Cessna Copyright Legalities.

..Keep in mind that is not the big company..is some piss ass one desk company in the middle that is looking for the golden buck!

Prowler
 
Some developers do indeed make good money... but most I know will tell you there is not much money in general to be had in this particular market. It takes some rather large teams to make these types of figures, which comes with TONS of products which are usually distributed via publishers. The publishers tend to do rather well.

Anyways, all if this is rather disturbing. I would however be interested to know if the suits are brave enough to make a civil case of this....

I digress, that is surely me overreacting to the situation. I certainly will be paying close attention to how this turns out.

..Keep in mind that is not the big company..is some piss ass one desk company in the middle that is looking for the golden buck!

Prowler
Click to expand...

I was just thinking that before I read it....
 
Suggest everyone be rational....

Textron/Cessna have a right to license use of their name, logo, etc. thru any licensing entity they choose.

The take I was given was this is the same rate used for those who make key chains, coffee mugs, mouse pads, etc. with Cessna name or logo.

At any rate, you can expect prices to rise on FS Cessna Products or see them dwindle or cease being built.:redf:

As an aside. Rumours about vast sums being earned by FS Developers are just that...rumours.

In over six years of development I can assure you that numbers such as those rumoured just ain't happening boys and girls.
 
Ya, they do have the right to control their product. I also have the right to say I won't be purchasing a cessna anytime in the future.......stupid policies punish good people needlessly.
 
N400QW said:
Textron/Cessna have a right to license use of their name, logo, etc. thru any licensing entity they choose.
Click to expand...
This is true and I won't dispute it... however, I am more concerned for us as a community. This would limit said products to only be developed by larger development teams or those that Cessna have officially partnered with. This would indeed ensure a great investment in the software itself, but would also increase the price of the product and severely limit the ability of other developers to compete.

We have not even mentioned the domino effect this might have on other developers and companies who wish to receive royalties on their names as well. Unfortunately, and sadly, I only see this getting worse in the long run.

Those types of licensing fees make it extremely difficult for smaller companies (like Lionheart) to turn a profit and limit them in their type of aircraft they can produce, this again lowering their profit. Lets face it, Cessna's name will always outsell that of a Waco.

This can only lead to really test the heart of developers. Potentially take a loss or risk low sales for the love of your hobby or fall in line with the licenses and yet STILL risk potential failure.
 
SimFreak said:
We're a crazy race I tell ya. There must be a some alien races out there watching is with their big telescopes, laughing their asses off!:isadizzy:
Click to expand...
MY wife and I have always said, if there ARE aliens out there, they've been to Earth long ago and said "these people are crazier than he** get the #*$&$ out of here !!!!!

Darrell
 
Nevertheless, that seems to be the direction we are all headed as the hobby grows.

Refusal to purchase FS Cessna Products from Trusted/Licensed vendors does nothing to hurt the Licensing entities, only the vendors.

Boycotting FS Cessna Products simply reduces the enjoyment factor in the hobby because they do make some very nice aircraft.

Consider, if other real world manufacturers follow suit then the hobby and developers will all suffer if users no longer support FS Development. :isadizzy:
 
N400QW said:
As an aside. Rumours about vast sums being earned by FS Developers are just that...rumours.

In over six years of development I can assure you that numbers such as those rumoured just ain't happening boys and girls.
Click to expand...

I can attest to that fact.

Darrell
Experimental Aircraft Works
 
Well, rumours or not, i know for a FACT of one FS9 dev that created such a great addon, gathered more than 1 million users , and made MS create the same addon for FSX as a sim feature thus sending this developer out of the loop (not that he needed anymore..i guess..:d:d)

Anyway, as times changes and basement hobbies start to grow into full industries it was bound to happen (I still remember the early days of RC flying, you could get blueprints rigth from the magazines, or just for a few bucks on the mail...)
The other side of the coin is that most of these (if not all) addons and the sim itself are being used for real training in more than one way (MS created ESP for this purposes).Interesting days are coming into this brand new industry...

Prowler
 
Prowler1111 said:
Well, rumours or not, i know for a FACT of one FS9 dev that created such a great addon, gathered more than 1 million users , and made MS create the same addon for FSX as a sim feature thus sending this developer out of the loop (not that he needed anymore..i guess..:d:d)

Anyway, as times changes and basement hobbies start to grow into full industries it was bound to happen (I still remember the early days of RC flying, you could get blueprints rigth from the magazines, or just for a few bucks on the mail...)
The other side of the coin is that most of these (if not all) addons and the sim itself are being used for real training in more than one way (MS created ESP for this purposes).Interesting days are coming into this brand new industry...

Prowler
Click to expand...



I would venture to guess 'FS Camera' with head latency
 
Hey All,

Bill go for the Piper - rather have a Pacer taildragger than a 140 anyday.

As for this licensing stuff. Where will it end? If you put a new stadium in as part of a scenery can the stadium owner come looking for you for a cut? At some point will it even be legal for something like tileproxy to exist? IP rights have just gotten stupider and stupider - anything for a buck. Is our society really that desperate for money? If so it speaks volumes for the quality of government and corporate legal and financial leadership the western world has had for the last 30 years - oh wait look where we are on bailouts - if any aircraft manufacturer gets a single taxpayer bailout dollar of any kind then things like FS modelers using company names for those companies should be free - otherwise what are you as a taxpayer getting - the company still gets advertising and the bailout cash? If costs get ridiculous due to licensing fees being added into the cost of models - I'll play more golf - it's healthier anyway and just fly FS9 or X depending on what I have. It is just a game.

-Ed-

PS Bill what do I have to do to prove to you I bought the Epic - My PC Aviator link is now dead - the time must have expired as I bought it on the 18th and they don't do tech support - which I suppose an upgrade is - they say contact the developer.
 
5% of $25 is $1.25, and so if it comes to that, I think we can all afford a little more. I'm still surprised that some sophisticated addons don't sell for twice or three times what they do. Good addon aircraft are still, simply put, one of the best deals anyone will ever get, for the time and skill levels put in. I'll bet that Bill's Epic is actually worth at least $100 if placed on an equivalent "real world" job setting, and probably more.

Annual fees will figuratively kill off most developers, though, if they're in the range Bill was quoted. $2500 after-tax dollars means that some 150 aircraft at $25 will need to be sold just to pay that, and I'll bet some aircraft sell barely more than that in a year.

Mike
 
The whole copyright thing and licensing makes no sense to me. If I were a manufacturer I would want people modeling my product. It's getting the name out there...free advertising. I might want to approve what had my company name on it, but it would seem that showing my product, current or past, would be something I would want to encourage, not charge a fee for. Even paying them a royalty seems backward. Companies pay movie makers to display their product. They don't charge a royalty.
 
Didnt Playstations Grand Turismo have some issue with Porsche ? They got round it by having a Porsche and calling a RUF who are modification specialist. Could the same be applied to the Cessna ? Is there anyone out there that offers mods to the 140 that would relish marketing their brand ? From what you said, it is the logo that is protected, not the design of the a/c and then if it is modified, the design has changed anyway.

Just a thought and not sure how accurate my facts are :isadizzy:
 
guzler said:
Didnt Playstations Grand Turismo have some issue with Porsche ? They got round it by having a Porsche and calling a RUF who are modification specialist. Could the same be applied to the Cessna ? Is there anyone out there that offers mods to the 140 that would relish marketing their brand ? From what you said, it is the logo that is protected, not the design of the a/c and then if it is modified, the design has changed anyway.

Just a thought and not sure how accurate my facts are :isadizzy:
Click to expand...

Atari and Test Drive Unfinished had the same issue - that's why you'll find "RUF GT" rather than Porsche 911 GT3s in the cars add-on pack.

The problem with doing that is that, the same as RUF, you have to find someone who is certified totally seperately from the original manufacturer - having a cert for modification to an aircraft won't be enough, it needs to have removed all the original manufacturer's branding and do it themselves. Think of the new Twin Otter, for example - there's no mention at all of Bombardier/deHavilland Canada on the type certificate.

Off topic, that's due to fly soon. :)

Ian P.
 
kjb said:
The whole copyright thing and licensing makes no sense to me. If I were a manufacturer I would want people modeling my product. It's getting the name out there...free advertising. I might want to approve what had my company name on it, but it would seem that showing my product, current or past, would be something I would want to encourage, not charge a fee for. Even paying them a royalty seems backward. Companies pay movie makers to display their product. They don't charge a royalty.
Click to expand...

This is payback for all those people who sent their kids off to become 'Lawyers'.
Most if not all of these licensing issues come down to some Corporate Legal Weenie attempting to justify his employment ........ :banghead:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top