I don't have a proverbial dog in this race but I agree with the outrage and I don't think "stealing back" is at all hyperbolic.
I guess if you're really really really young and all you know is subscription based software, then that is the world you know and you might just be accustomed to it and accept it.
But if Finale has been around for 35 years, then it existed long before "cloud" and long before subscription software was a thing.
If someone has invested money and time into using that software, into creating project files that only work with it, in learning how to use that then it is not remotely acceptable in my opinion to disable their access to something that they have paid for and invested in. I don't think that "stealing" is an inappropriate word to use in that case. Not even a little bit of hyperbole.
Does that mean that MakeMusic should continue to invest their own resources into maintaining it? Absolutely not. To answer your question: "what do you actually want to have happen to Finale that’s realistic for MakeMusic?": I would suggest that they allow people who have paid for it to continue to use it indefinitely.
This might mean that they need to release a patched version that's not going to activate remotely through their servers with a download link that will eventually expire.
I acknowledge that that doesn't cost them "absolutely nothing" but it's not a major expense (also happens to be a fixed cost) and it prevents them from being akin to your fridge manufacturer saying "we are discontinuing this model, as well as repair services for this model, therefore we are going to enter your house and physically remove your fridge one year from now so that you will be forever unable to use the thing that you paid us money for." What they get in return for this one time "end of life" service for their paying customers is customer retention and good will. I mean, I know that I will never consider buying anything from MakeMusic as a result of hearing that they might shut off my access to things I bought and paid for at any time.
Users who’ve paid for it can continue to use it indefinitely, albeit with no support after 1 year from now. The fridge analogy is wrong. MakeMusic is not going to remove the software from your computer.
> it’s not a major expense (also happens to be a fixed cost)
That’s unlikely to be true, and not anyone’s decision but MakeMusic’s. What if they don’t have the money? It’s not reasonable for me to ask you to pay me $10 on the grounds that it’s not a major expense and is a fixed cost, right?
Users who’ve paid for it can continue to use it indefinitely, albeit with no support after 1 year from now
FALSE.
From the announcement, "It will not be possible to authorize Finale on any new devices, or reauthorize Finale".
If I have to reinstall it for any reason, such as my computer dying, or I get a virus, or I upgrade my computer, or any myriad of reasons, I am completely SOL and can no longer "continue to use it indefinitely".
Yes! Your existing authorized Finale installations will continue to work as long as your current computer is working.”
BTW, I did make the mistake of saying ‘forever’ in another comment, but FWIW ‘indefinitely’ doesn’t mean forever. Also, it doesn’t matter what I say, I don’t work for MakeMusic, just read the whole FAQ.
You just really like arguing for the sake of arguing don't you?
I'm sure that if I opened a dictionary I would find the distinction, but most people treat the words 'indefinitely' and 'forever' as synonymous. Nit-picking on that minutia kind of makes you come across like the obnoxious little brother who does the "But I'm not touching you!" thing to his sister. It's just annoying and most reasonable people know exactly how 'indefinitely' and 'forever' will be interpreted.
Yeah sure, in a way. It’s kinda dumb in the sense that ‘as long as your computer is working’ actually means ‘ending soon’, for the majority of people in the real world. That seems obvious though. Few people if anyone can keep their current computer working with a software app that freezes. It might stop working in a year, it might be more than that, or might be less than that (which they explicitly admit re: Sequoia).
It’s a sort of glass-half-full spin, perhaps, but doesn’t seem misleading to me in light of all the FAQ entries and the letter. They are very clearly and explicitly recommending users move off of Finale asap, and not wait for the computer to stop working, whatever that might mean. If someone really truly depends on Finale professionally, and can’t move within a year, it’s not outside the bounds of possibility to freeze their computer, buy a new one for everything else, and keep Finale running for a while. I would in no way recommend that, but I’ve seen people do it before.
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 releasing software that requires remote authorization, I’m not arguing against that idea. But if you are, then don’t buy it in the first place. Software that is remotely authorized always comes with the risk that authorization will go away, it would be pretty silly to assume otherwise.
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.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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:
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.
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.
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?
> 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'm not the person you're replying to but I interpreted what they were saying as meaning "tech savvy."
I certainly meant "tech savvy" at the last-- if not out right someone who works in IT. The kinds of questions you rhetorically asked re: the activation process are the kinds of questions I'd ask as an IT worker evaluating a product for use in a business. Those kinds of questions are well beyond what the average tech saavy person would even think to ask. They are "unknown unknowns" to people who haven't dealt with intricate software licensing arrangements.
> 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.
Thanks for articulating this. I was thinking the same thing-- particularly as I watched your interaction the grandparent poster in other parts of these comments. I wanted to say something like this but couldn't come up with an articulate way to do it quickly.
It’s much better you didn’t before, except now you did which sadly undermines the rest of your argument. I wasn’t particularly defending MakeMusic, I was just resisting a pitchfork mob thread that was posting misinformation by people who have absolutely zero actual intent to run Finale next year, and no they’re not paying me :eyeroll:. @gspencley just didn’t understand my position before deciding to troll with multiple mean-spirited low-class and ad-hominem attacks that are wildly against HN guidelines. Unfortunately for him, that demonstrates his argument is weak and that he knows it, since he didn’t feel like he could make his point without stooping to name-calling. Now you know it too.
> 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.
> That’s unlikely to be true, and not anyone’s decision but MakeMusic’s
The nuance here is that it depends on the contract between MakeMusic and their customers. If I'm purchasing a subscription and the fine print makes it clear that service may be discontinued at any point for any reason, fair enough. If I make a one-time purchase and expect that I will be able to use what I paid for indefinitely, then them taking down their activation servers without providing a workaround might be a violation of their contract with their customers.
But I'm not making a completely ill-informed proposition when I suggest that the expense would be minimal and fixed for MakeMusic to do what I suggested. Obviously I don't know all of the details about how their software works, so I can't know for sure. I'm making certain assumptions based on how long their software has been around, the fact that they have a remote activation mechanism and having developed software professionally myself for over 25 years.
I guess if you're really really really young and all you know is subscription based software, then that is the world you know and you might just be accustomed to it and accept it.
But if Finale has been around for 35 years, then it existed long before "cloud" and long before subscription software was a thing.
If someone has invested money and time into using that software, into creating project files that only work with it, in learning how to use that then it is not remotely acceptable in my opinion to disable their access to something that they have paid for and invested in. I don't think that "stealing" is an inappropriate word to use in that case. Not even a little bit of hyperbole.
Does that mean that MakeMusic should continue to invest their own resources into maintaining it? Absolutely not. To answer your question: "what do you actually want to have happen to Finale that’s realistic for MakeMusic?": I would suggest that they allow people who have paid for it to continue to use it indefinitely.
This might mean that they need to release a patched version that's not going to activate remotely through their servers with a download link that will eventually expire.
I acknowledge that that doesn't cost them "absolutely nothing" but it's not a major expense (also happens to be a fixed cost) and it prevents them from being akin to your fridge manufacturer saying "we are discontinuing this model, as well as repair services for this model, therefore we are going to enter your house and physically remove your fridge one year from now so that you will be forever unable to use the thing that you paid us money for." What they get in return for this one time "end of life" service for their paying customers is customer retention and good will. I mean, I know that I will never consider buying anything from MakeMusic as a result of hearing that they might shut off my access to things I bought and paid for at any time.