Page 1 of 1
| Liverpool Street 08/05/2010 at 19:35 #1233 | |
bse35
21 posts |
Where is the liverpool street sim, i can't find it
Log in to reply |
| Liverpool Street 08/05/2010 at 19:35 #9048 | |
|
bse35
21 posts |
Where is the liverpool street sim, i can't find it
Log in to reply |
| Liverpool Street 08/05/2010 at 19:47 #9049 | |
|
UKTrainMan
1803 posts |
It's been the 'victim' of this. Whilst it's currently not available to download, I believe that it is not against the License Agreement for someone to eMail it to you - just have to find someone willing/able to do this. Any views and / or opinions expressed by myself are from me personally and do not represent those of any company I either work for or am a consultant for. Log in to reply |
| Liverpool Street 08/05/2010 at 22:24 #9050 | |
|
GoodbyeMrFish
148 posts |
i can do it, if the author of the sim grants me permission to do so in this thread.
Log in to reply |
| Liverpool Street 08/05/2010 at 22:58 #9051 | |
|
UKTrainMan
1803 posts |
GoodbyeMrFish, Unless I am mistaken (and we all make mistakes), the License Agreement allows for the simulation to be eMailed without the need for permission. Quote: Quote:
Any views and / or opinions expressed by myself are from me personally and do not represent those of any company I either work for or am a consultant for. Log in to reply |
| Liverpool Street 10/05/2010 at 11:06 #9077 | |
|
kbarber
1742 posts |
UKTrainMan said:GoodbyeMrFish,Be careful here. As I read this clause, it covers transfer of the software rather than sending a copy (note the reference to destroying all copies not transferred). If you want to stay strictly within the letter of the licence that means you should really wait for Geoff to authorise you to email the copy. (In my experience, as well as what we see here, Geoff's a good bloke who isn't likely to raise objections without a good reason - but if he does have a reason that needs to be respected.) OTOH this clause comes from the SimSig/TRE Licence Agreement and it may be that TRE have a view on the matter; as Geoff doesn't seem to have responded yet, I wonder if this is the reason he hasn't given authority. I need to say I'm not a lawyer; my partner lectures the subject (and specialises in Intellectual Property, which is what this licencing business is about) and my knowledge is based on what I've picked up in conversation with him over the years. So don't take this as gospel, but I think it's as well to be cautious. Log in to reply |
| Liverpool Street 10/05/2010 at 11:43 #9079 | |
|
clive
2789 posts |
kbarber said:I need to say I'm not a lawyer;I would agree with your interpretation (and I am a sort of lawyer; at least, I teach IT law sometimes). Log in to reply |
| Liverpool Street 10/05/2010 at 14:55 #9083 | |
|
Sacro
1171 posts |
Don't forget though, this is the current licence, not the same as the one which Liverpool Street was supplied under, iirc the old licence allowed copying between two private people so long as not for profit.
Log in to reply |
| Liverpool Street 10/05/2010 at 22:05 #9086 | |
|
GoodbyeMrFish
148 posts |
regarding this b) transfer the Software (complete with all its associated documentation) and the benefit of this Agreement to another person provided he has agreed to accept the terms of this Agreement and you contemporaneously transfer all copies of the Software you have made to that person or destroy all copies not transferred. If any transferee does not accept such terms then this Agreement shall automatically terminate. The transferor does not retain any rights under this Agreement in respect of the transferred Software. i take it i can send, however as long as he excepts the liscence agreement and that i delete liverpool street off my computer? the liscence agreement seems to be stuck in the past ie, it seems written for software thats on a physical format eg cd, dvd, meeing that once someone has installed the software not to lend the cd to a freind to install on there computer? acording the the liscence agreement i can send him the files as long as i delete them off my computer, as if im selling secondhand software? i think the agreement needs clarifying for the digital age of the internet. seems written for "hardware" formats. Log in to reply |
| Liverpool Street 11/05/2010 at 05:41 #9089 | |
Peter Bennet
5402 posts |
I don't see that the media that the software comes onm affects the point at issue here. If you have been 'licensed' to have one copy then whether that copy arrived over the internet or on a disk is not material. The ease with which you can redistribute software is not linked to your right to redistribute it. Peter I identify as half man half biscuit - crumbs! Log in to reply |
| Liverpool Street 11/05/2010 at 07:13 #9090 | |
|
GoodbyeMrFish
148 posts |
then the liscence agreement needs to reflect this, please read my post again and the liscence agreement again and tell me this.
Log in to reply |
| Liverpool Street 11/05/2010 at 07:29 #9091 | |
|
GoodbyeMrFish
148 posts |
Peter Bennet said:The ease with which you can redistribute software is not linked to your right to redistribute it.ok peter at the end of the day i did state that i would send it him only if the author gave permission which didnt happen, but people can shoot me down all they want i didnt write the agreement. the liscence agreement clearly state that i can providing that i delete the sim off my computer. as if your selling or giving away 2nd hand cd or dvd. thats the point im stating like it or not thats in the agreement, if it shouldent be there there take it out is all im saying. so even if i sent it him i have not broken the agreement, as hes got to except the liscence anyway. the problem is this, ive deleted liverpoolstreet to not break agreement but whats to stop me from downloading a new version or something and treating that as new. with new agreement? Log in to reply |
| Liverpool Street 11/05/2010 at 10:36 #9092 | |
|
kbarber
1742 posts |
GoodbyeMrFish said:
That's certainly how I would interpret it; personally I'd be happy to defend myself if I acted in such a way (and should my actions be challenged, of course) but I feel I'd be on a very sticky wicket if I'd kept a copy myself. GoodbyeMrFish said: the liscence agreement seems to be stuck in the past ie, it seems written for software thats on a physical format eg cd, dvd, meeing that once someone has installed the software not to lend the cd to a freind to install on there computer? My sense is that there are enormous issues with the whole area of intellectual property. SimSig may be something that's given for free, but there are many people out there who earn their living by selling what they create and the licence you buy in those cases is how they get their money. The existence of technology that allows mass copying & distribution without further cost has both opened up massive opportunities and created a massive enforcement headache. There also seems to be a philosophical issue, with some people believing that the internet makes copyright and other IP protection somehow improper, perhaps a response to the very visible fortunes some people make from selling their own mass copies of a single intellectual production (and more particularly where people have become dependent on it, as is the case with a certain OS). But until that particular argument is resolved (perhaps sometime before the end of the century  ) we have to accept the law as it stands. And as Peter says, the means of distribution is completely irrelevant to the concept that you gain the right to use software by obtaining a licence (whether or not the cost is zero), which in turn means you are bound by the terms of the licence. There is, of course, nothing at all to stop you transferring software and licence to another person (as permitted by the licence) and subsequently obtaining a further copy - and licence - from the original source; of course the terms of the new licence may differ from the old one (though I'm not sure they do here).I'm sure the legal philosophers and free software advocates will continue to have hours of fun with this. Angels dancing on pinheads come unaccountably to mind (especially when himself is expostulating on the latest judicial cock-up on some esoteric aspect of IP law). Personally I'd rather just get on with it... Simsigging is too important to get caught up in jurisprudential hairsplitting! Log in to reply |
| Liverpool Street 11/05/2010 at 11:56 #9093 | |
GeoffM
6376 posts |
GoodbyeMrFish said:then the liscence agreement needs to reflect this, please read my post again and the liscence agreement again and tell me this.As Peter has said, the agreement says nothing about the medium used to transfer files and so is not outdated. If you do still have an issue, write to the MD of TRE (see http://www.theraileng.co.uk) and I'm sure he'll love to discuss it with you, at a very reasonable fee. Or you can just wait until I have the time to find a backup and post it. SimSig Boss Log in to reply |
| Liverpool Street 11/05/2010 at 13:52 #9094 | |
|
GoodbyeMrFish
148 posts |
ok, so ill have to pay someone to discuss an agreement they wrote, wheres the sense in that? i was more than happy to delete liverpool street as its a sim i do not play. the liscence agreemnet allows me to email the person who asked for it a copy providing i deleted the sim off the computer and that he excepts the terms and conditions which i have done. the point im making is, i didnt need to ask the owner for permission as this is granted in the liscence agreement as long as the conditions are met, i was merely asking for permission out of courtesy which seems to have been lost with all of you. so for asking i get shoot down in flames. where as if i didnt bother asking and just did it i wouldent have been breaking the agreement. the point im making has been lost somewhat and maybe im not making my point clear. the liscence agreement seems to be intended for software that has been paid for eg, buy a copy of cubase install it and give it to a mate to install too, thats the sort of scenario it seems to be written for. for shareware/freeware the terms need changing imo to non transferable at all, meening that the end user will be you and solely you. i dont understand why people are bringing copyright into this as its a non relevent issue. Log in to reply |
| Liverpool Street 11/05/2010 at 13:58 #9095 | |
|
GoodbyeMrFish
148 posts |
ps when your at the meets, count how many times you do actually break the liscence agreement 
Log in to reply |
| Liverpool Street 11/05/2010 at 16:40 #9098 | |
|
Peter Bennet
5402 posts |
I don't think anyone is shooting anyone down in flames. What we are doing is having a debate- hopefully good natured- as to what it all means. Peter I identify as half man half biscuit - crumbs! Log in to reply |
| Liverpool Street 11/05/2010 at 17:58 #9101 | |
|
Sacro
1171 posts |
IANAL, but, doesn't the current licence agreement not apply to Liverpool Street as it was released before it? Thinking back I'm sure the old licence (which for the life of me I can't find) had something about permissible copying between private parties so long as not for profit. Log in to reply |
| Liverpool Street 11/05/2010 at 19:20 #9102 | |
|
GoodbyeMrFish
148 posts |
the matter of fact is i didnt have the original zip anyway so couldent do it. sorry if ive taken things to heart a little the last thing i want to do is break any agreement cos after all it is free and it is the most used software on my pc. but with so many contradictions and personal takes on the agreement are people actually reading through it or are people just clicking the tick box and downloading without reading it? Log in to reply |
| Liverpool Street 12/05/2010 at 09:49 #9108 | |
|
kbarber
1742 posts |
As I'd half expected, it sounds as if the clause that's causing difficulty is inserted by (& thus for the protection of) TRE. As a TRE employee, Geoff is absolutely bound to accept and (so far as he's able) enforce that, potentially at risk of his job if he fails to do so. Whatever discussions we may wish to have on the philosophy of property existing in ideas (as opposed to things) and its protection, I think it's incumbent on us to respect Geoff's position - as GoodbyeMrFish is doing. Does anyone want to have a discussion on the philosophy (or indeed the practice) of IP and its protection? (Apart from my other half that is - but he's not on this forum )Thought not... SimSigging is much more fun Log in to reply |
| Liverpool Street 06/08/2010 at 02:34 #10500 | |
|
UKTrainMan
1803 posts |
Sorry to be digging up an old thread here but my response to this post sort of compelled me to read through this thread again. As I read the final few posts in this thread the idea struck me to check The Wayback Machine at Archive.org in relation to this post; Sacro said: IANAL, but, doesn't the current licence agreement not apply to Liverpool Street as it was released before it?to see the archive for SimSig.co.uk. During my journey in The Wayback Machine, I found this page with the following on it; Quote: which seems to me to pretty much confirm what Sacro said. I noted that there is a [dead] link on that page for LivSt so evidently it was released during the existance of the above license agreement. Just thought I would share my findings - I am not trying to start up 'Round 2' (not fully sure if there was ever a 'Round 1'?!!). Any views and / or opinions expressed by myself are from me personally and do not represent those of any company I either work for or am a consultant for. Log in to reply |
| Liverpool Street 06/08/2010 at 09:48 #10510 | |
|
kbarber
1742 posts |
Looks like the angels are dancing again  Seriously, I've no idea what happens when licence conditions change in respect of a product previously offered under less stringent conditions and where the product itself hasn't been altered in any way. I'll ask the question when HWMBO gets home from the shops. But I suspect there's no statute covering this and I very much doubt that there's any case law - why would anyone sue to protect the intellectual property in software that's being distributed for free?The code that's common to both SimSig and TRE products is what might persuade TRE to take action. But believe me you don't want your name being quoted to generations of IP students as the defendent in a leading case - if you lose (and you almost certainly will) you'll spend the next 200 years paying the eye-watering legal fees for the clever barrister who defeated you (and I don't think you get legal aid in IP cases to fund any representation for yourself). Log in to reply |
| Liverpool Street 06/08/2010 at 13:23 #10518 | |
|
kbarber
1742 posts |
OK, an answer. Bring on the pins; it's the angels' summer ball! :lol: For what it's worth. I'm reliably informed that the technical term for the legal situation is "an unclear mess". It is arguable that, if the licence in force at the time you downloaded a sim permits copies to be furnished to others, then that term continues to apply (provided you comply with its conditions). BUT It is also arguable that if the download was free there is no contract under which a licence could be given so what's in force is not a licence but an agreement. If consideration has passed (i.e. if you've paid - even one peppercorn - for something) then there is a contract and it can't be altered unilaterally, both parties have to agree to any amendment. (In other words if you were unlucky enough to download LV in the days that it had to be paid for, you may now be lucky enough to have a contract that can't be changed without your agreement.) But an agreement entered into without consideration passing may be amended - unilaterally - on giving of notice. Probably. No-one has yet tested this in court (at least in respect of software), or so my other half thinks. Potentially licence infringing angels dancing on a sim(sig)ulated pinhead would be meat & drink to m'learned friends, who will cheerfully relieve you of several tens of thousands of pounds to get it decided - should anyone choose to pay them to do so. Equally cheerfully, they will relieve you of said sum in the guise of costs awarded against you should another party (reasonably believing it has interests to protect) ask them to undertake the task. You could of course fight the case on the basis that you retain a right that existed in the licence/agreement you accepted when you downloaded the sim. One of Tim's lecturers, when he did his degree, always said that his advice to anyone considering litigation was the same as to anyone considering matrimony - "DON'T!!!" More poetically, it is reckoned that "litigation is a lottery". Sorry to sound like a wet blanket. Personally I would counsel caution around this kind of stuff. In practical terms, TRE mightn't think it worth pursuing thee or me over such an issue - as we couldn't afford the damages (let alone legal fees) they'd get nowt from it but a rather large bill. But - equally practically - they do have a sanction against Geoff and it would be really shitty* if he had to fight for his job by showing how hard he'd worked to prevent people breaking the more recent terms (the ones posted on this website). Oh, and if anyone fancies doing a law degree, himself has promised he'll use this as an exam question (IP is a 3rd year option in the LLB honours degree); he says it's not really masters level though, so you're safe if you do the LLM * No apologies for language; I think the context justifies the word. Log in to reply |