Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

EA Hit By Class-Action Suit Over Spore DRM

Posted by Soulskill on Wed Sep 24, 2008 04:02 PM
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."
+ -
story

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 Spore, 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: Crysis Warhead 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 The Sims 3 128 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
More
Loading... please wait.
  • The "Ban" (Score:5, Informative)

    by The Moof (859402) on Wednesday September 24 2008, @04:09PM (#25141711)
    The ban in question is on EA's forums, not from the game.
    • Re:The "Ban" (Score:5, Informative)

      by X-Kal (861125) on Wednesday September 24 2008, @04:14PM (#25141803)
      That's not entirely true, it seems. http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/list/3869.page [spore.com]
      "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.
  • EA has lost me (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MikeRT (947531) on Wednesday September 24 2008, @04:10PM (#25141725) Homepage
    I'm sure there are a lot of potential customers who, like me, didn't really know much about Spore, but did end up hearing a lot about how it's a pain-in-the-ass because of the DRM. As a result, I don't think I'll ever spend any money on this, since the lion's share of what I've heard is that it's tightly controlled.
  • BS (Score:5, Insightful)

    by qoncept (599709) on Wednesday September 24 2008, @04:14PM (#25141793) Homepage
    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.
    • Re:BS (Score:5, Informative)

      by Dutch Gun (899105) on Wednesday September 24 2008, @04:24PM (#25141993)

      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...

  • Wrong word (Score:5, Interesting)

    by psiphiorg (566033) on Wednesday September 24 2008, @04:15PM (#25141815) Homepage Journal

    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

    • Re:Undisclosed? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 24 2008, @04:10PM (#25141723)

      And the EULA is printed on the outside of the box?

      • Re:Undisclosed? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by scubamage (727538) on Wednesday September 24 2008, @04:13PM (#25141779)
        DINGDINGDING, we have a winner! Sometimes they list that there is, "antipiracy software" included, I hardly think that disclaimer explains away SecuROM.
        • Re:Undisclosed? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Hyppy (74366) on Wednesday September 24 2008, @04:28PM (#25142067)

          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.

        • Re:Undisclosed? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Ghost Hedgehog (814914) on Wednesday September 24 2008, @04:36PM (#25142213) Journal
          The EULA probably does not cover that secuROM stays on your harddrive, even after removal of Spore. This lawsuit might put EA into the position that it has to release some kind of removal tool. But even without the lawsuit I think EA should remove all Spore related software when you deinstall it.
    • Re:Undisclosed? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by AndyG314 (760442) on Wednesday September 24 2008, @04:12PM (#25141771) Homepage
      I'm sure they mention it in the ELUA, but that is AFTER the product is purchased. You have paid for the product and are then later given terms you must agree to or be unable to use the software, and in most cases also unable to get a refund. This is one of the big complaints about ELUA's that they add terms after the purchases of the product.
    • by lymond01 (314120) on Wednesday September 24 2008, @04:11PM (#25141745)

      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.

      • by Fallen Kell (165468) on Wednesday September 24 2008, @04:14PM (#25141805)
        Boycotting doesn't work anymore. I have been boycotting most music for years, yet the music companies just point their finger and blame the drop in sales to pirates. Software companies will do the same thing.
        • by jacquesm (154384) <j@ w w . c om> on Wednesday September 24 2008, @04:21PM (#25141945) Homepage

          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.

        • by snowraver1 (1052510) on Wednesday September 24 2008, @04:30PM (#25142103)
          I boycott most music as well, but just because it sucks. The best music (IMO of course) was made in the 80's and 90's. The VAST majority of my downloaded music is content that I originally had a CD for, but have lost over the course of several moves.
        • by mcgrew (92797) * on Wednesday September 24 2008, @04:30PM (#25142111) Journal

          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 ;)

      • by Ethanol-fueled (1125189) * on Wednesday September 24 2008, @04:15PM (#25141823) Homepage
        Or they could just call 'em "Rentals" as they should and stick on DRM eula(which nobody will read anyway).
        • by Hortensia Patel (101296) on Wednesday September 24 2008, @04:39PM (#25142281)

          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.

      • by moderatorrater (1095745) on Wednesday September 24 2008, @04:18PM (#25141889)
        Especially with the way the Sony rootkit debacle went down. They're not identical situations, but they're similar enough to give one hope.
    • by HappySmileMan (1088123) on Wednesday September 24 2008, @04:15PM (#25141813)

      Problem is, every copy of a game they don't sell, they seem to blame on piracy, not their own worthless products.

    • by grumbel (592662) <grumbel@gmx.de> on Wednesday September 24 2008, @04:33PM (#25142169) Homepage

      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.