But you haven't paid for the software over and over. Paying for the software is no longer an option, you rent it.
Going back to my Sky analogy, should I demand that I have access to all the repeats. As I have already paid for them when I subscribed.
It's not really the same. The software is what it is, it has a finite value which they have already placed at circa £100 by previously selling it at that price. That's what it's worth. They are now asking a lot, lot more for it over an indefinite period. That is simply unfair to the consumer in the long run.
With your Sky analogy, you are paying to be able to view the programming, programmes you are effectively paying for as you go. This doesn't have a finite value, moreover an ongoing value. This is why subscription for this sort of service works. Sky repeats often appear on other channels for free after a while once aired by sky, as their broadcast licence will be normally for a first run.
A far better analogy would be lease hire on a car purchase where you pay the car off or exchange for a new one. You wouldn't carry on paying the monthly rate for the car to the dealer after you've paid it's full RRP would you?
I will always argue something of a finite, definitive value becomes unfair when you have paid more and more than the product is worth, especially as you could always historically buy it outright and use for however long you want. We all know why this has changed - they will make a lot more money from end users, pure and simple. It also sets a dangerous president, will this now happen with OS software, gaming etc etc?
What exactly are you paying for once you've covered the cost of the product other than updates (which were free before)?
I honestly don't know why people are defending this strategy, like I said, my copy of LR would have cost me over £600 for £110 worth of product had I been on the current sub rate?