EA Hit By Class-Action Suit Over Spore DRM 538
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."
simply boycott them (Score:4, Insightful)
and do the same for any other DRM laden product, it'll teach the manufacturers quickly to stay away from DRM.
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.
Re:simply boycott them (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately since Spore is quite a unique game, the only real alternative is really to pirate (or wait for the console version)!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I know... how about the alternative of not playing it? It's not like playing the latest video games is an innate human right. You're not going to die because you had to skip out on a game that fucks up your computer. Get over it. There's nothing requiring you to play the latest crap spewed out by the "evil" corporations, other than your own greed.
EA makes games with SecuR
Re:simply boycott them (Score:4, Insightful)
Well in this case it is EA who are stealing your copyright. Your right to sell the copyright licence you paid, bored with then game, EA are trying to steal your ability to sell it to someone else in the second hand market, exactly how disingenuous is this amazon web page http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B000FKBCX4/sr=/qid=/ref=olp_tab_used?ie=UTF8&coliid=&me=&qid=&sr=&seller=&colid=&condition=used [amazon.com].
As EA does not clearly indicate the limitations they enforce on resale on the cover, they should be subject to a class action law suit and pay the penalty.
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.
Re:simply boycott them (Score:5, Interesting)
When you're tired of one game you can't sell it or give it away without doing the same with ALL of your Steam games, or using a separate account for each game.
Whenever possible I avoid purchasing games through Steam if they are available otherwise.
Re:simply boycott them (Score:5, Interesting)
Keeping in mind that in my, what, 16 years of playing games on a PC I've yet to actually sell a game, that doesn't really concern me much.
Re:simply boycott them (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:simply boycott them (Score:4, Funny)
In your mid 30's, eh? Miss your good old school techno? ;-)
Re:simply boycott them (Score:4, Funny)
GP meant the 1790's. Kids nowadays.
Re:simply boycott them (Score:4, Funny)
The best music (IMO of course) was made in the 80's and 90's.
Yeah, and kids these days won't stay off my lawn! Why won't their parents teach them manners like they did back in my day.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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.
That's funny, I boycott music from the 80s and 90s. ;-)
Look forward to the generation that things the 00's and 10s had the best music, and be afraid...
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).
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Unfortunatly like most things it aint black or white.
Music sucked in the 80s is a big statement. Mainstream music in the 80s sucked is somewhat nearer what you hopefully meant.
Synth Pop was not all the 80s was about.
At the begining of the 80s punk was still very much around.
From the mid 80s onwards "inde" was becoming popular.
Metallica started in the early 80s but I am still unable to find their synth pop album.
For the record I like a lot of synth pop also.
Grow up, music comes in 2 forms. Music you like and
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 ;)
Re:simply boycott them (Score:5, Funny)
"Don't trust anyone under 25" - Everybody over 25 ;)
Re:simply boycott them (Score:5, Funny)
"Trust anyone who is 25" -25 year olds
Re:simply boycott them (Score:5, Funny)
"Only trust those who are 25i" - Imaginary 25 year olds
Re:simply boycott them (Score:5, Funny)
Re:simply boycott them (Score:4, Funny)
"My life is a lie!" - you at 26.
Re:simply boycott them (Score:5, Funny)
"My life is a lie!" - you at 26.
"My life is a cake!" - you, confused, at 26.
Re:Don't trust anyone over 25... (Score:4, Informative)
We geezers said "don't trust anybody over 30". Doctorow took it and used it in the book Little Brother. The hippie reference is cited in his novel; the protagonist is a seventeen year old geek, and his social studies teacher gives a history lesson about the hippies. "Don't trust anyone over 25" was the name of an illegal rock concert in the novel.
I since found out that it's true, never trust anone over 30. But don't trust anyone under 31, either.
Little Brother is a great book, I highly recommend it.
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.
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.
Re:simply boycott them (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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.
I dunno, as a Windows geek disassembling and reverse engineering the FREE root kit is often much more fun to me than the game.
Re:simply boycott them (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:simply boycott them (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, 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.
So buy the game and download the cracked version and use that instead.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There are a lot of good games that don't sell as well as they should.
No kidding. I've heard through the grapevine that Duke Nukem Forever hasn't even sold one copy yet!
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.
Re:simply boycott them (Score:4, Insightful)
and do the same for any other DRM laden product, it'll teach the manufacturers quickly to stay away from DRM.
Or, they'll drop PC gaming and just move to consoles, where the DRM is just a part of the platform (make no mistake, I enjoy console gaming, but DRM is completely seamless and transparent on a console). I fear the wrong lessons will be learned unless people are also very clear about *why* they are not purchasing a particular product. The flipside to this is to reward the companies who produce products DRM free PC games with your voting dollars (or euros, pounds, whatever).
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.
Re:simply boycott them (Score:4, Insightful)
I wish they'd make an RPG. I've been hearing about Stardock for months and would love to become a customer... but I loathe RTSes.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's been pointed out MANY times that Stardock games do have DRM. I point you to the sig.bin file (which causes a validation check if removed) in your install folder and this image:
http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/8435/stardockactivationeo1.png [imageshack.us]
Re:simply boycott them (Score:4, Insightful)
It is DRM because it restricts me from running the application until I either re-install it or activate it. DRM by definition is Digital Copy protection. Google it if you don't trust me:
DRM [google.com]
DRM is tying the software to a hardware signature, as the sig.bin file does. It is generated off several key points of your system and if any of those change, it asks to re-validate. This is the same as the Windows Update DRM that prevents you from replacing every piece of hardware in your machine without having to re-validate your copy.
It bothers me because they lie about not having DRM when it's pretty clear that they do. I cannot take my game files and copy them to my laptop for instance without having to activate it to run again. I also cannot re-install windows over top of my old installations without re-activating it.
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Read my above post and look up the definition of DRM. DRM IS Digital Copy Protection. Period.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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'.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You do realise that once you return the game, the store can't return games purchased to the publisher right?
You're just fucking over EB and Gamestop because as far as EA is concerned they've made a sale.
Not really. You're sending a very strong economic message to EB and Gamestop that they had better strongly fight for consumer rights or they will pay the price for allowing DRM games on their shelves.
This is the power of the boycott - it magnifies the economic message manyfold, causing disruption up and down the economic food chain, and forcing quick action from many economic partners.
The media then report that Store A in their city is seeing "unprecedented returns" of the games, causing the message to get
Then they need to know (Score:3, Insightful)
Boycotting is only effective if the companies know they're being boycotted. The only way it can work is if everyone who doesn't buy a game *because of the boycott* notify the company. Preferably by form letter, so they can see how much they're affected by an organized boycott.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And Here's the page in a thread [spore.com] where the guy posting your thread (jpfrostfox) said he screwed up, with the forum moderator (sporemasterladym) trying to do damage control.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I think you are confused. Spore is $60. There is even a collector's edition which is like $90. The creature creator is one aspect of that game, and they sell the limited creator creator for $10, which is in effect paying $10 to have a demo of the actual product.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Command and Control Center? (Score:3, Funny)
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.
If I sold anything to EA... (Score:4, Funny)
If I ever sold anything to EA I'd make sure to put in the EULA somewhere that I get to crack them in the face with a lump of wood then key their car. When the cops arrive, assuming they don't shoot me out of hand, I will simply say that I am preforming services for which I was paid- and present them the EULA detailing as much.
I mean, that's effectively what they're doing. EA are selling one piece of software but not disclosing that it comes with a second, potentially damaging, piece of software which I Do Not Want(tm).
BS (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Still, this raises another point. If they ban you from the forums, should they also be able to ban you from playing a game that you legally purchased?
I know Spore has online sharing features to share the creatures people create, but other than that isn't it inherently a single-player game? This sets a bad precedent to stifle complaints by banning you from playing their game and making you fork over more money to the company. Sounds like another reason not to support EA's business practices by gracing the
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...
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
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Just crack the damn software (Score:3, Interesting)
As we have seen before, boycotts don't work. (Score:4, Interesting)
Boycotts don't work in this industry. They never have. The closest things to a successful boycott was the Mortal Kombat issue between the Sega Genesis and Super NES. Which was easily corrected by the time Mortal Kombat 2 rolled around.
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Add federal hacking charges in as well - SecuROM usurps your Admin privileges and creates files and folders that you cannot delete even in super-root.
sad (Score:3)
It's a pity that id will publish Rage [wikipedia.org] with EA.
I thought they were taking SecureRom out of Spore (Score:3, Informative)
Also, I got lucky in that the Spore patch wouldn't load on my computer, it just sits there spinning forever saying it is patching files. However, this turns out to be a good thing as about 1/3 of people's games are dead in the water after the patch.
SecuROM messes up your computer (Score:3, Interesting)
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?
Re:Undisclosed? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Undisclosed? (Score:4, Informative)
A PC gamer mag did an article about this years ago, where they bought several current PC titles from a variety of publishers, then tried to return them stating that they disagreed with the EULA.
Several companies (I recall Blizzard being one of them) sent them refunds after they sent their original something or other back. So, it is possible, at least it was a few years ago.
Re:Undisclosed? (Score:4, Insightful)
Courts have only upheld this in cases where they deem the EULA is reasonable.
Essentially, a EULA in-package only holds up if a "reasonable" person would agree to it upon reading it.
Reasonable does not imply average, so you also cannot use "the average user is stupid". Frankly, no reasonable user wants Malware on their computer, so if SecuROM can (reasonably) be shown to be Malware, the EULA should be deemed useless.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When you're installing it it's too late though. You generally don't pay for a project and THEN start going over the contract, and expecting a user to agree to the EULA AFTER paying for the software is the same thing.
As to "making it public" - not everyone reads the press reviews on a game (or other software) before buying it. I myself normally do, but I know that on several occasions I've made impulse purchases and bought computer and/or console games that I'd never heard of before. Assassin's Creed and
Re:Undisclosed? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Undisclosed? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Undisclosed? (Score:4, Informative)
Why isn't this on EA's website?
http://www.ea.com/global/legal/legalnotice.jsp [ea.com]
Absolutely no mention on the Spore website:
http://www.google.com/search?q=site:www.spore.com+securom&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS238US238 [google.com]
If you want to read what EA's explanation of SecuROM is from their support page, you can do so here [ea.com]. It includes information on how to remove SecuROM [ea.com] from your computer. Strangely, they make no mention of whether the removal process will disable the game.
All that being said, I don't imagine this lawsuit will make it very far. However, the policy that you can't return the software after it's been opened seems pretty criminal to me. The EULA should be included on the OUTSIDE of the box or a link to the EULA on the web that you can read before you open the software.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Thanks for that. But for what's worth, the word "SecuROM" or "secure" are not mentioned there.
It mentions
Third Party Technology. The Software incorporates technology
developed by TransGaming Inc. (the "Cider Technology"). The terms
and conditions and licenses set out in the schedule apply to Cider
Technology.
but TransGaming Inc. did not develop SecuROM. So, EA, I think, has still their pants down.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Where do I sign (Score:4, Funny)
I smoked pot once. But I DID NOT inhale. Will you hire me?
You fail the drugs test. Why would I hire someone who can't figure out how to toke a joint?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A class action is not the way to go - everyone filing against EA individually in small claims would SEVERELY damage them, as most small claims courts don't allow lawyers, which levels the playing field, and it also puts them at a severe manpower disadvantage - since most lawyers are disallowed the company's going to have a hard time representing itself in many of those court cases, which will end up default judgements and the plaintiffs will win simply because there's not enough manpower to handle every cas