The End of Finale

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

I'm not the person you're replying to but I interpreted what they were saying as meaning "tech savvy."

The average, non-tech-savvy user doesn't necessarily understand the concept of client/server applications let alone realize that what makes the software that they purchased work is bound to a remote server / someone else's computer that could one day disappear.

I've been following this thread and in another reply it was pointed out that Finale has a 30 day money back guarantee, that "everyone" who uses Finale knows about the remote activation mechanism and that if they discover it after purchase and do not agree they can take advantage of that 30 day money back guarantee.

I think this argument is weak.

What a user typically experiences after installing new software is a dialogue asking them to enter their email and password that was used at the time of purchasing.

What happens after that is not necessarily clear.

Does it need to send the email and password to a remote server in order to verify the license every single time the application starts, or is this a one time activation?

From the user's perspective, is it made blatantly clear that the software is asking for the information for the purpose of product activation or is it merely for personalization purposes?

For that matter, does it actually serve any functional purpose at all, or is it just annoying data collection that can't be skipped?

20 years ago, EULAs were one of the big talking points online when it came to software companies. There was a question as to whether EULAs would actually be enforceable, binding contracts that courts would recognize at all. This came up time and time again because of some of the content that these EULAs included. I can't remember any specifics, but I remember that there was some really eyebrow raising stuff in some EULAs. Regardless, it was well understood that most end users blindly clicked "I Agree" without ever reading the EULA. It was seen by most as an annoying thing that you had to do when installing software, and few understood the point or gave it a second thought.

My argument is that when it comes to product activation, most end users probably view it as similar to clicking "I Agree" on the EULA. I doubt very much that most non-tech-savvy users are really thinking about the fact that someone else's computer is going to need to be running in order to activate their software should they need to re-install or if they lose access to the Internet. And very few are thinking about the possibility that the company could go out of business or one day just decide to stop activating the software on re-installs because they feel like it.

I'm repeating some of what I've said in earlier replies of mine ... but this really comes down to contracts and by "contract" I don't necessarily mean a hand-written and signed document laying out terms, I just mean the agreement that was between the vendor and purchaser. That agreement can be complicated because you've got the EULA on the one hand, the company's marketing on the other and what a court would recognize and enforce if it were litigated.

I'm personally more concerned with the implied agreement because I doubt anyone will choose to litigate over this (unless there is an institution somewhere that invested a lot of money in Finale and expected to be able to use the software in perpetuity). The implied agreement matters because this speaks to what promises MusicMaker was making to their customers and if they reneg on that promise, when money is at stake, it makes them a shit company that no one should ever do business with in the future.

I also really don't understand why you're "simping" so hard for MusicMaker. Is it that you've taken a position and you're debating it as an academic exercise or out of boredom? Or are they paying you? I mean ... I've never seen anyone go to bat so hard in favour of a company screwing over their paying customers.

I see your point. But it actually concerns me more if the Dorico discount is contingent on explicitly preventing re-installs of the app. It's one thing to be merely negligent in providing a way for users to continue using the product but it's another to purposely revoke access as part of a deal that the user didn't agree to. That actually borders on shady to me even if you could spin it as a user benefit.

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

Yes, that binds the user to authorize their copy. The company must therefore provide the means for them to authorize.

As for the legality, this is pretty contentious issue in many countries which is why we are having this discussion rather than it simply being an open and shut case. A fair amount of this Wikipedia article is dedicated to this subject:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

Authorize contractually. It is not an implementation detail, right? It’s specified that it will authorize by internet connection, or otherwise by manual key entry on every subsequent launch.

> The company must therefore provide the means for them to authorize.

That’s a logical assumption, if the company wants to do business, but isn’t stated in the EULA or the law. Pay special attention to Finale EULA sections 5, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15.

All this gets extra problematic when a product or a company dies or is transferred. There are very few laws that try to force a product to continue existing once its creator decides to shelve it for any reason, even if it would be trivial for the creator to do so.

Personally, I agree with the guiding principles of the First Sale Doctrine. What we’re concluding here is that your beef is with the idea of software authorization for purchase-once (non-subscription) software that is locally installed and doesn’t depend on cloud services. As a principle, that’s fine, I don’t disagree with it. Given the specifics in this case, it’s not known yet how many people the auth server shutdown will affect next year, but it is possible (I speculate!) that the discounted upgrade path to Dorico might not exist in it’s current form if Finale left the auth server on.

Wow. I didn't see this one coming

Over 20 years ago I needed to do some engraving for a school band project, and went online looking for a solution. At the time there was SCORE, which produced beautiful pages but was a massive dog to get running on XP (dos emulators were rare and difficult to use), finale, Sibelieus, and LilyPond.

Finale was nice but far too expensive, and Sibelieus was nicer for slightly cheaper. Both rather hard amounts of money to come up with in middle and high school. So that left LilyPond.

My father is a scientist, and therefore quite handy with TeX, so he pushed me rather hard in the direction of LilyPond, running in cygwin. Took me about a week to pick it up, and another week to get my engraving looking the way I wanted. Turned it in after that and got a B from the band teacher, because apparently the school had finale on the library computers, and my output was subtly different (not wrong, different stylistic approaches to auxillary notation such as crescendos) than that of finale.

I still use lilypond to this day. I've played a bit with Sibelieus in the interim, and then dorico when Sibelieus went to hell and dorico was created. Still prefer lilypond.

But all through that period, finale basically felt like the Microsoft office of music engraving. The big juggernaut that no one can topple. Sure, the output of a finale engraving looked like it was a finale engraving, and others might have more aesthetically pleasing output, but finale was the standard. Seeing an upstart like dorico kill them is akin to something like Pages or Zoho office killing word.