SATCO: Where I Stand! (very long)
Clay Dopke
After an afternoon, evening and morning, investigating this bag of
(garbage), for lack of better words, I have come up with a few items for
both my own satisfaction and others . . . I state:
FACT:
After a meeting with MY attorney, and looking at the license of SB --
it is my, and my attorney's opinion that SATCO or Randy W have not
violated any licensing agreement with SB or Joe J in any way. The license
is strictly limited to selling copies of SB or including them in
commericial or free software. It has NOTHING to do with any donations to
SATCO for any reason. The law is most clear on this, as is the language
of the SB licensing agreement.
FACT:
Randy W is sole owner of the SATCO name and of SATCO. He MAY do
anything he wishes with this enity. He does not charge a fee for its use,
nor does he anticipate doing so. Any remark about 'Making SATCO a pay
service' is just so much garbage . . . and should be considered that by
all. It hasn't cost us a dime yet and never will.
FACT:
Randy W has personaly informed me that he has, and will continue, to
have the complete support of the servers . . and of this date, none of
them have any intentions of removing their services from the SATCO network.
FACT:
SATCO is up and running and still a FREE service. Unless you are a
member of the SATCO staff, or its associated staff, what goes on in the
higher archy of SATCO, (as long as you are being provided a FREE, non
paying, service,) is none of your business. This is NOT a democracy!
Randy owns it and run's it as he see's fit. Sort of like how the France
family runs NASCAR . . . . "you don't like the rules? . . . go race
someplace else."....... If for some reason you do not like SATCO in it's
present state, or what is happening, then, by all means, please feel free
to go fly on someone else's network. NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO CONNECT TO
SATCO . . . THE CHOICE IS YOURS. AND WHILE WE ARE AT IT, RANDY W OWES YOU
NOTHING.
FACT:
The monies which have been recieved were donations . . . I have been
assured they are in a Bank Account, safe and still being held in
reserve.....to be used for the betterment of sim flying ON SATCO. If
anyone who contributed any amount of money at all wishes to have their
donation refunded, they should contact Randy W and he has assured me that
a refund will be immediately processed. If you are not a
contributor........it is none of your business. That sounds harsh, but if
you haven't spent your bucks, you don't have the right to complain.
OPINION:
Use the service--fly--enjoy yourself and let those who are in charge,
be in charge. Certain individuals have resigned for THEIR reasons. I
respect all of those who have done so and will not slam any of them. Most
of them are also my friends. But, they were THEIR reasons and they were
staff members . . . that was their choice, just as it was their choice to
sign on to be staff members when they were invited to be so.
And.........I will miss them, but life goes on.
Having been around this network for a few years, I have seen constant
bickering, in fighting, negligence and disfavor by just about everyone in
this staff for one reason or another. NOBODY GETS ALONG WITH EVERYONE . .
ALL THE TIME. If anyone thinks they can provide a better service, with
better people, more quality of service and servers and more real world
information . . . they they should do it and we will all wish you well,
and probably use YOUR service.
No one in the SATCO organization will fault you if you decide to
leave. It is your decision and your reasons are good because they are
YOUR's, and you are entitled to them. To the others.......please, lets
quit the chest beating, blasting, slamming and being less than civil. It
serves no purpose and if by chance the above facts haven't sunk in, then
you should realize that Randy W owns the service anf if you wish to use
it, at least have the courtesy to respect that you are getting it FREE and
with his blessings. My mother always said . . . "if you can't say
something good about somebody . . . ." Catch the drift?
If you don't like SATCO or Randy W, tell HIM about it. His e mail is
SAT...@satco.org . I am sure he will correspond with you. Stirring this
bowl of muck only creates ill will, havoc and makes all of us look like a
group of dissatisfied children, playing pilot with our electronic toys. I
for one, do not savor that image.
Lastly, until I decide that I want to leave, I am staying with SATCO.
Show me hard proof of wrongdoing! Not opinions.....innuendoes or
guess's.......hard, solid proof! And I may change my opinion...........up
to this point, I have seen no proof and my questions, inquiries to Randy W
have been addressed and satisfied.
Lets all get back to flying . . . Best to all.......even those who
don't wish to continue with SATCO.......you will be missed.
I now relinquish my soapbox!
Clayton T. Dopke
Major, USAF (retired)
SATCO HQ STAFF
Director, Conflict Resolutions
SATCO 8
-------------------------------------------------
FS SHARECENTER - The Best Flight Sim Shareware is here....
New Now: Bari Palese and Philadelphia International Aiport Sceneries
by SimFlyers Associated - Buy them in a bundle at a sensational price!
http://fssharecenter.com
-------------------------------------------------
SIMMARKET Download Store - NEW NOW: The GAP Singles
The best Collection of German Airports ever - Now includes Innsbruck (LOWI)
http://simmarket.com/online/gap
------------------------------------------------
Your use of the simFlight Newsgroups is subject to the terms
outlined at http://simflight.com/snn
Amy Gilbert
With all due respect sir, I do NOT agree with your following statement:
FACT:
The monies which have been recieved were donations . . . I have been
assured they are in a Bank Account, safe and still being held in
reserve.....to be used for the betterment of sim flying ON SATCO. If
anyone who contributed any amount of money at all wishes to have their
donation refunded, they should contact Randy W and he has assured me that
a refund will be immediately processed. If you are not a
contributor........it is none of your business. That sounds harsh, but if
you haven't spent your bucks, you don't have the right to complain.
True-donations are in fact GIFTS given to SATCO to better the hobby for
everyone's enjoyment. But look at what you said-you've only been "assured"
that the monies are in fact sitting in the account. There's no WRITTEN PROOF
posted for all to see exactly where the monies are. If all of these are false
accusations, why can't Randy post a bank statement NOW? I can walk into my
bank at any given time of day and request a statement printed out for me for
one measely dollar. What's keeping Randy from doing THAT?
Again Clay-I mean you nor anyone else any disrespect. I am just sick at all of
these occurances and want the truth to come out.
Amy D. Gilbert
James Willan
Apologies for our misunderstanding of our own license agreement - it was an
error that we have tried to rectify.
I need not remind you, or your attorney, however that Joe has rights under
international copyright laws to protect his software and protocol, that
SATCO rely on, and would have the rights to prevent SATCO from using his
free software for whatever reason he saw fit. I doubt the situation would
ever develop to this, but I will tell you what Joe said to the development
team:
"...[if] somebody makes a profit off of our work, that is flat wrong. If
not legally, ethically. I will not allow someone to profit from that which
people have given freely of their time and talent. That's the bottom line."
I am sure that Joe will defend his beliefs as he sees fit.
- JW
Clay Dopke <B52D...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3b21...@news.simflight.com...
Clay Dopke
Nice to hear from you and hope all is well, (or as well as can be at
this point in the game, <G>). I have been assured by Randy that the
posting of the statement will take place within the next few days. I
talked with him this morning, and if that does not happen, then I may be
forced to change my opinion on that matter. Should an accounting not be
given, then as contributors, I feel they SHOULD ask for thier money back.
I know of most all the conversations between Randy and the staff . . .as I
have talked with many of them. I also have told Randy that there HAS to
be an accounting.
Now, I am willing, until proven wrong, to accept Randy's reasons why
he has been tied up for the past month or so. I have ignored SATCO for
the past 60 days myself due to the strain of the economy and my business.
Should he prove to be pulling my leg, well, then I will have to do what I
feel is right at the time.
Presently, being in a country that assumes innocence until proven
guilty, I will give him the opportunity to do, what he has said to me,
that he will do. Time tell's all and heal's all wounds . . . and we will
survive this. I too am sick of this and the truth always surfaces.
best regards
Clay
Peter
resigned? Being in a country that follows democratic laws, you must
realize that the jury seems to have said their verdict.
Clay Dopke wrote:
> Amy,
> best regards
> Clay
> Amy Gilbert wrote:
> > Clay-
> > Amy D. Gilbert
> > Clay Dopke wrote:
Peter
FACT:
Randy W has personaly informed me that he has, and will continue, to
have the complete support of the servers . . and of this date, none of
them have any intentions of removing their services from the SATCO network.
-----------------------------------------
So why was Randy asking for donations then in the first place?????????
FACT:
Things have been said and there has been relatively no action on Randy's
part to deny such notices.
FACT:
You do not know where the money is - you were only told.
FACT:
Since you do not really know where the money is, PERHAPS the ones who
resigned are justified.
FACT:
Randy has yet to produce any statements that show the funds are actually
in an account - in his name.
FACT:
Any bank can produce a statement within minutes of a request.
FACT:
If any monies that were collected under a "donation" presentation were
used to purchase items for personal use, this is fraud.
FACT:
Numerous court cases have recently been won in the last few months about
just this type of thing.
FACT:
A lot of great people still hope SATCO survives.
FACT:
Unless something is said soon or those bank statements finally appear (of
which I am beginning to wonder if they will be legit when they do show up
since they have taken so long), people will continue to argue what
happened.
FACT:
All of those great people resigned.... Gone... they said bye, bye. Their
accusations of accountability still remain and no one has proved ANYTHING
to make me think anything different.
FACT:
This is not over.
Clay Dopke
I fully understand Joe's stand and his right to defend it. Joe has
been a great contributor to the Flight Sim community. I had lunch with my
attorney this date and just brought the subject up and wanted a valid
legal opinion.
Nor, do I believe that anyone should profit from someone's freeware
efforts. Believe me I would be the last to deny someone their rights . .
and in truth, it is a shame all this has all come to pass. I don't
desire to be defending Randy so much as to inform some individuals that
SATCO is Randy's and he provides it free, as does Joe with SB. With luck,
perhaps this will all be worked out in the near future and we can all get
back to what we enjoy . . . . flying and not acting like Jerry Springer
guests <G>
Best Regards,
Clay Dopke
Sean Woolard, SATYTH2
Again very well put.
Every single 'fact' Clay listed in his post is nothing but a fact.
In regard to the organization being a democracy. The place is anything
but a democracy. If Randy one day decided to close the organization for 1
day (which will not happen) he could and can. Who is stopping him?
Nobody! He would never do that because he wants to have fun in SATCO just
like anyone else.
S.A.T.C.O. -- Simulated Air Traffic Control Organization
Someone please tell me where, bicker, no fun, and democracy is listed in
the above abbreviation.
As far as I see it, NO WHERE!
As I said in my previous post; Why don't we all push the situation to the
side, and let the HQ staff deal with it? When they are messing with that,
we all fly and control!!! Any objections?
Sincerely,
Sean Woolard
SATCO Youth
Deputy Director
SATYTH2
** Fan of having fun in SATCO to its fullest! :) **
Clay Dopke
I will reply to both of your posts. No I am not willing to discount
all the possibilities . . . I am also not ready to rush to judgement.
Fools rush in!
What jury? Did we have a trial . . . was there a jury selection? Did I
miss something?
I have personally talked with Harvey and a few others . . . have you?
I know their resons for what they have done. I also know a bit more
about it than obviously you do. I am not trying to rip SATCO apart . . .
and I would like to see the truth. And the truth, be whatever it is, will
come out.
My main concern is that SATCO remain, however if it does not, I will
survive, as I have much in my life. In truth, I doubt if I even would
have commented about all of this if it wasn't for the fact that many seem
to be under certain misconceptions. Now saying that, I am willing to wait
a few moments longer before I get out the rope and go looking for a tree.
And you are so correct, it is not over. And I doubt, even if no
wrong doing is found, if some people will let it be over, mainly because
some individuals are using this to slam personalities. That dog just
doesn't hunt!
My main interest is SATCO and on line flying . . . I do not wish to
see the organazation destroyed . . . but I also wish to have the truth.
And while we are at it........are you a SATCO member Peter? you have
never used your full name or your relationship to SATCO. Or is your main
purpose just hanging Randy W for whatever resons? Notice, I wasn't
slamming you, but asking a question.
In any respect, I will reserve my judgement for a while longer. I
have stated what I believe to be facts and what I believe to be the truth.
I have no other reasons but to see SATCO survive and prosper. I wish no
ill will nor try to do anyone a disservice? Can you say the same?
Best to you and yours
Clay Dopke
Peter wrote:
> Clay Dopke wrote:
> > Amy,
> > best regards
> > Clay
> > Amy Gilbert wrote:
> > > Clay-
> > > Amy D. Gilbert
> > > Clay Dopke wrote:
Mike Bromley
I think there are some serious misconceptions about Licensing
Agreements and the protections afforded a developer under current
Copyright laws. The Licensing Agreement that is included with the
Squawkbox program sets certain restrictions to what users of the
program may do with it. SATCO, as an organization, doesn't directly
use Squawkbox. In fact, when SATCO was first formed, the earlier
versions of Squawkbox didn't even require a pilot ID to use the
program. Whether or not SATCO depends on Squawkbox for it's
existence is irrelevant.
17 USC Section 102 sets forth what may be copyrighted. Though not
specifically mentioned in the section, the Courts have interpreted
it to include computer software programs. Section 106 specifies
what rights a developer has.
Sec. 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works
Subject to sections 107 through 121, the owner of copyright under
this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of
the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to
the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental,
lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic
works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works,
to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic
works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works,
including the individual images of a motion picture or other
audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work
publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.
What I find interesting is the statement "Joe has rights under
international copyright laws to protect his software and protocol".
Para (b) would seem to exclude any protection to the protocols. In
fact, 17 USC Sect 1201 (f) appears to allow it.
(f) Reverse Engineering. - (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of
subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right
to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological
measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of
that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those
elements of the program that are necessary to achieve
interoperability of an independently created computer program with
other programs, and that have not previously been readily available
to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such
acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement
under this title.
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b), a
person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a
technological measure, or to circumvent protection afforded by a
technological measure, in order to enable the identification and
analysis under paragraph (1), or for the purpose of enabling
interoperability of an independently created computer program with
other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve such
interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constitute
infringement under this title.
(3) The information acquired through the acts permitted under
paragraph (1), and the means permitted under paragraph (2), may be
made available to others if the person referred to in paragraph (1)
or (2), as the case may be, provides such information or means
solely for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an
independently created computer program with other programs, and to
the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this
title or violate applicable law other than this section.
(4) For purposes of this subsection, the term ''interoperability''
means the ability of computer programs to exchange information, and
of such programs mutually to use the information which has been
exchanged.
Michael Bromley
"James Willan" <ja...@the-willans.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3b21...@news.simflight.com...
> Clay,
>
> Apologies for our misunderstanding of our own license agreement -
it was an
> error that we have tried to rectify.
>
> I need not remind you, or your attorney, however that Joe has
rights under
> international copyright laws to protect his software and protocol,
that
> SATCO rely on, and would have the rights to prevent SATCO from
using his
> free software for whatever reason he saw fit. I doubt the
situation would
> ever develop to this, but I will tell you what Joe said to the
development
> team:
>
> "...[if] somebody makes a profit off of our work, that is flat
wrong. If
> not legally, ethically. I will not allow someone to profit from
that which
> people have given freely of their time and talent. That's the
bottom line."
>
> I am sure that Joe will defend his beliefs as he sees fit.
>
> - JW
>
>
-------------------------------------------------
Daryl Shuttleworth
> S.A.T.C.O. -- Simulated Air Traffic Control Organization
>
> Someone please tell me where, bicker, no fun, and democracy is listed in
> the above abbreviation.
>
> As far as I see it, NO WHERE!
I found them... LOOK, if you squint and adjust the lamp you can just make it
out:
S.bickerA.no funT.demoC.cracyO.
Bob
knowledge I also have of those conversations at HQ, those same assurances
were given to those who resigned months ago and when they were never
fulfilled, it lead to this current situation... Not harping or rubbing it
in, only some food for thought...
I hope answers come soon and this all can be put behind all of us....
Clay Dopke wrote:
> Amy,
> best regards
> Clay
> Amy Gilbert wrote:
> > Clay-
> > Amy D. Gilbert
> > Clay Dopke wrote:
Jose Gonzalez
Peter, I understand your concerns, but if you
give so much importance to the reasoning
behind their resignation, why dont you then
ask them personally. I have. And none of them
have made any of the implications you have
made.
If it was a jury, I think the most votes wins
doesnt it? Well there are docens of satco
staff that have stayed where we are.
Cheers
JG
George
Mike,
---comments follow
"Mike Bromley" <mbro...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:3b21...@news.simflight.com...
<<snip>>
> Sec. 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works
>
> Subject to sections 107 through 121, the owner of copyright under
> this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of
> the following:
>
> (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
> (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
gw - I don't think there is *any* question that the new packages being
developed are derivative works. The original developers made the source
code available to the simclient team. Only members of that development team
know what restrictions the original developers placed on the use of their
code, but based on the distrust expressed by Mr. Jurecka in his Avsim post,
it's difficult to believe he didn't retain his statutory rights. The *only*
way to guarantee that you have an *independently created program* is to have
*no* access to the original. Many large software companies have become very
leery of hiring programmers who have had access to a competitors' source
code for this very reason.
<<snip>>
> What I find interesting is the statement "Joe has rights under
> international copyright laws to protect his software and protocol".
> Para (b) would seem to exclude any protection to the protocols. In
> fact, 17 USC Sect 1201 (f) appears to allow it.
>
> (f) Reverse Engineering. - (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of
> subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right
> to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological
> measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of
> that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those
> elements of the program that are necessary to achieve
> interoperability of an independently created computer program with
> other programs, and that have not previously been readily available
> to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such
> acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement
> under this title.
<<snip>>
<gw>Notice that this only applies to *independently created programs*. This
appears to permit someone to *hack* another program, so that their
*independently created program* can be made to work with it. An example is
the way that Flight Simulator was *hacked* to allow FSUIPC and all of the
Aircraft and Scenery design programs to work with it. This seems to be
legitimate as far as the copyright legislation is concerned, however it is a
*blatant violation* of Microsoft's End User License Agreement, which
expressly forbids reverse engineering, decompiling, disassembling, etc. -
Read EULA.TXT in your FS2000 directory. The original simclient user license
doesn't expressly forbid reverse engineering, so an *independently created
program* could be created that used similar protocols.
This, of course, would fly in the face of the intent of the original
developers, but that wouldn't bother too many people around here. As long as
they can fly, or control, who cares. Right? Hindsight says the
developers should have used a license similar to Microsofts'. Hell, maybe
they should sell their rights and code to Microsoft, at least that way
they'd see any money that was generated, and then all of the Microsoft
bashers and whiners would have something else to complain about. It'd be
interesting to see how Microsoft would handle SATCO if they owned the
software rights.
Mr. Jurecka didn't say don't fly, he didn't say don't control, he just
suggested using IVAO for a while, until this mess gets sorted out. It's
pretty sad when the attitude towards the guys that developed the software
that allows this system to operate is. "Screw you, I talked to my lawyer
and he say's you don't have a leg to stand on" or 'The copyright legislation
lets us rip off what ever we want from you and you can't do anything about
it"
I am really surprised that the current developement team, seeing this type
of attitude, don't find something else to do with their time. Spend some
time with family or *real* friends, instead of bustin' their danglies for
the ingrates around here.
Sickened by it all
George Weir
dmst...@yahoo.co
Mike Bromley
Don't get me wrong. I'm not one of those guys who is out to screw
the freeware developers. Just the opposite. I'll I was trying to
point out is that, realistically, unless there is blatant
commercialization of a freeware developer's work, there may be fewer
protections under the law then they think. Freeware is
significantly dependent on the honor system and the vast majority of
the simming community is more than willing to work under that system
and abide by the wishes of the developers.
Michael Bromley
"George" <dmxt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3b22...@news.simflight.com...
James Willan
The license agreement is not a limitation or waiver of statutory rights.
The right to reproduce and distribute, and allow copies to be maintained, of
SquawkBox and ProController can be revoked by Joe and Jason -- at which
point making ProController or SquawkBox available for download, or using
ProController or SquawkBox would no longer be possible.
A sobering thought, and one that will hopefully coerce those in the know to
make the truth public so this situation can be resolved, which is all the
developers are after.
- JW
Mike Bromley <mbro...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
Cor de Jong
<ja...@the-willans.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
------- snip --------
>at which
>point making ProController or SquawkBox available for download, or using
>ProController or SquawkBox would no longer be possible.
>
>A sobering thought, and one that will hopefully coerce those in the know to
>make the truth public so this situation can be resolved, which is all the
>developers are after.
>
> - JW
------ snip ----------
Probably legal, but it seems unfair and overdone to me to punish
40.000 people for the (possible) misbehavior of 1 single man do'nt you
think?
Cor de Jong
James Willan
of intention.
- JW
Cor de Jong <cj...@hetnet.nl> wrote in message
news:3b22763b...@news.simflight.com...