Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

Two New Class-Action Suits Against EA Over DRM

Posted by Soulskill on Sun Nov 09, 2008 01:02 PM
from the ea's-chickens-have-come-home-to-roost dept.
The Courts Games
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."
drm ea court games itsabouttime
games court
story

Related Stories

[+] EA Hit By Class-Action Suit Over Spore DRM 538 comments
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."
This discussion has been archived.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.

Two New Class-Action Suits Against EA Over DRM 25 Comments More | Login /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login
Loading... please wait.

  • Hugely disappointed with Spore (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 09, @01:07PM (#25695603)
    I'm never buying anything made by Wil Wheaton again.

  • I prefer another form of protest (Score:5, Insightful)

    by thermian (1267986) on Sunday November 09, @01:16PM (#25695659)

    I've just stopped buying any of their games. Simple yes, but the easiest form of protest, and it works because they are right now down about £200 in lost sales from me.
    I don't download them from piracy sites either, I just completely ignore their products.

    • Re:I prefer another form of protest (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Paradigm_Complex (968558) on Sunday November 09, @01:22PM (#25695701)
      They can just attribute your loss in sales to piracy. There's just not enough people willing to stop buying EA's games in protest to actually change EA's minds. If a successful legal attack is practical it may be the best option.

    • Re:I prefer another form of protest (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Gorgonzolanoid (1394311) on Sunday November 09, @02:45PM (#25696399)

      In a similar way, I stopped buying CD's as a protest against the RIAA. I've got over 200 albums on my iPod: no downloads, all imported from CD's I own, of which exactly *one* was bought less than so many years ago.

      Some time after I stopped buying, I read that they were suffering from a loss in revenue (not that I think my personal bit was of any visual influence in that), and they were attributing it to piracy. Not to displeased customers like me giving them the middle finger, only to piracy.

      So in a way, they were using my protest to "prove" that their actions - the same ones that made me stop buying CD's - were right all along.

      • Re:I prefer another form of protest (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Schemat1c (464768) on Sunday November 09, @02:01PM (#25696025) Homepage

        For example, I don't think the RA3 devs had ANYTHING to do with the SecuROM crap, yet by not buying their games you essentially cut off their fundings. If the studio disappears because of it, we'll all be crying because yet another good PC developer will have bitten the dust.

        Then developers will learn not to work for studios that sign on with distributors that use DRM. Pain is the best teacher.

  • Best way to get back at them (Score:5, Insightful)

    by schnikies79 (788746) on Sunday November 09, @01:19PM (#25695685)

    Don't buy them and don't download them.

    Just don't play them at all.

  • Factual information, please? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Edgewize (262271) on Sunday November 09, @01:51PM (#25695939)

    Does anyone have a solid description of specifically what this form SecuROM "installs", what it does, how it is harmful, and why it can't be removed?

    Every time this topic comes up it becomes a "How dare they!" bitchfest so I've never been able to figure out the answers to the above.

    I'm not saying that this is definitely just a pile of FUD combined with general anti-corporate hate against EA. But I'm leaning that way without real evidence.

    • Re:Factual information, please? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Repossessed (1117929) on Sunday November 09, @02:32PM (#25696277)

      Reading over the legal filing for the creature creator demo, a few very specific complaints are made.

      It allegedly disables a number of semi legitimate (Any DVD, Daemon tools), and completely legitimate (Process Manager, Alchohol 120%) software tools. (10 specific programs are named) It also claims that it interferes 'in some circumstances' with having a secondary CD drive (I assume it prevents burning a copy of a CD that's in the other drive), and that all of this occurs whether the demo is running or not.

      Looking at the filing, they mention process manager as its own claim, given that this is a legitimate tool used to identify rogue processes, EA can't really claim, (falsely or otherwise) that it is a piracy tool, the way they'll surely claim with the others. AnyDVD is a particularly interesting one as well, since to my knowledge, it only affects movies, and has nothing to do with any EA product at all.

      I can't actually say if the claims are correct for the specific version of SecuROM in the demo game, or if a lawyer simply looked at the things SecuROM is known to do and filed those, depends on how bright s/he is I suppose.

  • What is wrong with EA? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ender77 (551980) on Sunday November 09, @02:15PM (#25696151)
    I have personally stopped buying any EA PC games after spore and I know of other who have also. I am also aware that piracy for EA games have SPIKED after they started implementing the DRM scheme. You have to seriously wonder what is wrong with EA. While the games are still making a buttload of cash, They have to realize that they are probably not making nearly as much as they would if they had not implemented the DRM scheme. On top of that they are pissing off the fan base into rabid hatred for them, and motivating the fans to not only pirate the games, but to go to review sites and post negative reviews about the games because of the DRM. Buisiness 101 should tell them this is not a good business in the long run and if you are a shareholder I would suggest getting rid of the stock because this is going to come back and bite EA in the ass.

    • I'm not sure that's really a great defense. If I uninstall software, I don't expected phantom memory use by something I'm not using anymore.

      I know it's not realistic, but it doesn't change that uninstalled programs should not leave shit all over my hard drive.

    • Re:Of course the installer must leave something (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 09, @01:26PM (#25695755)

      There is a difference between leaving "hey, I was here before" traces, and actual executables that continue to load and run on a machine.

    • Re:Of course the installer must leave something (Score:5, Insightful)

      by sjames (1099) on Sunday November 09, @01:50PM (#25695937) Homepage

      Fine, but they need to ask permission before making a change that can only be backed out by reformatting your HD. Either that, or PAY for you to have your machine reformatted and re-installed with everything but their steaming pile.

      • Should not have to. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by www.sorehands.com (142825) on Sunday November 09, @01:49PM (#25695931) Homepage

        Why should I have to run Deep Freeze, or any type of software to return my system to a state before a program is installed?

        Unless I give explicit permission for a program install something, then it should not be installed.

        How is EA doing this different from anyone installing trojans, spyware, or virus?

          • Re:Should not have to. (Score:5, Insightful)

            by houstonbofh (602064) on Sunday November 09, @04:11PM (#25697109)
            While the EULA may have given them the right to eat babies, did it fully disclaim that it would install additional software that would be running all the time, hidden, and not removed by the uninstaller? To have informed consent, you need to inform. Also you need a way to not consent, which means a return policy more open than "piss off."

              • Re:Should not have to. (Score:5, Insightful)

                by houstonbofh (602064) on Sunday November 09, @04:25PM (#25697245)
                If you can only read it after purchase, and there is no way to return it for full refund, you can use unconscionable demand, and informed consent defenses. Also, if it is not clear that it can not be removed (and I have never seen a clear EULA) you have another club to hit them with. The Amazon reviews were the canary dieing in the coal mine. EA missed that, and I think it will hurt them.

          • No. That's not right... (Score:5, Informative)

            by Eric Damron (553630) on Sunday November 09, @04:21PM (#25697215)

            Their EULA says nothing about installing hidden software that will never be removed.

            Even by agreeing to the EULA you don't agree to "all things not mentioned."

            If so where would it end? Could they search my harddrive for credit card information? Format my harddrive on a whim? Store their own stuff on my computer without telling me? Of course not!

      • Re:Of course the installer must leave something (Score:5, Informative)

        by Tatsh (893946) on Sunday November 09, @02:52PM (#25696473)

        It might sound like a dumb idea and has no reason (there is no disc to authenticate with), but the DRM is present in demo versions only because crackers used to use demos to crack the retail versions of the games. They were a good starting point (especially with StarForce games) as most of the code to start the game was EXACTLY the same as what would appear in the retail version if it had not a copy protection placed on it.

    • Re:What's to stop them? (Score:5, Informative)

      by wfstanle (1188751) on Sunday November 09, @01:22PM (#25695705)

      IANAL

      There is a principle in law that a clause in the contract can not invalidate a law. Also, you cannot waive a fundamental right that is granted by the constitution. To give an (absurd) example...

      In a hidden clause of a contract (or EULA) it says that you agree to give up your first born child. If the other party tries to enforce that clause of the contract, the courts would invalidate that clause (and maybe the entire contract).

      • Re:What's to stop them? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Red Alastor (742410) on Sunday November 09, @02:18PM (#25696165)

        Also, this is not a contract. Clicking 'I agree' is not a legal way to sign a contract and it is not legal to unilaterally add conditions once a deal is done (once you gave them money, they can't force more conditions on you). They know this, this is why they call it a license. However, a license cannot only grant you rights, it cannot remove them from you.

        Hence, EULAs are bogus.

        • Re:What's to stop them? (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Repossessed (1117929) on Sunday November 09, @02:55PM (#25696499)

          The courts do not see it that way. I've seen a number of cases were EULA's were deemed valid, I have yet to see one where the EULA was deemed invalid (though parts of it being unconscionable are probably common enough).

        • Re:What's to stop them? (Score:5, Interesting)

          by williamhb (758070) on Sunday November 09, @03:00PM (#25696545) Homepage Journal

          Also, this is not a contract. Clicking 'I agree' is not a legal way to sign a contract and it is not legal to unilaterally add conditions once a deal is done (once you gave them money, they can't force more conditions on you). They know this, this is why they call it a license. However, a license cannot only grant you rights, it cannot remove them from you. Hence, EULAs are bogus.

          Some courts have upheld EULAs in the past. In some cases they have even upheld shrinkwrap EULAs that you cannot see until after you have accepted them (where a 'reasonable person' would have expected the clause to be present in the contract). I am not a lawyer, but I strongly suspect the parent poster isn't either and you should think twice about taking his "EULAs are bogus" advice.

    • Re:How to remove that crap? (Score:5, Informative)

      by khellendros1984 (792761) on Sunday November 09, @01:49PM (#25695923) Journal
      in run->services.msc, stop and disable the securom service. In the Documents and Settings, in Application Data, delete the SecuROM folder. Delete UAService7.exe from windows\system32. Run "sc delete useraccess7" from the run command on the start menu, or from a command-line prompt. Delete the key [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\SecuROM] from the registry.

      Note: This will, of course, stop any SecuROM game from functioning until you reinstall it, and various games may put the actual files in different places....but this should give you a starting point. I haven't actually tried this...although I plan to when I get home tonight. But it looks sane enough to me.

    • Re:This ain't going anywhere (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Khyber (864651) <khyberkitsune@gmail.com> on Sunday November 09, @03:17PM (#25696693) Journal

      Umm, BULLSHIT.

      SecuROM revokes some of your administrator priviledges and disables other legitimate programs on your computer. This is anti-competitive behavior (interfering with other products from other companies/individuals,) and a violation of my property rights. I own this computer, you do not have the right to revoke some of my administrator priviledges and make it to where I cannot delete files from my own goddamned system.

      Maybe in YOUR bizarro world this wouldn't go anywhere, but then again facts always fly in the face of the bizarre.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 SourceForge, Inc.