What does [Needs Corrected] mean?

[FalcoGer]

 

That's neither valid english, nor is it explained anywhere. What does that mean?

[Raptor9]

It means the icon that is currently in the game when that point is displayed on the TSD isn't correct.

[Raptor9]

1 hour ago, FalcoGer said:

Apparently the symbol is this.

Because that isn't what the symbol is supposed to look like. This is yet another error in the real-world publication, a publication mind you that shouldn't be excerpted here per rule 1.16. The symbol that you've shown is in the DCS AH-64D, but that symbol is wrong because the publication is wrong.

[FalcoGer]

If it's a publication, doesn't that mean that it's public? It's not classified. I don't get why it's a big deal. Heck you can download it from multiple sources, and they don't get sued out of their asses. Besides, why should I care about US laws? It says "export is prohibited", I'm not exporting from the us. It has already been exported. Heck, I bet everyone on the Apache staff in ED has a copy of that very document. How else would you explain the faulty symbol that is the very same faulty symbol in that document? Also I don't see how a correlation between some ID code and a symbol is any bad for anyone. It's not harmful at all even if the whole world knows about it. Again, it's not classified.

Edited June 18, 2022 by FalcoGer

[Raptor9]

41 minutes ago, FalcoGer said:

If it's a publication, doesn't that mean that it's public? It's not classified. I don't get why it's a big deal. Heck you can download it from multiple sources, and they don't get sued out of their asses. Besides, why should I care about US laws? It says "export is prohibited", I'm not exporting from the us. It has already been exported. Heck, I bet everyone on the Apache staff in ED has a copy of that very document. How else would you explain the faulty symbol that is the very same faulty symbol in that document? Also I don't see how a correlation between some ID code and a symbol is any bad for anyone. It's not harmful at all even if the whole world knows about it. Again, it's not classified.

First off, ED's forum, ED's rules. Second, just because you think something is ok and harmless, doesn't mean it is. If someone thinks stealing is ok and harmless, does that mean it is? Of course not. That's an extreme example, but I'm using it to prove a point. The "it's harmless" statement is one of the most foolish and abused rationalizations for a lot of shady, illegal or immoral behavior in this world.

Having said that, is posting a benign symbol from a manual harmless? That depends. If you can post that, why can't someone post something else from the manual? Then post some more, then post the entire manual, then post other manuals that are also restricted that may not be out in the internet. Where does it stop? It's not about you. It's about the action and what that action leads to when you look at it through the lens of long-term consequences and enforcing rules set forth on this forum for good reasons. Those reasons may not be apparent to you, or you may not agree with them, but they are there nonetheless.

Now to be clear, I'm not accusing you of shady, illegal or immoral behavior, nor is this a personal attack on you. This is just an explanation of why people in general need to step outside of their own interests in their little piece of the world and realize that just because they want, think, or believe something, that does not make it ok, accurate, or even right.

[Bunny Clark]

10 hours ago, FalcoGer said:

It's not classified. I don't get why it's a big deal.

There are more regulations, both American and international, than simply classification. Just because something isn't classified doesn't mean it isn't restricted. And just because something isn't restricted doesn't mean it isn't export controlled. 

There are documents that are illegal to posses without a security clearance. There are documents that are illegal to possess without the proper authorization. There are documents that are entirely legal to posses in the US but illegal to give to someone outside of the US. Because most of these laws were written when the internet was in its infancy, posting a document online usually counts as exporting it.

The different laws and regulations are fairly complex, especially when they involve multiple nations. Because the repercussions can be severe, especially for a non-American company that works with a lot of export-restricted documents, it's understandable that they would want to take a cautious approach to moderation.

[FalcoGer]

I understand that the forum rules are made by ED. But not only is the information already out there, ED developers clearly have the information from the manual, whether from it or from other sources, possibly derived from it, doesn't matter. The ED early access manual for the apache has the very same table as the technical manual, just with colored symbols instead of black and white. Heck, I could've drawn the same thing myself and nobody would be any wiser, saying I got the image from the game as it is. The manual isn't needed to come up with that picture. What makes a bunch of lines, 2 letters and 2 words illegal to post here when it's a screenshot from the manual, but legal when the very same set of lines, the same 2 letters and the same 2 words in the same table legal when it's in ED's own manual? This is ridiculous. And it's not like the nato symbols for military units are a secret, prohibited for export or restricted for that matter. you can look them all up here: https://irp.fas.org/doddir/army/adp1_02.pdf

In fact that document says: "Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited."

Who is to say someone didn't edit that in? Who could know? Am I to check and second guess everything? Again, it says export is prohibited in the TM. I'm not exporting, it has already been exported to me. And millions of others. Are they gonna come down on the ED developers because they use an export restricted manual to develop the apache? Even if they didn't maybe the sources they do use were derived from that manual. Someone could've copied that table and released it as "public information", not state their source and suddenly you got a massive mess on your hands. Are you required to follow the bread crumb trail back? Who is to say whether it really was public and approved or not? The technical manual lists the length of the rotor blades on the apache. But you could also look that up on wikipedia. Are they going to sue wikipedia for having information from the manual? Who is to say where they got that from?! Of course the length of the rotor blades is a trivial thing to prove that you have public sources. But look at ED's simulation in it's entirety. Every little menu, font used, functionality, behavior, warning, screw position and anything else that resembles any kind of similiarity between ED's product and the real apache would have to be proven to be from public sources. And then you would have to prove that those public sources are not derived from restricted sources. And then you would have to prove that that is from public sources. And you would end up in a never ending legal nonsense.

If someone really wanted they could probably shut ED down completely, at least until they have proven that every fleck of paint they put someplace is from public data.

Yes, it's bad to steal, even if I don't think so. But somewhere you gotta draw the line. Is picking up a penny off the floor stealing? Is it stealing if the owner clearly noticed he dropped it and didn't pick it up because he was too lazy and now you picked it up? Is it stealing if everybody in the world already knows the penny is there but didn't bother to pick it up? And if it is still stealing, is that still bad?

Then, is posting information from the manual, even pictures of it, still illegal if I can prove that I could've derived that same information through other means and compiled it in the same manner as the manual did, for example as a table? Say I found a public document (ED's manual for example) and then I post screenshots from the actual TM with the same information. Would that be bad? For example I could make a screenshot of the comm panel in the cockpit or a frame from a video on youtube showing it off. And then take a screenshot from the manual with a diagram of that very same panel. The information is already public. I could've easily come up with the same diagram from public sources. Is posting that diagram still bad? Why? What if I didn't make a screenshot but drew it myself and it ended up looking the same (because it is the same)?

These laws just don't make sense to me.

Edited June 19, 2022 by FalcoGer

[Kharrn]

Initial question has been answered in post number 2 by Raptor.

Rest is a discussion you Falco might better shift to ED directly if you really want to talk on it further. But please dont elaborate in an off-topic conversation. Thank you.

One rhetorical question from me: ever heard of licences!?

 

Grüße

 

[BIGNEWY]

We are way off topic now so I will close. 

 

Our rule 1.16 is there to protect you and us, it is not up for debate. 

Thank you