×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

EA Hit By Class-Action Suit Over Spore DRM

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the was-it-worth-the-hassle? dept.

PC Games (Games) 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."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

538 comments

simply boycott them (4, Insightful)

jacquesm (154384) | more than 5 years ago | (#25141611)

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 (5, Insightful)

lymond01 (314120) | more than 5 years ago | (#25141745)

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 (5, Interesting)

Fallen Kell (165468) | more than 5 years ago | (#25141805)

Boycotting doesn't work anymore. I have been boycotting most music for years, yet the music companies just point their finger and blame the drop in sales to pirates. Software companies will do the same thing.

Re:simply boycott them (4, Interesting)

jacquesm (154384) | more than 5 years ago | (#25141945)

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:simply boycott them (4, Interesting)

snowraver1 (1052510) | more than 5 years ago | (#25142103)

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.

Re:simply boycott them (5, Informative)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#25142111)

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 ;)

Don't trust anyone over 25... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25142289)

I believe that quote originally came from Abbie Hoffman - maybe Jerry Rubin - but definitely not Cory Doctorow

Re:simply boycott them (5, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 5 years ago | (#25142339)

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 (4, Interesting)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#25141823)

Or they could just call 'em "Rentals" as they should and stick on DRM eula(which nobody will read anyway).

Re:simply boycott them (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 5 years ago | (#25142041)

It's not as simple as "just calling it a rental" though. Renting is one way to enjoy something. I rent some movies and games. Buying is another. I buy some other movies and games. Saying that they should "just call it a rental" though implies that the two methods are equal except for the name. They're not. If I want to BUY a game, and only a rental is available, then I'm still pissed off regardless of them correctly terming the rental as such.

Re:simply boycott them (1)

Hyppy (74366) | more than 5 years ago | (#25142189)

But, at least people who thought they were buying the game aren't going to have a nasty surprise later.

Re:simply boycott them (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#25142235)

"Buying a game" would still exist. Calling rentals for what they are would not equate "buying" with "renting" -- EA as well as any anybody else who read the review comments on Amazon damn well know the difference between "renting" and "buying" as well as what gamers want(to completely own and pwn the game they paid for).

Re:simply boycott them (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 5 years ago | (#25142307)

If you think that you're going to semantically trick EA into distributing the same game both with and without DRM you're just being incredibly naive. Regardless of what you get them to agree to call it, they still consider it "selling".

Re:simply boycott them (4, Insightful)

Hortensia Patel (101296) | more than 5 years ago | (#25142281)

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:simply boycott them (4, Insightful)

strabes (1075839) | more than 5 years ago | (#25142311)

If they start calling them rentals I won't be paying $50 for each game I "rent."

Re:simply boycott them (4, Insightful)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 5 years ago | (#25141889)

Especially with the way the Sony rootkit debacle went down. They're not identical situations, but they're similar enough to give one hope.

Re:simply boycott them (4, Insightful)

HappySmileMan (1088123) | more than 5 years ago | (#25141813)

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 (3, Insightful)

Dutch Gun (899105) | more than 5 years ago | (#25141853)

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 (5, Interesting)

scatters (864681) | more than 5 years ago | (#25142093)

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 (3, Insightful)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 5 years ago | (#25142319)

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:simply boycott them (4, Insightful)

grumbel (592662) | more than 5 years ago | (#25142169)

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 (1)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 5 years ago | (#25142207)

this really might achieve more than a thousand angsty gamers complaining about it on message boards. "direct financial liability" speaks louder than "unhappy players"

Re:simply boycott them (4, Insightful)

bwcbwc (601780) | more than 5 years ago | (#25142337)

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.

Where do I sign (1)

BlowHole666 (1152399) | more than 5 years ago | (#25141617)

Where do I go to sign up to be a part of this. Anything to pound EA in the ass.

Re:Where do I sign (1)

mepperpint (790350) | more than 5 years ago | (#25141761)

Where do I go to sign up to be a part of this. Anything to pound EA in the ass.

Typically you need only purchase the product to be a member of the class. If the lawsuit is successful then the court will require that the company, in this case EA, notify you of the case and the resolution so that you can get your part. In this case that means purchasing a copy of Spore and hoping that the lawsuit is successful. Given the way these things go, however, you'll almost certainly hurt EA more by not buying Spore in the first place. The compensation is likely to be far less than the cost of Spore and may well come in part in coupons for future purchases or other mostly worthless things...

Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25141625)

Not sure how much good will come of this, but I just can't stand EA. They don't care about the gamer.
Oh look, time to play some Madden 09 on my 360, w00t :)

good start (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25141649)

what we really need is a class action law suit by all the guys that wanted to eat out a girl but were turned off by her forest of pubes. Shave the pussies!

Re:good start (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25141933)

what we really need is a class action law suit by all the guys that wanted to eat out a girl but were turned off by her forest of pubes. Shave the pussies!

Or you could create hairless genitalia creatures in Spore.

Re:good start (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25142115)

Actually, I see real merit in this proposition.

About time (0, Flamebait)

krovisser (1056294) | more than 5 years ago | (#25141667)

If It didn't have the DRM, I would have bought it instead of pirated it. Although, I am somewhat considering purchasing it. Maybe when it goes down to $30 instead of 9 thousand.

Slashdot summary as per usual (1, Redundant)

SadSoupDragon (895258) | more than 5 years ago | (#25141669)

Look, you've missed a bit on purpose again.

EA has also threatened to ban players for even discussing SecuROM

From their own forums. Not in general — they're not suing people for talking about it elsewhere or anything like that. I'm not excusing the awful DRM stuff, but you're damaging your argument when you purposely word it to sound worse than it is.

I predict the class will win the following award: (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25141671)

The victorious class will be awarded a voucher for a free credit report from the good folks at freecreditreport.com.

Undisclosed? (2, Informative)

fractic (1178341) | more than 5 years ago | (#25141703)

While I despise DRM, I'm quite sure that the EULA mentions secuROM. Of course Melissa Thomas, like most people, didn't bother to actually read it before agreeing to it.

Re:Undisclosed? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25141723)

And the EULA is printed on the outside of the box?

Re:Undisclosed? (4, Interesting)

scubamage (727538) | more than 5 years ago | (#25141779)

DINGDINGDING, we have a winner! Sometimes they list that there is, "antipiracy software" included, I hardly think that disclaimer explains away SecuROM.

Re:Undisclosed? (0, Troll)

Masterwinks (1205100) | more than 5 years ago | (#25141831)

No, but the EULA is displayed when you want to install the game. You know, the thing that no one ever reads but you can present in court as evidence since you clicked the check mark "I agree." Yeah, that thing. Also, people knew there was going to be secuROM on the game disc. They made it public shortly after announcing the game. If you got the creature creator, you found that out as well. You can't say that you didn't know that a Digital Rights Management program known as secuROM would be included with your copy of Spore. This lawsuit will fail miserably. EA won't even blink.

Re:Undisclosed? (5, Insightful)

Hyppy (74366) | more than 5 years ago | (#25142067)

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? (2, Insightful)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 5 years ago | (#25142157)

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 Bioshock for the 360 were close to that for me. I'd heard that were "good games", but aside from that I had never read any article or in depth piece on them before picking them up. Now there naturally are consequences to that: I might get a sucky, buggy game by doing that. That's an acceptable risk though. Consumers SHOULD however, not be subject to heavy DRM such as that in Spore, and they shouldn't have to read anything to verify that ahead of time. That's like putting poisoned soft drinks in a vending machine, and then leaving a stack of leaflets on the table across the room explaining that they're poisoned. Saying that the information was available just isn't going to cut it.

Re:Undisclosed? (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 5 years ago | (#25142165)

That doesn't mean it's binding. By the time a person actually clicks on the EULA or doesn't the ability to return the software for a full refund is pretty much gone.

And having read a few EULAs you have to know quite a bit more about the law than is included. Pretty much all of them include language about parts being overridden by laws. The basic assumption being that you're not competent to make an informed decision about accepting or not. Most people at that point click through because they don't think they're going to get all their money back if they refuse to accept.

Re:Undisclosed? (5, Insightful)

Ghost Hedgehog (814914) | more than 5 years ago | (#25142213)

The EULA probably does not cover that secuROM stays on your harddrive, even after removal of Spore. This lawsuit might put EA into the position that it has to release some kind of removal tool. But even without the lawsuit I think EA should remove all Spore related software when you deinstall it.

Re:Undisclosed? (1)

SadSoupDragon (895258) | more than 5 years ago | (#25141837)

Outside of the box? No. Available before the offending software is installed? Yes.

Re:Undisclosed? (1)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 5 years ago | (#25142369)

Outside of the box? No.

Available before the offending software is installed? Yes.

Available before the offending software is purchased, opened, and thus rendered un-refundable? No.

Re:Undisclosed? (1)

fractic (1178341) | more than 5 years ago | (#25141855)

I'm not saying EULAs are a good thing. I'm just saying that she has accepted it and it probably does mention secuROM.

Re:Undisclosed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25142155)

Oh, so it's not available on the outside of the box... and yet she accepted it before she shelled out her cash? /same anon

Re:Undisclosed? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25141769)

Can you read the EULA without purchasing and beginning the install process? No.

Can you return the software after opening it, starting the install and then declining the EULA after seeing it uses securom? No.

Re:Undisclosed? (4, Insightful)

AndyG314 (760442) | more than 5 years ago | (#25141771)

I'm sure they mention it in the ELUA, but that is AFTER the product is purchased. You have paid for the product and are then later given terms you must agree to or be unable to use the software, and in most cases also unable to get a refund. This is one of the big complaints about ELUA's that they add terms after the purchases of the product.

Re:Undisclosed? (5, Informative)

east coast (590680) | more than 5 years ago | (#25142049)

Spore's EULA [gametreeonline.com].

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? (1)

fractic (1178341) | more than 5 years ago | (#25142089)

Looks like I was right. While secuROM isn't mentioned by name, the mention of DRM is on the very first page.

Re:Undisclosed? (2, Insightful)

Hyppy (74366) | more than 5 years ago | (#25142249)

You still have yet to present evidence that the EULA was accepted prior to the point at which the purchase became non-refundable.

The "Ban" (5, Informative)

The Moof (859402) | more than 5 years ago | (#25141711)

The ban in question is on EA's forums, not from the game.

Re:The "Ban" (5, Informative)

X-Kal (861125) | more than 5 years ago | (#25141803)

That's not entirely true, it seems. http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/list/3869.page [spore.com]
"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:The "Ban" (2, Informative)

The Moof (859402) | more than 5 years ago | (#25141973)

Kotaku covered the same thing, and debunked it here [kotaku.com].
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.

Re:The "Ban" (2, Informative)

Rossman (593924) | more than 5 years ago | (#25141851)

Actually, the article quotes the Forum moderator: "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." That sounds like an in-game ban, not a forum ban, to me.

Re:The "Ban" easily beaten one, piece o' cake... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25141863)

NO BIG DEAL: Simply get another gmail, or yahoo email account, & then use a new logon name to setup your account there, & once you login via an anonymous proxy server for their forums... guess what? YOU'RE IN... & there isn't a forums board that can keep you out on this planet @ that point.

Re:The "Ban" easily beaten one, piece o' cake... (2, Informative)

MaXMC (138127) | more than 5 years ago | (#25141943)

They use the game's login for the forum...

Re:The "Ban" easily beaten one, piece o' cake... (1)

fotbr (855184) | more than 5 years ago | (#25142031)

Well, except the forums that don't allow gmail, hotmail, yahoo email, etc.

This seems pointless... (2, Insightful)

Deathdonut (604275) | more than 5 years ago | (#25141713)

How exactly is the DRM portion of the install any different than any other part of the install? I hate heavy-handed DRM as much as the next guy, but to make a class action claim over this is as rediculous as expecting an MMO to refund half your money if you don't want the updater installed.

Re:This seems pointless... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25141913)

There should be more class action suits over similar malware [wikipedia.org] inclusion.

Re:This seems pointless... (1)

mapsjanhere (1130359) | more than 5 years ago | (#25142025)

The question is most likely one of uninstalls. If the DRM installs with the game, and goes away with the game, they are probably safe. If the DRM becomes uninstaller resistant and just goes into hiding, it fits the definition of malware, requiring separate, informed consent to installation.

EA has lost me (4, Insightful)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 5 years ago | (#25141725)

I'm sure there are a lot of potential customers who, like me, didn't really know much about Spore, but did end up hearing a lot about how it's a pain-in-the-ass because of the DRM. As a result, I don't think I'll ever spend any money on this, since the lion's share of what I've heard is that it's tightly controlled.

Re:EA has lost me (1, Interesting)

RLiegh (247921) | more than 5 years ago | (#25141891)

I was considering getting it when I saw it on sale for $9.99 at Best Buy, until I remembered the fuss kicked up over it here. That, plus the fact that seeing a relatively new game go for $9.99 raises a few alarms in and of itself.

Re:EA has lost me (1)

brunascle (994197) | more than 5 years ago | (#25142007)

that was the Creature Creator, not the game itself. and supposedly you can download the Creature Creator for free anyway.

Re:EA has lost me (2, Informative)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 5 years ago | (#25142033)

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:EA has lost me (0)

Vagnaard (1366015) | more than 5 years ago | (#25142029)

Don't forget that it's highly exaggerated too. Yes, there is DRM, yes, you have a maximum number of install before having to contact support, but the game still works and the DRM is mostly harmless. There are still those few vocal one who had to reinstall because of securom (burning an install in the process) and they are the one making the most noise. I hate DRM as much as the next guy but I feel that in this case, the outcry is overblown. Yet, I would be happy if EA used softer security methodes. securom and the validation didn't stop spore from being avaible on your favorite torrent up to 4 days before it's official release (australian leak) and its only loosing them sales.

Re:EA has lost me (2, Insightful)

Hyppy (74366) | more than 5 years ago | (#25142121)

Some of us prefer to be able to play games we pay for for as long as we want. What happens when the validation servers are taken offline? Or when EA decides to decline your request for another install?

Re:EA has lost me (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 5 years ago | (#25142217)

So, it's not stopping piracy and the DRM is costing them sales, remind me again how they expect to make money?

Re:EA has lost me (1)

aztektum (170569) | more than 5 years ago | (#25142265)

Same with me. Unfortunately this includes Bioware titles as well. And I was lookin' forward to Dragon Age. :(

Command and Control Center? (3, Funny)

skis (920891) | more than 5 years ago | (#25141729)

Where's the command and control center of my computer? I don't remember putting that in there!

Re:Command and Control Center? (5, Funny)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | more than 5 years ago | (#25141795)

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... (4, Funny)

Sasayaki (1096761) | more than 5 years ago | (#25141739)

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).

Why complain when you can crack the game (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25141751)

There are plenty of cracks out there. Buy the game if you want to, and crack it.
Warez-bb.org forums feature the ISO and the crack.

Note that I'm promoting piracy or anything - just providing the solution to the DRM thingy. Cracks!

Re:Why complain when you can crack the game (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25142173)

Why not?
Because you approve the entire system the game has in place if you buy it. Some people don't like software that makes you jump through hoops to play it, and they will have to show solidarity in opposing the company entirely, or at least not buying the software.

Re:Why complain when you can crack the game (2, Interesting)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#25142253)

If a piece of software (or musc or anything) has DRM, that's an invitation to take it for free. If the only stuff that gets pirated is DRMed, they'll have to stop the DRM nonsense, now won't they?

BS (4, Insightful)

qoncept (599709) | more than 5 years ago | (#25141793)

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.

Re:BS (2, Insightful)

ironwill96 (736883) | more than 5 years ago | (#25141923)

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 them with my purchases.

Re:BS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25141929)

No matter how big a jackass you're being in an online forum, you should never, ever, lose access to a game you paid for over it. Just the fact that EA has that kind of power over your purchases makes my mind boggle.

Re:BS (5, Informative)

Dutch Gun (899105) | more than 5 years ago | (#25141993)

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...

Re:BS (1)

youngdev (1238812) | more than 5 years ago | (#25142345)

>People aren't getting banned for talking about
>DRM. They are being banned for being jackasses
>when they talk about DRM.

I doubt this is true. I am sure that being a jackass about anything other than DRM does not always get you banned, so the deciding factor about whether or not a user is being banned is whether or not the user is talking about DRM. Being a jackass only gives EA an excuse but EA is not targeting all jackasses for banishment across the board.

Wrong word (5, Interesting)

psiphiorg (566033) | more than 5 years ago | (#25141815)

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

It's all about Marketing (1)

Orleron (835910) | more than 5 years ago | (#25141817)

The validity and the outcome of this suit don't matter a bit. What matters is the negative publicity to EA. They should take notice, and so should any other game company that wishes to use SecuROM. Bastages.

It is just depressing (0, Troll)

sbate (916441) | more than 5 years ago | (#25141819)

The game costs 60 dollars here at Wal-Mart. And it will mess up your computer, really it will it will be slower after you load it and really slow after you play the game till you re-boot. Essentially it turns your computer into a console. For what? some frog making game where the frog goes to space and gets abducted by aliens... I dont need a computer for that it just happens to me all the time just sitting my trailer.

Just crack the damn software (2, Interesting)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 5 years ago | (#25141941)

Just mercilessly crack every protection SecuROM employs, they're not that difficult. Irritating yes, but fairly trivial. Yes, implement Q-channel cloning in InfraRecorder. Yes, implement a very slow reverse-seek twin sector search, or a faster forward-sector position scan to detect twin sectors (they have to skip a sector, which indicates a hidden twin). Yes, simply mung the SecuROM wrapper and make it always fail open. Pirating the game isn't a great goal, but embarrassing the anti-piracy software maker is a clear necessity.

Re:Just crack the damn software (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25142091)

This ain't a game! It's a god damn arms race!

As we have seen before, boycotts don't work. (3, Interesting)

Zombie Ryushu (803103) | more than 5 years ago | (#25141991)

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.

You Go Girl (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 5 years ago | (#25141995)

Now I wish I had purchased a copy so I could jump on this bandwagon. However, I was waiting for them to loosen the DRM before I purchased it.

Re:You Go Girl (1)

genner (694963) | more than 5 years ago | (#25142035)

Now I wish I had purchased a copy so I could jump on this bandwagon. However, I was waiting for them to loosen the DRM before I purchased it.

I own the game. Which way is the bandwagon? I didn't see any links on how to cash in on this?

DRM regimes are an unacceptable security risk (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25142209)

DRM that installs device drivers, or any kind of privileged process, is wholly unacceptable - unless the vendor responsible is willing to accept full legal liability for any software defects that may arise, resulting in data corruption, or a system where security is compromised as a result of software defects in the provided DRM regime. If such liability is not accepted, it is hardly reasonable to expect users to install their DRM software. Users have every right to be outraged at a vendor that is willing to potentially compromise _their_ system in the name of dubious anti-piracy initiatives.
The time has passed when it is acceptable to require administrative rights to install any kind of software. If vendors don't accept this, they have no business shipping software for the PC platform.
SecuROM installs its own device driver. This makes it a wholly unacceptable scheme for any home PC of any kind. If you have software that includes SecuROM, you should complain to your software vendor that they are compromising the security of your system, and demand formal proof of code audit from a credible independent third part of the formal correctness of every line of code in that driver.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SafeDisc
SafeDisc driver vulnerability.
How are end users to know that Macrovision has formally proved the correctness of the SafeDisc device driver? I very much doubt that they have.
This is a company with a history of substandard security. End users must insist that Macrovision open up for a code audit from a neutral third party if they wish to pursue their current business model.
DRM will not stop the real pirates anyway. It is merely an irritation to legitimate customers, who often choose to install _their_ software on multiple machines. Such schemes are at best a minor inconvenience, as they will soon be bypassed by accomplished crackers. I know of many legitimate purchasers of games who _choose_ to install cracked versions of products that they have bought because they are simple much less hassle.

I don't need SPORE that badly (1)

GunDawg (1365295) | more than 5 years ago | (#25142309)

With all the DRM going around, I don't need SPORE that badly. It's getting to the point that I (and people in general) are getting sick and tired of being restricted. As always, the law-abiding people are punished because of the law-less people.

Spore DRM = Sony CD rookit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25142315)

Couldn't this be compared to what Sony went through for the rootkit that was installed with some cds a few years back?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...