Slashdot Log In
EA Hit By Class-Action Suit Over Spore DRM
Posted by
Soulskill
on Wed Sep 24, 2008 03:02 PM
from the was-it-worth-the-hassle? dept.
from the was-it-worth-the-hassle? dept.
The ever-growing unrest caused by the DRM involved with EA's launch of Spore came to a head on Monday. A woman named Melissa Thomas filed a class-action lawsuit against EA for their inclusion of the SecuROM copy-protection software with Spore. This comes after protests of the game's DRM ranged from a bombardment of poor Amazon reviews to in-game designs decrying EA and its policies. Some of those policies were eased, but EA has also threatened to ban players for even discussing SecuROM on their forums. The court documents (PDF) allege:
"What purchasers are not told is that, included in the purchase, installation, and operation of Spore is a second, undisclosed program. The name of the second program is SecuROM ... Consumers are given no control, rights, or options over SecuROM. ... Electronic Arts intentionally did not disclose to any such purchasers that the Spore game disk also possessed a second, hidden program which secretly installed to the command and control center of the computer."
Related Stories
[+]
Will DRM Exterminate Spore? 881 comments
AC Dude writes "Will an anti-DRM flash mob that's determined to give EA's latest sim game Spore a rock bottom rating on Amazon.com sink the game, or will Spore evolve and shed the DRM? Is this the beginning of the end for DRM-laden games?
'Over the past few years we've focused a lot on the music industry and how it has attempted to use DRM to control distribution. While DRM in this market segment has been unpopular, anti-DRM campaigns have largely fallen flat when it comes to attracting widespread public attention because of the fragmented nature of music. Games are a much easier target given the monolithic nature of their release — campaigners only need to spread the word on a handful of specific online outlets to reach a wide audience. A quick read through the Amazon reviews of Spore seems to suggest that the negative comments are already putting people off from buying the game.'"
[+]
EA Patches <em>Spore</em>, Eases DRM 161 comments
EA has released the first patch for Spore, the purpose of which is to fix a number of bugs and tweak some gameplay settings to be more entertaining. Some of the visual effects were upgraded as well. They've also officially responded to the complaints about Spore's DRM, stating their intention to increase the number of allowed installations to five and to set up a system to "de-authorize" systems in order to reclaim the installation credit. They plan to allow multiple screen names per account, which was an issue for many families trying to play the game. This comes not long after EA made similar changes to the DRM of upcoming RTS Red Alert 3, and after Spore's DRM protest spread to in-game creature designs. Reader SoopahMan notes that users in EA's Spore tech support forum are reporting a number of new issues caused by the patch.
[+]
Review: <em>Crysis Warhead</em> 154 comments
When Crysis was released last year, it immediately became known for two things; excellent gameplay and ridiculously high hardware requirements. With the recent release of Crysis Warhead, a standalone expansion to the original game, Crytek's plans were to maintain or improve the quality of gameplay while simultaneously streamlining it so a broader audience would have a chance to enjoy it. As it happens, they succeeded. Fans of the original game will feel right at home in Warhead, and it provides a good chance for new players who were curious but wary of Crysis's graphical requirements to give it a shot. Read on for my thoughts.
[+]
Two New Class-Action Suits Against EA Over DRM 336 comments
In September, we discussed a class-action suit filed against Electronic Arts over the DRM in Spore. Now, two new class-action suits have been filed that target the SecuROM software included in a free trial of the Spore Creature Creator (PDF) and in The Sims 2: Bon Voyage (PDF). If this sort of legal reprisal continues to catch on, EA could be seeing quite a few class-action suits in the future. One of the suits accuses:
"The inclusion of undisclosed, secretly installed DRM protection measures with a program that was freely distributed constitutes a major violation of computer owners' absolute right to control what does and what does not get loaded onto their computers, and how their computers shall be used ... [SecuROM] cannot be completely uninstalled. Once installed it becomes a permanent part of the consumer's software portfolio ... EA's EULA for Spore Creature Creator Free Trial Edition makes utterly no mention of any Technical Protection Measures, DRM technology, or SecuROM whatsoever."
[+]
Federal Trade Commission To Scrutinize DRM 211 comments
Ars Technica reports that the FTC is getting ready to take a hard look at gaming DRM, setting up a town hall meeting to be held on March 25th. They're currently recruiting panelists, and they say the meeting will, in part, "address the need to improve disclosures to consumers about DRM limitations." The controversy over DRM came to a head in 2008 with the release of Spore and the multiple subsequent class-action lawsuits focusing on the SecuROM software that came with the game. Ars Technica says the town hall meeting will also look at "legal issues surrounding DRM" and "the potential need for government involvement to protect consumers."
[+]
EA Won't Use DRM For <em>The Sims 3</em> 128 comments
After taking heavy criticism for the use of SecuROM in Spore and other games, EA has made the decision to go back to simple serial code authentication for The Sims 3. EA's Rod Humble said simply, "We feel like this is a good, time-proven solution that makes it easy for you to play the game without DRM methods that feel overly invasive or leave you concerned about authorization server access in the distant future."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
The "Ban" (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The "Ban" (Score:5, Informative)
"Please do not continue to post theses thread or you account may be at risk of banning which in some cases would mean you would need to buy a new copy to play Spore."
The text is in red, and it looks like the post has been edited. It's a shame that Spore's forums won't let you see who made the edit, however. It would be nice if we could see, without a doubt, that it was edited by a moderator.
Parent
EA has lost me (Score:5, Insightful)
BS (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:BS (Score:5, Informative)
What a BS summary of the article. I generally don't RTFA but this time I did, and it revealed a seedy-as-I've-ever-seen summary. People aren't getting banned for talking about DRM. They are being banned for being jackasses when they talk about DRM.
Correct. It's way too sensationalist. The moderator (who was obviously just fed up but spoke out of line) was threatening to ban people for starting flame wars on the forums, but the official response:
"We are happy to support healthy exchanges on the forums. And people will only get banned for breaking the rules. Discussing DRM is not breaking the rules - and as long as it is a civil conversation, it's cool with us," said "Maxislucky".
Much less dramatic, no? I know DRM is nasty, but any sort of credibility of news reporting is lost when this happens. Maybe I'm becoming more aware of it, or maybe it's happening more and more. It's hard to say...
Parent
Wrong word (Score:5, Interesting)
Several times in the PDF, the word "uninstallable" is used. However, it is used incorrectly. If the program actually were "uninstallable", then one of two things would be the case: (1) you would be able to uninstall it, or (2) you would not be able to install it.
Neither of these is the case. I believe the word the author was looking for was "ununinstallable", meaning that it could not be uninstalled.
Let's hope the lawsuit is undismissable because of this typo.
davidh
I'm so torn! (Score:5, Funny)
My loathing of DRM software is clashing horribly with my abhorrence of class-action lawsuits! What ever shall I do??
I guess I'll go play Spore until I decide.
This doesn't work! (Score:5, Interesting)
I purchased Spore ( The Galactic edition ) from Amazon on September 8th, for overnight delivery.
I could not get it installed. After 11 days of going back and forth with EA tech support, EA informed me that they assigned the software key to someone else on September 7th. EA's solution, "return the software to my place of purchase".
Sounds great, but companies such as EA have told vendors not to take returns on software that is no longer in the shrinkwrap.
I have pointed out to EA that the only viable solution is for them to issue me a new key.
I have heard nothing from EA on this since Saturday.
Maybe it is time to fire up the lawyers. EA took my money, and has not given me a product in exchange.
Excellent news. About time too. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think its more than reasonable for people to assume that the law would protect them from a commercially available product that is designed to subversively hurt them.
If by design some software silently installs itself and modifies the operating system in any way purposely disadvantageous to the user without the users express permission, then it is absolutely the dictionary definition of malware, as in software with malicious intent.
Why should there be a distinction between big companies doing it for commercial reasons or individual hackers doing it? Writers of malware apps should always be punished for unauthorised damage to other people's computer systems. period. Actually big companies should be much more strongly punished as it generally a much larger-scale crime, given the sheer number of users they infect.
That British hacker who got into the pentagon to look for UFO evidence ended up facing extradition, jail time and enormous costs for supposed damage to a few systems, even though he didn't actually change anything. Why is it that EA who subversively plant malware on your PC that permanently occupies resources and damages your access rights can get away with it?
The most revealing quote (Score:5, Insightful)
"Please do not continue to post these threads or you account may be at risk of banning, which in some cases would mean you would need to buy a new copy to play Spore."
Nice. Shut up or we'll unilaterally take away the game that you bought. Captures the essence of DRM quite well.
Re:Undisclosed? (Score:5, Insightful)
And the EULA is printed on the outside of the box?
Parent
Re:Undisclosed? (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Undisclosed? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, but the EULA is displayed when you want to install the game
Ohhhh, you mean the click-through "contract" that is only available for viewing AFTER the game is purchased and rendered non-returnable. Gotya.
So, care to explain to me what I should do the next time I do not agree to an EULA? I prefer a solution that won't get me laughed out of a store or off the phone, if you could.
Parent
Re:Undisclosed? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Undisclosed? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Undisclosed? (Score:5, Informative)
Granted, I think it's sad that users of a game need to go over a EULA to feel good about their purchase but I guess that is the nature of the beast today.
Parent
Re:simply boycott them (Score:5, Insightful)
Boycotting is fine if you can manage the sacrifice yourself. But if you still want the game, but you would just rather not see malware attached in future editions, a suit works out better -- hits them, potentially, in the wallet due to the settlement and negative image portrayal.
Parent
Re:simply boycott them (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:simply boycott them (Score:5, Interesting)
If there are alternatives and those alternatives do well (without the DRM) then I'm sure the message will come across loud and clear.
And if it doesn't then the market will take care of them eventually. We're really only in the beginnings of this phase of the copyright game and it will take a while for it to play out but I'm pretty confident that eventually all media will be DRM free and will use open standards. It's the vested interests that have the most to lose here, new talent really couldn't care less, they'll take the audience and run with it.
Parent
Re:simply boycott them (Score:5, Informative)
It's not a unique game. It's just like every other life/city/god sim you can think of. The game isn't that great.
Piracy SHOULDN'T be the answer. Invasive DRM is as bad, if not worse, than poorly programed game.
If anyone remembers FADE they'd know what truly fucked copy protection is. I had an original version of both Operation Flashpoint and the first expansion pack. I loved it. Until fade kicked in. I bought the game, but Codemasters FADE system decided that I wasn't. Gameplay degraded to the level where it was impossible to play.
I boycotted Codemasters for ages, didn't help. It was only when FADE received enough (almost any customer with ability to write) complaints that it was canned.
I for one refuse to buy this game due to the intrusive DRM. While I'm no Valve fanboy, I REALLY like Steam. It's the ultimate DRM without being fucked about it.
True, you need a decent internet connection, and need to be prepared for it to crash occasionally, but at least it doesn't fuck with the rest of my computer. I can reinstall windows on a different drive to the install and just run it. No install, nothing. It just works.
I can backup my games to disc, I can take them to a friend's house, install them, play them. Hell, even leave them installed and let the friend play when I'm not on.
Parent
Re:simply boycott them (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:simply boycott them (Score:5, Insightful)
Why won't their parents teach them manners like they did back in my day.
Now that is your generation fault.
Parent
Re:simply boycott them (Score:5, Informative)
Try Isis and Mastodon (Meshuggah if you lean harder), and if you think lyrics are superfluous, try bands such as Pelican and Russian Circles, and on the more silent side Red Sparowes and Grails.
Last.fm is your friend when it comes to discovering new things, as long as your taste isn't too popular (when the Beatles and Radiohead become suggestions for everything).
Parent
Re:simply boycott them (Score:5, Informative)
It worked in the eighties. The major game writing software houses had DRM, the indies didn't. The indies were ironically the guys like Carmak and Broussard who were putting out shareware and are now running the big game companies.
"Don't trust anyone over 25" - Cory Doctorow ;)
Parent
Re:simply boycott them (Score:5, Funny)
"Don't trust anyone under 25" - Everybody over 25 ;)
Parent
Re:simply boycott them (Score:5, Funny)
"Trust anyone who is 25" -25 year olds
Parent
Re:simply boycott them (Score:5, Funny)
"Only trust those who are 25i" - Imaginary 25 year olds
Parent
Re:simply boycott them (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:simply boycott them (Score:5, Funny)
"My life is a lie!" - you at 26.
"My life is a cake!" - you, confused, at 26.
Parent
Re:simply boycott them (Score:5, Insightful)
While I hear what you're saying and I'm sure it's right on the personal level, it's not like EMI went to heaven when they started carrying iTunes plus DRM-free songs. Same with Amazon and all the others selling music from the big bands (and there's always emusic and the like but that's really a mainstream vs independent issue), the signals aren't exactly loud and clear that no DRM equals more profit. At least here on slashdot there's always someone complaining it's not FLAC at AllOfMp3 prices with a Linux client or somesuch. It's possible that the DRM companies are pissing in the common pool but if the DRM and DRM-free shops are hit equally hard then the message is just lost along with all the economic ups and downs, consumer trends and all that hits the industry as a whole. Plus people aren't exactly binary, some love their bands and hate DRM but still end up buying some things they simply "must have" and others not. Also album sales are notoriously difficult to predict, so a few percent here and there is completely drown out by the record being a hit or a flop anyway, it needs to be clear that DRM flops, no DRM tops. It's just not that clear and I don't think there's enough people with you to get that message across.
Parent
Re:simply boycott them (Score:5, Insightful)
yea, but that was a social protest about segregation. the boycott was a very visible form of protest that drew media attention to the issue.
whereas, not buying music isn't a visible form of protest. it's weight relies on economic sanctions rather than visibility. it doesn't promote public discourse about the issue of DRM. and the effect of the sanctions could simply be attributed to "piracy" by the pro-DRM camp.
i'm still in support of boycotting major labels and companies who use DRM, but i don't think you can draw that analogy.
Parent
Re:simply boycott them (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:simply boycott them (Score:5, Insightful)
Describing them explicitly as "rentals" might dissipate some ire on the limited-installs thing, but it would in no way excuse the practice of PERMANENTLY installing malware on the user's machine, which is what this suit is about.
Parent
Re:simply boycott them (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:simply boycott them (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:simply boycott them (Score:5, Insightful)
Problem is, every copy of a game they don't sell, they seem to blame on piracy, not their own worthless products.
Parent
Re:simply boycott them (Score:5, Insightful)
The big problem is that boycotting doesn't really work, not only is there the problem that the publisher will conclude that piracy was the fault, not DRM, but there is also the problem that the publshier is often the one dictating the DRM not the developer, in fact the developers are often against it, but they can't really do much about it. And when boycotting the publisher means to also boycott the developers that I actually care about, then boycotting is often a not an option.
Parent
Re:simply boycott them (Score:5, Insightful)
Nah, I prefer going after them with the Computer Fraud and Abuse act or consumer laws in several states that prohibit installing software without explicit authorization (and burying it in a 20 screen EULA doesn't count) from the user. Lawyer fees add up a lot faster than lost sales.
Parent
Re:simply boycott them (Score:5, Insightful)
and do the same for any other DRM laden product, it'll teach the manufacturers quickly to stay away from DRM.
Note to everybody: This comes up in every single thread about DRM and it's always debunked in every single thread. Boycotting will not do anything to get a company to change its mind about DRM. Your lack of a purchase cannot be distinguished from a lack of interest, a pirated copy, or even a slow economy. Boycotting will never work with creative products like movies, music, or video games. It works on products such as Coca Cola. That's because the company can see a change in the average number of sales. With products like video games, a boycott cannot be measured.
Please stop suggesting it. Please stop modding it up. It is not a solution. One-star reviews on Amazon worked, being silent did not. Shush.
Parent
Re:simply boycott them (Score:5, Insightful)
Buy and return it, explain why you are returning it. Shows that you had interest but are not willing to support the policies.
Parent
To be honest, I've seen it happen (Score:5, Informative)
To be honnest, I've seen a pretty strong message happen at least once.
The German version of Victoria, as shipped, didn't even work. At all. On any computer. It bombed out with a script syntax error, right when you tried to start the campaign. Nothing blamable on video drivers, hardware configuration, etc. It just couldn't work on any computer, because a keyword in the script didn't match the keywords that the game engine recognized.
The German publisher pointed fingers at the devs. The devs pointed fingers at the publisher. Apparently both said that somehow an older beta version had been taken as the gold disk, but none of the two felt it was their job to do anything about it.
Most retailers dropped that game like a hot potato. Within a day or two of release, it had been simply pulled off the shelves.
I don't know if they actually gave the disks back to the publisher (probably), but here's the fun part: they don't even have to. You may have learned that the capitalism model is that the merchant buys cheap from the manufacturer, and gives it more expensive to you for a profit. Forget about that crap. There's a whole bunch of markets, from groceries to computer games, where it just doesn't work that way.
How it really works, at least for major retailers, is that you essentially the rent shelf space for your stuff from the retailer. If it doesn't sell, the retailer doesn't pay you a cent for those unsold copies. In fact, the retailer still makes a profit even if you didn't sell a single copy. If the retailer just pulls that stuff off the shelves and sends you your boxes / DVD cases back, you're shafted. They just denied you the use of their shelf space.
To get an idea of how important retailers are, E3 was originally conceived as a way to woo major retailers into carrying the publishers' stuff. Or, better yet, see the raging debate about AO ratings in the USA, whose root cause is really one single retailer: Wall-Mart won't let AO titles on their shelves. If they did, the whole "OMG, we're censored if we can't get a T rating for our gore-fest" debate would fizzle right there and then.
I think it's a pretty strong message they can get to the publishes. They don't even have to go talk to the publisher. Just send them their boxes back in a truck, with a document that says "because of disproportionate returns." That's it. Any publisher will listen, when essentially you're the one with your foot on their oxygen line.
And yes, there have been a few who insisted that they're so high and mighty, that the retailers should listen to them. They're all bankrupt by now.
Parent
Re:simply boycott them (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah. pretty much. You see Coca-cola and other products,like it have been around for some length of time and established a reasonably consistent market. When they get boycotted, that market share drops and Execs want to know why. With a product like Spore, there is no established market, it's a brand new product. So there is no market share to suddenly shrink, there is only a lack of sales beyond launch. Execs assume the Will Wright has lost his mojo, stop making sandbox games, and go back to cloneing WoW, Halo, and Madden.
Parent
Re:simply boycott them (Score:5, Insightful)
Problem is that boycotts don't really work that well anymore. Sure, I can boycott them... And maybe a couple dozen other people will too... But EA will still make plenty of money from the thousands and thousands of people who'll happily buy their products. And any loss in sales will simply be attributed to piracy.
For a boycott to actually work you need to get enough people participating that it becomes impossible to ignore. And the vast majority of people these days just don't seem to care.
A lawsuit, on the other hand, gets attention. EA will, at the very least, have to throw some money at some lawyers. Maybe they'll wind up settling out of court... Maybe there'll be a real judgement... But either way EA is going to have to at least respond to the accusations.
And if it gets big enough, you might just see something about this on CNN on a slow news day. If EA got enough bad press we might even wind up with an effective boycott.
Parent
Re:simply boycott them (Score:5, Informative)
You people that keep saying boycotts don't work have no idea what a boycott is. A boycott isn't not buying a product. As an example let me give you a historical reference to a few boycotts. When you boycott something you don't just not purchase it. What you do is not buy the product, tell everyone else not to buy the product and why, and create as much publicity for the boycott as you can.
In the old days before everyone ranting in their basement at their computer screen a boycott involved two things. Not buying the product and making a sign that you then took and stood in front of a store with and explained to shoppers what you were boycotting and why. When the southern Baptists announced their boycott of Disney for giving benefits to same sex couples they didn't just stop going to Disney parks and buying Disney movies and products they made a bunch of signs and picketed in front of Disney World, called the press so they reported on it AND then picketed for months in front of the property. They also leafleted and got in front of the media at every opportunity.
So lets summarize. It's not a boycott unless their is publicity and your Mother is talking to her friends about it over the weekly Bridge game. Without broad publicity a boycott is nothing more than a change in purchase habits and is meaningless. It's not a Boycott if the CEO of the company doesn't know WHY you stopped buying products.
So all you people that keep saying boycotts don't work, you either don't know what a boycott is or you don't understand what's needed to make it a boycott. Properly executed boycotts are often highly successful, only in situations where succumbing to the boycott demands would cost more customers will the boycott fail.
Parent
Boycotts are quiet (Score:5, Insightful)
A boycott says "I don't like what you're doing." A lawsuit says "I think what you're doing is (or should be) illegal." It's a much stronger - and more public - statement.
Personally, I wouldn't get involved this one. But I hope they win. DRM on purchased products are anti-consumer.
Parent
Re:simply boycott them (Score:5, Insightful)
Economy 101: Boycotts do not work in a monopoly or oligopoly market.
That's why boycotts on oil companies never worked and never changed anything - you can't just go and buy something else instead.
If your options were "Spore with DRM" and "Spore without DRM", it would be easy to vote with your dollars. But your choice is "Spore with DRM" and "no Spore", which leaves you no choice that transports a message, because "no purchase" is not an event and thus does not trigger a response. Publicly saying you "would have bought, but reconsidered" as happens on Amazon, is the closest you get.
Parent
Re:simply boycott them (Score:5, Interesting)
Check out StarDock's Gamers' Bill of Rights. http://www.stardock.com/about/newsitem.asp?id=1095 [stardock.com]
Sins of a Solar Empire is an excellent RTS game, with frequent major updates.
Parent
Re:simply boycott them (Score:5, Insightful)
I am upset about being lied to. Plain and simple. This whole Bill of Gamer's Rights and no-DRM scheme they keep advertising sounds to me like blatant false advertising, deception or fraud. They are using this stance as a platform to sell more games and people are buying into it.
I'd be 6000 times happier if they fessed up and actually stated that they use a very lenient or lax DRM instead of boldly saying they have none.
Parent
Re:simply boycott them (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't buy that argument about console DRM. Sure, its hard(er) to burn games on consoles but there is one stark difference with more or less all console games: I can eject my disc, take it to my mates house, pop it in his console and play it there. I can also re sell my used games and there is an avid market for this, hell the two biggest ps3 titles this year have been available for swap for "6 used ps2 games" at many stores around the place.
DRM on the PC exists explicitly to prevent you from doing any of this. I don't see why. I don't see why you can re sell a console game and not a pc game? I don't see why you can share your console games with your friends and not your pc games? Plus there is little if any difference with the levels of piracy on consoles, I'm not exactly up to speed with current gen mod chipping but last gen was ridiculous. It was EASIER to pirate games on the ps2 and xbox than on a pc, if you got a mod chip, which everyone did, especially the non geeks. Seems everyone knew someone who would install that chip for $100, and everyone did it, and everyone had a stupidly large stack of ripped games.
There is an elephant i nthe room that nobody seems to bring up in these debates. This DRM stuff is not about controlling piracy, this is about controlling your purchasing decisions. They should call it 'digital revenue mangement'.
Parent
Re:Command and Control Center? (Score:5, Funny)
That would be the Battle Bridge, just go up Turbolift-14, all the way to the top. Can't miss it.
Parent