"One problem with activation is that I routinely work on three different systems depending on where I am, and what I need to do," the anonymous reader continued. "These schemes do not permit using the software this way. I'm supposed to purchase a separate license for each system I need to work with! As an individual home user with thousands of dollars worth of software that I use regularly, I simply cannot afford to do this (divorce for sure). Since flexibility is more important to me and the way I work, I'd rather stay with older software that works with me instead of switching to the new software that will only create more problems to deal with. The main problem here is that all these new licensing schemes tie the software to a computer rather than the individual that has purchased it. I'd have a much easier time living with activation if it was licensed to me and followed me to each system I worked on.

"Another problem with current activation schemes is that they become a hassle to manage if you want to move it to another system or upgrade your hardware," the reader’s post continued. "While it's true that some schemes enable you to migrate your license to other systems, I have found that this ends up providing just enough friction to reduce how often I work with the software. One example is Discreet's 3dsmax animation package. 3dsmax is a terrific tool and a very expensive software package that took a major stretch for me to purchase. It's worth every penny. However, the activation scheme it uses restricts use to a single system at a time. They provide a license manager tool that enables you to export or e-mail the license to another system. At first glance this seems good. However, the reality is that more often I don't realize I need to use the tool until I am at a different system and then I can't use it since the license was not transferred ahead of time. So I end up not using it the way I had intended. Of course the simple solution to this problem is to buy another license, but at $3,500/system I won't be doing that anytime soon. So I end up using cheaper packages that don't work as well, but can be installed on the systems I work with.

"In the end, as a fellow software developer I can understand the need to protect intellectual property," the anonymous reader concluded. "But as a consumer, I am becoming increasingly frustrated with the schemes being used to do it. I don't feel that I should be penalized for wanting to use the software I purchase how and where I want to. I certainly don't like trusting companies to ‘permit’ me to use something I have already paid for, when they don't trust me back. This may be a lost cause, but until my software stops working or until these policies change, I am going to vote with my wallet and not buy or upgrade software that is sold this way."