to enforce that across a global market 
I, too, was a bit nervous about downloading my GotFriends products/updates from flightsim.to after this mess. But as Baracus250 noted, you can login to your .to account and then go to [your user account]->My Purchases (upper-right) to see all of them listed with the latest versions and whether .to thinks you need to update (based on your last download). I just did this and it worked perfectly.
I think they have had their products removed from the site search (all free and paid), but for now, at least, you can still access any updated files. And you donât need the original full installation folder, as the unzipped updated version is the complete addon.
Just in case you run into any trouble, it seems GotFriends will work with you to allow you to access the products from them directly â posted by Jonx on GotGravel discord:
âPlease contact us if youâve lost your purchases/account on Flightsim.to and we will get you sorted through our website distribution.â
1 Like
Itâs hardly surprising that this has caused outrage amongst content developers. The problems with this approach by Flightsim.to are numerous:-
-
They havenât made any convincing case for it. As far as I can see, their argument amounts to âwe find it inconvenient to delete stuff and we want to hold on to as much as possible because it makes our site look better the more stuff we haveâ. A few fellow travellers in this thread have parrotted that with their own version: âI like free stuff and I support any move that ensures free stuff remains available to meâ. You might as well argue in favour of universal distribution of lockpicks. This is not going to convince the people whose content you want to take, but who do not want their content taken, and they are the people you need to convince because without them, there is no content.
-
The NexusMods parallel is just plain false. NexusMods DO allow full control of uploaded content, including the deletion of files, images and videos. They even have a page telling you how to do it.
-
It has not been explained at any point by Flightsim.to or their supporters WHY they suppose content creators are going to suddenly want to delete content they have spent a lot of time creating, if that content remains appropriate and valid for the current version of MSFS. In reality, deletions are only ever going to happen for good reasons. Content creators arenât in the business of hiding their products for no reason or just to be awkward. Relatively little content on Flightsim.to has been deleted, so this change in ToS purports to solve a problem that does not really exist. That inevitably leads to a suspicion that it might have been done for another reason, such as future monetisation of content in some form (such as behind a paywall, or sold to sim developers; we have seen previously with CDDB how this can happen).
-
Without the slightest doubt, they will quickly find themselves in violations of a number of aspects of German law, including EU regulations that have been ratified. Most obviously that includes GDPR. For example, suppose I have created a livery that Iâve called KarvalaLivery. I want to delete it but Flightsim.to refuse. Easy - I create a website with my e-mail address and a copy of the livery. That livery is now personal data since it is associated with that e-mail address and attributable to an individual. A continued refusal by Flightsim.to to delete it puts them in violation of GDPR. That is just one very simple example, without even getting into copyright, intellectual property and continued distribution after termination of contract. The only way Flightsim.to can possibly hope to get away with it is that itâs too much trouble and expense for most people to instruct counsel and take action and if someone does so, they can comply relatively quickly. Thatâs a pretty strange way to conduct your business, though.
I like a lot of the freeware that is produced and I am also frustrated if something that was potentially useful has disappeared. There needs to be a recognition, though, that these are produced and given through the hard work and goodwill of content creators and users are not automatically entitled to them. Like many people here, I use the FlyByWire A320 and Iâm enormously grateful for the time and effort that has been put into it. If tomorrow they decided to make it unavailable, that would be a huge shame but I would absolutely defend their freedom of choice to do so, without some third party who made no contribution whatsoever coming along and saying âwell, weâre going to still host it whether they like it or not.â With that kind of attitude, eventually people will just stop uploading content.
If the person who created the content and provided it for free subsequently asks you to stop sharing it, respect their wish. Thatâs just common decency.
10 Likes
But copyright holder or no copyright holder why would you want to delete things from there? What is the gain to you of deleting your mods? Whats the gain to the people that enjoyed them? This is what I donât get in all this debate. Who is actually benefiting from people deleting freeware shared mods?
If peoples attitude is simply its my right to delete my mods because Iâm the copyright holder and its all a matter of principle then they shouldnât get into making freeware shared modding in the first place. They should make payware mods and go down that road.
How does that work though? What are people expected to contribute? If its money then that seems to me to go against the whole ethos of free shareware modding. If its contributing mods of their own then thats unfair too since for the vast majority of people creating mods for the sim is either technically beyond them for various reasons or people just donât have the time to do it.
That would be great if it could happen but Iâm not holding my breath at all.
5 Likes
I think most developers understood quite well the new ToS of fs.to. Especially when they presented FAQ for it. But there was still a clear point (4.7) that fs.to can reupload your content on their site after you remove it or delete your account. âItâs stealing!â. No. Not in a legal sense. Developer agreed to the terms, they donât claim they created it, so itâs ok. But having a thing like that in tos is not ok at all. But others have it! So what? I guess, letâs all be a-holes then?
But what about libraries? Nothing. If the library is gone, then so be it. Using libraries has some risks associated with it. I can understand a âcool downâ period for deletion. Good for informing dependent developers that a library was removed. Good for not immediately dealing with cache issues on the website. Good if the website has some manually edited content, for example with âstaff recommendationsâ. Thatâs why the new proposal from fs.to is promising, as the previous, indefinite one, might have led to abusing devsâ content. And donât be fooled that it was there just to protect other devs. They clearly stated that traffic and SEO was one of the reasons for retaining the ability to still serve files after account removal.
But why would you want to delete your account? Doesnât matter. Maybe Iâm not ok anymore with where fs.to is going. Maybe I got a big fat check from newbestmsfsmodsallfreewepwwwooomise . com for exclusive rights. Maybe I didnât like my breakfast today which ruined my life and I decided to drop everything and I want to be forgotten by society and move to Nepal. It doesnât matter. When a user is gone so should his files. Iâm not saying removing content is a good thing. But it still is for the dev to decide if his files are available or not.
Hopefully, proposed changes will, in fact, come to life, and in a few weeks, almost everyone forgets about it and moves to new fresh flight sim drama. But fs.to handling of the issue in many ways was as bad as misinterpretation of some of the points of their ToS by some people. Without GAIST and GotFriends leaving I doubt they would care at all. But after s$#@ hit the fan and news outlets run with it, sometimes blowing it way bigger than they should and misquoting some opinions, fs.to had to backtrack presenting an olive branch of a new proposal in one hand and a whip of contract termination with GotFriends in the other. BTW, GotFriends, after pulling their freeware content from fs.to praised the payware side of fs.to. That fs.to was always good for them and professional, and that they have no issues with staying there with their payware stuff.
I treated fs.to as the second-best thing that happened for flight simming in recent years. Just after MSFS release. Now the trust is gone. Will I pull my content from there? After considering all options I doubt it. It would be loose-loose-loose scenario. Bad (but likely not that bad) for fs.to as my add-ons are quite popular (still hard to believe that many people like it), bad for me as my fragile ego likes that thanks to fs.to I can get to a lot of people. And last but not least bad for users that would now need to track my add-ons who knows where. As users are my main priority I donât want to make it harder for them. Plus, the proposed terms are reasonable and clear.
On the other hand, I would happily see a new, modern add-on hosting site on the scene. We donât need dozens of websites with freeware add-ons scattered among them. But having no competent alternative isnât good either.
Now back to developing 
29 Likes
I like flightsim.to it is a great site, unfortunately when developers at fsdevelopers have concerns with the TOS, people have to sit up and take notice. I hope all this is resolved amicably soon so we can carry on with our great hobby!
A lot of things get lost in translation sometimes, that is life, I hope flightsim.to becomes a world beating hosting site for our needs. They need to pay for staff / server cost / IT maintenance etc and it is not cheap, I am just grateful that we can still download great staff for free. Hope you managed get Got friends working again.
Very well written and well said! Absolutely âspot onâ and thoughtful points.
âŠyou do yourself a BIG disservice. According to the Global Mod Charts Iâve been running on this forum for nearly a year now, your mod is a CLEAR Number 1 for many, many people!
This is the current Top 5:
The whole situation makes me pretty sad tbh 
6 Likes
I know and itâs still hard to believe 
BTW, you should update some links in your lists
2 Likes
Lets say FSTO is 100% free and accesible for everyone and you can do with your files (remove them) s you like but FSTO makes a heap of cash through ads on their site, would you have any objections against that??
Good point! But what to? Iâm lost 
GAIST is available here AI Ships, Boats & Global Traffic for MSFS
GotFriends are working on their site to serve freeware there.
No idea about others.
2 Likes