As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
EA sued over Spore DRM
psyck0
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
I searched and couldn't find a thread about this.
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6198136.html?tag=recent_news;title;1
Fulltext:
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.
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6198136.html?tag=recent_news;title;1
Fulltext:
Ever since Spore was released on September 7, an uproar has been growing. Many gamers have taken great exception to the fact the PC game comes bundled with SecuROM digital rights management software. One criticism is that SecuROM only allows the game to be installed on three computers before locking. As a result of the outcry, EA expanded the number of Spore installs to five PCs last week.
Still, a more persistent complaint is that, once installed, SecuROM cannot be removed. Accusations have also been leveled that the program amounts to malware or spyware, since it monitors computer use to prevent duplication.
Spore's use of SecuROM has sparked a major backlash, with pirates using the DRM as justification to download illegal copies of the title. A recent Forbes article pointed out that the game was widely pirated in the days after its release, with the blog TorrentFreak claiming 500,000 illegal downloads of the game were made in just one week.
Now, two weeks after the illegal response to Spore began, EA faces a new, legal challenge to its DRM policy. This week, a class action suit was filed in the North District of California Court by the law firm KamberEdelson on behalf of one Melissa Thomas and all other Spore purchasers. According to the filing, which was made available by Courthousenews.com, the suit contends that EA violated the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law by not informing consumers installing Spore will also install SecurROM.
"Although consumers are told the game uses access control and copy protection technology, consumers are not told that this technology is actually an entirely separate, stand-alone program which will download, install, and operate on their computer," read the complaint. "Once installed, it becomes a permanent part of the consumer's software portfolio. Even if the consumer uninstalls Spore, and entirely deletes it from their computer, SecurROM remains a fixture on their computer unless and until the consumer completely wipes their hard drive through reformatting or replacement of the drive."
The suit accuses EA of "intentionally" hiding the fact Spore uses SecurROM, which it alleges is "secretly installed to the command and control center of the computer (Ring 0, or the Kernel) and [is] surreptitiously operated, overseeing function and operation of the computer, and preventing the computer from operating under certain circumstances and/or disrupting hardware operations." The suit also claims the SecurROM takes over a portion of the PC's processing resources "to transmit information back to EA."
The filing asks the judge to certify the action as a class action, and award anyone in it damages equal to the purchase price of Spore and "actual damages, statutory damages, or treble damages." Given Spore's success, paying back thrice its $49.99 price tag could prove costly for EA, which had not responded to requests for comment as of press time.
Still, a more persistent complaint is that, once installed, SecuROM cannot be removed. Accusations have also been leveled that the program amounts to malware or spyware, since it monitors computer use to prevent duplication.
Spore's use of SecuROM has sparked a major backlash, with pirates using the DRM as justification to download illegal copies of the title. A recent Forbes article pointed out that the game was widely pirated in the days after its release, with the blog TorrentFreak claiming 500,000 illegal downloads of the game were made in just one week.
Now, two weeks after the illegal response to Spore began, EA faces a new, legal challenge to its DRM policy. This week, a class action suit was filed in the North District of California Court by the law firm KamberEdelson on behalf of one Melissa Thomas and all other Spore purchasers. According to the filing, which was made available by Courthousenews.com, the suit contends that EA violated the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law by not informing consumers installing Spore will also install SecurROM.
"Although consumers are told the game uses access control and copy protection technology, consumers are not told that this technology is actually an entirely separate, stand-alone program which will download, install, and operate on their computer," read the complaint. "Once installed, it becomes a permanent part of the consumer's software portfolio. Even if the consumer uninstalls Spore, and entirely deletes it from their computer, SecurROM remains a fixture on their computer unless and until the consumer completely wipes their hard drive through reformatting or replacement of the drive."
The suit accuses EA of "intentionally" hiding the fact Spore uses SecurROM, which it alleges is "secretly installed to the command and control center of the computer (Ring 0, or the Kernel) and [is] surreptitiously operated, overseeing function and operation of the computer, and preventing the computer from operating under certain circumstances and/or disrupting hardware operations." The suit also claims the SecurROM takes over a portion of the PC's processing resources "to transmit information back to EA."
The filing asks the judge to certify the action as a class action, and award anyone in it damages equal to the purchase price of Spore and "actual damages, statutory damages, or treble damages." Given Spore's success, paying back thrice its $49.99 price tag could prove costly for EA, which had not responded to requests for comment as of press time.
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.
Play Smash Bros 3DS with me! 4399-1034-5444
psyck0 on
0
Posts
We knew about SecuROM being a part of Spore in June.
So that part is completely out.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Steam: Feriluce
Battle.net: Feriluce#1995
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?
This case is going to go nowhere.
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?
Online activation is not the same thing as secretly installing a potentially malicious program onto your computer without telling you.
Steam: Feriluce
Battle.net: Feriluce#1995
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.
...except for the small detail of Securom staying even if you uninstall Spore, which is clearly mentioned in the article.
All I'm saying, don't quit your day job Matlock.
robble robble robble
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.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
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".
And what are the chances of the average consumer even noticing SecuROM?
1 in 4.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
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.
I read these boards, bought Spore, and didn't know that. Thats fucked.
What brought you to that number?
I didn't know that it's now on my computer permanently.
That's a piss off.
No Crysis Warhead for this prince.
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!
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.
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.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
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.
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.
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?
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".
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.
Saying the EULA protects it doesn't mean it's bulletproof.
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.
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.