A completely legal (but unethical) way to make money?

[Boojatta]

Design software providing functionality that software consumers would ordinarily get from a single stand-alone software package that they normally buy once and can then use without making any periodic payments for any associated service. However, include in your package a variety of additional functionalities, some of which come with associated internet services.

For example, the package might allow people to create documents in a pdf format suitable for uploading to a number of publishers. However, it might also have an additional feature: free (to the purchaser) access to an online dating service for three months.

Customers will think that if they aren't interested in the free additional functionality then they can simply ignore it. After all, if customers don't want to use the dating service, then why would it matter to them? It might matter to them. The software can be designed so that, when the online dating service subscription expires after three months, the entire software package stops functioning.

It's standard for a copy of software to be sold (or technically licensed and not sold) on the condition that it is to be accepted as is, with no guarantee that it has any hoped for positive functionality. In fact, there's often a warning that in addition to not providing any positive or beneficial functionality whatsoever, the software may include malware that could erase or corrupt files, or cause other problems and that the manufacturer and seller are not responsible for malware even if the manufacturer and seller were warned about the possible or actual existence of malware in the software.

[sharesunited]

1. FTC if it's consumer fraud. DOJ if it's impermissible product tying (antitrust).

Legal-but-unethical deserves to be evolved into unlawful.

[obxhead]

2. If the primary product being sold has a time limit of activity

it is usually posted. Not certain if it is required of software makers to do so though.

Example: Virus software. It typically has a 1 year limit of functionality.

[zalinda]

3. Classmates.com is another scam

You are not warned that it is a recurring charge, and when they ding you for $39 the next year, there is no way to fight it. And even if you have it set to manual, and they ding you, sorry, out of luck with getting your money back. Once you sign up, it doesn't matter what you do, even quit, some will still get dinged for that $39. And some have even been dinged $15 a month for years, their old fee. Andrew Cuomo did file suit against them, but they are still doing it, and it doesn't help any one who had signed up before the lawsuit.

zalinda

[Xithras]

4. Actually, that would be a violation of consumer disclosure laws in most (probably all) states.

Every state I'm aware of has active consumer protection laws in place which require the disclosure of any additional fees or limits on implied functionality. It's also a federal offense to knowingly distribute malware. As a number of software companies have already learned in various suits, license agreements don't preempt consumer protection laws, and burying the information in the fine print of a license doesn't rise to the level of "disclosure".

A publisher selling software with the functionality you describe would be sued in a heartbeat. They'd probably also get nailed by several AG's looking for an easy score.