Hacker News Reader

Comment by planede | Hacker News Reader

Isn't this just breach of contract, plain and simple? Change of ownership should have little to do with it.

I imagine this is one of those extremely common situations where the law doesn’t matter. Even if you are entitled to some compensation, how are you going to get it?

The only recourse is taking them to court which will end up costing your time, money, and sanity.

I think it could be an easyish case for small claims. Bought software at X date, used it for Y years, expected to use it for a further Z years in professional career, and now you can only use it for 2 further years, instead of Z. Get atleast a refund for the years that you won't be able to use.

Cost of lifetime license: $39

Time used so far: 4 years

Time remaining with new license: 2 years

Time lost due to license change: 20 years

Damages awarded to the plaintiff: $30

Court fees: $70

Could be recovered in a winning case, right?

Depends, but often yes

>Court fees: $70

Plus the opportunity cost of your lost time.

Author bought "premium lifetime" license. In 2019 May it cost $129 (discounted from $199, apparently).

https://web.archive.org/web/20190508161003/https://manycam.c...

I mean if there are a large enough group of users with that lifetime license a class-action might be worthwhile for an enterprising law firm.

Name a class action suit that harmed a business enough that the violation they committed was no longer profitable.

There is probably some legal way that the transferred company can wrangle itself out of such obligations. Such as, for instance, that the company is actually a wholly different corporate entity which is just using the assets and branding of the original.

Not a lawyer, not a customer, not read the ToS.

But the wording allows for many options.

A lifetime license, to a specific version. With no updates. A lifetime license for upgrades.

Most likely there is a clause that allows them to change the "Lifetime" subscription to anything they want.

I’m guessing that would fall under false advertising

The original language seems pretty clear that it was for all future versions.

https://forum.manycam.com/uploads/default/optimized/2X/0/0da...

That’s not the contract. That’s the advertising.

In my limited experience, companies that breach contracts like this plan for a small amount of litigation in their books, and determine that not enough people will have the means or will to sue them, but the profits of breaching the contracts will be enough to cover the few that do.

Which is why punitive damages should be more common. It should NEVER be financially feasible to bet against the courts and your own liability.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com