Slashdot Mirror
EA Hit By Class-Action Suit Over Spore DRM
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."
and do the same for any other DRM laden product, it'll teach the manufacturers quickly to stay away from DRM.
MP3 Search Engine
The ban in question is on EA's forums, not from the game.
And the EULA is printed on the outside of the box?
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.
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).
Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
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.
If it's dead, you killed it.
DINGDINGDING, we have a winner! Sometimes they list that there is, "antipiracy software" included, I hardly think that disclaimer explains away SecuROM.
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.
Whale
That would be the Battle Bridge, just go up Turbolift-14, all the way to the top. Can't miss it.
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
Spore's EULA.
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.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
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.
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.
My loathing of DRM software is clashing horribly with my abhorrence of class-action lawsuits! What ever shall I do??
I guess I'll go play Spore until I decide.
I purchased Spore ( The Galactic edition ) from Amazon on September 8th, for overnight delivery.
I could not get it installed. After 11 days of going back and forth with EA tech support, EA informed me that they assigned the software key to someone else on September 7th. EA's solution, "return the software to my place of purchase".
Sounds great, but companies such as EA have told vendors not to take returns on software that is no longer in the shrinkwrap.
I have pointed out to EA that the only viable solution is for them to issue me a new key.
I have heard nothing from EA on this since Saturday.
Maybe it is time to fire up the lawyers. EA took my money, and has not given me a product in exchange.
A boycott says "I don't like what you're doing." A lawsuit says "I think what you're doing is (or should be) illegal." It's a much stronger - and more public - statement.
Personally, I wouldn't get involved this one. But I hope they win. DRM on purchased products are anti-consumer.
Courts have only upheld this in cases where they deem the EULA is reasonable.
Essentially, a EULA in-package only holds up if a "reasonable" person would agree to it upon reading it.
Reasonable does not imply average, so you also cannot use "the average user is stupid". Frankly, no reasonable user wants Malware on their computer, so if SecuROM can (reasonably) be shown to be Malware, the EULA should be deemed useless.
To be honnest, I've seen a pretty strong message happen at least once.
The German version of Victoria, as shipped, didn't even work. At all. On any computer. It bombed out with a script syntax error, right when you tried to start the campaign. Nothing blamable on video drivers, hardware configuration, etc. It just couldn't work on any computer, because a keyword in the script didn't match the keywords that the game engine recognized.
The German publisher pointed fingers at the devs. The devs pointed fingers at the publisher. Apparently both said that somehow an older beta version had been taken as the gold disk, but none of the two felt it was their job to do anything about it.
Most retailers dropped that game like a hot potato. Within a day or two of release, it had been simply pulled off the shelves.
I don't know if they actually gave the disks back to the publisher (probably), but here's the fun part: they don't even have to. You may have learned that the capitalism model is that the merchant buys cheap from the manufacturer, and gives it more expensive to you for a profit. Forget about that crap. There's a whole bunch of markets, from groceries to computer games, where it just doesn't work that way.
How it really works, at least for major retailers, is that you essentially the rent shelf space for your stuff from the retailer. If it doesn't sell, the retailer doesn't pay you a cent for those unsold copies. In fact, the retailer still makes a profit even if you didn't sell a single copy. If the retailer just pulls that stuff off the shelves and sends you your boxes / DVD cases back, you're shafted. They just denied you the use of their shelf space.
To get an idea of how important retailers are, E3 was originally conceived as a way to woo major retailers into carrying the publishers' stuff. Or, better yet, see the raging debate about AO ratings in the USA, whose root cause is really one single retailer: Wall-Mart won't let AO titles on their shelves. If they did, the whole "OMG, we're censored if we can't get a T rating for our gore-fest" debate would fizzle right there and then.
I think it's a pretty strong message they can get to the publishes. They don't even have to go talk to the publisher. Just send them their boxes back in a truck, with a document that says "because of disproportionate returns." That's it. Any publisher will listen, when essentially you're the one with your foot on their oxygen line.
And yes, there have been a few who insisted that they're so high and mighty, that the retailers should listen to them. They're all bankrupt by now.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
I think its more than reasonable for people to assume that the law would protect them from a commercially available product that is designed to subversively hurt them.
If by design some software silently installs itself and modifies the operating system in any way purposely disadvantageous to the user without the users express permission, then it is absolutely the dictionary definition of malware, as in software with malicious intent.
Why should there be a distinction between big companies doing it for commercial reasons or individual hackers doing it? Writers of malware apps should always be punished for unauthorised damage to other people's computer systems. period. Actually big companies should be much more strongly punished as it generally a much larger-scale crime, given the sheer number of users they infect.
That British hacker who got into the pentagon to look for UFO evidence ended up facing extradition, jail time and enormous costs for supposed damage to a few systems, even though he didn't actually change anything. Why is it that EA who subversively plant malware on your PC that permanently occupies resources and damages your access rights can get away with it?
"Please do not continue to post these threads or you account may be at risk of banning, which in some cases would mean you would need to buy a new copy to play Spore."
Nice. Shut up or we'll unilaterally take away the game that you bought. Captures the essence of DRM quite well.