• x00z@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    13 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      13 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
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        13 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.

        • FreedomAdvocate
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          9 hours ago

          So you’d rather they just close the company down, so then no one can use their VPN. Big brain move.

          • x00z@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            5 hours 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.

            • FreedomAdvocate
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 hours ago

              OK so you’re against the sale of the company in the first place? That’s a different story.

              • x00z@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 hours ago

                Yes I think they should just honor the contracts and make a tiny bit less profit.

                They could even just add some sane limits if those were not present yet.

                • FreedomAdvocate
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 hours ago

                  You have no idea about why they sold or how the financials of the business were.

                  Of the contracts stated that the offer could be changed at the company’s choosing, are you ok with it then?

                  • x00z@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    2 hours ago

                    Sorry bud but I’m not going to continue replying to you because of your condescending tone. Are you ok with that?