Dennis W. Manasco wrote:
So what happens if a principal makes a decision that causes loss of income for a litigating class?
i.e.: What if the principal was one of those who made the decision to institute a "tethered" copy-protection scheme that, during the implosion of the business, caused numerous customers to lose a significant portion of their livelihood?
The "tether" Finale uses is not one that would automatically cause numerous customers to lose livelihood "during the implosion of the business". If the business fails, most customers will be able to continue to use Finale on their existing machine for an undefined period of time, subject to a number of circumstances. The customers who would be unable to use Finale would be those who require a new authentication code, when there is no entity to provide it. These would be people who decide to make a new installation on new hardware, and those who require a new installation because a critical componenet of the hardware they were previously using failed. For most customers, there will be a lengthy window during which, while they may not be able to get a new authentication code, they will still be able to run their existing installation, and it is only wise business practice, in that case, to switch to another software product. Indeed, it is good business practice to plan for critical problems in one's business, so that when they occur, it is merely a challenge instead of a catastrophe.
Further, if one requires an authentication code because of the failure of a critical hardware component in a system on which the software was previously operating, one is going to have to prove why the "tether" created by the software company was responsible, instead of the manufacturer of the hardware which failed, and I would suggest that if the defendant shows that several thousands of other users are still using the tethered software and using it to generate income, that the decision to tether the software was not the major cause of loss of income, but rather loss of income was a consequence of factors over which the software vendor had no knowledge or control.
Further, one of the principal's defenses is going to be that the warranty for the software, since at least version 2k, specifically states
the entire risk as to the quality and peformance of the software and accompanying documentation materials is with you. You assume all responsibility for selection of software and accompanying documentation materials to achieve your intended results, and for the installation, use and results of the software.
If one is concerned about the viability of the company, one sghould save all of one's work in ~.ETF format and switch to lilypond, which by use of the etf2ly filter can convert Finale files to lily pond ones.
AS to signs that software industry folks are concerned about exposure despite the license, I would submit that one of the first signs of this will be a rewriting of the license, to make it good for a fixed time period (one year), after which it will have to be renewed.
Finally, I would note that Makemusic! is a publicly traded coimpany, and makes public the formst of data in the ~.etf data files. If because they use an authentication scheme to enforce the terms of the license, their products are given the sobriquet "victimware", what shall we call Sibelius, which not only uses an authentication scheme, but is a privately held company, and uses a proprietary format for it's data files? Note that there is a filter to convert Finale ~.ETF files to lilypond; there is no filter to convert Sibelius files to lilypond.
Which begs the question: Sibelius trumpets how many people have switched from Finale to Sibelius, but this is trivially easy to do; it is much more difficult to to convert back the other way, and by coincidence, I've dealt with several people in the past couple of weeks who did go back, despite of the time and effort required to do so.
ns _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
