Fair enough, Shane, but what just about everyone in this debate seems to forget is what the actual issue is that I have with what they are doing. I understand that software rental and subscription systems are a valid, and for some even preferable, proposition. I understand and accept that. But what I don't accept is that they should be allowed to completely remove the option of the perpetual ownership of a licence. That is the part I have a problem with, and to make matters worse, they won't grant you one even after covering the cost of one!

I get emails all the time from e-on wanting me to subscribe to VUE, and fact is I would be delighted to subscribe to VUE providing that once I cover the cost of a perpetual licence, I would actually be granted one. It is the sheer greed and abuse of denying a perpetual licence (at any cost) that I will not abide, because there simply is no valid argument for that.

The same is true of Adobe, I actually have nothing against their products, I might even be a subscriber myself out of plain curiosity, as long as there's the promise of keeping what I paid for after covering the cost of a perpetual licence.

So I'm not against software rental or subscription models, but it should be law that subscriptions are exactly that, subscriptions, not rentals. I would never rent software, but I would subscribe if it actually were a subscription. I have piles of SoundOnSound magazines going back to the 90s, most of which landed through my door under a subscription to that magazine. I no longer subscribe to the magazine, but I still own those magazines perpetually, they're all mine just as they should be, cause I paid money for them, dammit!

Anyway, thanks for the heads-up about Americans now renting-out clothes and underwear without the need to even wash them before returning them, I mean WTF, whatever next.

I don't suppose you know where Erika Eleniak shops by any chance then, do you?

I really miss Baywatch, and I only used to watch it to see that everyone got rescued safely, honest