There is nothing unreasonable about the demand that continue to make software that they sold installable by the owners. That's completely reasonable. It's actually far more unreaonable to sell someone a product and the next day make it unable to be reinstalled. That's unreasonable. I would even hope that would be illegal; it's too bad it's probably not.

> It’s actually far more unreasonable to sell someone a product and the next day make it unable to be reinstalled. That’s unreasonable.

I agree. So does MakeMusic, I guess, which is why they have at least a 30 day refund, and a whole year before new install authorizations end. I feel like I’m being misunderstood and misquoted and you’re arguing against things I didn’t say. I agree that losing access to new installs of Finale after a year sucks. I understand why paid users are angry. I assume the no re-auth after a year part could be a non-compete stipulation in their agreement with Steinberg. If most current Finale users value the ~$450 Dorico discount, maybe it’s worth the blowback, otherwise, maybe not.

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 in some circumstances, but you continue to exaggerate and oversimplify the actual situation which doesn’t help, and this feels purely dogmatic now and not particularly real-world. Leaving the auth server on is unlikely to benefit very many people. In both directions, it seems more symbolic than functional. If they turn it off, hardly anyone will be affected but maybe it appeases Steinberg, and if they leave it on, hardly anyone will be affected but maybe it appeases internet mobs.

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.

Yes I see your point is a principle you have and that you aren’t interested in discussing any nuance or details. I have heard and acknowledged your opinion multiple times that they should not disable the auth server. I understand that and I’m not disagreeing with it, so there’s no need to keep repeating it over and over unless you have new evidence, reasons, points to discuss.

For MakeMusic, I don’t know, but whether it benefits the most Finale users may be the entire point from their perspective. And it might matter to the users too, even if it doesn’t matter to you. The dev’s principles might prioritize maximum benefit for the most users over the anger that shutting off the auth server could potentially lead to. They are offering a tradeoff for which there is no perfect solution for everyone. Leaving the auth server on but not offering a Dorico discount might be overall significantly less good than what they did, even if what they did isn’t perfect or agreeable by your standards. That possibility is interesting and worth considering to me, even if not to you.

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.