Also, you cant compare Spore or probably any EA game to a Stardock title. Scale is vastly different in terms of total end user sales and initial investment.
The marketing budget for Spore is ten times the total production budget of Sins of s Solar Empire.
I don't think anyone is comparing EA to Stardock here. In fact I think you're the first person to mention Stardock in the thread.
Really though, what's the point of piling on more restrictions when the basic ones fulfil your needs to the extent that you're capable of addressing the issue, and the additional restriction don't improve on that whilst still restricting your legitimate purchasers?
It's a trend that has to stop, if nothing else because it's not solving the problem and it's an expenditure of resources that isn't having the desired effect. Zero day piracy can be helped to an extent by DRM. Improving those forms of DRM might even extend the gap even longer. But placing additional restrictions on the consumer without actually changing the situation seems pointless on all grounds.
subedii on
0
Options
Zxerolfor the smaller pieces, my shovel wouldn't doso i took off my boot and used my shoeRegistered Userregular
Zero day piracy can be helped to an extent by DRM. Improving those forms of DRM might even extend the gap even longer.
Except, you know, Spore was cracked about three days before the official release.
In fact, the only protection system I remember working very well was Starforce3 -- I recall it was about a year before Splinter Cell Chaos Theory was fully cracked. And we know benign and well-loved Starforce was.
How about EA just fixes some of the false-positives for piracy in their system and promises to remove all DRM with a patch on the day they take down the activation servers. How about they just do that.
I really don't care as long as I can play Spore in 50 years on my vintage Macbook Pro.
Also, you cant compare Spore or probably any EA game to a Stardock title. Scale is vastly different in terms of total end user sales and initial investment.
The marketing budget for Spore is ten times the total production budget of Sins of s Solar Empire.
I don't think anyone is comparing EA to Stardock here. In fact I think you're the first person to mention Stardock in the thread.
I mentioned it earlier.
Maybe I'm thick, but why couldn't you apply the Stardock business model to a bigger scale, exactly? You want to patch the game, you need to connect to their server but there's no nastiness on your end. Why wouldn't it work?
Zero day piracy can be helped to an extent by DRM. Improving those forms of DRM might even extend the gap even longer.
Except, you know, Spore was cracked about three days before the official release.
Yeah, whoda thunk it right?
In fact, the only protection system I remember working very well was Starforce3 -- I recall it was about a year before Splinter Cell Chaos Theory was fully cracked. And we know benign and well-loved Starforce was.
IIRC games released purely on Steam like HL2 and co (as in, they needed activation via Steam) have managed to avoid zero day piracy because the core files necessary to run the game aren't available until the day of release.
It's a pretty neat trick that worked for Valve, and I guess they figured that if you're going by way of online verification, you may as well do something like that. I think other games like Bioshock and Mass Effect had similar systems. Don't know what happened with Spore.
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.
This is the most important point that has been made. EULA's are not valid contracts. I wouldn't look for the EULA to help EA here. I bet EA's lawyers wont be either. They'd probably recoil from it, horrified. What the fuck is this horrible thing?
The legally binding nature of the EULA is irrelevant here. This is a case based upon availability of information.
If the EULA mentions the securom thing, however convoluted, then anyone who has installed Spore and thus has the problem of securom lingering has agreed to the EULA.
And the installation exe wont let you install the game unless you agree that you have read the EULA carefully and agree to its contents.
Whether it has legal precedent doesnt matter. The point is that you have read the EULA and are aware of the securom thing.
Now, if the thing isnt in the EULA then you have a strong case, and my guess is that it isnt because I cant for the life of me find any mention of it.
But forcing you to scroll down through the whole text file before allowing you to install the game strongly bolsters EAs defense here, if indeed it does exonerate them, legally binding or not.
Edit: What subedii said. If it is in the EULA they will use that as a defense. If it isnt or is on the fence expect them to shut the fuck up about the whole thing pretty damn quick.
Once again -
It doesn't matter if EA makes you aware of the presence of SecuROM.
It matters whether or not EA tells you that SecuROM will not be uninstalled along with the rest of the Spore installation.
Simply saying "X is installed with Spore" is not the same as "X will not be removed when Spore is."
What I did find was EA expressly putting themselves under the jurisdiction of CA law.
"This License shall be governed by and construed (without regard to conflicts or choice of law principles) under the laws of the State of California as applied to agreements entered into and to be performed entirely in California between California residents."
Also, you cant compare Spore or probably any EA game to a Stardock title. Scale is vastly different in terms of total end user sales and initial investment.
The marketing budget for Spore is ten times the total production budget of Sins of s Solar Empire.
I don't think anyone is comparing EA to Stardock here. In fact I think you're the first person to mention Stardock in the thread.
I mentioned it earlier.
Maybe I'm thick, but why couldn't you apply the Stardock business model to a bigger scale, exactly? You want to patch the game, you need to connect to their server but there's no nastiness on your end. Why wouldn't it work?
1) Demographics of their respective markets
2) Economies of scale. Server hosting, bandwidth.
3) Sins was pirated, a lot. But it had such a low budget its business model facilitated it.
You couldnt make Spore for 1 million dollars. It isnt a linear progression of finances.
Also, BubbaT, I know that. In fact I said exactly that. Read posts carefully.
The_Scarab on
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
edited September 2008
I completely agree with the case of availability of information. That is indeed the problem. However if the information is in the EULA, it after the point of sale, and you can't take it back. So if you choose not to accept the information in the EULA, they get to keep your money and you get to throw it in the bin. The information needs to be available before the point of sale.
Which is why I'm saying ignore the EULA when looking for availability of information. Any information in the EULA is just as irrelevant as the legal status of the EULA itself.
EULA's are so goddam pointless they should put them on the box.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
But the EULA is on the website. Any consumer could just go there before purchasing it and read it in it's entirety in order to make their informed decision. If they don't, it's completely their own fault, right?
The EULA is probably not going to play a significant part in this case - EULA's are tricky legal things, and if EA tried to go that route and failed (which is always a possibility), it could do some damage to the already theoretical standing of EULA's. Hiding behind the EULA could be very costly in the long run - thus why we usually only see them brought up in court when the company is making a claim against someone.
On the other hand, it pleases me that EA holds "exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, fully transferable and sub-licensable worldwide right" to a few thousand penis monsters.
I believe that you've grossly underestimated EA's portfolio of penis monsters. The outcome of this case may hinge on those holdings.
But the EULA is on the website. Any consumer could just go there before purchasing it and read it in it's entirety in order to make their informed decision. If they don't, it's completely their own fault, right?
Seriously?
Are you genuinely suggestion I should have to go online to see if any game I buy is going to install stuff without my permission before I buy it.
So, I either look up online every game before I buy it to see what it is going to install besides the damn game that I bought, or I rescind my right to complain when it does install malware without my knowledge/permission.
No wonder so many people turn to piracy. If I didn't care about the wider economic implication of my role in the supply chain I would not doubt turn to piracy too, just to avoid all of this bullshit.
Edit: This stuff right here is why there are so many disenfranchised PC gamers around today.
No wonder so many people turn to piracy. If I didn't care about the wider economic implication of my role in the supply chain I would not doubt turn to piracy too, just to avoid all of this bullshit.
Edit: This stuff right here is why there are so many disenfranchised PC gamers around today.
That's the most infuriating thing about DRM. It punishes the legitimate customer scores more than the pirate.
DRM adds value to the pirated product. That's terrible for the industry.
(EDIT: Which is not to say I don't understand why it's there. I'm all for developers protecting their property, when done intelligently.)
But the EULA is on the website. Any consumer could just go there before purchasing it and read it in it's entirety in order to make their informed decision. If they don't, it's completely their own fault, right?
Seriously?
Are you genuinely suggestion I should have to go online to see if any game I buy is going to install stuff without my permission before I buy it.
So, I either look up online every game before I buy it to see what it is going to install besides the damn game that I bought, or I rescind my right to complain when it does install malware without my knowledge/permission.
No wonder so many people turn to piracy. If I didn't care about the wider economic implication of my role in the supply chain I would not doubt turn to piracy too, just to avoid all of this bullshit.
Edit: This stuff right here is why there are so many disenfranchised PC gamers around today.
Not serious at all, but I didn't want to be too incendiary to the people here who seem to think that if a software company includes in the game package a map to a buried chest with the EULA in it, then they've done all they need to as a company to inform the consumer about what they're software is about to do to your property.
Honestly, though, you already go online to check to see which DRM is included in games and what it does. And you should, because it really is a smart move for the informed consumer. It's just a very, very bad legal argument for a whole host of reasons.
I just want to know what the DRM is accomplishing.
This has been DL-able from torrents since before release.
So they're anti-pirating program that everyone hates is invasive and doesn't even work.
Can't they just abandon it or deactivate it?
It tells their shareholders that they're doing something to solve the really unsolvable problem of software piracy. In practice it doesn't really prevent software piracy in any real way, but on paper it looks far better than simply saying "Yeah, people are just going to steal the program we spent millions of dollars on and there's nothing we can do about it. More money, please."
Rocketlex on
While you were asleep, your windows told me all your secrets.
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited September 2008
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.
All I can say is: HA-HA.
I have no sympathy.
Edit: For what it is worth, when I "cleansed" my former PC of securom I had to edit registry keys to do so. This was a while ago when Bioshock was released and I have no idea if they have since corrected the problem or not. I found securom was very invasive and took me several attempts to fully remove all processes and other aspects of it from my system. This doesn't mean it's exactly the same now, but it was a total bastard to remove back then.
Well, in case anyone was interested in how to remove SecuROM from your computer, I've shot off a simple e-mail to SecuROM, and gotten this as a response:
SecuROM does not install any malware, including any viruses, spyware or
Trojans, nor does it enable any third-party to gain access to your computer.
SecuROM simply downloads and stores SecuROM license data and information to
assist with disc authentication and activation. This data and information does
not affect your computer system in any way.
The link below contains a tool which removes SecuROM:
Well, in case anyone was interested in how to remove SecuROM from your computer, I've shot off a simple e-mail to SecuROM, and gotten this as a response:
SecuROM does not install any malware, including any viruses, spyware or
Trojans, nor does it enable any third-party to gain access to your computer.
SecuROM simply downloads and stores SecuROM license data and information to
assist with disc authentication and activation. This data and information does
not affect your computer system in any way.
The link below contains a tool which removes SecuROM:
This is a combo of EA Hate coupled with the backlash of 'OH GOD DRM' nonsense, so it makes me completely livid.
While I dont' agree with SecureROM's very adament life on a PC system, and having to go through lengths to remove it, I do see why a piracy-defense mechanic is installed with a game.
People saying "NO DRM!" are absolutely ignorant, as nobody would pay for anything, ever. GoG.com has no DRM on their product simply for the fact that the games on the service had been insanely pirated over the years, and any money is better than no money.
EDIT: And with the SecureROM uninstaller easily grabbed, my second paragraph is negated. I dont have any personal problems with DRM.
People saying "NO DRM!" are absolutely ignorant, as nobody would pay for anything, ever. GoG.com has no DRM on their product simply for the fact that the games on the service had been insanely pirated over the years, and any money is better than no money.
People saying "NO DRM!" are absolutely ignorant, as nobody would pay for anything, ever. GoG.com has no DRM on their product simply for the fact that the games on the service had been insanely pirated over the years, and any money is better than no money.
To be fair, it got pirated to hell and back as well.
Antihippy on
PSN: Antiwhippy
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
edited September 2008
I wonder if it would ever be possible to run a study on the pirating tendencies of the general public and how they react to various situations re pirating.
Since running off sales data is not going to give you any conclusive information.
Probably not.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
People saying "NO DRM!" are absolutely ignorant, as nobody would pay for anything, ever. GoG.com has no DRM on their product simply for the fact that the games on the service had been insanely pirated over the years, and any money is better than no money.
People saying "NO DRM!" are absolutely ignorant, as nobody would pay for anything, ever. GoG.com has no DRM on their product simply for the fact that the games on the service had been insanely pirated over the years, and any money is better than no money.
People saying "NO DRM!" are absolutely ignorant, as nobody would pay for anything, ever.
Especially since it was already said that, even with the DRM, spore got pirated over 500,000 times in one week. DRMs don't stop pirates, and all they end up hurting are the people who actually legitimately pay for the games.
I like how the SecuROM removal tool tells me it can't remove SecuROM.
The DRM data could not be vacated because the application or other applications require it for proper operation.
I don't even have any programs installed that use it. I'm think I got it with either the BioShock demo or the Spore Creature Creator demo, both of which have been removed from my hard drive. I haven't had any problems with it so far, but just having it sit there bothers me.
People saying "NO DRM!" are absolutely ignorant, as nobody would pay for anything, ever. GoG.com has no DRM on their product simply for the fact that the games on the service had been insanely pirated over the years, and any money is better than no money.
People saying "NO DRM!" are absolutely ignorant, as nobody would pay for anything, ever.
Look let's be honest here. This scenario has only ever applied to Stardock's own games, and ancient releases.
CD Project may have started GOG.com but gee, they sure as crap aren't intent put out a new release of theirs without DRM on GOG, and they would never do that because unlike those old crappy games, something like the Witcher would never sell otherwise. They're not that absolutely ignorant to allow the possibility of something like that, so would you kindly shut up about it.
Laying it on a bit too thick?
subedii on
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
People saying "NO DRM!" are absolutely ignorant, as nobody would pay for anything, ever. GoG.com has no DRM on their product simply for the fact that the games on the service had been insanely pirated over the years, and any money is better than no money.
People saying "NO DRM!" are absolutely ignorant, as nobody would pay for anything, ever. GoG.com has no DRM on their product simply for the fact that the games on the service had been insanely pirated over the years, and any money is better than no money.
People saying "NO DRM!" are absolutely ignorant, as nobody would pay for anything, ever. GoG.com has no DRM on their product simply for the fact that the games on the service had been insanely pirated over the years, and any money is better than no money.
To be fair, it got pirated to hell and back as well.
So did Spore, did you read the OP?
Yes.
I did.
Sooooo.....?
How does adding DRM help? It cost them sales, encouraged pirating and now they are getting sued over it as well. So, where in this did DRM help at all?
People saying "NO DRM!" are absolutely ignorant, as nobody would pay for anything, ever. GoG.com has no DRM on their product simply for the fact that the games on the service had been insanely pirated over the years, and any money is better than no money.
To be fair, it got pirated to hell and back as well.
So did Spore, did you read the OP?
Yes.
I did.
Sooooo.....?
How does adding DRM help? It cost them sales, encouraged pirating and now they are getting sued over it as well. So, where in this did DRM help at all?
I'm not saying that it did?
I'm just saying that Sins got heavily pirated as well.
People saying "NO DRM!" are absolutely ignorant, as nobody would pay for anything, ever. GoG.com has no DRM on their product simply for the fact that the games on the service had been insanely pirated over the years, and any money is better than no money.
People saying "NO DRM!" are absolutely ignorant, as nobody would pay for anything, ever.
Right, but saying that DRM is of no use, because things will be pirated regardless, is missing the point entirely.
I can absolutely see the reason why DRM exists, and yes, while it's a pain, I'd rather have it than not.
'I bought it, I can do whatever I want with it!' can only go so far as well. Sure, you bought a car, but using it to smuggle heroin into your state? Sort of illegal.
Yes, you bought the game. Doesn't give rights for casual piracy, or anything of the sort.
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited September 2008
Yes, you bought the game. Doesn't give rights for casual piracy, or anything of the sort.
If only anyone had argued they wanted to do something that wasn't legal with software they had actually legally bought. And yes, I view when I buy a game I should be able to install it and uninstall it, keep it where I like and such as much as I fucking want.
Yes, you bought the game. Doesn't give rights for casual piracy, or anything of the sort.
If only anyone had argued they wanted to do something that wasn't legal with software they had actually legally bought. And yes, I view when I buy a game I should be able to install it and uninstall it, keep it where I like and such as much as I fucking want.
I brought the point up, as it's why EA established that they wanted DRM with Spore in the first place, and I was covering the topic 'in general', not directing towards anyone in particular.
And you DO have the ability to install and uninstall the title as much as you want, it's simply a phonecall away after your five installs.
Posts
I don't think anyone is comparing EA to Stardock here. In fact I think you're the first person to mention Stardock in the thread.
Really though, what's the point of piling on more restrictions when the basic ones fulfil your needs to the extent that you're capable of addressing the issue, and the additional restriction don't improve on that whilst still restricting your legitimate purchasers?
It's a trend that has to stop, if nothing else because it's not solving the problem and it's an expenditure of resources that isn't having the desired effect. Zero day piracy can be helped to an extent by DRM. Improving those forms of DRM might even extend the gap even longer. But placing additional restrictions on the consumer without actually changing the situation seems pointless on all grounds.
Except, you know, Spore was cracked about three days before the official release.
In fact, the only protection system I remember working very well was Starforce3 -- I recall it was about a year before Splinter Cell Chaos Theory was fully cracked. And we know benign and well-loved Starforce was.
I really don't care as long as I can play Spore in 50 years on my vintage Macbook Pro.
I mentioned it earlier.
Maybe I'm thick, but why couldn't you apply the Stardock business model to a bigger scale, exactly? You want to patch the game, you need to connect to their server but there's no nastiness on your end. Why wouldn't it work?
Yeah, whoda thunk it right?
IIRC games released purely on Steam like HL2 and co (as in, they needed activation via Steam) have managed to avoid zero day piracy because the core files necessary to run the game aren't available until the day of release.
It's a pretty neat trick that worked for Valve, and I guess they figured that if you're going by way of online verification, you may as well do something like that. I think other games like Bioshock and Mass Effect had similar systems. Don't know what happened with Spore.
Once again -
It doesn't matter if EA makes you aware of the presence of SecuROM.
It matters whether or not EA tells you that SecuROM will not be uninstalled along with the rest of the Spore installation.
Simply saying "X is installed with Spore" is not the same as "X will not be removed when Spore is."
What I did find was EA expressly putting themselves under the jurisdiction of CA law.
"This License shall be governed by and construed (without regard to conflicts or choice of law principles) under the laws of the State of California as applied to agreements entered into and to be performed entirely in California between California residents."
1) Demographics of their respective markets
2) Economies of scale. Server hosting, bandwidth.
3) Sins was pirated, a lot. But it had such a low budget its business model facilitated it.
You couldnt make Spore for 1 million dollars. It isnt a linear progression of finances.
Also, BubbaT, I know that. In fact I said exactly that. Read posts carefully.
Which is why I'm saying ignore the EULA when looking for availability of information. Any information in the EULA is just as irrelevant as the legal status of the EULA itself.
EULA's are so goddam pointless they should put them on the box.
The EULA is probably not going to play a significant part in this case - EULA's are tricky legal things, and if EA tried to go that route and failed (which is always a possibility), it could do some damage to the already theoretical standing of EULA's. Hiding behind the EULA could be very costly in the long run - thus why we usually only see them brought up in court when the company is making a claim against someone.
I believe that you've grossly underestimated EA's portfolio of penis monsters. The outcome of this case may hinge on those holdings.
Seriously?
Are you genuinely suggestion I should have to go online to see if any game I buy is going to install stuff without my permission before I buy it.
So, I either look up online every game before I buy it to see what it is going to install besides the damn game that I bought, or I rescind my right to complain when it does install malware without my knowledge/permission.
No wonder so many people turn to piracy. If I didn't care about the wider economic implication of my role in the supply chain I would not doubt turn to piracy too, just to avoid all of this bullshit.
Edit: This stuff right here is why there are so many disenfranchised PC gamers around today.
That's the most infuriating thing about DRM. It punishes the legitimate customer scores more than the pirate.
DRM adds value to the pirated product. That's terrible for the industry.
(EDIT: Which is not to say I don't understand why it's there. I'm all for developers protecting their property, when done intelligently.)
Not serious at all, but I didn't want to be too incendiary to the people here who seem to think that if a software company includes in the game package a map to a buried chest with the EULA in it, then they've done all they need to as a company to inform the consumer about what they're software is about to do to your property.
Honestly, though, you already go online to check to see which DRM is included in games and what it does. And you should, because it really is a smart move for the informed consumer. It's just a very, very bad legal argument for a whole host of reasons.
It tells their shareholders that they're doing something to solve the really unsolvable problem of software piracy. In practice it doesn't really prevent software piracy in any real way, but on paper it looks far better than simply saying "Yeah, people are just going to steal the program we spent millions of dollars on and there's nothing we can do about it. More money, please."
Fixed.
Twitter
All I can say is: HA-HA.
I have no sympathy.
Edit: For what it is worth, when I "cleansed" my former PC of securom I had to edit registry keys to do so. This was a while ago when Bioshock was released and I have no idea if they have since corrected the problem or not. I found securom was very invasive and took me several attempts to fully remove all processes and other aspects of it from my system. This doesn't mean it's exactly the same now, but it was a total bastard to remove back then.
My favorite part is the very beginning of the e-mail, where they say:
Especially when malware or spyware were never mentioned in the e-mail I sent to them.
Edit - Or linked on the previous page.
http://www.securom.com/support/SecuROM_Uninstaller.zip
Quoted since it got BotP'd, and in case anyone was interested in it.
While I dont' agree with SecureROM's very adament life on a PC system, and having to go through lengths to remove it, I do see why a piracy-defense mechanic is installed with a game.
People saying "NO DRM!" are absolutely ignorant, as nobody would pay for anything, ever. GoG.com has no DRM on their product simply for the fact that the games on the service had been insanely pirated over the years, and any money is better than no money.
EDIT: And with the SecureROM uninstaller easily grabbed, my second paragraph is negated. I dont have any personal problems with DRM.
Stardock says hi.
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
To be fair, it got pirated to hell and back as well.
Since running off sales data is not going to give you any conclusive information.
Probably not.
Nonetheless, it sold very well indeed and gave the creators a nice little pot of cash. I would say this goes somewhat against
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
Especially since it was already said that, even with the DRM, spore got pirated over 500,000 times in one week. DRMs don't stop pirates, and all they end up hurting are the people who actually legitimately pay for the games.
Before the game was actually on store shelves, mind you.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I don't even have any programs installed that use it. I'm think I got it with either the BioShock demo or the Spore Creature Creator demo, both of which have been removed from my hard drive. I haven't had any problems with it so far, but just having it sit there bothers me.
Look let's be honest here. This scenario has only ever applied to Stardock's own games, and ancient releases.
CD Project may have started GOG.com but gee, they sure as crap aren't intent put out a new release of theirs without DRM on GOG, and they would never do that because unlike those old crappy games, something like the Witcher would never sell otherwise. They're not that absolutely ignorant to allow the possibility of something like that, so would you kindly shut up about it.
So did Spore, did you read the OP?
Yes.
I did.
Sooooo.....?
How does adding DRM help? It cost them sales, encouraged pirating and now they are getting sued over it as well. So, where in this did DRM help at all?
I'm not saying that it did?
I'm just saying that Sins got heavily pirated as well.
Aww, so it does.
Ms Spektor has been lying to me?
Right, but saying that DRM is of no use, because things will be pirated regardless, is missing the point entirely.
I can absolutely see the reason why DRM exists, and yes, while it's a pain, I'd rather have it than not.
'I bought it, I can do whatever I want with it!' can only go so far as well. Sure, you bought a car, but using it to smuggle heroin into your state? Sort of illegal.
Yes, you bought the game. Doesn't give rights for casual piracy, or anything of the sort.
If only anyone had argued they wanted to do something that wasn't legal with software they had actually legally bought. And yes, I view when I buy a game I should be able to install it and uninstall it, keep it where I like and such as much as I fucking want.
I brought the point up, as it's why EA established that they wanted DRM with Spore in the first place, and I was covering the topic 'in general', not directing towards anyone in particular.
And you DO have the ability to install and uninstall the title as much as you want, it's simply a phonecall away after your five installs.