Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The End of Finale

finalemusic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 183 posts

Re: The End of Finale

#131

Post by dahart »

EvanAnderson wrote: post #130
dahart wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess that depends on what they want, and what their agreement with Steinberg is, and maybe the EULA, and maybe how much money and time they have to maintain an auth server machine. What you’re actually complaining about is the fact that the software was remotely authorized in the first place, starting over 3 decades ago, not that it was discontinued and will stop. It’s fine and fair to be against the idea of relea…

> Software that is remotely authorized always comes with the risk that authorization will go away, it would be pretty silly to assume otherwise. Consumers don't know this. This is why we need consumer protection regulation to control these practices.

Nobody who bought is unaware that it’s remotely authorized. And, there’s a 30 day refund policy, so if they find out after purchase, they can change their mind.

You might have a point when it comes to, say, MS Windows, but not Finale.

Re: The End of Finale

#132

Post by EvanAnderson »

dahart wrote: post #131
EvanAnderson wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Software that is remotely authorized always comes with the risk that authorization will go away, it would be pretty silly to assume otherwise. Consumers don't know this. This is why we need consumer protection regulation to control these practices.

Nobody who bought is unaware that it’s remotely authorized. And, there’s a 30 day refund policy, so if they find out after purchase, they can change their mind. You might have a point when it comes to, say, MS Windows, but not Finale.

> Nobody who bought is unaware that it’s remotely authorized.

You're radically overestimating the understanding of consumers. The target market for a product like Finale is decidedly not "IT people".

Re: The End of Finale

#133

Post by wvenable »

dahart wrote: post #125
wvenable wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you agree that losing access to new installs after a year sucks, and you understand why paid users are angry I don't know why you keep replying. This is an unnecessary user-hostile thing to do and, in my opinion, should be illegal. If you sell a product, you should not be able to post-sale revoke access to that product. This is even more cut-and-dried than products that rely on servers for actual functionality.

I’m replying because we’re having a discussion, and because it has been clear all along that you didn’t quite understand my position before arguing with it, so I’m trying to better explain it. I do agree that losing access sucks, and I do see why some paid users are angry, so maybe you don’t actually disagree with me after all. Maybe it should be illegal to turn off new installs after a year, I could agree with that…

They should just remove the need for the auth server entirely. Whether or not it benefits very many people is beside the point; it's the principle. Allowing their users to continue to use the product that they have fully paid for is morally (and potentially legally) the right thing to do.

Re: The End of Finale

#134

Post by wvenable »

dahart wrote: post #128
wvenable wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not their job to revoke access to a product that I paid for regardless of the reason. If they sold me that product I should be able to pop that software into a Windows 10 VM and use it till the end of time.

I guess that depends on what they want, and what their agreement with Steinberg is, and maybe the EULA, and maybe how much money and time they have to maintain an auth server machine. What you’re actually complaining about is the fact that the software was remotely authorized in the first place, starting over 3 decades ago, not that it was discontinued and will stop. It’s fine and fair to be against the idea of relea…

Why should their agreement with Steinberg factor into this?

There is no need to maintain the auth server just make the one-time cost of removing the requirement of the auth server.

As for this particular EULA, if the publisher stops selling the software, they shouldn't be able to revoke existing licenses based on it. The license was granted in exchange for a fee, creating an expectation that the software could be used indefinitely under the agreed terms. Their EULA specifies that revocation is linked to breaches by the licensee, not the publisher's business decisions.

Their EULA lacks any clause that allows revocation simply because the software is no longer sold. Revoking a license under these circumstances would remove their right to use a product they legally purchased, which is a violation of their consumer rights. The publisher's decision to withdraw the software from the market shouldn’t negate the licensee's ability to continue using it as originally intended.

Software being remotely authorized is an implementation detail not a contractual one. It literally doesn't matter. It's their job to allow software legally purchased to continue to function however they are able to do it.

Re: The End of Finale

#135

Post by dahart »

EvanAnderson wrote: post #132
dahart wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody who bought is unaware that it’s remotely authorized. And, there’s a 30 day refund policy, so if they find out after purchase, they can change their mind. You might have a point when it comes to, say, MS Windows, but not Finale.

> Nobody who bought is unaware that it’s remotely authorized. You're radically overestimating the understanding of consumers. The target market for a product like Finale is decidedly not "IT people".

Maybe, but the problems with your new argument are 1) Finale requires explicit authorization, it’s a manual process the user has to do when first launching so you seem to be speculating or making things up, 2) this moved the goal posts for the thread and you’re undermining @wvenable’s argument and others by suggesting they didn’t understand what they were doing 3) it doesn’t matter what your or I think about consumers, what matters is what the EULA and/or sales contract said.

And why did you quote “IT people”, who said anything about IT people?

Re: The End of Finale

#136

Post by FireBeyond »

dahart wrote: post #128
wvenable wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not their job to revoke access to a product that I paid for regardless of the reason. If they sold me that product I should be able to pop that software into a Windows 10 VM and use it till the end of time.

I guess that depends on what they want, and what their agreement with Steinberg is, and maybe the EULA, and maybe how much money and time they have to maintain an auth server machine. What you’re actually complaining about is the fact that the software was remotely authorized in the first place, starting over 3 decades ago, not that it was discontinued and will stop. It’s fine and fair to be against the idea of relea…

> I guess that depends on what they want, and what their agreement with Steinberg is, and maybe the EULA, and maybe how much money and time they have to maintain an auth server machine.

Their agreement with Steinberg doesn't absolve them of their rights to me.

Re: The End of Finale

#137

Post by FireBeyond »

dahart wrote: post #105
domador wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's stealing. It's one thing if I buy a tool and it breaks down naturally. That does happen... in the physical world. It should NEVER happen in the software world, not for a standalone tool. If a company that sold you the tool (which you expected to use indefinitely) then goes out of their way to make sure you can't keep using that tool, then yeah, that's stealing. Actually, it's not stealing. It's sabotage. (And ye…

I hope people treat you with respect and understanding and don’t attack you for stealing if you ever need to discontinue any of your software products or happen to go out of business. I have had my own software business, and had to plan the sunset of a paid product, and it would have been hurtful if people accused me of stealing when I was already hurting due to being out of money and feeling like a failure. Thankful…

> I hope people treat you with respect and understanding and don’t attack you for stealing if you ever need to discontinue any of your software products or happen to go out of business.

No-one is attacking MakeMusic for discontinuing their product, yet you continue to assert this.

People are attacking MakeMusic for removing a way that you can continue to use their product as long as there are no technical limitations preventing you. No-one is saying "Oh, it needs to support Windows 14 and macOS 18". They are saying "there is nothing wrong with the software I purchased, nor the hardware I wish to run it on. You are just arbitrarily preventing me from doing so".

They don't have to keep activation servers running. Create a patch that disables the online activation requirement. Done.

Re: The End of Finale

#138

Post by dahart »

FireBeyond wrote: post #136
dahart wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess that depends on what they want, and what their agreement with Steinberg is, and maybe the EULA, and maybe how much money and time they have to maintain an auth server machine. What you’re actually complaining about is the fact that the software was remotely authorized in the first place, starting over 3 decades ago, not that it was discontinued and will stop. It’s fine and fair to be against the idea of relea…

> I guess that depends on what they want, and what their agreement with Steinberg is, and maybe the EULA, and maybe how much money and time they have to maintain an auth server machine. Their agreement with Steinberg doesn't absolve them of their rights to me.

> Their agreement with Steinberg doesn't absolve them of their rights to me.

I assume you mean responsibilities? What are those, exactly?

Re: The End of Finale

#140

Post by dahart »

wvenable wrote: post #134
dahart wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess that depends on what they want, and what their agreement with Steinberg is, and maybe the EULA, and maybe how much money and time they have to maintain an auth server machine. What you’re actually complaining about is the fact that the software was remotely authorized in the first place, starting over 3 decades ago, not that it was discontinued and will stop. It’s fine and fair to be against the idea of relea…

Why should their agreement with Steinberg factor into this? There is no need to maintain the auth server just make the one-time cost of removing the requirement of the auth server. As for this particular EULA, if the publisher stops selling the software, they shouldn't be able to revoke existing licenses based on it. The license was granted in exchange for a fee, creating an expectation that the software could be use…

> Why should their agreement with Steinberg factor into this?

I’m speculating, but it could be possible that turning off authorization is Steingberg’s request or stipulation for offering a Dorico discount. Was that not clear before this point? If true, does it change your calculus at all?

> Software being remotely authorized is an implementation detail not a contractual one.

Section 9 “Authorization” of the June 2021 EULA disproves that claim.

https://wpmedia.makemusic.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Fin...

> It’s their job to allow software legally purchased to continue to function however they are able to do it.

Says who? Do you have any laws or contracts you can cite to back that up? I know you’re just trying to convince me that they shouldn’t be able to turn off remote authorization of new installs next year, however turning off authorization is a thing that can happen with any software packages that use remote authorization, because remote authorization is a common practice. Again, I’m not debating the ethics of said practice. But if you think that remote auth should be illegal, then you should never have bought Finale in the first place.

Post reply on HN