• @FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -310 hours ago

    The new owners mentioned that in the article. They said it would cost more to do than it would to just shut the business down.

    What good outcome do you think the lifetime license owners would get in that situation?

    • @x00z@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1210 hours ago

      I have no idea, but the end users should not get fucked because the new owners didn’t know what they were buying. In many countries it is illegal for the old owners to not let the new owners know of such things.

      • @FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -110 hours ago

        Without being able to offer any idea of a solution though, saying that means nothing. The company either gets shut down and those users get fucked and have no VPN, or the company stays alive and the users have no VPN but have the option to get one again.

        The point is there’s no real way the lifetime licenses get honoured.

        • @x00z@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          89 hours ago

          Just honor them and take the loss. The new owners did a bad deal. In many countries it would be highly illegal to cancel these contracts while continuing the business. Either liquidate the company or honor the deals. Fuck capitalism.

            • @x00z@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              31 hour ago

              The people operating the company do not deserve to run it. Maybe they should declare bankruptcy and let somebody who will honor the contracts buy it.

              Allowing this kind of anti-consumer behaviour just allows them to juggle the company around to get out of contracts.