Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

EA sued over Spore DRM

psyck0psyck0 Registered User regular
edited September 2008 in Games and Technology
I searched and couldn't find a thread about this.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6198136.html?tag=recent_news;title;1

Fulltext:
Spoiler:

tl;dr

SecuROM may break California laws. A lawsuit has been launched that may turn class-action.

I'm rooting for EA to lose this one.

psyck0 on
Big Man in training.
steam_sig.png
«13456

Posts

  • KhavallKhavall Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    There is absolutely nothing showing they have been intentionally hiding it in any way shape or form.


    We knew about SecuROM being a part of Spore in June.

    So that part is completely out.

  • UncleSporkyUncleSporky Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    I always wondered if that sort of thing was/should be illegal. It's akin to false advertising at best, a malicious virus at worst.

    EDIT: We knew, and we only knew from past experience with SecuROM of how terrible it can be. But does Joe on the street know, and does he know all that it entails? It's less about the fact that something called SecuROM is being installed, and more about everything it does. Do they say that it is impossible to remove and may cause a number of non-Spore-related issues?

    3DS Friend Code: 0989 - 1731 - 9504
    Nintendo Network ID: unclesporky
  • EndahirEndahir Registered User
    edited September 2008
    I heard that EA plans to make changes to help with the SecuROM issues.

  • ZxerolZxerol The fullest, most luscious beard. Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Endahir wrote: »
    I heard that EA plans to make changes to help with the SecuROM issues.

    Unless it's "We're not using SecuROM anymore, or any other DRM," then it's not really a change. Last I heard, they're just upping the activation limit for RA3. Big whoop.

  • KhavallKhavall Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    The lawsuit isn't alleging that they didn't advertise that it was using SecuROM enough, or that they didn't explain what it was doing to Joe User, but that they were intentionally hiding it.

    Which they weren't

    They had a press release about it.

    3 months before the release of the game.

  • KalkinoKalkino Buttons Londres Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Khavall wrote: »
    The lawsuit isn't alleging that they didn't advertise that it was using SecuROM enough, or that they didn't explain what it was doing to Joe User, but that they were intentionally hiding it.

    Which they weren't

    They had a press release about it.

    3 months before the release of the game.

    A press release is different from reasonable disclosure to everyday consumers. Or did they do the latter as well, say before install or purchase?

    Freedom for the Northern Isles!
  • Metal Gear Solid 2 DemoMetal Gear Solid 2 Demo Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Khavall wrote: »
    The lawsuit isn't alleging that they didn't advertise that it was using SecuROM enough, or that they didn't explain what it was doing to Joe User, but that they were intentionally hiding it.

    Which they weren't

    They had a press release about it.

    3 months before the release of the game.

    I think it's more going at the average consumer

    Sure, we here following gaming news on the internet will know of SecuROM, but the average mother of two buying Spore for her kids will not know what SecuROM is or the hindrance it puts on the software and your computer

    Spoiler:
  • KhavallKhavall Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Khavall wrote: »
    The lawsuit isn't alleging that they didn't advertise that it was using SecuROM enough, or that they didn't explain what it was doing to Joe User, but that they were intentionally hiding it.

    Which they weren't

    They had a press release about it.

    3 months before the release of the game.

    I think it's more going at the average consumer

    Sure, we here following gaming news on the internet will know of SecuROM, but the average mother of two buying Spore for her kids will not know what SecuROM is or the hindrance it puts on the software and your computer

    Right. I'm not contesting that the average consumer didn't know about it.
    I'm contesting that the average consumer didn't know about it because they didn't bother to check up about it online, not because EA was covering it up.

    Consumers had a very easy way of finding out that Spore had SecuROM and what SecuROM does. After all, we all found out and we didn't have to do anything other than read press releases. That's where it becomes a little less sure if EA was ""intentionally" hiding the fact Spore uses SecurROM". They clearly weren't.

  • darleysamdarleysam Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Kalkino wrote: »
    Khavall wrote: »
    The lawsuit isn't alleging that they didn't advertise that it was using SecuROM enough, or that they didn't explain what it was doing to Joe User, but that they were intentionally hiding it.

    Which they weren't

    They had a press release about it.

    3 months before the release of the game.

    A press release is different from reasonable disclosure to everyday consumers. Or did they do the latter as well, say before install or purchase?

    Unless the box is titled SecuROM, with a little sticker in the corner to say "Also contains Spore", there will be someone who thinks they have a case here.

  • FeriluceFeriluce Adrift on the morning star. Hoquiam, WARegistered User regular
    edited September 2008
    The box and manual both make no mention of SecuROM. Unless it is mentioned in the EULA it is not mentioned once during installation.

    Most people aren't us. They don't spend a lot of their time researching games. I'm sure a lot of previews in magazines and mainstream gaming websites rarely mention DRM at all - and if so, not likely in previews themselves but separate news stories that most likely don't bother to read.

  • jakonovskijakonovski Registered User
    edited September 2008
    Khavall wrote: »
    The lawsuit isn't alleging that they didn't advertise that it was using SecuROM enough, or that they didn't explain what it was doing to Joe User, but that they were intentionally hiding it.

    Which they weren't

    They had a press release about it.

    3 months before the release of the game.

    The lawsuit says that insufficient information was provided on the (malicious) nature of Securom, which you in no way address in your post. It hinges on the specific content of the press release, not on the trivial observation that one was held. Come on, do you really think this case is open and shut due to some blindingly obvious fact that has gone unnoticed by everyone except you?

  • zilozilo Registered User
    edited September 2008
    The box lists the restrictions quite clearly (online activation required, etc). It doesn't metion SecuROM by name but I doubt the "average consumer" cares what it's called.

    This case is going to go nowhere.

  • KhavallKhavall Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    jakonovski wrote: »
    Khavall wrote: »
    The lawsuit isn't alleging that they didn't advertise that it was using SecuROM enough, or that they didn't explain what it was doing to Joe User, but that they were intentionally hiding it.

    Which they weren't

    They had a press release about it.

    3 months before the release of the game.

    The lawsuit says that insufficient information was provided on the (malicious) nature of Securom, which you in no way address in your post. It hinges on the specific content of the press release, not on the trivial observation that one was held. Come on, do you really think this case is open and shut due to some blindingly obvious fact that has gone unnoticed by everyone except you?

    Have you seen some of the class action lawsuits that have been attempted to have been filed against video games?


    So fucking many have been about something stupid that anyone with half a brain could spot.


    Also, with the numerous other games that use SecuROM and have equal release of the "malicious nature" of SecuROM, why is Spore being targeted and not SecuROM?

  • FeriluceFeriluce Adrift on the morning star. Hoquiam, WARegistered User regular
    edited September 2008
    zilo wrote: »
    The box lists the restrictions quite clearly (online activation required, etc). It doesn't metion SecuROM by name but I doubt the "average consumer" cares what it's called.

    This case is going to go nowhere.

    Online activation is not the same thing as secretly installing a potentially malicious program onto your computer without telling you.

  • LotharsLothars Registered User
    edited September 2008
    zilo wrote: »
    The box lists the restrictions quite clearly (online activation required, etc). It doesn't metion SecuROM by name but I doubt the "average consumer" cares what it's called.

    This case is going to go nowhere.

    I disagree I think it's going to go somewhere because yes it does list online activation but it doesn't list limited installations and other things that the DRM is restricting which it should and I think that's why this case has leggs.

  • jakonovskijakonovski Registered User
    edited September 2008
    zilo wrote: »
    The box lists the restrictions quite clearly (online activation required, etc). It doesn't metion SecuROM by name but I doubt the "average consumer" cares what it's called.

    This case is going to go nowhere.

    ...except for the small detail of Securom staying even if you uninstall Spore, which is clearly mentioned in the article.

  • jakonovskijakonovski Registered User
    edited September 2008
    Khavall wrote: »
    Have you seen some of the class action lawsuits that have been attempted to have been filed against video games?


    So fucking many have been about something stupid that anyone with half a brain could spot.


    Also, with the numerous other games that use SecuROM and have equal release of the "malicious nature" of SecuROM, why is Spore being targeted and not SecuROM?

    All I'm saying, don't quit your day job Matlock.

  • zilozilo Registered User
    edited September 2008
    Lol, "potentially malicious".

    robble robble robble

  • TaramoorTaramoor Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Feriluce wrote: »
    zilo wrote: »
    The box lists the restrictions quite clearly (online activation required, etc). It doesn't metion SecuROM by name but I doubt the "average consumer" cares what it's called.

    This case is going to go nowhere.

    Online activation is not the same thing as secretly installing a potentially malicious program onto your computer without telling you.

    Not to mention that even uninstalling Spore does not remove SecuROM.

    Hell, I think the average consumer would need to either call a MCSE or flat-out buy a new computer to get rid of SecuROM.

  • LewiePLewieP Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Good.

    I despise bad DRM, but even worse than bad DRM is bad DRM which the consumer has no way of knowing about before purchasing the game.

    Edit: I don't mean "no way", I guess I mean "no way other than researching every game purchase online before they buy anything".

  • KhavallKhavall Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Taramoor wrote: »
    Feriluce wrote: »
    zilo wrote: »
    The box lists the restrictions quite clearly (online activation required, etc). It doesn't metion SecuROM by name but I doubt the "average consumer" cares what it's called.

    This case is going to go nowhere.

    Online activation is not the same thing as secretly installing a potentially malicious program onto your computer without telling you.

    Not to mention that even uninstalling Spore does not remove SecuROM.

    Hell, I think the average consumer would need to either call a MCSE or flat-out buy a new computer to get rid of SecuROM.

    And what are the chances of the average consumer even noticing SecuROM?

  • TaramoorTaramoor Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Khavall wrote: »
    Taramoor wrote: »
    Feriluce wrote: »
    zilo wrote: »
    The box lists the restrictions quite clearly (online activation required, etc). It doesn't metion SecuROM by name but I doubt the "average consumer" cares what it's called.

    This case is going to go nowhere.

    Online activation is not the same thing as secretly installing a potentially malicious program onto your computer without telling you.

    Not to mention that even uninstalling Spore does not remove SecuROM.

    Hell, I think the average consumer would need to either call a MCSE or flat-out buy a new computer to get rid of SecuROM.

    And what are the chances of the average consumer even noticing SecuROM?

    1 in 4.

  • HJFrewHJFrew Registered User
    edited September 2008
    Khavall wrote: »
    Khavall wrote: »
    The lawsuit isn't alleging that they didn't advertise that it was using SecuROM enough, or that they didn't explain what it was doing to Joe User, but that they were intentionally hiding it.

    Which they weren't

    They had a press release about it.

    3 months before the release of the game.

    I think it's more going at the average consumer

    Sure, we here following gaming news on the internet will know of SecuROM, but the average mother of two buying Spore for her kids will not know what SecuROM is or the hindrance it puts on the software and your computer

    Right. I'm not contesting that the average consumer didn't know about it.
    I'm contesting that the average consumer didn't know about it because they didn't bother to check up about it online, not because EA was covering it up.

    Consumers had a very easy way of finding out that Spore had SecuROM and what SecuROM does. After all, we all found out and we didn't have to do anything other than read press releases. That's where it becomes a little less sure if EA was ""intentionally" hiding the fact Spore uses SecurROM". They clearly weren't.

    Right, just like in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. How dare the average consumer not intentionally go out and research something they're not at all aware of.

  • HayasaHayasa Registered User
    edited September 2008
    Fucking what? SecuROM doesn't come out? Can I block it at least?

    I read these boards, bought Spore, and didn't know that. Thats fucked.

  • KhavallKhavall Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Taramoor wrote: »
    Khavall wrote: »
    Taramoor wrote: »
    Feriluce wrote: »
    zilo wrote: »
    The box lists the restrictions quite clearly (online activation required, etc). It doesn't metion SecuROM by name but I doubt the "average consumer" cares what it's called.

    This case is going to go nowhere.

    Online activation is not the same thing as secretly installing a potentially malicious program onto your computer without telling you.

    Not to mention that even uninstalling Spore does not remove SecuROM.

    Hell, I think the average consumer would need to either call a MCSE or flat-out buy a new computer to get rid of SecuROM.

    And what are the chances of the average consumer even noticing SecuROM?

    1 in 4.

    What brought you to that number?

  • RemingtonRemington Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Hmm... I knew Spore had SecuROM.

    I didn't know that it's now on my computer permanently.

    That's a piss off.

    BoCSig.jpg
  • jakonovskijakonovski Registered User
    edited September 2008
    Ha, EA actually went so far as to threaten to disable the CD keys of those who discuss the DRM issue on their forums, but it didn't take long until someone sane intervened: http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/41724/Spore-DRM-Talk-Will-Get-Your-Game-Banned

    No Crysis Warhead for this prince.

  • The_ScarabThe_Scarab Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    There is altogether to much hurfing and durfing over Securom.

    Class action lawsuits are 99% a cash grab.

    Is Securom mentioned in the EULA you agree to before installing? Without checking I'm going to assume yes.

    Have we known about Securom being in Spore prior to release. Yes.

    In the eyes of the law there is no difference between Joe Bloggs on the street and J0e B7ogg5 the hardcore gamer who researches this shit months in advance.

    If the information was publicly available then there is no case. End of story.

    scarab you have mental problems
  • KhavallKhavall Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    The_Scarab wrote: »
    There is altogether to much hurfing and durfing over Securom.

    Class action lawsuits are 99% a cash grab.

    Is Securom mentioned in the EULA you agree to before installing? Without checking I'm going to assume yes.

    Have we known about Securom being in Spore prior to release. Yes.

    In the eyes of the law there is no difference between Joe Bloggs on the street and J0e B7ogg5 the hardcore gamer who researches this shit months in advance.

    If the information was publicly available then there is no case. End of story.

    No you see, it's foolish to think that we would be able to see something like this.


    Don't quit your day job obviously you're wrong!

  • jakonovskijakonovski Registered User
    edited September 2008
    The_Scarab wrote: »
    There is altogether to much hurfing and durfing over Securom.

    Class action lawsuits are 99% a cash grab.

    Is Securom mentioned in the EULA you agree to before installing? Without checking I'm going to assume yes.

    Have we known about Securom being in Spore prior to release. Yes.

    In the eyes of the law there is no difference between Joe Bloggs on the street and J0e B7ogg5 the hardcore gamer who researches this shit months in advance.

    If the information was publicly available then there is no case. End of story.

    Why is everyone TLDRing over this matter and repeating the same simplistic talking point? It's been clearly said, Securom will not be uninstalled with your Spore, it's there to stay. I'll bet dollars to dimes there's absolutely no mention of that anywhere.

  • TaramoorTaramoor Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Khavall wrote: »
    Taramoor wrote: »
    Khavall wrote: »
    Taramoor wrote: »
    Feriluce wrote: »
    zilo wrote: »
    The box lists the restrictions quite clearly (online activation required, etc). It doesn't metion SecuROM by name but I doubt the "average consumer" cares what it's called.

    This case is going to go nowhere.

    Online activation is not the same thing as secretly installing a potentially malicious program onto your computer without telling you.

    Not to mention that even uninstalling Spore does not remove SecuROM.

    Hell, I think the average consumer would need to either call a MCSE or flat-out buy a new computer to get rid of SecuROM.

    And what are the chances of the average consumer even noticing SecuROM?

    1 in 4.

    What brought you to that number?

    Anecdotal evidence.

    After removing Spore from my computer I, over time, installed four other programs. (I'd actually forgotten about SecuROM for a time)

    The fourth installation (Neverwinter Nights 2) caused a conflict with SecuROM and rendered my CD Drive inoperable.

    So, 1 out of 4 programs caused SecuROM to go nuts and try and destroy my computer.

    Also there's literally no way of knowing the actual likelihood that the average consumer will have a run-in with SecuROM. Could happen tomorrow, could happen ten years from now, but the fact that it probably won't happen doesn't excuse the possibility that it will.

    "The program probably won't do anything negative." is not what I would call a strong argument in favor of something that you never asked for in the first place and is difficult at best to remove.

  • The_ScarabThe_Scarab Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    jakonovski wrote: »
    The_Scarab wrote: »
    There is altogether to much hurfing and durfing over Securom.

    Class action lawsuits are 99% a cash grab.

    Is Securom mentioned in the EULA you agree to before installing? Without checking I'm going to assume yes.

    Have we known about Securom being in Spore prior to release. Yes.

    In the eyes of the law there is no difference between Joe Bloggs on the street and J0e B7ogg5 the hardcore gamer who researches this shit months in advance.

    If the information was publicly available then there is no case. End of story.

    Why is everyone TLDRing over this matter and repeating the same simplistic talking point? It's been clearly said, Securom will not be uninstalled with your Spore, it's there to stay. I'll bet dollars to dimes there's absolutely no mention of that anywhere.

    I'll bet you one thousand dollars I can very easily remove it from my PC at any time I want.

    And I'll bet you it is mentioned somewhere. Or to put it another way, if people were more diligent they would have known about this.

    Which is what the case is about, how much information has EA been withholding? I'd say probably little to none. Not plastering it all over your game boxes is not cause for lawsuit I dont think.

    scarab you have mental problems
  • TetraNitroCubaneTetraNitroCubane Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    The_Scarab wrote: »
    There is altogether to much hurfing and durfing over Securom.

    Class action lawsuits are 99% a cash grab.

    Is Securom mentioned in the EULA you agree to before installing? Without checking I'm going to assume yes.

    Have we known about Securom being in Spore prior to release. Yes.

    In the eyes of the law there is no difference between Joe Bloggs on the street and J0e B7ogg5 the hardcore gamer who researches this shit months in advance.

    If the information was publicly available then there is no case. End of story.

    I'm pretty sure this goes a little deeper than that.

    Yes, people had a way to know if SecuROM was present in the game they purchased, should they have gone looking to see if it was there. That's not going to be a huge point, in my opinion.

    What's more pressing is the nature of the DRM itself. As was pointed out to me in the other SecuROM thread about Warhead this morning, SecuROM pretty much grabs the highest-level access you can on any computer. Without asking or informing the user that it does so. Then, it sticks around after you uninstall the game.

    As was also pointed out to me, previous Sony DRM has been exploited by third parties in the past. There's no saying this won't happen with SecuROM, even if it hasn't happened yet.

    Are these events likely to happen? I don't know. But these issues seem more pressing to me than a "Contains SecuROM" sticker on the box. There's a general lack of information about SecuROM*, and it's obvious that publishers and distributors are happy to have it this way. I know for a fact in the case of Warhead that they refused to answer any questions about the nature of the DRM used until after release. It's usually not the publisher that's going to admit what DRM is in the game - Either you've got a dev who cares enough to tell the community, or the community itself finds out after the fact.

    Let's not even get started on the fact that all SecuROM versions are not alike. That only adds to the confusion.

    *EDIT: I should clarify that to mean a general lack of information for the common consumer. I'd gather most customers of Spore don't know what we do, or even know enough to look up SecuROM on wikipedia.

    qwlru.png
  • KhavallKhavall Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    The_Scarab wrote: »
    jakonovski wrote: »
    The_Scarab wrote: »
    There is altogether to much hurfing and durfing over Securom.

    Class action lawsuits are 99% a cash grab.

    Is Securom mentioned in the EULA you agree to before installing? Without checking I'm going to assume yes.

    Have we known about Securom being in Spore prior to release. Yes.

    In the eyes of the law there is no difference between Joe Bloggs on the street and J0e B7ogg5 the hardcore gamer who researches this shit months in advance.

    If the information was publicly available then there is no case. End of story.

    Why is everyone TLDRing over this matter and repeating the same simplistic talking point? It's been clearly said, Securom will not be uninstalled with your Spore, it's there to stay. I'll bet dollars to dimes there's absolutely no mention of that anywhere.

    I'll bet you one thousand dollars I can very easily remove it from my PC at any time I want.

    And I'll bet you it is mentioned somewhere. Or to put it another way, if people were more diligent they would have known about this.

    Which is what the case is about, how much information has EA been withholding? I'd say probably little to none. Not plastering it all over your game boxes is not cause for lawsuit I dont think.

    Also after bioshock using SecuROM there is a massive archive of whining over SecuROM not being uninstalled with the program.


    Refresh my memory, was Bioshock before or after Spore?

  • subediisubedii Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    The_Scarab wrote: »

    In the eyes of the law there is no difference between Joe Bloggs on the street and J0e B7ogg5 the hardcore gamer who researches this shit months in advance.

    If the information was publicly available then there is no case. End of story.

    Not to go into all this again, but there is a difference between technically minded individuals who take an interest in these affairs and the average consumer. The average consumer can technically find out about a lot of things, but if they aren't made aware of it in the first place then they're not going to go looking for it.

    You can't just say "in the eyes of the law they're the same thing" because it's really not that simple. I could release a product and then say on my website "caution, don't let this sucker anywhere near your TV or the resonance cascade will cause both products to implode.". Technically the information's available but the consumer isn't going to go to the website LOOKING for that notice when they just bought it in the store and set it down next to their DVD player and new 40" plasma. There's a reason packaging contains warnings and labels, manuals, ingredients lists, whatever. ALL of that information could be very easily be made available on just a website somewhere, but that alone doesn't fulfil a company's legal obligations.

    Or as HJFrew put it, "Beware of the Leopard".

  • LewiePLewieP Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    The_Scarab wrote: »
    In the eyes of the law there is no difference between Joe Bloggs on the street and J0e B7ogg5 the hardcore gamer who researches this shit months in advance.

    I lol'd way too hard with this.

    Ok, I would agree with you 100% if the games industry actually ever lived up to their end of the EULA bargain.

    Have you ever tried to return a PC game citing the reason "I didn't accept the EULA, I would like a refund please"

    It does not work.


    It does not work because distributors tell retailers "do not ever accept returns on PC games."

    Distributors tell retailers this because publishers tell them "We do no ever process refunds for PC games."

    This scenario is bullshit. Either they should do what the EULA says they agree to, or we should all accept the EULA is void and they should make is explicitly clear what (if any) DRM they have before the purchase is made.

  • MechMantisMechMantis Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Just as a note, no EULA has yet held up in court, so...


    Saying the EULA protects it doesn't mean it's bulletproof.

    UA1OmVB.png
  • BubbaTBubbaT Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Khavall wrote: »
    jakonovski wrote: »
    Khavall wrote: »
    The lawsuit isn't alleging that they didn't advertise that it was using SecuROM enough, or that they didn't explain what it was doing to Joe User, but that they were intentionally hiding it.

    Which they weren't

    They had a press release about it.

    3 months before the release of the game.

    The lawsuit says that insufficient information was provided on the (malicious) nature of Securom, which you in no way address in your post. It hinges on the specific content of the press release, not on the trivial observation that one was held. Come on, do you really think this case is open and shut due to some blindingly obvious fact that has gone unnoticed by everyone except you?

    Have you seen some of the class action lawsuits that have been attempted to have been filed against video games?


    So fucking many have been about something stupid that anyone with half a brain could spot.


    Also, with the numerous other games that use SecuROM and have equal release of the "malicious nature" of SecuROM, why is Spore being targeted and not SecuROM?

    This isn't one of them though.

    California law, specifically the Consumer Protection Against Spyware Act of 2004, prohibits "Intentionally misrepresent that software will be uninstalled or disabled by an authorized user's action, with knowledge that the software will not be so uninstalled or disabled."

    Does Spore say that SecuROM will not be uninstalled when Spore is uninstalled (or ever, for that matter)? I assume EA knows that it won't, so if they're not telling consumers that in won't then they're in trouble.

    As for why EA is being targeted, EA is based in Redwood City, California. SecuROM, as far as I can tell, is based in Austria and owned by Sony, which is based in Japan. So as far as the jurisdiction of California law goes, EA is right there.

    Plus EA is the one actually selling a product to the general public. Spore is what people are buying, not a disc labelled SecuROM. It's EA's job to ensure their product complies with California law.

  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades His love is a prize Rantin' and RavenRegistered User regular
    edited September 2008
    The issue here isn't whether or not SecuROM does something to your computer that you don't like or even if they tried to hide the fact that it does something you don't like. The issue is whether or not the EULA these people clicked "YES, I AGREE" on says that EA is allowed to install anything on their computer that they deem necessary to protect their intellectual property.

    If it does, there is no case. It sucks and I want to stick it to the man as much as the next guy, but people need to wake up about these issues. Copy protection and the EULA go hand in hand, they're opposite sides of the same shitball coin. Until there's another solution to the piracy problem, you're going to have to sign away your computer's rights via the EULA to play games on your PC. This will go on until people educate themselves, are no longer willing to click "YES, I AGREE" and stop purchasing products with restrictive EULA's. Right now, copyright law favors the publisher and origin company more than the consumer.

    At least it's sending a message to EA, but I'm pretty sure they already know how much educated gamers don't like DRM. This won't stop them from using it.

    EDIT: I'm going to go preemptive on MechMantis here since I didn't see his post before I typed mine up. The EULA may not be a bulletproof protection in court, but that doesn't mean they don't rely on it for some protection. And it still sucks that the information contained in a EULA is not available in most cases until after you purchase a game. If I was going to start a lawsuit, that's what I would focus on, particularly because you can't return PC games.

    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I get by on the knowledge that I'm not going to spend a whole lot of time mucking about inside of my asshole anyway
  • jakonovskijakonovski Registered User
    edited September 2008
    The_Scarab wrote: »
    jakonovski wrote: »
    I'll bet you one thousand dollars I can very easily remove it from my PC at any time I want.

    And I'll bet you it is mentioned somewhere. Or to put it another way, if people were more diligent they would have known about this.

    Which is what the case is about, how much information has EA been withholding? I'd say probably little to none. Not plastering it all over your game boxes is not cause for lawsuit I dont think.

    The first point is irrelevant to the case. It will be quite beyond Joe Sixpack to remove it, computer nerds like us are a non-issue.

    Regarding the second two, that's what the case is about, what can be done and what can't. This is a new field and you can't just open a law book and look this up at 'DRM, uninstallation of'. It's just that since EA decided to be belligerent towards its customers, there's no recourse except a lawsuit. Interesting how that works out, isn't it?

«13456
Sign In or Register to comment.