waiting for resolution ED/RAZBAM Situation Info & Discussion

[cfrag]

32 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

but they have a moral one

Perhaps. There is no enforcement of morals, though. If you want to make a lawyer laugh, cite 'moral standards'. One person's moral anchor is another person's punchline. We really don't want to go down that 'moral' road.

32 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

though it still could be morally justified if the money was needed urgently enough

Never. That is called vigilantism, and its a manifestation of how one believes themselves to be morally superior to others, attempting to justify their own transgressing against others by perceived or even actual injustice. If the money is needed urgently enough, there are other means besides breaking the law. 

32 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

she'd be fully justified in hating Mickey's guts and treating him like dirt for the rest of his life

Oh yes. Even if he didn't steal the money. As long as she does not harm Mickey in any way, that's fine.

Laws change with the 'moral landscape' of the prevailing population, and what was a capital crime a few decades ago, can turn into rights (e.g. Germany's freedom of sexual orientation), and what once was a right can turn into a punishable offense (e.g. US's Jim Crow laws) over time. Laws are therefore never perfect, nor perfectly just.

This ambiguity can tempt some people (usually people who strongly believe that they are right) to seek the "court of public opinion" rather than rolling the dice in a "real" court. To me personally, that's often a red flag. When companies engage in litigation, they often realize that there is no straight right or wrong in the public's eye, it's almost always a matter of viewpoint. So when they settle out of court, they almost always agree to never say a word of what was agreed, and hope that the fallout from whatever transpired before remains contained. 

It's what we say in my company: if you have to go to court, you have already lost, no matter what the result: there will be bad publicity. Clearly, I think that this is happening now, no matter who is right or wrong. It is disappointing to me that it has come that far, and I'm still hoping for a resolution with minimal fallout for us consumers.

Edited May 2 by cfrag

[Aapje]

@cfrag

That entire comment has nothing to do with the statement that you are responding to. That the dealings of ED with consumers was impacted by the dispute between Razbam and ED is a fact, and the matter of guilt is quite irrelevant to that specific issue. So I don't understand why you bring that up, in this context.

All that is needed for my statement to be true is a certain impact to consumers (like a lack of updates and the removal of modules from the store) and evidence that this is caused by the conflict between ED and Razbam. Again, everyone agrees on this, including ED and Razbam. In fact, this is on of the few things that ED has made a statement about.

[NineLine]

6 hours ago, MAXsenna said:

He's track record isn't exactly stellar. 

It's off topic here, of course, but everyone has made mistakes. It's ok to forgive, or if you don't want to, then just ignore him. Spud, like many others just loves DCS, and that spills over at times. I also know he has paid for a lot of his mistakes and has taken it; something should be said about that. It also seems to be that the more popular you become, the more people like to try and break you down as well. This goes for a lot of content creators. 

[Aapje]

2 hours ago, cfrag said:

You see, in legal matters it is irrelevant what lead to a cessation of services or a claim in a customer's dealings with ED. ED will have to deal with that in a separate matter. They (ED) can then turn around and try to get reimbursed from whomever have caused them whatever damages ED might have to pay to you. Legally, those are completely different matters, and usually different laws. Customers have a contract with ED. You and ED - those are the only parties relevant in a claim between you and ED. Who or whatever caused ED not being able to fulfil their contract to you is irrelevant to your claim. That's legal 101, and helps simplify matters. Keep separate things separate. 

And none of that conflicts with what I wrote.

In fact, that is exactly why I am against the kind of kind of reasoning where everything that harms consumers, is blamed on Razbam. Even if Razbam is completely at fault in all respects of the conflict between the two, then ED can still have legal and/or moral obligations to their customers, and you can have an opinion on whether they are meeting those obligations. This brings me to:

1 hour ago, freehand said:

What loss do you want from ED ? not clear what you are saying.

I intentionally try to talk about general principles, rather than get very specific, since we lack a lot of details. But I can give an example, with the caveat that this is merely a possibility and I don't have the facts to know whether the assumptions in the example are true. But it can illustrate the general principle:

Lets imagine that the contract between ED and Razbam contains a huge fine for whatever Razbam did. At that point, ED can feel entitled to collect this fine. However, collecting that fine may bankrupt Razbam, or make the prospect of further collaboration with ED a non-starter. In that case, ED could decide to reduce their claim to a figure that is sufficiently punitive to Razbam so they would never do it again. They could even look to criminal law for inspiration, and sign a probationary contract with Razbam, where part of the fine is not collected unless Razbam offends again. And then in turn, Razbam would return to work on the consumer modules.

In such a scenario, ED would lose out on part of the fine, but they would do the right thing for the customers of DCS.

But again, what they can do depends on details that we do not know. However, the way things went does suggest to me that ED didn't do as much as they probably could.

Edited May 2 by Aapje

[cfrag]

4 minutes ago, Aapje said:

All that is needed for my statement to be true is a certain impact to consumers (like a lack of updates and the removal of modules from the store) and evidence that this is caused by the conflict between ED and Razbam.

Ah, I may have misunderstood. To be sure that we are saying the same thing:

1. If ED can't fulfil a contractual obligation to a customer, they will (if ordered so by a court) offer remedial action or refund to the client for the damages incurred by not fulfilling their obligation. This is between the customer and ED, and RZ does not enter in this at all. Here, a court will find in favour of the customer against ED.
2. Any damages that ED had to pay to customers, ED can then try and submit as a claim against the party that caused the damage, in our case probably RZ. This is completely independent of above first point. If successful, a court decides in favour of ED against RZ. 

Let us assume courts decide in favour of the client in (1) and in favour of ED in (2). These two are NOT interconnected. That is an important distinction. If, e.g. as a result of the verdict (2), RZ goes bankrupt and can't pay ED, ED will still have to pay the customer what was awarded to them in (1). The two cases are NOT linked. 

This means that even it it is 100% established that RZ's actions caused ED to fail their obligations towards their (ED's) customer, ED will have to pay for it. Only then can they turn around and try to get remedy from the party that caused them harm.  

[NineLine]

Just now, Aapje said:

And none of that conflicts with what I wrote.

In fact, that is exactly why I am against the kind of kind of reasoning where everything that ED does is blamed on Razbam. Even if Razbam is completely at fault in all respects of the conflict between the two, then ED can still have legal and/or moral obligations to their customers, and you can have an opinion on whether they are meeting those obligations. This brings me to:

I intentionally try to talk about general principles, rather than get very specific, since we lack a lot of details. But I can give an example, with the caveat that this is merely a possibility and I don't have the facts to know whether the assumptions in the example are true. But it can illustrate the general principle:

Lets imagine that the contract between ED and Razbam contains a huge fine for whatever Razbam did. At that point, ED can feel entitled to collect this fine. However, collecting that fine may bankrupt Razbam, or make the prospect of further collaboration with ED a non-starter. In that case, ED could decide to reduce their claim to a figure that is sufficiently punitive to Razbam so they would never do it again. They could even look to criminal law for inspiration, and sign a probationary contract with Razbam, where part of the fine is not collected unless Razbam offends again. And then in turn, Razbam would return to work on the consumer modules.

In such a scenario, ED would lose out on part of the fine, but they would do the right thing for the customers of DCS.

And this is why speculation really doesn't work, nothing you said really works based on what is going on. So while I appreciate your guys needing to discuss this, you only have a small understanding of what is going on and what is at stake. The bottom line, though, is that the health of DCS and the protection of our customers investment is the most important here. 

[Tulkas]

43 minutes ago, NineLine said:

It's off topic here, of course, but everyone has made mistakes. It's ok to forgive, or if you don't want to, then just ignore him. Spud, like many others just loves DCS, and that spills over at times. I also know he has paid for a lot of his mistakes and has taken it; something should be said about that. It also seems to be that the more popular you become, the more people like to try and break you down as well. This goes for a lot of content creators. 

Well, I agree that if the person just brings content, tutorials… and that kind of value to the community it is unfair to bring that past to the table.

But if the person gets involved in a highly divided and heated subject clamming to have “inside information” from “sources who wish to remain anonymous” it is only fair to warn viewers and possible viewers that could be a credibility problem due to past dishonest actions directed to increase popularity online.

[NineLine]

1 minute ago, Tulkas said:

Well, I agree that if the person just brings content, tutorials… and that kind of value to the community it is unfair to bring that past to the table.

But if the person gets involved in a highly divided and heated subject clamming to have “inside information” from “sources who wish to remain anonymous” it is only fair to warn viewers and possible viewers that could be a credibility problem due to past dishonest actions directed to increase popularity online.

It's a two way street for sure, people bring that stuff up if they don't like their current opinion and have no real good counter to it. Like bringing up an old fact in an argument not related to the discussion. 

[Aapje]

2 hours ago, Merlin_VFA34 said:

I'm somehow not quite making sense of the current discussion. Spud's video has only raised more questions for me.

I don't understand how RB's public plan regarding the A29 could have worked? I mean information about the A29 versus the A29 module. A government wouldn't have been able to buy the module, and I assume they read the end-user license agreement. I also assume they wouldn't have made much money with another trainer-like aircraft.

ED is withholding the revenue from F15 sales, from which one can only conclude that ED believes they suffered financial damage at the hands of RB. But that would only be possible if RB had already held onto money without going through ED, which would actually mean that the A29 project had already been finished?

According to the leaked legal document, Razbam was going to deliver a simulator, so hardware with a DCS install with certain modules installed, including the A-29. And the document claims that another, unnamed company was also part of supplying this simulator.

Ultimately, it is perfectly possible to ignore an end-user license agreement.

The document claims that ED had to make concessions and expend big effort to 'save the situation.' The document strongly suggests that ED was instead intending to deliver that simulator to the Ecuadorian air force in a way that earned them way less money than if they would have done so in the normal way, and that the withholding of revenue was (in part) to make up for this.

However, note that this document has not been authenticated (although I think that is unlikely to be faked, for a few reasons), and that the document describes the accusation of one party against the other, so it is inherently a biased document.

[AndyJWest]

Just now, Aapje said:

Ultimately, it is perfectly possible to ignore an end-user license agreement.

And ultimately, it is perfectly possible to get sued for doing so.

I suggest you stop posting random non-sequiturs as if they are some sort of fount of wisdom.

[Tulkas]

8 minutes ago, NineLine said:

It's a two way street for sure, people bring that stuff up if they don't like their current opinion and have no real good counter to it. Like bringing up an old fact in an argument not related to the discussion. 

I don’t wish to extend more the exchange on this subject, but I have to make note that the vídeo was not about an opinion, but about sharing “secret information”, something that requires credibility.

[deadghostjt]

8 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

I suggest you stop posting random non-sequiturs as if they are some sort of fount of wisdom.

Are you going to win a moral fight if he doesn't? Big win.

[Dragon1-1]

1 hour ago, cfrag said:

This ambiguity can tempt some people (usually people who strongly believe that they are right) to seek the "court of public opinion" rather than rolling the dice in a "real" court. To me personally, that's often a red flag. When companies engage in litigation, they often realize that there is no straight right or wrong in the public's eye, it's almost always a matter of viewpoint. So when they settle out of court, they almost always agree to never say a word of what was agreed, and hope that the fallout from whatever transpired before remains contained. 

That's why I'm saying RAZBAM is probably in the wrong in this. In fact, public opinion is more mercurial than the real courts, which in most Western countries operate on a somewhat predictable basis. The only way anyone would consider the court of public opinion is when their chances in the real court are not particularly good. In fact, the courts are often invoked in cases where things are reasonably clear, and the overall outcome is not actually in doubt, but one party needs to be called to order by some entity that they can't ignore. In those otherwise straightforward cases, the squabble is often over what exactly the consequences for the breach should be. That's why such cases are often settled - it usually ends when one party figures continuing to fight the case will cost them more than the amount they settle it for. In this case, the NDA is an additional carrot one might hang onto the settlement offer. Keeping things quiet is generally less costly reputation-wise than outright losing the case (notably, it's the only way this doesn't end in loss for the sued party).

It doesn't seem to be that simple here, seeing as RAZBAM appears to have its own counterclaim, but that picture might be skewed, and the claim spurious.

1 hour ago, cfrag said:

Never. That is called vigilantism, and its a manifestation of how one believes themselves to be morally superior to others, attempting to justify their own transgressing against others by perceived or even actual injustice. If the money is needed urgently enough, there are other means besides breaking the law. 

Never say never. It's not a matter of believing yourself morally superior to all others. Just the government and the lawyers. Do you mean to say those are the ultimate arbiters of morality? I mean... you read the news, right? Laws are, in the end, a bunch of words written down by a bunch of politicians. Given that, it's surprising they align with any sort of morality at all (and spare a thought for who, exactly, ensures they will stay that way). In fact, you yourself mentioned laws which fall short of this. Jim Crow laws were not "imperfect", they were a crime against humanity (specifically, that of apartheid). By your logic, Rosa Parks was morally in the wrong, because she broke the law. What, exactly, would you do if the law is breaking you? Take a moment to ponder it, you may be one bad election away from being forced to answer it.

Call it vigilantism if you will, but don't pretend it's inherently wrong, or that it can't be necessary. In fact, such pretending is the first step on the road to having to resort to it. The road is not even as long as you imagine. 

15 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

And ultimately, it is perfectly possible to get sued for doing so.

Note that EULAs are generally unenforceable in many jurisdictions, which is what he might have been referring to. It wasn't a breach of EULA, because RAZBAM is not an end user. They're a subcontractor. The agreements that might have been breached have nothing to do with the EULA.

If EAF wanted to use DCS for anything, ED would have had little recourse against them (although they wouldn't be obliged to provide support or liable for any misuse outside EULA, either). In fact, suing an air force of a foreign nation would be a rather silly thing to do. They can, however, hold a contractor responsible for dealing behind their back.

Edited May 2 by Dragon1-1

[AndyJWest]

3 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Note that EULAs are generally unenforceable in many jurisdictions, which is what he might have been referring to. It wasn't a breach of EULA, because RAZBAM is not an end-user.

No, Razbam isn't an end user. They are a party to a business contract which includes clauses concerning restrictions over the use of intellectual property. There are very few, if any, jurisdictions that wouldn't consider such clauses enforceable, since without them, a great many businesses would fold.

[Dragon1-1]

Yes, but that line in particular was explicitly about EULAs. That might have been a nonsequitur, not the statement that they're generally not worth the bits they're written on.

[cfrag]

3 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

It's not a matter of believing yourself morally superior to all others. Just the government and the lawyers. Do you mean to say those are the ultimate arbiters of morality?

Unfortunately, they are in our society. Might makes right, and those who can enforce their laws will do so. That is why, a century or two ago, it was perfectly legal (and moral by some people who were able to enforce their particular brand of morals) to own slaves. 

It was one of the big lessons that I took from the Nürnberg trials: that all the horrific atrocities that my grandfather's generation committed were perfectly legal under German law, and that "new" laws had to created and/or applied: as you astutely mention crimes against humanity. It is noteworthy to me that during the time that these crimes were committed, the perpetrators did not feel that they were guilty of the crime, and the local authorities enforced the crimes.

So it is entirely possible, likely even, that today's laws encode what later is viewed a crime. Meaning: laws are not abstractions of what is "just", they merely codify what is custom in a society, and what this society (or rather: those who have agency in that society) believe to be 'moral' and 'just'. It is not advisable to go against those codes, as they often are backed up by overwhelming force.

18 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

By your logic, Rosa Parks was morally in the wrong, because she broke the law.

She did break the law. From my comfortable moral standpoint today, she did the morally right thing. From the standpoint of the white majority then, she committed an offensive act that should be punished. That is why I'm so afraid of laws that codify 'morals'. And I hope that I have enough reflection in me to acknowledge that today's laws probably also codify things that I'm okay with - and that may, at a later point in time, be deemed absolutely horrific. For example eating the flesh of a bovine. I love steak, and it is entirely possible that this marks me an uncouth barbarian 100 years down the line. 

22 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Call it vigilantism if you will, but don't pretend it's inherently wrong

My apologies for being obtuse. My own brand of self-centred morality are bodily autonomy and consent, the preservation of health and well-being and the individual values of human beings. Meaning: I would not want anyone to harm another individual in any way, and I am arrogant enough to believe that everyone should think the same. That being said, it's irrelevant what I think if the majority of the society I live in enforces other rules. So yes, to me it would be inacceptable if someone became a vigilante. And no, you are absolutely correct when you point out that simply because I say so, I could also be full of it. Right and wrong are determined by whoever can enforce their version of 'right'.

The road is indeed very short, even today: Might makes right. I believe that the US will soon give the world another lesson in what this can mean.

Goodness, although interesting, I think we have strayed far off-topic. Thank you for the great points of thought, though.

[Aapje]

On 5/2/2025 at 6:39 PM, cfrag said:

Ah, I may have misunderstood. To be sure that we are saying the same thing:

1. If ED can't fulfil a contractual obligation to a customer, they will (if ordered so by a court) offer remedial action or refund to the client for the damages incurred by not fulfilling their obligation. This is between the customer and ED, and RZ does not enter in this at all. Here, a court will find in favour of the customer against ED.
2. Any damages that ED had to pay to customers, ED can then try and submit as a claim against the party that caused the damage, in our case probably RZ. This is completely independent of above first point. If successful, a court decides in favour of ED against RZ. 

Let us assume courts decide in favour of the client in (1) and in favour of ED in (2). These two are NOT interconnected. That is an important distinction. If, e.g. as a result of the verdict (2), RZ goes bankrupt and can't pay ED, ED will still have to pay the customer what was awarded to them in (1). The two cases are NOT linked. 

This means that even it it is 100% established that RZ's actions caused ED to fail their obligations towards their (ED's) customer, ED will have to pay for it. Only then can they turn around and try to get remedy from the party that caused them harm.  

All of that is true, but it is also a bad way for ED to approach this situation. Let me explain.

Transactions between companies and consumers, and among companies, are actually only partly governed by law. I would argue that assumptions, implied promises, feelings of entitlement, feelings of obligations, reputation, and such play a major role. In fact, very few customers read the end-user agreements, so the idea that consumers willingly enter into a contract that is defined by the end-user license, is actually quite hard to defend. I think that a much stronger case can be made that the actual expectations of consumers are more defined by things such as how the product is marketed and what is considered a fair deal for that kind of product, than what the lawyers write in the document that almost no one reads.

In practice, we also see that consumers rarely go to court to demand remedial action, but more often choose to boycott that company, or to try to cause reputational damage by leaving bad reviews or complaint posts (which we regularly see on this forum). And conversely, we also see that companies very often change their behavior when lots of people get angry at them, even if the company is legally fully in the right according to their EULA.

And my experience with business to business sales is that this is actually very prevalent there as well. Lots of companies have expectations beyond what they are actually entitled to according to the contract, but they also rarely go to court if the contract is violated to some extent.

So I think that it is a trap for companies to get too invested in their contracts/EULAs. It's more of a tool to prevent them from getting taken advantage of in the most egregious ways, but in most cases, what matters more is to retain trust.

With regard to ED and the consumer, I notice that a lot of people express a loss of trust in ED due to the Razbam situation. And I think that ED should concern themselves more with regaining that trust, than adhering to the law in a way that best serves ED's interest. And the best way to do, is to keep the Razbam modules in DCS, with proper support/development. So in that sense, the cases are very much linked, since ED cannot meet the expectations of many of its customers without a good resolution in that conflict.

Edited May 3 by Aapje

[Aapje]

1 hour ago, AndyJWest said:

And ultimately, it is perfectly possible to get sued for doing so.

I suggest you stop posting random non-sequiturs as if they are some sort of fount of wisdom.

The person I responded to, suggested that it was impossible for Razbam to sell a module for use in a commercial simulator, because the EULA forbids it. So I think that it is a perfectly reasonable response to then suggest that it is in fact possible to ignore a EULA. Just because this is obvious to you, doesn't mean that it is obvious to them. Not everything is about you, and it is in fact not necessary to get offended when things are said that seem like a waste of words to you, but may not be so to others.

It's also not evidently true that ED would be able to enforce their EULA in the jurisdiction of Ecuador, also because picking a fight with a government organization can result in the judiciary of that country protecting their own government. 

Your claim that this is a random non-sequiturs is thus wrong and your attempt to police what I write is also quite rude.

Edited May 2 by Aapje

[NineLine]

Guys, lets drop this line of whatever this is... at this point, as previous, the only official things to discuss are in the first post. Everything else is not up for discussion, and honestly, the theories and ideas are getting weird and far-fetched.  

[cfrag]

2 minutes ago, NineLine said:

the theories and ideas are getting weird and far-fetched.  

As one of the perpetrators I tend to agree. Time for another wipe?  

[NineLine]

Just now, cfrag said:

As one of the perpetrators I tend to agree. Time for another wipe?  

We are at 10 11 pages, so yes

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

56 minutes ago, NineLine said:

We are at 10 11 pages, so yes

THIS POST SPONSORED BY... THE SHADOW GOVERNMENT.

[AndyJWest]

Something something Men in Black...

[pepin1234]

On 4/27/2025 at 9:13 PM, NineLine said:

I have asked the same question previously, and even the Su-25 was still very protected. 

What makes differences between DCS Mi-24 and never made by ED DCS Su-25? You made Mi-24… Belsimtek? Bulgaria had (maybe all them were ended to the current war) Su-25K. Please go ahead and make the same Mi-24 and Mi-8 move for exported or obsolete Soviet aircraft! The list is long! Su-25K Bulgarian, MiG-25 some where in a museum from ex Baltics republics, Su-22M4 ex GDR and now Poland and more and more. Make Belsimtek 2.0 move please

Edited May 3 by pepin1234

[Nightdare]

18 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

They may not have a legal obligation towards us, but they have a moral one

 

No they don't

Logic trumps your feelings

Your morals be damned if I (RB) can't pay my bills because my boss (ED) isn't paying me