I think it's totally absurd and deplorable to rent software, for the valid reason pointed out, and I will say it again in case you conveniently missed it on purpose ...

PUT BEFORE A COURT, NEITHER ADOBE NOR AUTODESK WOULD HAVE A VALID REASON FOR WHY, AFTER A CONSUMER HAS COVERED THE COST OF A PERPETUAL LICENCE, THEY SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED ONE.

If I were a judge, I would take the price they used to charge for a perpetual licence before the "subscription" system was introduced. I would then order that every consumer that has subscribed to that product, be granted, by law, a perpetual licence to that product, once their subscription has covered the cost of that perpetual licence.

Adobe and Autodesk would be free cry their heads off, because whether they like it or not, once the consumer covers the cost of a perpetual licence, they are entitled to that perpetual licence. The offering of a perpetual licence was no problem before the introduction of the "subscription" system, so they should have no problem supplying one under that system once the cost of a perpetual licence has been covered.

People can bitch, whine, be as dumb or sarcastic as they like, but one thing they cannot do, is fault what I just pointed out in bold.