At 05:09 AM 8/24/04 -0500, Dennis W. Manasco wrote: >Finale has already reached subscription status. >Once users surrendered themselves to groveling before the Finale Copy >Protection Server for each installation subscription status was fait >accompli. >Why should the Copy Protection Server allow the installation of a >no-longer current version of the program? Perhaps a simulacrum of >largess might allow it to consider the previous version, but why >should it consider two or three-year-old versions? And what happens >if the Copy Protection Server is out to lunch (perchance permanently)? >Does anyone really believe that when their computer inevitably fails >they will be able to install older releases of Copy Protection Server >"enhanced" versions of Finale?
I had stopped thumping this drum because it seemed most Finale users were perfectly happy with this corporate abuse. I'm not, and Finale 2K3 is my last version for now. If companies were sincere in protecting *both* their customers' interests and their own at the same time, they would do the right thing and act on it. Here is an outline (slightly updated) that I published in an article last September. Companies who insist on copy-protection schemes should: 1. Publish the protection information truthfully on their website, in adverstising and mailers, and all ordering and order confirmation materials, always using the words "[this product] is copy-protected software," and assuring that marketing departments do not cloak this process in deceptive words. 2. Create an "Untether", which is a universal unlock key, a key-unlock software generation system, or a key-release software patch. 3. Escrow the Untether to a third party contracted to the software company exclusively for that purpose as part a legal contract. 4. Create and publish a support schedule for version obsolescence (product end-of-life). 5. Publish the Untether and distribute it to purchasers when a version is no longer supported by the company, i.e., has reached its end of life. 6. Authorize the third party to publish the Untether when the software company (a) violates the support schedule, (b) shows indications (with the third party as sole arbiter) that the product is endangered through the software company's technical, support, or economic failures, (c) fails to provide authorizations in a timely manner, or (d) disrupt the software's use by legitimate purchasers. 7. Require the serial number or other proof of purchase to obtain upgrades legitimately. 8. Include the Untether as part of both the user agreement and warranty. None of the above creates a corporate disadvantage (e.g., the end-of-life announcement is already part of the software industry's working methods), which has been companies' main argument against escrow. Short of eliminating the copy protection scheme itself, a formal Untether system is the right thing to do, and until Finale does it, I won't believe one single promise they make. Not one. Dennis _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
