A letter from several Chinese DCS palyers - 19 August 2019

The sad thing is this would probably have potential if it was done right as a partnership

Yes! +1

"Ja, der geist spricht..." :D

 

 

 

or on another tack

 

 

 

饮用水时考虑来源

“饮水思源” :D

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I lived and worked in Hong Kong for most of a year back in 1996. I did business on the mainland (when forced too) as well. There are many great Chinese people, like the OP and the other DCS Chinese players he mentions. Unfortunately there is a systemic abuse of copyright and other standard business practices we take for granted in Western/Russia/Etc countries.

If I were in ED's shoes, this would be my position - since it'll be nearly impossible to stop this, or get any financial compensation, why not embrace it. Any publicity is good publicity, being the theory, and there is a massive, massive potential client base in China. As the OP stated, there is a HUGE upswell in interest in military things among Chinese, especially the upcoming generation. Many have a lot of expendable income now, compared to the past generation, and the more who get into DCS/sims, the better it is for the developers, and hence all the rest of us.

Making a big stink about this will serve little purpose IMO, as again, nothing much will come of it based on past experience, and as others have said here, larger US companies who have gotten the "tough crap" card when they've tried legal sanctions. Best course of action IMO, I repeat, is to try and exploit the exploiters here, and somehow get some advertising of DCS/ED's own going in China. Not sure on how this will work what with the "Golden Shield" PRC government firewall and rules, but if DCS is "allowed", or even at worst "grey area"...again, ED could stand to make a lot of $ from future potential Chinese players.

OP/Eagle Sur Pekin, and other Chinese players, I wish you all the best, and am very glad you're part of this community. The J11 and future Chinese DCS modules have the potential to be fantastic additions here. The more Chinese players, the better IMO.

I realize news like this can be a piss off, and rightfully so, having lost a business and been forced to leave Hong Kong with the 1997 handover myself. ED/the rest of us, are well within rights to be outraged over this blatent type of theft. Again, it's not abnormal in China for companies to rip stuff and and pull this crap, and there is little real recourse within China to deal with it. It'd be a better option to have Chinese DCS players state on these stolen games forums/etc to post about DCS and ED, and recommend any fans of this "stolen" IP we're seeing in the OP videos, to check out DCS for real themselves. Out of the several million members mentioned by the OP, if even a fraction of a percent try out a DCS module, that's a massive kick in the $ pants for ED.

Great points Gman109. I have to admit the "any publicity" line was percolating in the back of my mind too.

And to ravenzino, "大谢" :D

......

Well said, mate. Can't agree more to all the points you made.

Isn't this letter sended from Chinese player?

I swear that you have no idea about how 80s90s00s Chinese youngsters hate about what elders did about copyright issues.

Holy hell. Step away from the computer and go outside.

Wait... there's an outside??

support for safeguard legal rights

Haha! Yeah, and it's 92F and humid as a swamp. That's part of the problem this time of year in the northern hemisphere. Stay cool everybody! :D I have to wait on purchasing the Viper or Spit. I have another exotic car parade/charity event this Saturday and it was too stormy to wash the car tonight. Better luck tomorrow. And good luck in Hong Kong, to our DCS friends over there.

勇气！ :D

Looks like a fix is already in the works. Good job Eagle Dynamics! I was afraid some of the software was compromised but it looks like ED has identified a "key" issue and is working on it now. So it WAS copyright AND production right, and that was worse than I imagined. Glad to hear you guys are on it.

Where can I find those details?

Sorry Ravenzino, I was looking at an old thread. Here is the post in question from December 2016:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2994601&postcount=2

Similar issues MAY be in play however. If not, it is still only a Production Copyright problem as violation of the license agreement and NOT key or software piracy at this point.

The teens are hyped and loud here at work and school hasn't even started yet. I need another vacation already. ;)

The company OP reported are just using DCS as a tool to tape video, no cd-key violation. Though they might earn some clicking money,no big deal, after all they spend time on it, many youtube host do such business too. On the contrary, their video had a publicity effect for DCS. I was also introduced into the DCS world after watching dcs movies many years ago.

Sorry Ravenzino, I was looking at an old thread. Here is the post in question from December 2016:

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2994601&postcount=2

 

Similar issues MAY be in play however. If not, it is still only a Production Copyright problem as violation of the license agreement and NOT key or software piracy at this point.

 

The teens are hyped and loud here at work and school hasn't even started yet. I need another vacation already. ;)

Aha, no worries mate. Just curious of the development of this event. I trust ED is looking into this and hope they get a good outcome.

Meh. It's China. I wouldn't even bother. Would just be a waste of time and money. You might as well sue North Korea.

The company OP reported are just using DCS as a tool to tape video, no cd-key violation. Though they might earn some clicking money,no big deal, after all they spend time on it, many youtube host do such business too. On the contrary, their video had a publicity effect for DCS. I was also introduced into the DCS world after watching dcs movies many years ago.

It wouldn't become a thing if that company proactively gave ED a heads-up, giving ED credit by putting ED's logo properly in their video and mentioning it in their description or whatever both parties agree to. It indeed could be a good business cooperation.

This is almost a common sense, hence ED's licence agreement is clearly for individual for non-commercial use.

Instead, they take all the credits to themselves.

I grew up in a city beside you, bro. I fully understand the how and why behind of that thought process, which has its reasons. But still that mindset needs to change.

Meh. It's China. I wouldn't even bother. Would just be a waste of time and money. You might as well sue North Korea.

I feel sad when people loose hope on China despite the effort they made in the area of copyright protection over the recent years, though there's clearly room for improvement...

Like asking an elephant to dance, altering the mindset of 1.4 billion people and legal/business practice could be a tough and time consuming task, let alone there're other implication to manage.

But hey, at least the young generation start to awaken and realise. Seeing someone like OP would stand up for it, this is something at least worth some acknowledgement and encouragement.

Meh. It's China. I wouldn't even bother. Would just be a waste of time and money. You might as well sue North Korea.

Don’t know about that...

Last year, LEGO won a lawsuit, in China, against Chinese LEPIN for copying 3D artwork.

It wouldn't become a thing if that company proactively gave ED a heads-up, giving ED credit by putting ED's logo properly in their video and mentioning it in their description or whatever both parties agree to. It indeed could be a good business cooperation.

This is almost a common sense, hence ED's licence agreement is clearly for individual for non-commercial use.

Instead, they take all the credits to themselves.

 

I grew up in a city beside you, bro. That mindset needs to change.

I know everybody wants to rise up with pitchforks, but the EULA has no such mandate, and in fact, expressly allows for youtube productions such as this.

I know everybody wants to rise up with pitchforks, but the EULA has no such mandate, and in fact, expressly allows for youtube productions such as this.

According to OP's description, the said practice of the company is different from YouTube video production that we know of.

Given the wording in the currently EULA is not clear enough, people certainly can argue, or otherwise this thread would not exist in the first place. It is also not impossible that in the end, ED might not get the support from the court, if they ever go to the court.

However if you read between the lines, you'll get the idea and start to understand why ED put a specific clause about YouTube Production there instead of stating it in a more generic way. They could've had an EULA without such clause if they really don't care how their products are used for video production.

Well, that's my take anyway. Now, it really depends on how ED see this specific case. In the end, regardless of what would happen at the business side (or legal side, but not that likely I guess), at the moral level such practice (commercial production without proper consent neither giving credits) is not proper, and should not be encouraged, IMO.

Well, it turns out that ED/TFC did make it clear in EULA actually:

......

1. LIMITED USE LICENCE

 

In consideration of you agreeing to abide by the terms of this Licence, TFC hereby grants to you a non-transferable, limited right and licence to install the Program and the Documentation solely and exclusively for your personal use on the terms of this Licence. All rights not specifically granted under this Licence are reserved by TFC and, as applicable, TFC's licensors. GOVERNMENT AND COMMERCIAL ENTITIES MAY NOT USE THIS SOFTWARE UNDER THIS EULA. Government and commercial entities wishing to use this software in conjunction with training or demonstrator applications must obtain a license directly from TFC under a separate pricing structure and terms of use.

------

 

3. LICENCE CONDITIONS

 

3.1 Except as expressly set out in this Licence or in clauses 4.1 and 4.2 below, or as permitted by any local law, you undertake to use the Program for your own personal use, and you shall not:

......

3.4 Video production by you using DCS products is allowed for Youtube advertisement revenue generation.

......

Don’t know about that...

Last year, LEGO won a lawsuit, in China, against Chinese LEPIN for copying 3D artwork.

Nice find.

Well, it turns out that ED/TFC did make it clear in EULA actually:

Right. This is why you see company logos taped over or blurred out in television and YouTube shows, or you see an accompanying disclaimer regarding any apparent "agreement" in a production by one entity using the work or logo of another.

The original use of the term "copyright" in the last screenshots by the OP was confusing. Somehow people are "buying" their production product or whatever, but it only amounts to a production license as far as we know. This is a deeper level of intellectual property law and it's good we have a chance to discuss it now. It's good that the OP started this thread because it shows the Chinese customer base IS thinking about it on a second level. To me, this shows a positive trend. I still think it is not as serious as all out piracy of the code, and it is a good sign that the market is softening to these considerations over there.

With the Lego case in mind, there might be some ground to gain in a legal pursuit but if nothing results from that, it won't mean that gains are not being made in the marketplace. Remember the cultural issues involved here, especially political - the Hong Kong protests. Significant gains could be made in consumer and government attitudes with the leverage of the situation.

but we Italians know them well the Chinese are champions in counterfeiting they photograph copy and make it the same.