Slashdot Mirror


Two New Class-Action Suits Against EA Over DRM

In September, we discussed a class-action suit filed against Electronic Arts over the DRM in Spore. Now, two new class-action suits have been filed that target the SecuROM software included in a free trial of the Spore Creature Creator (PDF) and in The Sims 2: Bon Voyage (PDF). If this sort of legal reprisal continues to catch on, EA could be seeing quite a few class-action suits in the future. One of the suits accuses: "The inclusion of undisclosed, secretly installed DRM protection measures with a program that was freely distributed constitutes a major violation of computer owners' absolute right to control what does and what does not get loaded onto their computers, and how their computers shall be used ... [SecuROM] cannot be completely uninstalled. Once installed it becomes a permanent part of the consumer's software portfolio ... EA's EULA for Spore Creature Creator Free Trial Edition makes utterly no mention of any Technical Protection Measures, DRM technology, or SecuROM whatsoever."

336 comments

  1. Of course the installer must leave something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If uninstalling the free trial would leave your computer in exactly the same state as before, then nothing could stop you from free trying again.

    1. Re:Of course the installer must leave something by davidphogan74 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm not sure that's really a great defense. If I uninstall software, I don't expected phantom memory use by something I'm not using anymore.

      I know it's not realistic, but it doesn't change that uninstalled programs should not leave shit all over my hard drive.

    2. Re:Of course the installer must leave something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There is a difference between leaving "hey, I was here before" traces, and actual executables that continue to load and run on a machine.

    3. Re:Of course the installer must leave something by erroneus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So frikking what?!

      It would be the same situation if people had Deep Freeze installed on their PCs... or even if they re-installed or re-imaged their computers after the trial. It is stupid to think that people will not use free things over and over and over again. It is more stupid to take steps to ensure that their computers are impaired or limited in some way to ensure that. Sony did that and it didn't work out so well for them although I believe the remedy wasn't harsh enough.

      What if drug manufacturers did the same thing? Modify your body in some way to prevent you from taking more than one free sample? I recognize this a very extreme example of the same general idea which is trying to control what the recipient of free things do with them.

      Windows is already flakey and unstable enough as it is with every printer or other hardware maker insisting on loading utilities that start at boot time, AOL instant messenger, MSN messenger and all sorts of other nonsense being installed on top of flaky drivers and kernel mods. All this crap needs to stop. But it is "The American Way."

      Software companies feel they need to protect their interests even when it means secret infiltration of property they do not own or otherwise have full legal rights to.

      The Bush administration, other members of the government and most rednecks feel it is important to protect our interests even when it means invading other nations, killing people and destabilizing the world in the process. (Here's the acid test to ask yourself if this is okay or not: ask yourself if you would be okay with it if some other nation did that to you? If the answer is "hell no!" then you have your answer.)

    4. Re:Of course the installer must leave something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      One is easy to circumvent, the other is not?

    5. Re:Of course the installer must leave something by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Fine, but they need to ask permission before making a change that can only be backed out by reformatting your HD. Either that, or PAY for you to have your machine reformatted and re-installed with everything but their steaming pile.

    6. Re:Of course the installer must leave something by khellendros1984 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...What? We're talking about unethical software, not the actions of nations. Don't blow it out of proportion.

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    7. Re:Of course the installer must leave something by Morlark · · Score: 1

      Why would they want to stop you from using something that they are giving away for free? EA do not stop you from reinstalling the program, nor would they ever wish to do so. As a result, there is no justification for leaving any traces of anything behind when you uninstall.

      --
      Santa's suicide mission go!
    8. Re:Of course the installer must leave something by Crazy+Taco · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      The Bush administration, other members of the government and most rednecks feel it is important to protect our interests even when it means invading other nations, killing people and destabilizing the world in the process. (Here's the acid test to ask yourself if this is okay or not: ask yourself if you would be okay with it if some other nation did that to you? If the answer is "hell no!" then you have your answer.)

      While that rant was way off topic, let me respond anyway.

      How about we use a more valid analogy. If my country was full of wild eyed lunatics who kept running across the border and blowing up bystanders in other countries, as well as blowing up citizens at home for talking to the wrong person, worshiping the wrong God or wearing the wrong article of clothing, would it be OK for someone to invade us? Yes, and I'd probably welcome it. That's the correct analogy that you should have use when talking about Afghanistan.

      And a valid analogy for Iraq would be this: If my country was full of lunatics who also would kill people for the wrong beliefs, if my country was governed by a brutal dictator who put protesters through plastic shredders, launched unprovoked wars on neighbors Canada and Mexico and used chemical weapons of mass destruction on them (this equates to Iraq attacking Iran and Kuwait), and if that dictator further used chemical weapons in an attempt to wipe out all the black people and the Amish (equatable to Saddam's genocidal reprisals against Kurds, an ethnic group, and Shiites, a religious group), and if that dictator appeared to have a continuing desire to get more WMDs and never showed anyone he destroyed the ones he had, would it be ok for someone to invade us? Umm... yes! And again, I'd be out welcoming it!!

      While I don't know your particular political orientation, I can guess that you are probably liberal. So here's a question for you to try out: why was it wrong for Bush to go into Iraq, but right for liberal President Bill Clinton to go invade Bosnia and Kosovo? If you claim we have no valid security interest in Iraq (I think everyone knows we had one in Afghanistan), than we sure as heck didn't have one in Kosovo! That was nothing but a pure nation building/police exercise which, if it was handled at all, should have been handled by the Europeans, since it was at best a minor regional squabble in their backyard and didn't involve either attacks on us (Afghanistan) or repeated invasion of other countries and allies (Iraq). But liberals never complained about that. They only complain about Bush and Iraq because it is the fashionable thing to do, and he's in the wrong party. Try using your brain for a bit, and make sure you use some more valid analogies in the future.

      --
      Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it.
    9. Re:Of course the installer must leave something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...

      who put protesters through plastic shredders

      ...

      Wasn't that completely debunked by now?

      Oh, it was.

    10. Re:Of course the installer must leave something by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      I'm sure the companies that offer a free trial would find a way for their business to work.

      In other words, I don't care.

    11. Re:Of course the installer must leave something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Undoing moderation. Thanks for pointing out the Bush flame at the bottom of the post.

    12. Re:Of course the installer must leave something by Tatsh · · Score: 5, Informative

      It might sound like a dumb idea and has no reason (there is no disc to authenticate with), but the DRM is present in demo versions only because crackers used to use demos to crack the retail versions of the games. They were a good starting point (especially with StarForce games) as most of the code to start the game was EXACTLY the same as what would appear in the retail version if it had not a copy protection placed on it.

    13. Re:Of course the installer must leave something by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      One continues to affect your computer's operation while the other does not.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    14. Re:Of course the installer must leave something by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      It would only be justified if it worked, and you could be sure that they weren't just bringing in or fostering their own set of murderous wild-eyed lunatics.

      Have you looked at Iraq and Afghanistan lately? The Taleban is on the rebound, civil services have gone back to the same levels they were under the _Russians_ in Afghanistan, and Iraq has become a recruiting ground for Muslim terrorists worldwide. The invasion has, in fact, made it less safe than it was under Hussein, at least for those in Baghdad.

    15. Re:Of course the installer must leave something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      You didn't get the hint that you have to compare effectiveness as well.

      If EA went with the non-obtrusive solution the Slashdot story would have been "Spore's Free Trial Time Limit Can Be Circumvented With One Registry Key Change", and you'd be ranting about how inept EA was. You can't have it both ways.

    16. Re:Of course the installer must leave something by FLEB · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Just off the top of my head...

      Make the trial phone home with a hash of the hardware specs on install or run. Invalidate the hash once the trial is up. Yeah, phone-homes are a pain, but I'm only talking about the trial version, here.

      You could key the specific installation with a time-based or otherwise random method, and key the save-game or data files to it (you would have something like Maya's solution, where trial-mode saves wouldn't be usable on the purchased version). You could reinstall the game as much as you wanted, but you'd have to start from scratch.

      --
      Information wants to be free.
      Entertainment wants to be paid.
      You just want to be cheap.
    17. Re:Of course the installer must leave something by celle · · Score: 1

      Except it does describe a trend. And as much as there are differences, corporate software makers affect more people and make more money than many countries. They are also more willing to act in their corporate and CEO's interest to the detriment of everyone else, even their own stockholders. This is unethical behavior that should be bordering on criminal at minimum. Unethical behavior is supposed to be discouraged, you make it sound like they should get a candy bar. Considering that civil/privacy rights are under attack from just about everywhere, maybe a strong reaction is whats needed to get something done.

    18. Re:Of course the installer must leave something by ultranova · · Score: 1

      If my country was full of wild eyed lunatics who kept running across the border and blowing up bystanders in other countries,

      I believe that's what the grandparent meant by "invading other nations".

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    19. Re:Of course the installer must leave something by FLEB · · Score: 1

      Personally, I consider it a "judgement call". While invading other sovereign nations opens one up to retaliation, the balance between sovereignty and human rights must be weighed when choosing to breach another nation.

      There's really no set formula for this-- for even telling what's "right" or "wrong", and what "wrong enough to intercede" is. It's why international organizations exist, and it is an important reason-- aside from unified military might-- why "rescuing" nations need to have international backing.

      A further, more practical consideration is that the winner of a conflict can end up emboldened in their policies, or even re-write history, so an invader had better either have iron-clad, internationally-recognized proof of grievous harm being done, or be assured of enough of a victory to allow them to parade the crimes of the vanquished out to the world.

      --
      Information wants to be free.
      Entertainment wants to be paid.
      You just want to be cheap.
    20. Re:Of course the installer must leave something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's the answer to that "question you want us to try out".

      Difference is, we're not still in Kosovo, and we weren't there for six years. Doesn't justify it completely, I know, but military spending and support against a war can brew up in six years when a one-two year war as was kosovo doesn't give much time.

      Note: Most Americans now (read: even conservatives, not just those *horrible* liberals, don't like the Iraq War.)

    21. Re:Of course the installer must leave something by shish · · Score: 1

      I was unable to play Deux Ex because I managed to get one of the few releases which came with DRM, and it refused to acknowledge the existance of my CD drive -- replacing the .exe with the one from the free and un-DRM'ed demo, everything works fine. I assume demos now come with DRM to stop this~

      --
      I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
    22. Re:Of course the installer must leave something by Lyrael · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They do, in fact, stop you from reinstalling programs. Both Spore and Red Alert 3 have a limit on the number of re-installs you're allowed.

      Spore was originally 3 installs per purchase of the game but I think it got pushed up to 5 after thousands of people complained (correct me if I'm wrong - it may still be 3). Red Alert 3 is limited to 5 installs.

      (And with the rate my boyfriend breaks my computer bad enough to need reformatting, I'm damn glad I pirated both or I'd need to buy a second copy by now...)

    23. Re:Of course the installer must leave something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahhh, the bushies, they just cant handle the fact they have made such massive mistakes.

      There is NO WAY Iraq was anything but a huge mistake, which has decreased US national security.

      Your post contains so many false statements, its obvious you have been standing around with your fingers in your ears going LA_LA_LA_LA for the last 8 years.

    24. Re:Of course the installer must leave something by vadim_t · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      You see this from a quite different point of view as the residents of the country.

      Go talk to some russians who lived there during communism and its fall. You'll find that a large amount of them don't like Gorbachov at all, and like Putin, which is near the reverse of how the rest of the world thinks it should be.

      Why? Because to most citizens practical matters vasty outweigh everything else. I suspect that if you walk to enough people, you'll find that a large amount of them wish Russia to be large, rich and powerful, civil liberties and openness be damned. People like Putin because he brings the country closer to that ideal, and are willing to ignore some things for it.

      In places like Iraq and Afghanistan I suspect that however bad things were, a large amount of people didn't think they were doing too badly. Sure there's a dictator, and there are no liberties to speak of, but even under such conditions many people can get by fairly well. When you barge in, start blowing up things, burn their field and kill their children, you might be surprised to learn that they're not going to thank you for it.

      Same can go for the US, btw. Many Europeans currently think you're completely nuts, the "land of the free" idea is long dead, and were it a smaller and less powerful country it'd probably be looked at in the same way as Iraq with Saddam in power. Now think a little, were somebody now to invade the US to remove Bush from power, citing the decreasing civil liberties, attacks to other countries, torture in Guantanamo and so on, would you welcome them?

      The election of Obama seems to have been received with relief and surprise at that "they finally elected somebody sane".

    25. Re:Of course the installer must leave something by ReedYoung · · Score: 1

      The corporation's difficulty identifying thieves does not excuse vandalizing the property of law-abiding users of tryware.

      --
      "I can't imagine how things could get any worse!" (some guy) "That could just be failure of imaginatioÂn on your p
    26. Re:Of course the installer must leave something by init100 · · Score: 1

      If my country was full of wild eyed lunatics who kept running across the border and blowing up bystanders

      You mean like fundamentalist Christians blowing up abortion clinics?

    27. Re:Of course the installer must leave something by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not to mention as a PC repairman I have seen that these kinds of DRM can cause serious problems and even hardware damage. I've seen PCs that you couldn't burn anything with because the DRM would screw up the burn every time, I've replaced both DVD and CD burners because the DRM would throw them into PIO mode and burn them out,weird lockups and crashes of the entire system that magically disappear when they DRM infection was removed,etc.

      Now I had no problem with the "you have to keep the CD in the drive" old school DRM. It was irritating but was easy enough to get around with a noCD and still kept Joe Average from just hitting copy in Nero. But today's DRM is just too damned nasty,and has more in common with virus infections that legitimate software. It hides from the user,it makes itself a royal PITA to get rid of,and it causes all kinds of PC screwups that are damned hard to track down. Actually I'd say some of the newer trojans actually behave better than the new Starforce and SecuROM infections,since they leach off the bandwidth without causing all kinds of errors.

      It has gotten bad enough that when a customer brings in a PC for cleaning and repair I look for SecuROM and Starforce just like I look for worms and trojans. Because the "virus free" computers that are brought to me because they are screwing up always seem to have either SecuROM or Starforce on them,and its removal makes the problems go away. They are just going to have to face the fact that like Apple's iTunes DRM,the best you can do without boning your customers is stop the casual pirates. Because this new DRM infection only screws your paying customers and as we saw with Spore the pirates had their copy before it was even released.

      And while I love MoH and C&C I simply won't be giving EA another dime of my hard earned money until they get rid of the infections on their products. My gaming PC runs quite stable and well and I have no intention of breaking it just for the privilege of giving EA $60. Sorry C&C and MoH developers,but you lost a long time fan and paying customer thanks to the viruses installed in your games by EA.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    28. Re:Of course the installer must leave something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except for the whole "bystanders" thing. You stop being a bystander when you pick up a gun/RPG/pointy stick.

    29. Re:Of course the installer must leave something by kabloom · · Score: 1

      And we are sick and tired of software authors placing draconian measures on all consumers because of a few bad apples.

    30. Re:Of course the installer must leave something by calmofthestorm · · Score: 1

      Yep. Turns out that they don't have the right to modify your computer to protect their interests. This is why free demos usually are limited by something other than time, such as featureset.

      Cryptographically, there is no way to do what they want. I can just modify the DRM.

      --
      93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
    31. Re:Of course the installer must leave something by Gideon+Fubar · · Score: 1

      This is completely irrelevant to the case, as the Spore trial was not time limited and The Sims 2: Bon Voyage was an expansion pack for a pre-existing game.

      --
      http://www.xkcd.com/354/
    32. Re:Of course the installer must leave something by Gideon+Fubar · · Score: 1

      Sorry, that's just not the case for one very important reason.

      The creature creator trial isn't time limited at all. It contains less creature parts than the creature creator in the retail version, but has no restrictions on time, number of installs, etc. The trial could be unlocked to use the full assortment of creature parts, but the rights for this were associated with a Spore.com account, and thus installing SecuROM with it is completely unnecessary, as there's nothing to protect.

      --
      http://www.xkcd.com/354/
    33. Re:Of course the installer must leave something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like fundamentalist Christians blowing up abortion clinics?

      Which is different for a reason you probably cannot see. They were rejected by other fundamentalist Christians.

      Whole those in the abortion clinics were guilty of murder, it is not for Christians to execute judgment but the government.

    34. Re:Of course the installer must leave something by tiananmen+tank+man · · Score: 1

      "the DRM is present in demo versions only because crackers used to use demos to crack the retail versions of the games"

      Yet the full retail releases have cracked executables

    35. Re:Of course the installer must leave something by Tatsh · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I said the demos that were left unprotected were a good starting point for crackers. You are right in saying the retail versions have cracked executables too, because no copy protection is going to stop these motivated crackers. I recall that Splinter Cell Double Agent was protected with StarForce (the worst yet of all the copy protections). A real proper crack did not come out till 1 year later. That is some serious devotion.

      SecuROM and SafeDisc have existed for a very long time. The first SecuROM game I ever got was Diablo II. Once CloneCD came out and 1:1 copied CDs were possible, that and SafeDisc (of the time) were broken. Beyond that, cracked EXEs still existed (and I tended to use these anyway, sped up loading time and still do quite often). SecuROM of that time was quite simple, relying upon subchannel data (similar to PSX's copy protection that came along later) for a checksum, of which Data CD copiers at the time did NOT read at all (like Easy CD Creator of the time, which came with my first burner). SafeDisc did nearly the same thing, except with corrupted data, similar to their CSS protection; files on the disc were placed but were also corrupted data (and possibly encrypted) that drives could read but no general user programs would ever read properly to a hard drive or to an ISO image (not even Nero). If I took a disc like that and used dd to copy it, dd would fail upon seeing those sectors even on a completely clean CD. CloneCD started the whole 1:1 copy 'revolution' (which has led to Alcohol 120%, AnyDVD, and other products) and made it possible to copy these CDs up until SecuROM and SafeDisc both got major security upgrades to the point where it is now, you might as well (a have the real disc or b) use a crack.

      For some reason, although many games used the disc ONLY to check for a real disc and did not read any data from it like older games would (what ever happened to leaving the FMVs on the disc? No I don't have 9 GB to spare for EVERY game, sorry!), this did not stir up any controversy. People were only beginning to get CD burners (they were also slow), media was not nearly as cheap as it is now, many people still had 56k so downloading ISO's was unheard of, and a number of other factors kept CD copy protection information in the dark to most consumers.

      The real controversy started with StarForce by the way. I think people seem to have forgotten about this. UbiSoft finally decided to stop using it after much consumer demand, and in general, guess how many games have StarForce now. None that I have heard of recently.

      I am a consumer of PC games but I wonder for how long because I was perfectly happy buying games and I was glad that cracks worked, even on-line. I was glad that even though there was a stupid copy protection (most people would often not notice their disc is spinning during that Sims screen just for copy protection sectors), I could backup these games in some form. Cracked copy is better than none. Do any company give you a new CD if you scratch yours up? Very few do, and they give you a hard time about it. I remember that enough complaints to Take2 made GTA3 for PC no longer have copy protection (which was SafeDisc, a version that did not work with the current version of CloneCD). Take2 released an update that included bug fixes and no copy protection.

      If EA wants to not have complaints about this copy protection other than what it does to Windows, they should preferably drop it altogether, go back to SafeDisc (a much less draconian system), or give people 5 copies for those 5 activations! Legally, due to the DMCA, we cannot even make backups! But EA should not forget about Windows. It sucks, everyone knows, however, Sony, Macrovision and a number of other companies make software for Windows that just makes it slower, could leave it vulnerable to attacks, etc, especially since many are kernel driver-based (SecuROM has been this way since its beginning; StarForce takes this approach; SafeDisc takes this approach in a much more minimalistic way).

      I do

    36. Re:Of course the installer must leave something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But why would you want to stop anyone from free trying your feature-limited demo as many times as they like?

    37. Re:Of course the installer must leave something by IBBoard · · Score: 1

      And then they phone home with a hash of your hardware specs and log your IP. Then they phone home with a hash of your hardware specs, log your IP and bill you for each additional install. Then they ...

      Phone-home is one of the worst ideas (from a customer's point of view) for protection. If I'm playing a game that is purely off-line then why should I require an Internet connection to install? And if I'm playing an online game then what's wrong with just using the serial number to identify duplicates?

      What's with the assumption that the Net is everywhere? Yes it's becoming more prevalent, but not everyone's machine is hooked up, and even if it is then a) their ISP can crap out, b) they can be without Net access because of moving house (ISPs take a couple of weeks in the UK to reconnect you), c) the server can go down (as happened with one of the big blockbusters on BluRay, where the disks lagged on start because they were trying to get film data from a downed web server), d) they can be behind a restrictive firewall...and that's just my initial thoughts.

    38. Re:Of course the installer must leave something by remmelt · · Score: 1

      For low values of free.

    39. Re:Of course the installer must leave something by ta+bu+shi+da+yu · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, cause that's worked really well for Microsoft.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    40. Re:Of course the installer must leave something by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      which is different in no way at all.

      They were rejected by other fundamentalist Christians

      You don't think there's more than 1 group of fundamentalist muslims?
      You truely believe they all agree with each other and that the mainstream doesn't reject the worst examples?

    41. Re:Of course the installer must leave something by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I've replaced both DVD and CD burners because the DRM would throw them into PIO mode and burn them out

      What does this mean? My girlfriend's last computer definitely had some kind of problem preventing even READING a DVD on her combo drive, and her NEW machine has been flipping to PIO mode disturbingly often (I THINK I have prevented XP from doing this now) but without any apparent ill effect besides poor performance. How will PIO mode kill a burner?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    42. Re:Of course the installer must leave something by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The problem with all of your claims is that we the people of the USA (by means of our government's various dirty tricks divisions) have intentionally exacerbated preexisting problems in all of the countries you mention (and far more besides!) in order to keep them in a state of turmoil. The only thing unclear is whether they were doing precisely to create a situation in which they could justify invasion, or if they were clumsily pursuing some other goal which has led us to today's pass.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    43. Re:Of course the installer must leave something by theaveng · · Score: 1

      Man.

      Your story reminds me of the old Commodore 1541 drives. Due to copy-protection, games often banged the head of the drive against the stop, eventually causing it go out of alignment. I would think now, 20 years later, we'd finally be past the point where game-makers destroy people's drives, but I guess not. Assholes.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    44. Re:Of course the installer must leave something by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You didn't get the hint that you have to compare effectiveness as well.

      No I don't. The only thing I have to consider is that one damages my computer. I guess I'm just selfish, but I couldn't care less which method is more convenient for publishers.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    45. Re:Of course the installer must leave something by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Allow your old PC repairman to enlighten you,grasshopper. The reason PIO mode burns out hardware is because it was never meant to go that slow. PIO mode is a leftover from the days of 1x cd drives and ancient HDDs and was kept for compatibility. For a modern drive to be stuck in PIO mode is the equivalent of driving your car at 60MPH with the emergency brakes on. See how that is a bad thing?

      Now if you have a machine that keeps throwing a drive into PIO I would look for SecuROM and Starforce on the machine. They are by far the biggest culprits when it comes to throwing a false PIO mode,thanks to their crappy Trojan CD/DVD drivers. You should also look in the BIOS,as some models have a setting in the BIOS where it can refuse PIO mode for a drive. This will sometimes help but since it is nearly always a DRM,and thus userland problem,it is kinda hit and miss.

      But I can tell you that if it keeps throwing the drives into PIO mode that you may need to do a full format/reinstall. This is because I have seen several times where even after the removal of Starforce/SecuROM the Windows drivers are left such a mess that stability is just shot. You can do a repair install and that will usually fix the bug,but if I'm going through all that trouble anyway I'd rather just back up the user profiles(You can use USMT to make the job easier) and nuke the thing so at the end you have a nice clean and minty fresh Windows install.

      After you have installed the drivers and apps she uses most run a good backup like Acronis and you'll have an easy to use baseline install in case something goes wrong in the future. If you use XP ISO Builder to integrate the drivers,user profiles,and make an unattended CD it will also cut down on the time required. But if it were my machine I would check it every day,because that PIO bug can cause damage to your drives and short of a reinstall it is hard to kill. Good Luck!

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    46. Re:Of course the installer must leave something by FictionPimp · · Score: 1

      I liked the shareware approach. Worked for Id right? Download doom or wolf3d shareware and get to play a single level or two. You want the full game you buy it. Simple enough and no limits as to how long you can replay that same level.

    47. Re:Of course the installer must leave something by Jherico · · Score: 1

      If uninstalling the free trial would leave your computer in exactly the same state as before, then nothing could stop you from free trying again.

      You could also accomplish the same effect by making an image of your drive before you installed the app and restoring to it. But practically speaking people aren't going to do that. By the same token, given ubiquitous internet access and identifiable characteristics of a given machine, it would be fairly easy for EA to keep a server side record of where its been installed and where it hasn't.

      Placing the DRM intrusion level so high isn't just an annoyance. Its pointless. All you do is punish people who are using the game legitimately and have basically no impact on those who pirate the game and use a crack anyway.

      --

      Jherico

      What can the average user can do to ensure his security? "Nothing, you're screwed"

    48. Re:Of course the installer must leave something by FLEB · · Score: 1

      I was speaking merely of the free trial version, not the full purchased product. It would be a far less intrusive option than rootkits or leavebehinds on a trial program. Now, if it's something you've actually bought, there's a longer time you expect to keep it, and phone-homes can interfere with that in a number of ways.

      --
      Information wants to be free.
      Entertainment wants to be paid.
      You just want to be cheap.
    49. Re:Of course the installer must leave something by IBBoard · · Score: 1

      I guess it might be better in some ways for trials than for full games, but it still works on the assumption that a) the user has a net connection on their machine (because no-one with a laptop ever bought a game while they were on a business trip or anything) b) the net connection is working and c) the server is alive and active.

      The other problem is that once "dial-home" is accepted for demos, then companies would start saying "well, you didn't mind it when we put it in the demo" and would put it in the final game anyway.

      Time-limited trials are always going to be an awkward one to enforce, but there's still acceptable ways to try and do it and less acceptable ones.

    50. Re:Of course the installer must leave something by mgiuca · · Score: 1

      The second one doesn't sound bad.

      Why would would the full version have to start from scratch? Surely you could make it so the full version ignores the save key, while the demo version honours it.

      That way when the demo runs out, you say "right, either re-install and you'll lose your saves, or buy the full version, and keep them."

  2. Hugely disappointed with Spore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm never buying anything made by Wil Wheaton again.

    1. Re:Hugely disappointed with Spore by theilliterate · · Score: 1

      I'm never buying anything made by Wil Wheaton again.

      Dude, it wasn't will Wheaton. It was Wilbur Wright! You know, the guy with the bicycle shop who became a famous game designer?

  3. i hope they burn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    and lots of others like them should join them

    1. Re:i hope they burn by compro01 · · Score: 1, Funny

      i hope they burn (Score:1, Flamebait)

      How appropriate.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  4. What's to stop them? by Dr_Banzai · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What's to stop them from including a clause in their EULA allowing the installation of shadow DRM?

    1. Re:What's to stop them? by wfstanle · · Score: 5, Informative

      IANAL

      There is a principle in law that a clause in the contract can not invalidate a law. Also, you cannot waive a fundamental right that is granted by the constitution. To give an (absurd) example...

      In a hidden clause of a contract (or EULA) it says that you agree to give up your first born child. If the other party tries to enforce that clause of the contract, the courts would invalidate that clause (and maybe the entire contract).

    2. Re:What's to stop them? by AKAImBatman · · Score: 5, Informative
    3. Re:What's to stop them? by Red+Alastor · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Also, this is not a contract. Clicking 'I agree' is not a legal way to sign a contract and it is not legal to unilaterally add conditions once a deal is done (once you gave them money, they can't force more conditions on you). They know this, this is why they call it a license. However, a license cannot only grant you rights, it cannot remove them from you.

      Hence, EULAs are bogus.

      --
      Slashdot anagrams to "Sad Sloth"
    4. Re:What's to stop them? by Repossessed · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The courts do not see it that way. I've seen a number of cases were EULA's were deemed valid, I have yet to see one where the EULA was deemed invalid (though parts of it being unconscionable are probably common enough).

      --
      Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
    5. Re:What's to stop them? by syousef · · Score: 2, Funny

      In a hidden clause of a contract (or EULA) it says that you agree to give up your first born child.

      Damn, EA is getting tight on those EULAs. Oh well he was a cute little bugger, but he screams and poops a lot and I REALLY want to play Spore. "Hey honey, where's our son at the moment?" ;-)

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    6. Re:What's to stop them? by williamhb · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Also, this is not a contract. Clicking 'I agree' is not a legal way to sign a contract and it is not legal to unilaterally add conditions once a deal is done (once you gave them money, they can't force more conditions on you). They know this, this is why they call it a license. However, a license cannot only grant you rights, it cannot remove them from you. Hence, EULAs are bogus.

      Some courts have upheld EULAs in the past. In some cases they have even upheld shrinkwrap EULAs that you cannot see until after you have accepted them (where a 'reasonable person' would have expected the clause to be present in the contract). I am not a lawyer, but I strongly suspect the parent poster isn't either and you should think twice about taking his "EULAs are bogus" advice.

    7. Re:What's to stop them? by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      The software companies claim you should hire a lawyer before installing any program to review the license for $200 an hour. Pfft

      Why does software get this special treatment?

      Imagine not buying anything and just buying a license to use products like groceries or your car? People may actually want to hire a lawyer before buying a car if they pull this crap but its not worth it for a $45 game.

    8. Re:What's to stop them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Hey honey, where's our son at the moment?" ;-)

      Don't you know? Your wife had a similar idea and they already took him.

    9. Re:What's to stop them? by syousef · · Score: 1

      In a hidden clause of a contract (or EULA) it says that you agree to give up your first born child.

      Damn, EA is getting tight on those EULAs. Oh well he was a cute little bugger, but he screams and poops a lot and I REALLY want to play Spore. "Hey honey, where's our son at the moment?" ;-)

      "Oh come on Honey, that's not mean. They probably just want him to bring him up as a code slave. You know the drill, 120 hour weeks for a pitance wage. Just like daddy. Only we won't have to feed him or pay for college because EA will train him in house...and I get to play Spore. Tell you what, I'll buy you a nice necklace with some of the money we save. See, honey, everybody wins!"

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    10. Re:What's to stop them? by harl · · Score: 1

      Unconscionability does not apply. The criteria under which a contract is deemed unconscionable is very narrow and it's virtually impossible for a computer game EULA to ever meet the criteria.

      The reason is quoted here from your link "...one party to the contract took advantage of its superior bargaining power to insert provisions..."

      As long as you can decline the contract with no harm then it cannot be an unconscionable contract. A computer game is a luxury good. There is no possible harm from not being able to play a computer game, and thus from declining the contract. The only possible way is if they did not offer a refund for fail to offer a refund if you purchase then decline the EULA. Since this is a free product unconscionabilty can not apply.

      This has been proven in court. The curious can read up on Blizzard v bnetd.

      --
      I find being offended by me offensive.
    11. Re:What's to stop them? by harl · · Score: 4, Informative

      The 7th circuit court of the USA disagrees with you. Click through licenses are valid legal contracts.

      Please see ProCD v Zeidenberg

      --
      I find being offended by me offensive.
    12. Re:What's to stop them? by ReedYoung · · Score: 1

      Unconscionability does not apply...
      As long as you can decline the contract with no harm then it cannot be an unconscionable contract. A computer game is a luxury good.

      I disagree. I mean, obviously, a computer game is a luxury good, but the previous assumption, that "you can decline the contract with no harm" presupposes "you can decline the contract," and specifically the onerous part of this contract, at all even though the acceptance of residue is never stated, but is supposedly implied. Of course it isn't, and being held to a contract or portion of a contract which one has no way of knowing is of course unconscionable, even if it is a luxury item.

      There is no possible harm from not being able to play a computer game, and thus from declining the contract.

      No, and nobody claimed "possible harm from not being able to play a computer game, and thus from declining the contract." The harm is in undisclosed strings attached, which is illegal regardless of the price of the incentive. I have the right to be told, in advance, what your "gift" will do to my existing property.
      "The inclusion of undisclosed, secretly installed DRM protection measures with a program that was freely distributed constitutes a major violation of computer owners' absolute right to control what does and what does not get loaded onto their computers, and how their computers shall be used ... [SecuROM] cannot be completely uninstalled."

      --
      "I can't imagine how things could get any worse!" (some guy) "That could just be failure of imaginatioÂn on your p
    13. Re:What's to stop them? by Alsee · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The U.S. District Court of Kansas in Klocek v. Gateway [2000 U.S. Dist. Lexis 9896, 104 F. Supp.3d 1332 (D. Kan., June 16, 2000)] ruled that the contract of sale was complete at the time of the transaction, and that additional terms included in the package did not constitute a contract, because the customer never agreed to them when the contract of sale was completed.

      There ya go.

      But really the case *I* want to see is one where software installation pops up a click though EULA, the person clicks the EULA's DECLINE button, and then proceeds to complete installing and using the software anyway. It's not particularly hard for a programmer to write a utility to do that.

      US law Title 17 Section 117 explicitly states that you need no license whatsoever in order to lawfully install and run software you have bought. So you have explicitly declined their EULA contract offer (which is what an EULA actually is, nothing but a contract offer), and you have perfectly lawfully installed an lawfully use the software. By declining the EULA you receive no license and receive nothing else the contract offers, but generally EULA offer nothing that you want or need.

      THAT is the court case I want to see. There is absolutely no legal reason you need to accept an EULAs. You don't need it. It's just that they make it really inconvenient to install it without clicking the agree button. In the case I described they have absolutely no hook available for them to hang a claim of contract acceptance. They sold it to you, you declined the contract, and you perfectly lawfully proceeded to use the software you bought without any contract and without any license.

      Actually I believe there is a valid argument that a purely local process of clicking the "accept" button on your own computer and involving no one else and doing nothing you didn't already have the right to do, that that would validly establish a contract either. However that is a far more disputable situation and it seriously has the appearance of accepting a contract. I think judges are going to have a hard time seeing past that appearance of contract and ruling against it unless there is a a clear ruling on my reject-and-install example first. Once it is clear that you *can* legitimately avoid the contract then they will be far more accepting of the legitimacy of other means of avoiding the contract, more accepting of more subtle arguments on what exactly what act does or do not indicate binding acceptance of the EULA contract offer.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    14. Re:What's to stop them? by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Yeah, might as well give your son to EA. He was shaped like a penis-monster anyway.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    15. Re:What's to stop them? by Repton · · Score: 1

      The standard technique is to get your ten year old neighbour/child to install the software for you. They're too young to enter into a binding contract :-)

      (ianal, etc)

      --
      Repton.
      They say that only an experienced wizard can do the tengu shuffle.
    16. Re:What's to stop them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean the seventh circus court? that bunch of clowns is a joke, and are pretty much responsible for the low opinion most of us hold the American legal system.

    17. Re:What's to stop them? by GIL_Dude · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Just playing Devil's advocate here as I believe that EA is clearly in the wrong foisting SecurROM on people. However, to argue the point you mentioned about:

      But really the case *I* want to see is one where software installation pops up a click though EULA, the person clicks the EULA's DECLINE button, and then proceeds to complete installing and using the software anyway. It's not particularly hard for a programmer to write a utility to do that

      Again, in a Devil's advocate mode: What about the DMCA? Wouldn't it apply here? Apparently, it "criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself.. It would seem that your method, while completely feasible (and I think reasonable), would possibly fall afoul of this provision as it would be circumventing the access control which prevents install if you click "decline".

      Thoughts?

    18. Re:What's to stop them? by Samah · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So if I manually extract the files from the installer and add all the registry entries and what not (if I happened to know what they were), such that the application will function perfectly, that means I'm using the software without the EULA even being presented to me. If I was never given a "license" to agree to, how does that stand legally?

      I'm sure EA/etc. would make some bogus claim of not being allowed to "reverse engineer", which is rather amusing since that clause is usually in the EULA too.

      --
      Homonyms are fun!
      You're driving your car, but they're riding their bikes there.
    19. Re:What's to stop them? by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      the bargaining power is that they are offering the demo for FREE-no payment as advertisement to borrow your time and entice you to purchase their product (that is what they get out of the deal), so putting secret piracy measures in place for something expected to be free(as in cost) is an unreasonable intrusion.

      It's unreasonable to thing that a freely given demo is going to hijack other parts of my computer, even after I uninstall it.

    20. Re:What's to stop them? by Repossessed · · Score: 1

      That is incredibly awesome info. Thank you.

      --
      Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
    21. Re:What's to stop them? by GlitchCog · · Score: 1

      You don't need a fancy hack to install the software without agreeing to the EULA. Just leave the focus on the Accept button and utilize some lucky cat-like typing to get past it. There a lots of ways to encourage an accidental spacebar press.

    22. Re:What's to stop them? by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Judges tend to have no sense of humor for that sort of approach, unfortunately.

      Geee your honor... I didn't know those 20 kilos of coke were in my trunk. The cat must have accidentally knocked it into there. Hehe.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    23. Re:What's to stop them? by Alsee · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What about the DMCA?
      Thoughts?

      My first thought is to puke.
      My second thought is that "click yes to continue" ranks about three levels below ROT13 as a technical protection measure.

      The DMCA is a totally incoherent clusterfuck of a law. I have actually read most of the judge rulings on DMCA-circumvention cases, and I don't think any of them have managed a coherent construction of the critical issues. They apparently decided if they like or dislike what you are doing, dodge the undefined aspects, and then conjure some very creative narrow discussion with little connection to anything in the actual law an no connection to anything any of the other judges have ever ruled. If the judge views you as some naughty hacker doing something to annoy wholesome businessmen, then he rules against you. If he decides the businessmen are abusing the DMCA then he makes up some excuse to toss the case.

      Some judges would likely be more than willing to hit you with the DMCA in a ROT13 case but I think.... I hope... that few would actually buy into "click YES to continue" as an effective technical protection measure. But yeah, I can definitely see some company pushing that argument. Puke puke puke.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    24. Re:What's to stop them? by Alsee · · Score: 1

      As far as can see EULAs are toast in the situation you describe, and many others. You don't need any license, and you can avoid/decline it.

      Seems pretty simple to me, but there are a LOT of companies, and a LOT of lawyers, and doubtless quite a few judges, that are all rather attached to the idea that EULAs are the proper and necessary way of things. Rationally EULA's are totally bogus, but realistically it's still going to be tough getting a solid favorable ruling.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    25. Re:What's to stop them? by flonker · · Score: 1

      One thing I've been wondering about, is:

      Many software packages include the license as a plain text file. Changing the text file changes the license that appears in the installer. What If you were to change the license to your liking, remove sections you disapprove of, or remove it entirely, and then install the package?

    26. Re:What's to stop them? by remmelt · · Score: 1

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the quality of the protection measure unimportant with regards to the DMCA? I'm thinking CSS (the DVD one): it was so easy to crack but still holds as a protection measure.

      I thought that any layer of security, however thin, would guarantee DMCA protection.

    27. Re:What's to stop them? by Ross+D+Anderson · · Score: 1

      I wonder how long it will be before digital content delivery services such as Steam will require you to agree to the EULA before purchasing the game? Out of curiosity, do you think this would this make the agreement any more legally binding? If so this would seem to be fairly feasable solution as games move out of brick and mortar stores would it not?

    28. Re:What's to stop them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some judges would likely be more than willing to hit you with the DMCA in a ROT13 case but I think.... I hope... that few would actually buy into "click YES to continue" as an effective technical protection measure. But yeah, I can definitely see some company pushing that argument. Puke puke puke.

      -

      "Effective" doesn't factor into the law at all. It doesn't matter if it's a piece of tape saying 'do not touch', it's a "protective measure" and cannot be circumvented without violating the law.

    29. Re:What's to stop them? by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

      Well, a more realistic approach would be to use a human minor (especially likely for a game). "Your honor, my son installed the game on my computer. I never agreed to any contract at all."

      The downside to that argument is that EA can then say (remember, we're talking about a game's DRM being malware), "Your honor, his son installed our malware on his computer. If his computer is so important to him, why is he letting a minor have root access to it?"

      And once you see it that way, the argument extends to the lucky cat. Sure, you didn't ever consent to EA's malware being installed on your computer, but you also had a cat near your keyboard.

      If you give a gun to a chimp and the chimp shoots someone, they don't blame the chimp.

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    30. Re:What's to stop them? by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

      Many software packages include the license as a plain text file. Changing the text file changes the license that appears in the installer. What If you were to change the license to your liking, remove sections you disapprove of, or remove it entirely, and then install the package?

      That goes back to the problem of EULAs not being verifiable contracts. They do not have a copy of the contract you agreed to with your signature. There was no two-way communication or signal to the license-offerer that you actually accepted anything. They can sort of inductively say, "He must have agreed to the EULA" but there's no actually evidence to show to a court.

      What's exciting about your scenario, is that if they installer requires internet access, then the user can make the argument, "Well, I assumed that the modified contract was sent to their server and someone (or something) over there agreed that my changes were acceptable. By telling the installer to proceed, the copyright holder agrees to .." Turnabout is fair play.

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    31. Re:What's to stop them? by randyest · · Score: 1

      I've seen a number of cases were EULA's were deemed valid

      Such as?

      --
      everything in moderation
    32. Re:What's to stop them? by Aristos+Mazer · · Score: 1

      Doesn't matter your opinion of that court. The parent post's citation is still valid.

    33. Re:What's to stop them? by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Obviously it would not become a binding contract upon the other party, but IMO it should clearly establish that you have rejected their EULA contract offer.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    34. Re:What's to stop them? by drijen · · Score: 1

      Also, this is not a contract. Clicking 'I agree' is not a legal way to sign a contract and it is not legal to unilaterally add conditions once a deal is done

      Yes they are.

      The Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, The Federal E-Sign Act (adopted in various states, in various forms), the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (only adopted by two states) and the No Electronic Theft Act all cover this.

      Futhermore, courts have always applied paper and pencil principles to electronic contracts; that is, they follow laws designed before computers and apply them in new ways, in order to deal with the Information Age. EULA's are termed Shrink-Wrap Licenses and Browse-Wrap Contracts.

      Please refer to your nearest Federal Register section at your local library before spouting such nonsense. Or take a course, which is where above info came from. (Hint: Westlaw Business Law/West Legal Studies: ISBN# 0-324-37721-5, Chapter 17)

    35. Re:What's to stop them? by Alsee · · Score: 1

      isn't the quality of the protection measure unimportant with regards to the DMCA?

      It is one of the undefined issues with the DMCA.
      'technological measure that effectively controls access to a work' is ill defined.
      What does or does not constitute 'circumvention' can be a bit fuzzy.
      'access' can be a bit fuzzy

      Most significantly having 'authority of the copyright owner' to go ahead and access the data is absolutely totally bumfuck meaningless - legally speaking.

      In order for the DMCA to 'work' you must must in some way be considered to have the 'authority of the copyright owner' of or from the copyright holder to decrypt any and all DVDs on a any run of the mill hardware or software player, but for some reason never have that authority to watch that movie on Linus in the exact same way with an effectively identical DeCSS process, but there is no legal explanation anywhere for any of the who-what-when-where-how-or-why on that authority. I have tried to analyze any possible way to work it, and as far as I can see there is no viable meaning/mechanism for it that both grants all the permissions it is supposed to give you without also opening DRM-defeating back doors. In practice everyone simply assumes that it must somehow work, and simply uses an ex-post-facto approach. If someone is in court making a DMCA complaint then we just assume without analysis and without legal basis that that activity was not 'authorized' under the law, and we just assume without analysis and without legal basis that exactly everything that the DRM-faction *do* want and need to be 'authorized' somehow magically is 'authorized' under the law.

      It's pretty clear what the DMCA wants to do - it wants DRM to work. So judges dodge any close analysis of these undefined incoherent issues, and just assume that anything DRM needs in order to work is approved by the law and anything that threatens DRM is simply assumed to be prohibited by the law.

      No major hardware or software company is willing to press on this authorized access issue for legitimate-but-DRM-threatening features and mechanisms claiming that they are or must-be 'authorized' under any functional meaning of the law, and any independent DRM-threatening software gets squashed as presumptively 'evil hackers' making presumptively illegitimate 'piracy tools'. And of course there is never any litigation over exactly how or why you are 'authorized' under the law when you play a DRM song on your Microsoft Zune, so this entire DMCA concept of authorized access is completely undefined and unanalyzed as a legal concept.

      Opps, I went on a tangent rant. Chuckle. Well the point is that the DMCA is incoherent and there is no clear legal basis and no clear legal ruling to answer your question. *I* believe a lot of this EULA stuff and DMCA/DRM stuff is broken and invalid, but there are a not of big companies and a lot of lawyers and judges that want it to work and believe that it does work. Laws should (and usually do) have solid rules and mechanisms, but in fuzzy areas you can get arbitrary and conflicting rulings as judges struggle to get the law to operate the way they think it is supposed to operate.

      I believe in the area of DRM and EULAs we are getting random conflicting broken rulings as judges struggle and reach trying sincerely to do the 'right' thing - 'everyone' uses and supports this stuff and presumes that is is valid and that it works and that it is necessary. EULAs 'must' be valid, DRM 'must' work. So I believe we are getting unpredictable and broken rulings trying to protect and support these legally-broken things. Judges are particularly reluctant to make rulings with a radical impact throwing "commonly accepted practice" into chaos. There are millions of EULAs out there and thousands of companies relying upon them.

      Judges have a really hard job. They often get thrown into muddy water, reaching to find any basis to make a good ruling. In legally fuzzy or legally broken areas of law the result will depend on the the particular judge. I pray that the right cases come up with the right arguments, and that the judges are willing to take the uncomfortable position ruling that people do have valid ways to avoid these EULAs that so many companies rely on.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    36. Re:What's to stop them? by Alsee · · Score: 1

      services such as Steam will require you to agree to the EULA before purchasing the game?

      The term "EULA" has brought much confusion to the issue. It is much simpler and clearer and more accurate to use the phrase "contract offer" instead.

      do you think this would this make the agreement any more legally binding?

      Yes. Someone can offer you a contract, and they can decline to do business with you unless/until you agree to be bound by that contract. That has no special connection to the software business. That is just as true for someone selling tomatoes or contracting to remodel your kitchen.

      If so this would seem to be fairly feasable solution as games move out of brick and mortar stores would it not?

      More legally binding. However I'm still not particularly a fan of signing a contract before buying a tomato or a typical computer game. (Service contacts for access the company servers hosting an MMORPG or somesuch are far more reasonable of course).

      I also still dispute the validity of the DMCA and DRM, which I believe Steam expects to rely upon. And even if the DMCA is taken as legally valid, I still dispute the desirability of that law. And while I am not familiar with Steam's current contract terms, I suspect I may have issue with the reasonableness or even conscionablility of some of those terms. I might also question Steam's expectations in the inevitable case that some people do violate that contract. And I might also question Steam's expectations of people who have not accepted that contract.

      For example lets assume someone does agree to be bound by Steam's contract, and Steam sends some game download to that person's harddrive. That person then DIES. Their heir then inherits physical ownership of that computer, and by law that person inherits physical ownership of that particular copy of that game. Yes, by copyright law you are the owner of that particular copy. That person then owns that copy of the software, no contract, no EULA, just standard copyright protection, just as if the software were sold as a naked EULA-free download.

      So no. Even Steam doesn't work for completely trapping the software under the EULA scheme.

      Well, I guess if you really want to get insane in pushing the EULA scheme you could try adding some clause in the Steam contract giving ownership of your computer to Steam, with Steam allowing you to use your former computer as some sort of "rental". Snicker.

      I don't recall the name, but there's some other company out there selling downloads of old games. No EULAs no contracts simply selling game downloads in a plain sane manner. And then simple copyright law applies. You own that copy and can general use of it just like the games I bought years ago before they came up with the notion of adding EULAs. And you could sell someone your computer which would transfer to that person ownership of that particular copy on that harddrive. And as per standard copyright law it would be copyright infringement for you to distribute new copies of that DRM-free EULA-free software.

      Ahhh... here's the website Good Old Games.
      about us:
      You buy it, you keep it.
      DRMFREE Don't let your DRMs turn into nightmares (clever, no?). You won't find any intrusive copy protection in our games; we hate draconian DRM schemes just as much as you do, so at GOG.com you don't just buy the game, you actually own it. Once you download a game, you can install it on any PC and re-download it whenever you want, as many times as you need, and you can play it without an internet connection.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    37. Re:What's to stop them? by Alsee · · Score: 1

      "Effective" doesn't factor into the law at all.

      Last time I checked the word "effective" kinda appeared in the very text of the law.
      What that means legally, no one knows. Not even the courts apparently.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    38. Re:What's to stop them? by harl · · Score: 1

      Your wrong. What most people fail to acknowledge with unconscionable is the the contract must result from an unfair bargaining position.

      Since a computer game is purely a luxury good and there it literally nothing stopping you from declining the contract it is impossible for an unfair bargaining position thus impossible for it to be unconscionable . This is not my opinion. Please see Blizzard v bnetd where this is exact situation was ruled on in court. If the EULA is only available after purchase then the manufacturer must offer a refund. Thus the new clause in big capital letters at the start of Blizzard's EULA.

      The DRM and clause issues are irrelevant to harm. If you feel they will harm you then don't accept the contract. You're agreeing to them thus harm does not exist. If you feel they are harmful then you decline. If you feel they aren't then you accept. You and you alone are in control of these facts thus unconscionable is impossible in a game EULA.

      --
      I find being offended by me offensive.
    39. Re:What's to stop them? by harl · · Score: 1

      What you mention is a computer intrusion crime not a unconscionable contract issue.

      People need to start suing companies that install software without permission.

      --
      I find being offended by me offensive.
  5. I prefer another form of protest by thermian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've just stopped buying any of their games. Simple yes, but the easiest form of protest, and it works because they are right now down about £200 in lost sales from me.
    I don't download them from piracy sites either, I just completely ignore their products.

    --
    A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
    1. Re:I prefer another form of protest by Paradigm_Complex · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They can just attribute your loss in sales to piracy. There's just not enough people willing to stop buying EA's games in protest to actually change EA's minds. If a successful legal attack is practical it may be the best option.

      --
      "A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire
    2. Re:I prefer another form of protest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      May work better if you write them and tell what you chose not to do.

    3. Re:I prefer another form of protest by Nemyst · · Score: 1

      I don't think this is the way to go. Doing this not only punishes EA, it punishes the studios that EA oversees, manages and works with. For example, I don't think the RA3 devs had ANYTHING to do with the SecuROM crap, yet by not buying their games you essentially cut off their fundings. If the studio disappears because of it, we'll all be crying because yet another good PC developer will have bitten the dust. Same goes for other games under the EA label; I, for one, don't want to miss out on some of their games; I just won't buy them on the PC. Sucks, I know, but I think lawsuits will hurt them more than any sort of boycotting will, since it targets their management directly and not the studios which only want to produce nice games.

    4. Re:I prefer another form of protest by davidphogan74 · · Score: 1

      While I agree and am doing the same, I'm not sure they know or care.

      They can blame piracy, they can blame the developer for not making the product good enough, they can blame marketing for not getting the message out, but they may not want to blame their DRM.

      Is there a good way (other than filing lawsuits) to let them know they're pissing off their customer, and blame-shifting won't fix anything. Fixing their DRM is the only way to win us back.

    5. Re:I prefer another form of protest by Schemat1c · · Score: 4, Insightful

      For example, I don't think the RA3 devs had ANYTHING to do with the SecuROM crap, yet by not buying their games you essentially cut off their fundings. If the studio disappears because of it, we'll all be crying because yet another good PC developer will have bitten the dust.

      Then developers will learn not to work for studios that sign on with distributors that use DRM. Pain is the best teacher.

      --

      "Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everybody agrees that it is old enough to know better." - Unknown
    6. Re:I prefer another form of protest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that what they'll learn? Really?

      What a coincidence! This is a story about DRM!

    7. Re:I prefer another form of protest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can just attribute your loss in sales to piracy.

      In other words, it isn't enough to just not-buy [product].
      You must explain to the maker of [product] why you are not buying and what they can do to regain your business.

    8. Re:I prefer another form of protest by LingNoi · · Score: 1

      I want to add, a letter, not an email..

    9. Re:I prefer another form of protest by LingNoi · · Score: 1

      Lawsuits are the best option, no company likes going to court and it gets this information out to the public who might know anything about DRM.

      It legitimises the whole thing as well, instead of making it look like a bunch of nerds that are bitching because they can't pirate anymore it shows REAL pissed off consumers that don't want this crap on their computers.

      Hopefully with enough lawsuits they'll be a law outlawing this practice. I'm really sick of how programmers are allowed to get away with anything they want because it's their program. There needs to be more ethics in the software industry as a whole.

    10. Re:I prefer another form of protest by Gorgonzolanoid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In a similar way, I stopped buying CD's as a protest against the RIAA. I've got over 200 albums on my iPod: no downloads, all imported from CD's I own, of which exactly *one* was bought less than so many years ago.

      Some time after I stopped buying, I read that they were suffering from a loss in revenue (not that I think my personal bit was of any visual influence in that), and they were attributing it to piracy. Not to displeased customers like me giving them the middle finger, only to piracy.

      So in a way, they were using my protest to "prove" that their actions - the same ones that made me stop buying CD's - were right all along.

    11. Re:I prefer another form of protest by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Nah. I want them to helplessly struggle to find the reason nobody buys their shit, wasting all their money to fight those windmills, and to drown in the process.

      Yes, maybe I'm cruel. But I think, there's only so much I as a customer can take, until I let them burn like this. (Think of lava to fit the burning metaphor with the drowning metaphor. ;)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    12. Re:I prefer another form of protest by Trojan35 · · Score: 1

      Given their recent earnings troubles, I think you are wrong. Whether they believe that's because of the economy, piracy, bad games, or DRM backlash, I don't know.

    13. Re:I prefer another form of protest by Omestes · · Score: 1

      I want to add, written on skin, and inked in blood, not pulp and ink.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    14. Re:I prefer another form of protest by coffii · · Score: 1

      Same here, so that makes two people. I was rather disturbed to see people talking about boycotting games on another thread, the consensus seem to be boycott the PC version because of the DRM but buy the console version. We need to boycott the company, all of their products (and yes it can be painful). Be vocal about it too, if there is an article on a news site about the company, and you are able to comment, post a _polite_ notice saying that you no longer buy from them specifically because of their DRM policy.

      --
      Bitter and twisted, DON'T ever FORGET the TWISTED
    15. Re:I prefer another form of protest by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      It seems to be especially effective in Amazon reviews. :)

    16. Re:I prefer another form of protest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I want to add, HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey

    17. Re:I prefer another form of protest by roguetrick · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Lawsuits are the best option, no individual likes going to court and it gets this information out to the public who might know anything about software piracy.

      It legitimizes the whole thing as well, instead of making it look like a bunch of Corporations that are bitching because they can't make a few more million anymore it shows REAL pissed off developers that can't feed their family with verbal gratitude.

      Hopefully with enough lawsuits they'll be a law outlawing this practice. I'm really sick of how users are allowed to get away with anything they want because it's their computer. There needs to be more ethics on the internet as a whole.

      Frivolous lawsuits are bad, mmmkay?

      --
      -The world would be a better place if everyone had a hoverboard
    18. Re:I prefer another form of protest by LingNoi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Going to court over DRM isn't frivolous and as a game developer myself I disagree with your "starving developer's families" speech. In fact I'd go so far to say that it makes you sound quite ignorant.

      Do you happen to work for a publisher by any chance?

    19. Re:I prefer another form of protest by P00k13 · · Score: 1

      The RIAA or MPAA would, but EA actually has competitors. If EA sales are declining and competitors are rising, it will be hard for them to make that argument. Plus, if EA shrinks while other companies grow, who cares why they claim it is happening? EA is just a publisher, and good games will be made whether they are the publisher or someone else. There are plenty of good alternatives.

    20. Re:I prefer another form of protest by init100 · · Score: 1

      Doing this not only punishes EA, it punishes the studios that EA oversees, manages and works with. For example, I don't think the RA3 devs had ANYTHING to do with the SecuROM crap, yet by not buying their games you essentially cut off their fundings.

      Yes, and that's a good thing. That may make other studios think twice before signing a publishing agreement with EA. The ones that already did so only have themselves to blame if they go down for it.

      If the studio disappears because of it, we'll all be crying because yet another good PC developer will have bitten the dust.

      No, I'd be happy, since it would show that partnering with EA is commercial suicide.

      I, for one, don't want to miss out on some of their games; I just won't buy them on the PC.

      By buying any of their games, your support their actions, regardless of platform. I find your (and others') support of their actions appalling.

      Sucks, I know, but I think lawsuits will hurt them more than any sort of boycotting will

      Class-action lawsuits may be good, but a multi-pronged attack will be much better. Both hit EA and its partnering studios where it hurts the most. I hope some of them bite the dust.

    21. Re:I prefer another form of protest by init100 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Frivolous lawsuits are bad, mmmkay?

      Suing someone for infesting your computer with hidden irremovable DRM without explicitly saying so hardly sounds frivolous.

      I'm usually not a proponent of lawsuits, but in this case, they deserve it. I hope they get to pay a large amount in damages. If you want to hurt your customer, it should come with a hefty price tag.

    22. Re:I prefer another form of protest by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      I've just stopped buying any of their games. Simple yes, but the easiest form of protest...

      It's the easiest because it's the least effective.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    23. Re:I prefer another form of protest by Captain+Hook · · Score: 1

      I tend to take the same attitude. If a companies is seriously so ignorant that they don't realise a particular decision is pissing off customers, maybe they just don't deserve to survive and certainly don't warrant me going out of my way to explain it to them.

      --
      These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
    24. Re:I prefer another form of protest by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 1

      I prefer to do better.

      I post torrent links so that those who WOULD HAVE bought the game will not do so now. And those torrents are undoubtedly cleaner than the "good store bought" ones.

      Why buy crap when you can take better for free?

      --
    25. Re:I prefer another form of protest by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      If you take a look at Google's stopbadware faq, this is clearly the type of software that falls within their category.

      What is badware?

      An application is badware if it acts deceptively or irreversibly, or if it engages in potentially objectionable behavior without prominently disclosing this behavior and obtaining the user's affirmative consent.

      Badware is software that fundamentally disregards a user's choice over how his or her computer will be used. There are several commonly recognized terms for types of badware - spyware, malware, and deceptive adware. Common examples might be a free screensaver that surreptitiously generates ads, or a malicious web browser toolbar that makes your browser go to different pages than the ones you expected. Some badware is harder to spot, such as keylogger programs that can transmit personal data to malicious parties. To learn more, click here.

      Why badware, and not malware, spyware, adware, or another more commonly recognized term?

      We decided to call ourselves StopBadware.org, and emphasize the term badware, because we want to be a 'big tent.' We want to attack all forms of badware, not just software that steals your information (spyware) or software that pops up unexpected ads (deceptive adware). Terms like spyware or malware don't fully capture the violation of user choice that is key to our definition of badware.

      Read that one last sentence especially: "Terms like spyware or malware don't fully capture the violation of user choice that is key to our definition of badware." :-)

      We all need to report them to google as a badware site.
      http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/report_badware/

      Also, do report third party web sites that link directly to their trial download executables, those are badware sites as well if they fail to mention that those trials (1) contain DRM and (2) that this DRM will continue to hog live resources long after that game has been uninstalled through their uninstaller. However, if those third party web sites do disclose those two facts, please do not report them, full disclosure is what we want, those sites that are honest in their disclosures should go up in ranking, and the ones that are dishonest should go down in ranking (and should be blacklisted until they eventually correct their information).

    26. Re:I prefer another form of protest by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      Your protest is exactly as effective as someone who's not in a Nielsen household boycotting a channel. Nobody knows, nobody cares.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    27. Re:I prefer another form of protest by roguetrick · · Score: 1

      I disagree with it as well, LingNo, but talking about going to court as a PR move is equally insane. If you have a point of law you're concerned about, that's fine. If you want to take people to court as a form of general protest or a PR move, you're no better than the RIAA. You're ignorant yourself if you think otherwise.

      And no, I don't work for a publisher. I'm a nursing student in college.

      --
      -The world would be a better place if everyone had a hoverboard
    28. Re:I prefer another form of protest by roguetrick · · Score: 1

      I agree with you. I just don't like how LingNoi put it. Sounds like the bullshit the content holders try to pull.

      --
      -The world would be a better place if everyone had a hoverboard
    29. Re:I prefer another form of protest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I kinda got burned by the first cd's with copy controls that would not work on my stereos, and as such I first started to avoid cd's with the drm markers and when that became standard and they labels disapeared (even though the drm didn't) there simply was no point in buying them (since there was a good chance none would work). That was '02 or so. Record companies and software industry are not interested in selling the product I'm interested in (content). They want to sell limited licenses to a single piece of media, something I have no interest in whatsoever. And then they have the audacity to complain why their sales are going down. Cheeky I'd say.

  6. Best way to get back at them by schnikies79 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Don't buy them and don't download them.

    Just don't play them at all.

    --
    Gone!
    1. Re:Best way to get back at them by Shikaku · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They'll just blame their losses on piracy.

    2. Re:Best way to get back at them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe that will prove to EA that DRM doesn't work to stop piracy?

    3. Re:Best way to get back at them by schnikies79 · · Score: 3, Funny

      That's fine. When they can't find anyone to prosecute for downloading and have no money, it really doesn't matter what they blame.

      --
      Gone!
    4. Re:Best way to get back at them by Narishma · · Score: 1

      Except that will never happen. People in general just don't care about DRM. If you don't buy their game millions of others will.

      --
      Mada mada dane.
    5. Re:Best way to get back at them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They'll just blame their losses on piracy.

      That's funny. I blame their losses on anti-piracy. Why would I buy software that eventually just refuses to work if I reinstall it too many times?

      For that matter, why would I want to pay for rootkit-like software designed to tamper with the drivers on my DVD burner? Might as well pay for a copy of the Chernobyl virus while I'm at it.

    6. Re:Best way to get back at them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They would blame "losses" on "piracy" even if they were selling out of every copy. You don't seem to realize the kind of criminal scum that EA truly are.

      The only real reason for this DRM crap is to destroy the resale value of the products you buy. This piracy bullshit is just a smokescreen.

    7. Re:Best way to get back at them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Best way to get back at them

      Class action lawsuit

      Our laws aren't perfect, but this is exactly what many of them are there for; to protect individuals from crap like this.

      Use the system when you can. It's often the best way to get results.

    8. Re:Best way to get back at them by LingNoi · · Score: 1

      Just proves the PC market is dead and will move everything to consoles instead.

    9. Re:Best way to get back at them by xant · · Score: 1

      Nah, suing them is pretty good too. Boycotts take a long time to work, if they ever work. A nonstop barrage of expensive lawsuits can have an effect very quickly.

      --
      It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
    10. Re:Best way to get back at them by roguetrick · · Score: 1

      Of course they can, just ask the RIAA!

      --
      -The world would be a better place if everyone had a hoverboard
    11. Re:Best way to get back at them by init100 · · Score: 1

      People in general just don't care about DRM.

      They may start to care when the game publisher screws them over from behind.

    12. Re:Best way to get back at them by Trogre · · Score: 1

      I am currently taking that stance with the RIAA and MPAA, particularly since money I used to throw at them seems to be used to buy laws further restricting my freedom.

      I no longer buy, listen to or watch (endorse) works produced through these associations. I thought I would miss such products, but it's actually been a rather pleasant experience.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    13. Re:Best way to get back at them by sincewhen · · Score: 1

      But doesn't the DRM prevent piracy?

      If not, why are they using it?

      --
      -- Braden's law of data: All data spends some of its lifetime in an excel spreadsheet.
    14. Re:Best way to get back at them by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I happen to have a copy in my zoo. How much are ya offering?

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    15. Re:Best way to get back at them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they will still prosecute your grandma even if she has no clue what console/computer is.

    16. Re:Best way to get back at them by adlo · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, before that happens, they'll just lobby the legislators for more control over their customers in the name of finding and prosecuting piracy. In their minds, the War on Terror^H^H^H^H^H^HPiracy is a fight worth fighting.

      Remember the game/movie/music industries' logic:

      They'll just blame their losses on piracy.

  7. How do you return software? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How do you return software even IF it pops an eula explaining DRM on you at install time that you disagree with if the stores refuse to take back software with the seal that is broken?

    1. Re:How do you return software? by symbolic · · Score: 3, Informative

      This happened to me once- I bought something from Microsoft - same exact situation. I couldn't see the policy until I opened the software, and once I opened the software I couldn't return it even if I disagreed with it and didn't install it. I went to the store and raised a fuss with the manager. First they attempted to tell me that if I didn't agree with the terms I could return it to *Microsoft*. After I kept pushing it (I went to a different store location), the manager there told me that if I didn't agree with the terms I could bring it back to the store. Turns out the terms weren't as onerous as I thought they'd be, so I kept it. But it was nice to know what my options were.

  8. How to remove that crap? by AM088 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I installed the Creature Creator back when I was still looking forward to Spore, and I was unaware of that the Creature Creator came with that crap too until today.

    Does anyone know of a way to remove it?

    1. Re:How to remove that crap? by Raynor · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The idea is you can't fully remove it... which is why you and I get to hop on that class action lawsuit bandwagon.

      YEHAW!

      I didn't even buy anything from them and I get to sue them.

      Karam's a bitch EA, and mine is excellent :D

      --
      "Dictator Flakes. They WILL be delicious."
    2. Re:How to remove that crap? by khellendros1984 · · Score: 5, Informative

      in run->services.msc, stop and disable the securom service. In the Documents and Settings, in Application Data, delete the SecuROM folder. Delete UAService7.exe from windows\system32. Run "sc delete useraccess7" from the run command on the start menu, or from a command-line prompt. Delete the key [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\SecuROM] from the registry.

      Note: This will, of course, stop any SecuROM game from functioning until you reinstall it, and various games may put the actual files in different places....but this should give you a starting point. I haven't actually tried this...although I plan to when I get home tonight. But it looks sane enough to me.

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    3. Re:How to remove that crap? by Awod · · Score: 1
      Theres a way but you need to search google, it may differ depending on the version. Either way it is tough you will end up having to go into the registry to delete it.

      A quick search provided this but if you're gonna mess with your registry I'd still recommend you search a bit yourself.

      If you want to completely remove SecuROM after uninstalling this game, including the 'SecuROM User Access' Service it installs in Windows, follow these steps:

      1. Uninstall the game as normal.

      2. Manually delete the game directory (typically \Program Files\Atari\Crashday-demo\

      3. Go to Start>Run and type "Services.msc" (without quotes) and press Enter.

      4. Go to the 'Securom User Access' Service, double click on it, click Stop and then set it to Disabled.

      5. Go to \Windows\System32\ directory and delete the UAService7.exe file.

      6. Go to Start>Run and type "sc delete useraccess7" (without quotes) and press Enter.

      Note: This Service may be recreated by one of your other SecuROM games, in which case you will have to keep it running to play them.

      The following steps are very risky and only for people who are certain none of their currently installed games use or need SecuROM:

      7. Go to \Documents and Settings\All Users\Application Data\ and delete the SecuROM sub-directory. 8. Go to Start>Run and type "Regedit" (without quotes) and press Enter. Then find the [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\SecuROM] key and delete it if possible.

      There is no guaranteed removal method - each new SecuROM game may have additional secuROM files/folders which may require specific manual instructions for removal.

    4. Re:How to remove that crap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      format c:

    5. Re:How to remove that crap? by Edgewize · · Score: 1

      Well, I've installed Mass Effect PC and Spore Creature Creator, and I don't have any of those files or registry entries.

    6. Re:How to remove that crap? by Machtyn · · Score: 1

      Be aware, however, that you may have other games that depend on SecuROM. By removing the SecuROM software, you may have trouble with those other games.

    7. Re:How to remove that crap? by Gorgonzolanoid · · Score: 1

      ISTR that securom has a reputation of messing with your CD burning ability.
      So create a restore point first, and first thing after you apply those modifications, check if your CD burning software still works. If they installed a driver into the CD driver or filesystem chain somewhere and you break the chain, something might stop working.

    8. Re:How to remove that crap? by Anachragnome · · Score: 1

      I use a freeware version of "Revo Uninstaller"(got it from downloads.com....yeah, yeah. Shake your heads, but it works, and works well).

      What it does is images your drive BEFORE an installation(must have hunter mode active for this imaging to take place) so that when you go and UNinstall something, it knows what shouldn't be there. It then runs the applications built-in Uninstaller. After that it does a comparison and lists ALL changes that were made to your harddrive by the installation, BUT NOT CHANGED BACK BY THE UNINSTALL. You are then free to manually delete all the crap left behind. Careful though. It is essentially a registry editor as well.

      So far, it has been totally successful, although I have not tried to remove SecureROM with it(didn't let that shit on in the first place).

      Using Revo and "ProcessExplorer"(another AWESOME freeware app), I can essentially watch all the handles and DLLs utilized by an installer and its child App, and thus have a pretty good idea what is going on rather then just sit, wonder and hope.

      Regardless, I SHOULD NOT HAVE TO RESORT TO THIS SHIT.

    9. Re:How to remove that crap? by Gnavpot · · Score: 1

      in run->services.msc, stop and disable the securom service. In the Documents and Settings, in Application Data, delete the SecuROM folder. Delete UAService7.exe from windows\system32. Run "sc delete useraccess7" from the run command on the start menu, or from a command-line prompt. Delete the key [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\SecuROM] from the registry.

      I don't suppose that any of this will remove the deliberately invalid filenames in your Windows profile?

      Those files prevents a user from copying the contents of his profile to a backup or to a new computer, since the invalid file names makes the Windows copy routine go belly-up.

    10. Re:How to remove that crap? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Dial-A-Fix is your friend

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    11. Re:How to remove that crap? by pjt33 · · Score: 1

      Can you mount under Linux and delete them?

    12. Re:How to remove that crap? by Spatial · · Score: 1

      delete the SecuROM folder

      Note that you can't do this through Explorer. Windows will give you an error message saying it can't find two of the files, because Sony - being lowdown shits - had SecuROM give them invalid names. You need to use the command line: change directory to the folder, then do del /F /AH *. Or something like that. It's been a while since I've done it.

    13. Re:How to remove that crap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That won't work. You see, the SecuROM key has a subkey with a null character in it, to prevent you from fully removing it. Have fun.

    14. Re:How to remove that crap? by Gnavpot · · Score: 4, Informative

      Can you mount under Linux and delete them?

      I have not tried, but I suppose you can.

      But that is not the point. The point is that SecuRom on purpose makes illegal filenames to block normal Windows file commands from working on those files.

    15. Re:How to remove that crap? by Alsee · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm having a little difficulty following those directions. I've always considered myself a bit of a computer geek, but they were a bit complex even for me.

      Ok... so far I've reflashed my BIOS.... extracted my CPU and located the prime numbered pins and alternatingly wired them to ground and +3.5Vdc then reseated the CPU... then I clipped a wire to the motherboard A20 address line and clipped the other end to my corpus callosum just like you explained...

      and that's where I'm stuck. I've still got those electrolytic capacitors shoved up my nose but there are no more free terminals to attach them to on the high voltage winding of the powersupply.

      I tried calling EA tech support asking if there was an easier way to remove this SecuROM crap, but they just gave me the same instructions you did.

      HELP!!!!1!1111ONE

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    16. Re:How to remove that crap? by MaineCoon · · Score: 1

      It's worth noting that the service is ONLY installed if you are installing the game from a non-Admin-enabled account. If the user has admin rights (even with UAC enabled), it does not install the service. The service is necessary to decrypt the executable as non-admin accounts can't run self-decrypting executables like that, and so require a Ring 3 service, which does have permission to do so, to run it.

      As for the registry keys, they're harmless.

      --
      Hunt your preferred prey at Aliens vs Predator MUD. Join the war at avpmud.com port 4000
    17. Re:How to remove that crap? by Repton · · Score: 2, Funny

      in run->services.msc, stop and disable the securom service. In the Documents and Settings, in Application Data, delete the SecuROM folder. Delete UAService7.exe from windows\system32. Run "sc delete useraccess7" from the run command on the start menu, or from a command-line prompt. Delete the key [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\SecuROM] from the registry...

      ..open CONFIG.SYS and remove the line "srom.com /ng:43h /b /v". Using a hex editor, open windir\system32\comsvcs.dll and change the byte at offset 0xB32A to 0. Reboot using a linux liveCD, mount your hard drive, and remove the file "userfig.cnf" from C:\System Volume Information. Go to http://removesecurom.com/wiki/ListOfOpticalDrives, locate your CD/DVD drive, and follow the instructions to install the fixed firmware. Tune your television to UHF 2391.512MHz and run it for at least 15 minutes on maximum brightness..

      --
      Repton.
      They say that only an experienced wizard can do the tengu shuffle.
    18. Re:How to remove that crap? by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And properly working file copying tools are not a requirment for an OS?

      Even my OS supports weird files and "broken" filenames.

      --
    19. Re:How to remove that crap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alternately, you can try using the SecuROM uninstaller utility, available here. Run it from the commandline with the /fulluninstall switch. I've used it and it removed all traces of SecuROM. It also fixed the buggy behaviour that made me start looking into removing SecuROM in the first place (explorer.exe would crash every time I tried to delete something from the desktop). It's understandable that some/many of you would be wary of running this program, but it seems like a reasonable place to start instead of going through all those steps above.

    20. Re:How to remove that crap? by Raynor · · Score: 1

      I would use nscopy... http://www.nullsoft.com/free/nscopy/ Never had an issue; it doesn't crash like the built in copy.

      --
      "Dictator Flakes. They WILL be delicious."
    21. Re:How to remove that crap? by shentino · · Score: 1

      What I'd like to know is how Windows could be buggy enough to allow an invalid filename to even be created in the first place. ...oh wait...

    22. Re:How to remove that crap? by NeuralClone · · Score: 1

      If a SecuROM service actually existed and wasn't completely hidden from my administrator account, that might be a good place to start. But no such service visibly exists for administrators. %WinDir%\System32\UAService7.exe (or a similarly named executable) doesn't exist either.

      The following hidden folder does exist, however: %HomePath%\AppData\Roaming\SecuROM

      And upon searching the registry, the following key exists for SecuROM: [HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\SecuROM]

      As well as one for all users in HKEY_USERS.

      As expected, it's loaded with invalid registry keys to prevent you from accessing some of the data OR changing it so you can actually delete it. The same is true with the data contained in the user directory and prevents you from backing up or moving your user data. For what it's worth, I'm in Vista and I have some of the latest and "greatest" SecuROM crap on my system.

      --
      find . -name "noobs" -print | xargs rm -rf && echo "pwnd."
    23. Re:How to remove that crap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you forgot delete system32

    24. Re:How to remove that crap? by pjt33 · · Score: 1

      I quite agree that it's not the point, but I was jumping into a thread about technical remedies which can be taken while you wait for the slow process of legal remedies to grind through.

    25. Re:How to remove that crap? by slicerwizard · · Score: 1

      RegDelNull will delete Windows registry keys that contain embedded nulls: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-ca/sysinternals/bb897448.aspx

    26. Re:How to remove that crap? by slicerwizard · · Score: 1

      RegDelNull will delete Windows registry keys that contain embedded nulls: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-ca/sysinternals/bb897448.aspx

  9. So, EA has to do business your way? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bullshit.

    In a capitalistic economy, the best thing that a consumer can do is to vote with your wallet.

    No company has to do business with you. Nor do you have to do business with them. If you do not like the way EA does business, then do not buy their games. I mean, who's going to die if they don't get a video game. It's just a goddamn game! I don't see what the problem is here. This class action suit is frivolous. And this BS of suing companies is only going to bite us all in the ass with increased costs all around to subsidize the legal profession. You don't think EA is going to eat the legal costs, do you?

    God, some of you people need to grow up.

    1. Re:So, EA has to do business your way? by LingNoi · · Score: 1

      That makes no sense at all..

      Class action lawsuits "bite you in the ass" because of increased pricing, however you say that lost sales because people refuse to purchase has no effect? What?!

    2. Re:So, EA has to do business your way? by professionalfurryele · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I just don't get this attitude. Copyright is a social contract. It isn't part of a capitalist economy. It is defacto a subsidy for production of culture in the form of a government mandated monopoly. In a pure capitalist society you wouldn't have rights to control the replication of bits. Copyright IS by definition a form of socialism.

      Here is the deal. We give companies and people a time limited, government mandated monopoly on the reproduction of a good because the cost to develop the good is large and the cost to reproduce it is very small. We throw in a few caveats to try to stop them abusing that monopoly. We do this with a good everyone has a right to have access to (national culture), and in return we expect a few things.

      First off, don't abuse the monopoly. You get the financial benefit of a monopoly, that's it. You don't get to screw customers just because you are the only provider of a product. Secondly, respect the social contract. The monopoly is time limited and if you release a product in such a way that you establish a permanent monopoly you are abusing the social contract. DRM does exactly this because it is design to prevent works of art from being copied.

      Here EA have basically done both. They have abused the social contract by putting DRM in the product in the first place. Then they have abused the monopoly by essentially infecting machines with a virus. That virus would not be there in a free market environment because competitors to EA would not be stupid enough to put it there.

      The rule should be simple. You can have the protection of DRM, or you can have the protection of copyright. But you cant have both because one is a de facto permanent monopoly.

      Now I happen to be one of those people who is prepared to put up with a bit of socialism if it increases net societal good. But if EA cant live up the the social contract then their monopoly should be withdrawn. That should be the penalty for abusing what is at the moment a pretty sweet deal (at least for the major content producers). Heck I wish I could still be getting paid for work I did today 100 years from now.

    3. Re:So, EA has to do business your way? by init100 · · Score: 1

      And this BS of suing companies is only going to bite us all in the ass with increased costs

      Only if you continue to buy their games.

    4. Re:So, EA has to do business your way? by renegadesx · · Score: 1

      Try telling that to the RIAA, MPAA and Microsoft

      --
      Make SELinux enforcing again!
    5. Re:So, EA has to do business your way? by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      You get the financial benefit of a monopoly, that's it. You don't get to screw customers just because you are the only provider of a product.

      Er... isn't 'screwing customers because you are the only provider of a product' the whole reason that there is a financial benefit of a monopoly? I thought that was the whole point of monopolies - that you can charge whatever you like, with no competition to drive prices to a fair market value.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    6. Re:So, EA has to do business your way? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1000 internets for you, sir.

    7. Re:So, EA has to do business your way? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try telling that to the RIAA, MPAA and Microsoft

      I am.

      There isn't one day that goes by without me not buying anything from either of them.

      What are you doing?

      (In case the multitude of negations in my sentence above was confusing: I don't buy any products whatsoever from any of RIAA, MPAA or Microsoft. Period.)

    8. Re:So, EA has to do business your way? by heavyion · · Score: 1

      I just don't get this attitude. Copyright is a social contract. It isn't part of a capitalist economy. It is defacto a subsidy for production of culture in the form of a government mandated monopoly. In a pure capitalist society you wouldn't have rights to control the replication of bits. Copyright IS by definition a form of socialism.

      Here is the deal. We give companies and people a time limited, government mandated monopoly on the reproduction of a good because the cost to develop the good is large and the cost to reproduce it is very small. We throw in a few caveats to try to stop them abusing that monopoly. We do this with a good everyone has a right to have access to (national culture), and in return we expect a few things.

      This post is logically more twisted than an Escher print. Let me ask one simple question in response to your post. What gives YOU the RIGHT to something created by someone else?

    9. Re:So, EA has to do business your way? by skeeto · · Score: 1

      What gives YOU the RIGHT to something created by someone else?

      No one gave me the right to use, copy, distribute, and modify someone else's ideas. It is a natural right of all human beings, just like free speech and privacy, and is acknowledged by my country's (US) constitution as such. The same constitution allows the government, if it so wishes, to grant temporary monopolies on works (section 8), which is meant solely to benefit the public by encouraging science and arts -- the social contract mentioned in the parent post.

    10. Re:So, EA has to do business your way? by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

      What gives YOU the RIGHT to something created by someone else?

      The fact that they offered it to me in exchange for my money, and then they confirmed that offer by accepting my money. If they weren't giving up something as part of an exchange, then what gave them the right to my money?

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    11. Re:So, EA has to do business your way? by professionalfurryele · · Score: 1

      I have no right to something created by someone else. If they wish to keep it private then no court should be able to make them hand over what they have created.

      But if they don't keep it secret, if they published it, well that's a different matter. Once you sell something to some it becomes theirs, and assuming they don't use it to do something unpleasant to someone else then they can do what they darn well like with it. Including replicate it. Including giving away those replicas.

      Everyone has a right to experience their national culture. Not just because that is a fine idea in principle, but because preventing them from doing so is an unnecessary restriction. You might just as well ask what gives me the right to drink coffee or dance in the rain. I have those rights because no one else is harmed when I exercise them.

    12. Re:So, EA has to do business your way? by heavyion · · Score: 1

      What gives YOU the RIGHT to something created by someone else?

      The fact that they offered it to me in exchange for my money, and then they confirmed that offer by accepting my money. If they weren't giving up something as part of an exchange, then what gave them the right to my money?

      Exactly, it's money. You trade your money for their product. You do not have a "natural right" to anything anyone else produces, only your own "products" and those for which you trade. You do not get a right to copy it and give it away to all your friends unless you are granted that right by the producer. I do have issues with producers' assertions that you may not copy something you have bought for your own archival purposes.

      If there is an issue that interferes with your ability to use the product you have paid for in the future, then I am strongly on your side. After all, you paid for that ability. But the idea that you have some God-given right to anything anyone else makes is absurd and should be called such.

    13. Re:So, EA has to do business your way? by heavyion · · Score: 1

      I have no right to something created by someone else. If they wish to keep it private then no court should be able to make them hand over what they have created.

      But if they don't keep it secret, if they published it, well that's a different matter. Once you sell something to some it becomes theirs, and assuming they don't use it to do something unpleasant to someone else then they can do what they darn well like with it. Including replicate it. Including giving away those replicas.

      Everyone has a right to experience their national culture. Not just because that is a fine idea in principle, but because preventing them from doing so is an unnecessary restriction. You might just as well ask what gives me the right to drink coffee or dance in the rain. I have those rights because no one else is harmed when I exercise them.

      I would never question your right to enjoy the things that are yours. The sticky point comes when you bring-up the question of harm. Does it harm EA to spend lots of money paying people to develop a great game only to sell a single copy for $50 and have the rest of the world get it for free? Why should they do that? Why bother making a great game in the first place? Or perhaps they should ask the same amount of money for that single copy as what they invested in making the game?

      My point is simply that if we, the gamers, do not make it worthwhile for the software companies to make good games, they won't. I don't like the draconian measures used to protect a company's ability to make money. They are often an inconvenience. But I certainly do not have any rights to their products unless I pay them.

    14. Re:So, EA has to do business your way? by professionalfurryele · · Score: 1

      It is true that if making games wasn't profitable then EA wouldn't do it. Thats why I support limited copyright (way more limited than it is now).

      But they do not have a right to make money (if they can all well and good, but they don't have a right to it). We subsidies them via copyright.

      That's why class action lawsuits like this one are legitimate and ethical. When copyright is abused it should be reigned in. And it is widely and massively abused.

    15. Re:So, EA has to do business your way? by jdh3.1415 · · Score: 1
      From Wikipedia

      Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society.

      To me, it sounds like copyright has no place in socialism. I'd imagine a socialist would argue that government should pay artists to produce works. Then, the government would have the right to copy and sell these works. Granting monopolies is antitheses to socialistic philosophy.

      Are there any socialists on Slashdot who care to comment?

    16. Re:So, EA has to do business your way? by heavyion · · Score: 1

      It is true that if making games wasn't profitable then EA wouldn't do it. Thats why I support limited copyright (way more limited than it is now).

      But they do not have a right to make money (if they can all well and good, but they don't have a right to it). We subsidies them via copyright.

      That's why class action lawsuits like this one are legitimate and ethical. When copyright is abused it should be reigned in. And it is widely and massively abused.

      I never said they have a right to make money. The may produce something creative and offer it for sale. You give them your money in exchange if you wish. But what, exactly, is it about a copyright that you feel is a subsidy?

      Furthermore, are you suggesting that if you built your house with your own hands that I somehow have a right to claim it as my own? If not, how is the example I cite different from proposing that we all have "rights" to EA's products?

      Software is easy to duplicate but it is otherwise no different from any other product. It takes ingenuity, creativity, and effort to produce. If we are not willing to pay for that it will most certainly go away.

      You and I certainly have some common ground in as much as I agree that there are cases where companies claim more control over a purchased product than they are entitled to. I would also agree the courts should decide where to draw the line between protecting the company's ability to make a profit (so they can make more games) and the consumer's rights (yes rights) to use products they purchase. But please do not suggest that anyone has a right to the creative output of another. There is no such right.

    17. Re:So, EA has to do business your way? by professionalfurryele · · Score: 1

      Your analogy reveals why you don't understand what I'm saying. You don't have a right to claim my house as your own. But if you build a perfect replica of my house then we are all square. That is the difference here.

    18. Re:So, EA has to do business your way? by professionalfurryele · · Score: 1

      Yes, I'm a socialist and I would be happy to comment. (I'm also the GP)

      By granting them a monopoly government is de facto paying artists to produce work. It is interference in the market by government with the objective of improving society.

      The problem with quoting the top line of a Wikipedia entry is socialism is a broad term that can depending on who you talk to include everything from the political perspective of most centre left parties through to Stalinism.

      However we can operate within the limited definition. The question here therefore is, what industry has been (at least in part) nationalised by the copyright legislation? It's the content reproduction industry (which is so intimately tied to the content distribution industry that one might well consider them the same). Think of copyright as giving the owner of copyright the ability to levy and then keep a tax (whose rate they can set themselves) on the replication of their work in return for producing it in the first place. Think of it in these terms also reveals how obvious and big the potential pitfalls are.

      Now I'm no more happy about the current state of copyright than a free market capitalist would be about a completely deregulated police force or armed service. Both are examples of poor implementation of an ideology. It doesn't change the fact that both are consistent with those ideologies.

    19. Re:So, EA has to do business your way? by brkello · · Score: 1

      Umm...other people are free to make their own games, so it isn't a monopoly in any traditional way you would define the term. Let's pretend like your term is different, but still accurate. You go on and call it socialism. What??? I know in this election cycle it is a fad to call everything socialism, but let's get back to reality. They make games. It costs lots of money to make games. They want to make more money than they spend to make games. There is no monopoly or socialism in there. The only thing different is that this item can be replicated for free. So the first person could buy it and then just give it all away. That's great, but no one person is going to pony up 5 million dollars for a game. Basically, in any dumb ass system you would come up with, big games wouldn't exist. This is where the highly moderated slashdot posts on this point all fail.

      --
      Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
    20. Re:So, EA has to do business your way? by professionalfurryele · · Score: 1

      They are the only people who are allowed to produce a good. They are the only seller of that good. That is the definition of a monopoly (in fact most definitions of monopoly only require substantial control of the terms of sale). There are mitigating factors that reduce their monopoly power and drag their prices down from what a simplistic analysis would suggest, but they are a monopoly.

      Socialism broadly defined is state intervention in the market in the interest of increasing social welfare. In a free market there would be no copyright, no patents. The market would be left to fix prices. I suspect this would be (as you suggest) an unmitigated disaster with only the rich able to afford being patrons of the arts. So we socialise the cost of producing arts by essentially giving content producers the ability to levy and keep a tax on the replication of their work. We even let them fix the rate of that tax.

      I have no problem with socialism (I'd call myself a socialist or social democrat). There are situations where it is necessary and useful. This is actually a good example of that. I not using 'socialism' as a dirty word. I'm just calling government intervention in the market what it is.

      I happen to think the basic premise of this system is fine, so long as we remember that this de facto 'tax' is a privileged we grant artists and creators. It is time limited, and subject to the requirement that their work enter the public domain when that time limit is up. If they stick DRM on their work they cheat the system since it provides them with a permanent monopoly. That is wrong.

      How is this for a fair system (I'm not an expert here so this is just an uninformed opinion). Copyright term limits on the order of 10 years. No DRM or other mechanisms that prevent entry into the public domain. Fines and damages for infringement (punitive or otherwise) the same order of magnitude as the damaged caused.

    21. Re:So, EA has to do business your way? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly, nothing gives me the right to your house unless I buy or you give it to me. It is the house that is the subject. Now, carry that over to the world of software. It is the code that is now the subject. The difference is the amount of work required to make a copy. If you are willing and able to sit down and write the code for the game from scratch, then do so. That is something you have a right to do. If you are not able or willing, then buy it from those who are. If you buy it and don't like it then give your copy to someone else. But you cannot claim a right to the code itself and the free distribution of it. You didn't create it, just as I did not create your house.

      You didn't explain what about a copyright constitutes a subsidy.

    22. Re:So, EA has to do business your way? by heavyion · · Score: 1

      Exactly, nothing gives me the right to your house unless I buy or you give it to me. It is the house that is the subject. Now, carry that over to the world of software. It is the code that is now the subject. The difference is the amount of work required to make a copy. If you are willing and able to sit down and write the code for the game from scratch, then do so. That is something you have a right to do. If you are not able or willing, then buy it from those who are. If you buy it and don't like it then give your copy to someone else. But you cannot claim a right to the code itself and the free distribution of it. You didn't create it, just as I did not create your house.

      Also, you didn't explain what about a copyright constitutes a subsidy.

      (re-posted because I did not realize I had been logged-out)

    23. Re:So, EA has to do business your way? by professionalfurryele · · Score: 1

      Copyright amounts to the right to levy and keep a tax on the reproduction of something. It even allows one to choose the tax rate.

      Let me give you an example to show you how very absurd your idea is. I'm a particle physicist by profession. At some point in the future my discoveries will probably be used in some new fangled gadget or other. Do I (or my sponsor, or whoever) have the right to claim anyone who uses my discoveries should pay me (or my descendants) for the privilege? I don't think so. You would effectively set up scientific dynasties. The offspring of Dirac or Boltzman would be would rich beyond measure (or more likely, technology would have stagnated). Are you really suggesting that if I think of or produce something first then that idea is my property in the strictest sense of the word? Do you not see where that leads?

    24. Re:So, EA has to do business your way? by professionalfurryele · · Score: 1

      My apologies, I replied to your other (Anonymous) post.

    25. Re:So, EA has to do business your way? by heavyion · · Score: 1

      Copyright amounts to the right to levy and keep a tax on the reproduction of something. It even allows one to choose the tax rate.

      The government cannot grant a right to something it does not own. The rights to the products of my mind and my hands are my own, unless I grant them to someone else. I do not need anyone to grant me that right. The government, however, can help me protect those rights, i.e. copyright law.

      Let me give you an example to show you how very absurd your idea is. I'm a particle physicist by profession.

      Interesting... so am I (high-energy nuclear physics, hence the tag heavyion).

      At some point in the future my discoveries will probably be used in some new fangled gadget or other. Do I (or my sponsor, or whoever) have the right to claim anyone who uses my discoveries should pay me (or my descendants) for the privilege?

      Absolutely! It happens every day. It's called a patent. Although, if you are funded by one of the typical agencies for particle physics (DoE, NSF, etc.), then it is indeed your funding agency or your institution that has rights to what you produce. That was in the agreement you signed when you took the grad appointment or postdoc, or faculty position, whatever applies to you. Given that DoE and NSF are taxpayer funded, it is the taxpayers that have bought the rights to your work.

      I don't think so. You would effectively set up scientific dynasties. The offspring of Dirac or Boltzman would be would rich beyond measure (or more likely, technology would have stagnated). Are you really suggesting that if I think of or produce something first then that idea is my property in the strictest sense of the word? Do you not see where that leads?

      Yes, that is what I am suggesting. If you are able to produce something then do so. It and the rights to it are yours, unless you give or sell them to someone else. As scientists, you and I are paid for our work by the agencies that fund us. They, in turn, were setup to pass our ideas and work to the world and to future generations. Others who develop ideas independent of government funding patent their ideas and make money from them. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Explain to me how, exactly, technology stagnates when there are significant profits to be made by producing something new.

      What I see in a future where everyone claims rights to the ideas and property of others is a world in which those who can think creatively and produce new and better things no longer see a reason to do so. Their ideas and products will be seized by the masses claiming "rights" with no return for their efforts. Why bother to be productive when there is nothing to be gained?

    26. Re:So, EA has to do business your way? by professionalfurryele · · Score: 1

      I think you are conflating two issues into one. The first is how do we get people to develop new technologies, produce new media and so on. The second is what rights do those people have to the ideas they produce.

      It is interesting you list patents. Patents are time limited. They are another government mandated monopoly with the exact same intent. Do you think we should remove that time limit and make them into a permanent sort of property?

      Imagine for a second if every physicist in the world had to pay Dirac's family 5c for a license to use a new book on quantum theory. Now 50c isn't that much, and I'm imagining Dirac's family being generous. But Dirac was hardly alone in his work. Now comes 50c for Hilbert (after all you are using a Hilbert space). Schoedinger will want a cut, as will Heisenberg, and Einstein. Bohr shouldn't miss out, neither should de Broglie, Bohm. Which interpretation are we using? Maybe Everett deserves a cut, or Feynman. Probably both since I would imagine we will use whichever is most conceptually or mathematically useful. Of course the cheap publishers will just opt not to talk about more than one interpretation, saves money after all. Lets say we are studing a modification of the Ising model and pick ourselves up a book on that, well there is 50c for Ising, and better pay up 50c for Onsager too (we may well be using his exact solution or some result derived there of, we aren't sure, better pay up to be safe). And so on, this list of people you would need to pay would be immense. We have a system that is expensive beyond measure and a legal minefield. Now this just in a book. What about if I want to publish my work. What if I want to make a product. Well that had best be on a per unit basis (or some more expensive bulk licence). Everything from TVs to through computers to digital wrist watches depends on countless discoveries.

      The problem with making ideas into property is that you create massive scarcity. We go from a world where a TV costs a few hundred dollars to a world where a ordinary TV costs thousands of dollars because it depends on thousands and thousands of ideas, each of which has a price.

      Now if you time limit control of ideas (like we do with patents), then eventually all the above problems go away (and you incentivise new discovery). But if you make ideas into property then the problem remains in perpetuity.

      I have to admit that at this stage I have no idea what kind of system you support. I can only assume your last comment was directed at someone else because I'm not opposed to a reformed version of copyright, which incentivises the creation of new works. I am in favour of a reformed version of the patent system, which incentivises new inventions. I acknowledge that this deprives others of the right to the knowledge and culture there in (a right I believe we all have), and I'm prepared to infringe upon those right to encourage creation.

      I don't wish to put words in your mouth but you seem to believe that ideas are property and that creators of ideas have a right to control who uses those ideas and how. Sure that will incentivise creation of new ideas, assuming that they don't depend on too many prior ideas. The problem being that almost every new idea depends on countless old ones. What is the point of coming up with a new work of art, or a new theorem, or a new design if all of your proceeds have to go to the descendants of people who came up with the ideas your new work is based on?

    27. Re:So, EA has to do business your way? by heavyion · · Score: 1

      It is interesting you list patents. Patents are time limited. They are another government mandated monopoly with the exact same intent. Do you think we should remove that time limit and make them into a permanent sort of property?

      That question is not for me to decide. The current law imposes a 20 year limit, so be it until the law is changed. My personal opinion is that the originator of an idea should retain their rights for the remainder of their life. Whether or not there should be rights of inheritance is a open question.

      Imagine for a second if every physicist in the world had to pay Dirac's family 5c for a license to use a new book on quantum theory. Now 50c isn't that much, and I'm imagining Dirac's family being generous. But Dirac was hardly alone in his work. Now comes 50c for Hilbert (after all you are using a Hilbert space). Schoedinger will want a cut, as will Heisenberg, and Einstein. Bohr shouldn't miss out, neither should de Broglie, Bohm. Which interpretation are we using? Maybe Everett deserves a cut, or Feynman. Probably both since I would imagine we will use whichever is most conceptually or mathematically useful. Of course the cheap publishers will just opt not to talk about more than one interpretation, saves money after all. Lets say we are studing a modification of the Ising model and pick ourselves up a book on that, well there is 50c for Ising, and better pay up 50c for Onsager too (we may well be using his exact solution or some result derived there of, we aren't sure, better pay up to be safe). And so on, this list of people you would need to pay would be immense. We have a system that is expensive beyond measure and a legal minefield. Now this just in a book. What about if I want to publish my work. What if I want to make a product. Well that had best be on a per unit basis (or some more expensive bulk licence). Everything from TVs to through computers to digital wrist watches depends on countless discoveries.

      Except that you and I both know science works by publication and reference. We are paid for our work ahead of time (via grants, salaries, etc.) with the mutual understanding that our ideas will be published for the use of others. We must always carefully reference prior work so that interested individuals can follow the references back at least to the originating paper. The reference chain is, in a limited sense, the currency with which we pay each other and those upon whose work ours is built. The idea, the thoughts, are the commodities in science.

      The problem with making ideas into property is that you create massive scarcity. We go from a world where a TV costs a few hundred dollars to a world where a ordinary TV costs thousands of dollars because it depends on thousands and thousands of ideas, each of which has a price.

      There is no problem, because you do not make ideas into property... they already are. You do not have access to my ideas unless you pay me for them, or I offer them to you, or you threaten me in some way that forces me to give them up. If I come-up with a new way of making my home more energy efficient and decide not to offer that idea to others (either by sale or gift), you are left with two possibilities if want that invention. Either create it yourself (without studying what I've done), or steal it from me in some way (which includes looking at what I did and duplicating it).

      Now if you time limit control of ideas (like we do with patents), then eventually all the above problems go away (and you incentivise new discovery). But if you make ideas into property then the problem remains in perpetuity.

      As I said above, there is no problem. We are fortunate that clever people are willing to create and sell useful and fun things. Suggesting that we all have rights to what others produce is wrong. We have rights only to the things we produce and the things for which we trade.

      I

    28. Re:So, EA has to do business your way? by professionalfurryele · · Score: 1

      I understand the point you are trying to make, but I must admit I feel your premise is deeply flawed. Since you seem keen to end the discussion I just wanted to clarify a couple of things.

      I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to keep secrets. You choose to write a poem and keep it secret no force of law should be able to make you do otherwise.

      Where we disagree is what happens once it is published. You believe that once an idea is published it remains the property of it's originator. I do not. I believe that once you sell and object an individual to someone they can do what they like with it. Be it replicate it or otherwise. You thoughts are your own, if you keep them to yourself.

      You are correct in how you describe how science is currently done, but I was illustrating how it would be done if we changed to your system (who in their right mind is going to accept a measly government grant when they can make a mint from their ideas and theorems for the rest of their life?).

  10. Should not have to. by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why should I have to run Deep Freeze, or any type of software to return my system to a state before a program is installed?

    Unless I give explicit permission for a program install something, then it should not be installed.

    How is EA doing this different from anyone installing trojans, spyware, or virus?

    1. Re:Should not have to. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You guys have the same point... pay attention to your parent comments. He said so what to the grandparent comments, not to the Article

    2. Re:Should not have to. by panda+cakes · · Score: 0

      How is EA doing this different from anyone installing trojans, spyware, or virus?

      The difference is that you are in a contract with EA through an EULA you had to agree in order to install and run the software. It does not matter that you did not read it or think it does not have any power because this contract is the only thing allowing you to run and install the software and otherwise you breaking the law yourself.
      I know many people are confused by this so I will explain. Mind that IANAL.
      You have no right to install software. It's an act of making a copy (in fact even running off a cd is because you are making a copy of the executable imagine in RAM) and this what copyright is all about. Fair use and other exceptions don't apply in this case (for example for Fair Use defense you need to be already granted some rights from the author). There is only one reason you can lawfully run the installer - it's a provision that you can do so if it necessary in order to obtain a permission from the author.
      Your right to run and install software is granted in the contract, commonly called "EULA". If you don't agree with it - you have no right to run it and/or keep a copy on your hard drive. If you could not find it or failed to read for some other reason then again, you have no right because the software is a subject of the copyright laws explicitly forbidding you to do this.
      So either you have explicitly allowed EA to do whatever they asked you in the EULA when you have entered that contract or you are a criminal, illegally copying a protected work.

    3. Re:Should not have to. by houstonbofh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      While the EULA may have given them the right to eat babies, did it fully disclaim that it would install additional software that would be running all the time, hidden, and not removed by the uninstaller? To have informed consent, you need to inform. Also you need a way to not consent, which means a return policy more open than "piss off."

    4. Re:Should not have to. by panda+cakes · · Score: 0

      You are asking a wrong person - I have not read EA's EULA. I can give you a guess - yes, it did, EA has been in business for over 25 years and has surely figured out how to write an EULA protecting them from everything.

    5. Re:Should not have to. by houstonbofh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you can only read it after purchase, and there is no way to return it for full refund, you can use unconscionable demand, and informed consent defenses. Also, if it is not clear that it can not be removed (and I have never seen a clear EULA) you have another club to hit them with. The Amazon reviews were the canary dieing in the coal mine. EA missed that, and I think it will hurt them.

    6. Re:Should not have to. by panda+cakes · · Score: 0

      Indeed you can. The issue here however is different, nobody is demanding a refund and returning the software if I understand TFA correctly. People are complying about the software they have already installed and ran so they had to agree to EULA. The question is whether this particular EULA allows non-removable software installs or not.

    7. Re:Should not have to. by init100 · · Score: 1

      So either you have explicitly allowed EA to do whatever they asked you in the EULA when you have entered that contract or you are a criminal, illegally copying a protected work.

      Or EA "forgot" to mention the hidden irremovable software that is secretly installed along with the game. It has happened before, and it will likely happen again. I can't see why you are so sure that EA would never do anything wrong.

    8. Re:Should not have to. by panda+cakes · · Score: 1

      You can't see why I am so sure because I am not so sure as you put it. It's a common sense though to protect the company from everything possible in a contract such as EULA, I don't see why EA would leave itself exposed in case of things they have been doing for the last decade. But, of course, it's possible they did and you are right, they forgot.

    9. Re:Should not have to. by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      there's also an expectation of reasonableness to any contract. If a product is free, and in this case the free trial was a different program than the actual one, then why is invasive copy protection needed? This copy protection doesn't prevent piracy (the downloadable file is the same for everybody), it doesn't affect reverse-engineering or hacking the program... it only exists to monitor the computer's usage, which is entirely unreasonable for a FREE, advertising download.

    10. Re:Should not have to. by panda+cakes · · Score: 0

      I, for one, reasonably expect a demo to have as many properties of the full game as possible and would be very sad if the demo ran adequately, I payed for the full game and it did not run at all. Which would be exactly the case with the game in question if my PC had problems with the DRM software and the demo shipped without it. As you can see different people have different expectations, luckily the are all being equally dispelled with "as is" and other disclaimers in the EULA.

    11. Re:Should not have to. by Ahnteis · · Score: 1

      Repost of anonymous coward below for those whose browsing level hides comment:

      You guys have the same point... pay attention to your parent comments. He said so what to the grandparent comments, not to the Article

    12. Re:Should not have to. by moronoxyd · · Score: 4, Informative

      How about you RTFA, or even the summary?

      "EA's EULA for Spore Creature Creator Free Trial Edition makes utterly no mention of any Technical Protection Measures, DRM technology, or SecuROM whatsoever."

      It was not in the EULA, so EA has installed software on the users computer without the users knowledge.

    13. Re:Should not have to. by Pofy · · Score: 1

      If we disregard the fact that the specific Class-Action suit was in USA and look at the games, EA and their DRM one quickly see that there are problems.

      >You have no right to install software.

      Yes, you have in many countries that "right" without having to get any permission, licens or enter into a cotract.

      >It's an act of making a copy (in fact even running off a
      >cd is because you are making a copy of the executable
      >imagine in RAM) and this what copyright is all about.

      Many countries has specific exceptions for such copying making it a non infringing act. To avoid further confusion, no many countries does not have the "own" requirement USA has for this exceptions. Leaglly aquired the software is enough (which is what the WIPO treaty had, USA decided to make it own instead, other countries did not). This makes the whole "you don't own it you license it" meaningless is such countries.

      So no, you don't need any license and no you don't need to enter into any EULA or other contract to run or install the software.

      Of course, as has allready been pointed out by others, the EULA does in the end not mention the DRM in questions so it doesn't appearantly help, even in countries were EA can rely on their EULA.

    14. Re:Should not have to. by oracle128 · · Score: 1

      DRM. A piece of software that installs alongside the main game content. It's required for the game to run. The game box will usually inform you it's included, but most people ignore it and complain anyway. Usually it will install without your knowledge. It stays around on your PC even after you uninstall the game. Unless you are a PC expert it can't be removed without a format and clean install. When installed, it may break the PC. And even if you did know about it before it installed, if you disagreed with it your chances of being able to return the game are slim to none.

      Games did this long before the DRM buzzword came about.
      It was called DirectX. Where are the lawsuits for that?

      And then there's the question of whether DRM is part of the software you've decided to buy and install. Almost all software comes with binary that isn't related to game content, but they don't tell you about in the EULA or on the game box. Do map editors count? Should we sue for them being installed? What about the game uninstaller, that's a separate executable that doesn't have game content. Multiplayer clients? Mod tools? Registry settings? DLLs? I distinctly remember DLL Hell with GTA:SA and MSVCR71.dll (or something like that), GTA is modifying my system files and breaking my other apps. SUE!

    15. Re:Should not have to. by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      Do map editors count?

      I don't see how they would, they're a part of the game, just a part that not everyone uses with somewhat dull gameplay.

      What about the game uninstaller, that's a separate executable that doesn't have game content.

      who used the phrase "separate executable that doesn't have game content"? the uninstaller performs a useful fuction for me.

      Multiplayer clients? Mod tools? Registry settings? DLLs?

      Mostly all part of the game and few of which try to prevent me from doing something.
      There's a difference between a mistake and an intentional action.
      A game which screws up some system settings due to an error: mistake.
      DRM which burns out CD drives which try to copy CDs: intentional.

    16. Re:Should not have to. by Elldallan · · Score: 1

      Another very important thing is wether such a clause would be enforeacble or not.
      If that particular clause of the EULA is in violation of some law then it is void and as such you can ignore it.

      Lots of software companies knowingly puts alot of stuff into their EULA's that they know there's no way in hell they would get through with in court and in my opinion that behaviour is something that ought to be punished but unfortunately it isn't.

    17. Re:Should not have to. by oracle128 · · Score: 1

      I don't see how they would, they're a part of the game, just a part that not everyone uses with somewhat dull gameplay.

      How are map editors any more a part of the game than DRM?

      who used the phrase "separate executable that doesn't have game content"?

      Nobody, but then, nobody has clearly defined what is part of the game and what isn't in a way that is anything more than just a convenient label for piracy advocates.

      the uninstaller performs a useful fuction for me.

      And SecuROM performs a useful function for the developers. Yet the lawsuit doesn't mention anything about whether this software is a value-add or not. Point?

      Mostly all part of the game and few of which try to prevent me from doing something. There's a difference between a mistake and an intentional action.

      PunkBuster, VAC, nProtect, DMW Anticheat, Warden. All intentional, all prevent you from doing things, all installed with the game, none indicated on the box, none removed with the game. In fact last I checked, the majority of the /. crowd supported Warden against circumventions like Glider.

      DRM which burns out CD drives which try to copy CDs: intentional.

      So you're saying there's code in SecuROM which intentionally does physical damage to the CD drive. And you have proof of this?

    18. Re:Should not have to. by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      PunkBuster, VAC, nProtect, DMW Anticheat, Warden. All intentional, all prevent you from doing things, all installed with the game

      Prevent you from doing things *which impact other players of the game*.
      also they're simply not as obnoxious. Just because I object to software X does not mean I have to object to software Y just becase they're similar when software X, when it comes down to it, is designed to screw me over and hurts my game experience and software Y is designed to stop others screwing me over or hurting my game experience.

    19. Re:Should not have to. by oracle128 · · Score: 1

      Don't you think other players of the game might be impacted when piracy a) devalues their purchase and b) stifles creativity and future development?

      Well, I can see simple things like that are of no concern to you when you're busy being paranoid that developers and publishers are doing everything they can to intentionally hurt legitimate gamers.

    20. Re:Should not have to. by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      How are map editors any more a part of the game than DRM?

      How was the music on sony CD's any more part of the music than the sony rootkit?
      It's all just bits and bytes. If I install a free game which infects me with a virus which listens for credit card details it's still just bits and bytes.Is the keylogger less a part of the game than anything else?Would the eula save them then?

    21. Re:Should not have to. by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      DRM prevents them from selling the game second hand and so devalues their purchase a great deal. Does this lost value factor in anywhere?

      And we weren't talking about piracy. we were talking about DRM.
      DRM doesn't prevent piracy, it encourages it since people are often unwilling to install crap-ware on their PC's and the copy protection in no way at all affects people with pirated copies. Only users who have paid for a copy ever see the DRM.
      Games get cracked before they're even released so what good is DRM?

      How does DRM encourage creativity? It doesn't. unless you count teenage hackers learning about disassembling programs to be encouragement of creativity.

      Company execs who think DRM prevents piracy are fools and hacks who sell DRM software to those companies are con artists who should be prosecuted as such since they're selling the software equivalent of snake oil.

    22. Re:Should not have to. by oracle128 · · Score: 1

      How was the music on sony CD's any more part of the music than the sony rootkit?

      Music is music. XCP is not music.
      Game is game. Map editor is not game. Cheat protection is not game.

      It's all just bits and bytes. If I install a free game which infects me with a virus which listens for credit card details it's still just bits and bytes.Is the keylogger less a part of the game than anything else?Would the eula save them then?

      Last I checked, stealing credit card info was a crime (kind of like stealing a game is...), but protecting one's copyrighted content was not.

    23. Re:Should not have to. by oracle128 · · Score: 1

      DRM prevents them from selling the game second hand and so devalues their purchase a great deal. Does this lost value factor in anywhere?

      The answer to that, of course, is to not agree to a license that explicitly states "this license is not transferable".

      And we weren't talking about piracy. we were talking about DRM.

      Yes, because I'm sure DRM has nothing to do with piracy...

      DRM doesn't prevent piracy

      And locks on a house don't protect criminals from breaking in. But I bet you a hundred dollars you still have locks on your house.

      it encourages it since people are often unwilling to install crap-ware on their PC's and the copy protection in no way at all affects people with pirated copies.

      Close. It provides another excuse for pirates to rationalize their criminal behaviour, because sometimes, "too expensive", "demo not long enough" and "poor quality" just aren't enough to avoid cognitive dissonance.

      Games get cracked before they're even released so what good is DRM?

      You mean like Spore? How it was "cracked" before release because pirates got their hands on a DRM-free review copy? Saying that DRM fails if it isn't implemented is like saying oxygen fails to keep you alive because if you stop breathing it you die.

      How does DRM encourage creativity?

      Preventing piracy does, because there's more incentive to keep developing. Even if DRM doesn't work for 100% of cases as you keep maliciously claiming, it makes no difference, since merely the perception that it's doing something is enough to encourage further development. And you know that perception exists because it keeps getting used.

      Company execs who think DRM prevents piracy are fools

      And people who steal games are assholes and are ruining the gaming industry, and they should all be shot. Not to mention your hatred of companies protecting their rights is solely cause by pirates, so you too can only agree with that. So what's your point?

    24. Re:Should not have to. by Pofy · · Score: 1

      >The answer to that, of course, is to not agree
      >to a license that explicitly states "this license
      >is not transferable".

      Which only applies to a country were you would need such a license. In others the claim of preventing reselling is a valid one.

      >Yes, because I'm sure DRM has nothing to do with piracy...

      Only in part, it also affects normal use of the product, controling your installation and for example reselling which has nothing to do with piracy.

      >And people who steal games are assholes and are ruining
      >the gaming industry,

      I would say they might ruining whatever shope they are stolen from. It would not affect the game companies.

      >Not to mention your hatred of companies protecting
      >their rights is solely cause by pirates, so you
      >too can only agree with that.

      What rights are you talking about? Controling such things as how someone that buys a game can install or use the game? Controling how someone can re-sell a game? Controling what unremovable DRM products are put on customers computers? Strange rights you claim they should have.

      You seems to use "piracy" as an excuse for adding any and all sorts of control to a product that in many cases has nothing to do with piracy or have severe effects not realted to piracy. Just scream "piracy" and everyone should accept anything and anything is excused appearantly.

    25. Re:Should not have to. by xouumalperxe · · Score: 1

      To use a bit of an extreme comparison, protecting my real estate is not a crime, yet I'm pretty sure I'd get into trouble for using an electrified fence, esp. if I didn't properly advertise it.

    26. Re:Should not have to. by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      The answer to that, of course, is to not agree to a license that explicitly states "this license is not transferable".

      I wonder how it would hold up if I placed a "liscence" at the start of a book I was publishing saying that by turning the page they were agreeing to it and that they may never sell the book second hand or give it to anyone else.

      Yes, because I'm sure DRM has nothing to do with piracy...

      Correct.
      100% correct.
      Once one person cracks a program and it hits the torrent sites the DRM does nothing, nada, zero, ziltch to prevent piracy. It only hurts legitamate users.

      And locks on a house don't protect criminals from breaking in. But I bet you a hundred dollars you still have locks on your house.

      awful awful awful analogy but I'll bite. It isn't like a lock on your house since every lock is different and takes time to open or they can just kick the door in, meatspace rules don't fit well.
      no. It would be more accurate to compare it to buying a house, the builders install a lock system which they hold the keys to, whenever you want to get into your house you have to take out your phone, call them and ask their permission to enter your house. Your friends are not allowed inside under any circumstances, if you want to sell your house you can't and once someone works out how to pick the lock on one door in the neighbourhood then all the doors pop open for them.

      You mean like Spore?

      Nope, I mean like ANYTHING.
      Show me a system like that which has been out for a resonable length of time which hasn't been cracked wide open.
      If you have any understanding of the technical aspects then you'll know that any DRM can and will be cracked provided legitamate users can get at what they've paid for.
      DRM is a joke.

      Even if DRM doesn't work for 100% of cases as you keep maliciously claiming,

      It works for 0.00% of cases. it it worthless. it it crap, it is snake oil.
      Any Exec who pays for it is a fool who should be fired by those above him and anyone who sells it should by jailed as a con artist.

      And as I said, this is about DRM not piracy. the 2 have very little to do with each other. pirates never encounter DRM and people who have to deal with DRM are, almost by definition, using legit copies.

      Tell me. by any chance do you work for a company selling DRM? Last time I heard the words "as you keep maliciously claiming" was from a snake oil(Homeopathy) salesman claiming he was selling the cure for everything who I called out as a fraud.

    27. Re:Should not have to. by xouumalperxe · · Score: 1

      And locks on a house don't protect criminals from breaking in. But I bet you a hundred dollars you still have locks on your house.

      Indeed, locks don't prevent criminals from breaking in. Both DRM and locks are really meant as deterrents. The real discussion is: how effective are those deterrents? The average lock is pretty effective, since it eats away time a robber doesn't have, making exposure time much longer. Plus, most locks aren't trivial to pick and there is a degree of skill associated. Therefore, and since knocking a door down isn't necessarily feasible, you can actually physically avoid a break in rather than just delay it past the point of comfort for the robber.

      In practice, breaking DRM is entirely safe for the original cracker, since there is absolutely no exposure time. Releasing the crack might cause some exposure, but once again, the exposure for the end-user is slim to none. The only associated risk is malware payload, which is why you make sure to run an anti-virus on the crack and use only releases from reputable groups (the definition of reputable being quite loose here :). Once there is one clean crack out there, the DRM is effectively defeated for all copies of the game, so it ends up producing much less effective protection than a simple lock.

      And people who steal games are assholes and are ruining the gaming industry, and they should all be shot. Not to mention your hatred of companies protecting their rights is solely cause by pirates, so you too can only agree with that. So what's your point?

      Bringing up piracy again and again fails to address the major point: DRM makes the product worse for the end user. Sure, developers might not produce more games, yadda yadda, but, given an actual finished game, there's absolutely nothing about DRM that makes it any better for the consumer. When I do a full install of a game, I shouldn't have to keep the disc in the drive just so the game can validate I'm a legitimate user. There is no legitimate reason why I shouldn't be able to resell the game (or just give it away) when I'm done with it and a friend wants it. I shouldn't have to dial up the editor of the game when I want to install the game more than x many times over the course of its lifetime, and most of all I shouldn't be dependent on the license server still being up when I want to play it in 10 years' time for old times' sake!

    28. Re:Should not have to. by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      good comparison, for the more agressive forms of DRM it's like you've hooked it up to the mains power supply.
      Fair use being stamped on = putting the fence up over an old public Right of Way.
      Dial home DRM = renting out living space on your land then locking all your tenants out of their rooms when your phone breaks over the weekend and they can't call you.

    29. Re:Should not have to. by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      Last I checked, stealing credit card info was a crime (kind of like stealing a game is...), but protecting one's copyrighted content was not.

      So a piece of software installed on my computer without my consent which collects my information without my consent is illegal?
      Subtle how you stuck in the note about game theft even though it has sweet fuck all to do with DRM.
      Protecting my land is legal, protecting my land with a field of land mines is not.

    30. Re:Should not have to. by dargon · · Score: 1

      Yes, software did have some form of copy protection long before DRM became a buzzword, code wheels, specially colored code lookup books, parallel / serial port dongles, etc, and yes, DirectX was regularly installed without the end user being asked. However, small thing, DirectX is not a form of copy protection, it's a DEVELOPMENT LIBRARY containing various things such a graphics and sound functions that actually allowed the games programmed with it to be games. OpenGL is another such Development Library. If a piece of software is programmed using one of these libraries, then the end user kind of needs the relevant parts of the library in order for said software to function. As for your other examples, such as map editors etc, again, you've missed the point. DRM software such as secuROM basically acts like a system level driver, it takes in the various software calls, such as those going to your CD/DvD drive and decides whether or not your allowed to perform the action being attempted, map editors and other such included bonus software do not. Someone tried to do a real world example with regards to breaking into a house and it didn't work so well, however I'm going to try another. DRM software is like setting up a security system on your house, and then letting the security company decide who you're allowed to open the door for. Some DRM is relatively innocuous (disk required in drive types) others aren't and interfere with everything you do. As for GTA:SA, that's just bad coding, much like the uninstall process for Pool of Radiance: Ruins of Myth Drannor, whoops I installed in the non-default location so now my windows system files just got nuked.

    31. Re:Should not have to. by oracle128 · · Score: 1

      And you seem to use DRM as an excuse for piracy. Just scream "DRM" and everyone should accept criminal behaviour. Except piracy came first.

    32. Re:Should not have to. by oracle128 · · Score: 1

      awful awful awful analogy but I'll bite. It isn't like a lock on your house since every lock is different and takes time to open or they can just kick the door in, meatspace rules don't fit well.

      Every lock is not different. There are really only a handful of different types of locks in place, each one just uses different keys. You can try to pick the lock, or you can just brute force your way in. And yes, it takes time to open, just like it takes time for the legitimate owner to get in, while the thief just smashes a window. Sounds exactly like DRM to me. ZOMG, locks on physical property like houses and cars only hurts legitimate consumers! Guess it's time to go on a shopping spree!

      Show me a system like that which has been out for a resonable length of time which hasn't been cracked wide open.

      Bioshock took several weeks to crack. It too was SecuROM. The trick, of course, is not that the DRM will remain uncracked forever (as you seem to assume is their intention and measure of success).
      Pirates are a joke.

      It works for 0.00% of cases. it it worthless. it it crap, it is snake oil.

      False, and you know it. Anecdotal evidence suggests otherwise - just by trawling /. comments you can see cases of "going to crack it, but couldn't, so caved in and bought it".

      Any Exec who pays for it is a fool who should be fired by those above him and anyone who sells it should by jailed as a con artist.

      Good point, I totally agree. We should bring in the execs who rely on the honor system to keep the company alive. "Oh sure, you can obtain our game freely and totally anonymously, but you have to promise, cross your heart and hope to die, that you'll pay us for it". Good idea, numbnuts.

      And as I said, this is about DRM not piracy. the 2 have very little to do with each other.

      I thought the correlation was pretty obvious. Piracy causes DRM.

      pirates never encounter DRM and people who have to deal with DRM are, almost by definition, using legit copies.

      Yes, because we should just throw out all logic and make the widespread claims that if you have to spend 30 seconds worth of your time to do something legitimately, it's not worth it and the system is broken. Well, it takes me a month of hard work to earn money to eat, therefore the system must broken and clearly, by your fantabulous logic, I should be robbing banks and stealing from supermarkets instead.

      Tell me. by any chance do you work for a company selling DRM?

      Just to make you happy, yes, because I just know you won't accept that anyone outside the DRM industry could possibly disagree with piracy.

    33. Re:Should not have to. by oracle128 · · Score: 1

      Bringing up piracy again and again fails to address the major point:

      Bringing up piracy drives home the major point: DRM wouldn't even exist if it weren't for piracy, and asshole apologists of piracy who take great pleasure in thinking up new ways to justify criminal behaviour.

      You hate DRM? Fine, I can accept that people have problems with having to spend all of 30 seconds entering a key code. Some people are just really lazy and stupid. The way to get rid of it of course, is to stop encouraging piracy or making excuses for it.

      Or would you rather just keep making the backwards claim that piracy only happens because of DRM?

    34. Re:Should not have to. by oracle128 · · Score: 1

      good comparison, for the more agressive forms of DRM it's like you've hooked it up to the mains power supply.

      Funny, I don't remember getting physically or permanently harmed when entering a CD key incorrectly. Are you sure you've wired your computer up correctly?

      No no, those wires there, you're not meant to attach them to your testicles...

      Fair use being stamped on = putting the fence up over an old public Right of Way.

      Like slander destroys my freedom or speech, or jaywalking and trespassing laws make me a criminal just for walking somewhere. Outrageous!

      Dial home DRM = renting out living space on your land then locking all your tenants out of their rooms when your phone breaks over the weekend and they can't call you.

      That's weird, I've never had a problem playing any of my DRM-protected games when I'm temporarily disconnected from the net.

      But strangely enough, the requirements on the game box say "Internet connection required". No internet connection means you're not meeting the system requirements. Like how that stupid evil DRM prevents me from playing Crysis on my Atari 2600, those bastards.
      It's more like locking your tenants out of their rooms when they don't have the key, won't show you their ID, and look absolutely nothing like the tenants you rented the property out to.

    35. Re:Should not have to. by oracle128 · · Score: 1

      So a piece of software installed on my computer without my consent which collects my information without my consent is illegal?

      You consented to it when you installed the game, since the DRM is part of the game, and you've shown no legal or logical reason to believe otherwise.

      Subtle how you stuck in the note about game theft even though it has sweet fuck all to do with DRM.

      Subtle how you are obviously avoiding the simple fact that DRM wouldn't exist without pirates.

      Protecting my land is legal, protecting my land with a field of land mines is not.

      It's a good thing then that DRM doesn't blow you up, and only denies entry while it tries to verify your right to use the software, sometimes going so far as to contact the authorities (ie. what it's meant to be doing), which is pretty much exactly what security on your land does.

    36. Re:Should not have to. by oracle128 · · Score: 1

      Yes, software did have some form of copy protection long before DRM became a buzzword, code wheels, specially colored code lookup books, parallel / serial port dongles, etc

      Which were designed to (shock!) prevent piracy, which also existed well before that.

      and yes, DirectX was regularly installed without the end user being asked. However, small thing, DirectX is not a form of copy protection, it's a DEVELOPMENT LIBRARY

      Oh, so you agree that DirectX has the exact same attributes as DRM, but has a different purpose. You know, I'm looking through the lawsuit, I can't find anything in there that states they have a problem with the purpose of DRM, rather than what it actually (unprovably) "does".

      DRM software such as secuROM basically acts like a system level driver, it takes in the various software calls, such as those going to your CD/DvD drive and decides whether or not your allowed to perform the action being attempted, map editors and other such included bonus software do not.

      And yet, many games actually do that exact same thing, which is why many games can't be installed or even run without an admin account. You know what else acts like a system level driver? System level drivers. And related stuff like DirectX.

      Someone tried to do a real world example with regards to breaking into a house and it didn't work so well,

      Thanks for noticing, I'm glad you enjoyed my analogy that has yet to be shown to not "work so well". Unless of course you count "ZOMG a lock is a lock, but DRM is DRM they'refore you're analogy is epic phail lol!".

      As for GTA:SA, that's just bad coding

      Which is irrelevant to the point that the game itself is messing with system files, which is what rabid DRM-haters complain that DRM does.

      DRM software is like setting up a security system on your house, and then letting the security company decide who you're allowed to open the door for.

      Yes, brilliant. Someone finally gets it. DRM is exactly like setting up a security service that has the company do all the security control for you. And then complaining that the security is an inconvenience to you because they have to verify you before they let you in, and deciding to break into the houses of other people who choose to use that same security service, because you really hate being inconvenienced like that regardless of the overall benefit to society (and your property). As opposed to simply not using that security company any more. Which of course proves the point succinctly when you consider that video games are a privilege, and not a right like many/all piracy advocates and apologists seem to think.

      But the funny thing is, at least in this scenario the security has been tried, tested, and you've made a decision based on that. In 100% of DRM-hating cases I've seen, the only complaint is that "DRM might fail to authenticate me", or "DRM might prevent me from using the product sometime in the future", and that these are the reasons they pirated the game. Which of course implies they were never actually inconvenienced by or even used the DRM at all, and are only paranoid about what might happen to them.

    37. Re:Should not have to. by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      "You consented to it when you installed the game, since the DRM is part of the game, and you've shown no legal or logical reason to believe otherwise."

      And you've shown no logical difference between a piece of freeware which (without notifiying me) installs along with a game I download a piece of virus code which I can't remove without significant knowledge (drm) piece of freeware which (without notifiying me) installs along with a game I download a piece of virus code which I can't remove without significant knowledge(a keylogger, a piece of spyware or a piece of adware). Both of which harm me. both of which only help the virus writer.

    38. Re:Should not have to. by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      Funny, I don't remember getting physically or permanently harmed when entering a CD key incorrectly

      Pleanty of people get finacially harmed when drm intentionally or otherwise damages their property.
      Google -drm "broke my"- and you get thousands of hits.

      Like slander destroys my freedom or speech, or jaywalking and trespassing laws make me a criminal just for walking somewhere. Outrageous!

      DRM is shitty code sold by scam artists. You're talking about laws.
      You know it is illegal in the UK to block a public right of way even if you own the land?
      Fair use is the IP version of public rights of way yet shysters still try to block it.

      That's weird, I've never had a problem playing any of my DRM-protected games when I'm temporarily disconnected from the net.

      I have. You must never have acutally used anything with DRM.

      But strangely enough, the requirements on the game box say "Internet connection required". No internet connection means you're not meeting the system requirements.

      Or I can have a perfectly good internet connection but my ISP's DNS system cuts out occasionally. I meet every requirement on the box but they haven't given every requirement.
      Of course if I was in the buisness of infecting peoples systems with virus code I wouldn't want to tell everyone the details of the code either.

      Like how that stupid evil DRM prevents me from playing Crysis on my Atari 2600, those bastards.

      Or stops me playing my legitimate copy of spore on my completely up to spec laptop util I spend 2 hours on an international phone call to their support line. Real great that.

      It's more like locking your tenants out of their rooms when they don't have the key, won't show you their ID, and look absolutely nothing like the tenants you rented the property out to.

      No it's like locking out your tennents when they have the key, are the people who rented the room. Got a haircut and have tried to unlock their door more than 3 times since they last called you for your permission to get at their property which they have paid for.

    39. Re:Should not have to. by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      Guess it's time to go on a shopping spree!

      Wow, subtly trying to imply that I'm a pirate are you?
      I'm saying that DRM is a scam, not that piracy is ok.
      I am saying that piracy is encouraged by DRM since people prefer to avoid the crapware.
      Those statements are distinct.
      like saying "poking someone in they eye makes them more likely to kill you" isn't the same as saying "it's ok to kill you".

      several weeks to crack

      Wow! weeks? so worth the massive investment and pissing off legit customers. So I guess the company will be releasing a patch to remove the DRM on that game now that it serves no purpose? it's already broken and on the torrents so why are we fucking over legitimate users?

      "going to crack it, but couldn't, so caved in and bought it".

      I have never ever ever seen that written on slashdot.
      I have on the other hand seen many many examples of
      "wouldn't work so I donwloaded the crack",
      "wouldn't work because of the DRM and will never buy from that company again",
      "The DRM fucked up my system, can I sue them?",
      "I've seen so many people telling me how the DRM fucked things up that I'm just going to download the cracked version of TPB"

      Anecdotal evidence suggests very very strongly that DRM puts off at least as many if not many more than it causes to buy the software.

      I thought the correlation was pretty obvious. Piracy causes DRM.

      Execs knowing sweet fuck all about computers and being taken advantage of by scammers causes DRM.Piracy is just a bogey man the salesmen pull out to scare the execs.

      Yes, because we should just throw out all logic and make the widespread claims that if you have to spend 30 seconds worth of your time to do something legitimately, it's not worth it and the system is broken. Well, it takes me a month of hard work to earn money to eat, therefore the system must broken and clearly, by your fantabulous logic, I should be robbing banks and stealing from supermarkets instead.

      You know you didn't deal with the point raised at all.You seem to have responed to a different post entirely, did you have the wrong window open?
      Pirates never ever see DRM. it takes zero time out of their day, it never prevents them from playing. The company running the DRM servers going belly up doesn't screw them over.

      just know you won't accept that anyone outside the DRM industry could possibly disagree with piracy.

      Oh lots of people disagree with piracy, but nobody outside the DRM industry who has a clue about computers could think DRM works.

    40. Re:Should not have to. by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      Or would you rather just keep making the backwards claim that piracy only happens because of DRM?

      I never said that, I did say that it happens more because of DRM.

      people have problems with having to spend all of 30 seconds entering a key code. Some people are just really lazy and stupid.

      And people have problems with the games they own not working because the DRM servers have been switched off or are offline because of a new release by the company or the DRM doesn't like their hardware setup.
      Anyone who hates DRM is real lazy and stupid.right...

      The way to get rid of it of course, is to stop encouraging piracy or making excuses for it.

      OK you've wandered away from all logic here. So if I stop saying that DRM is snake oil then it will go away?
      You might as well claim that shoplifting will go away if you clap your hands and believe! Believe with all your heart!

      I could walk into my local supermarket and walk out with hundreds of euro worth of items and there would be fuck all chance of getting caught yet I don't. Why? Because I like the majority of humanity will line up and pay of their own free will.

    41. Re:Should not have to. by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      At no point did he say DRM was an excuse for piracy.
      In fact you confirmed the point he was making.

      I'm revising my throught that you're an employee of a company which provides DRM... Are you really a bot set to respond with certain arguments whenever a keyword is used?

    42. Re:Should not have to. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, subtly trying to imply that I'm a pirate are you?

      No, just an apologist.

      like saying "poking someone in they eye makes them more likely to kill you" isn't the same as saying "it's ok to kill you".

      Or it could be more like "if you're trying to kill someone, you should expect them to defend themselves by poking you in the eye".

      Wow! weeks? so worth the massive investment and pissing off legit customers.

      Actually, considering how many sales were made in those weeks, yes.

      So I guess the company will be releasing a patch to remove the DRM on that game now that it serves no purpose?

      Yes.

      I have never ever ever seen that written on slashdot.

      Then look harder, and do your best to overcome that confirmation bias.

      I have on the other hand seen many many examples of "wouldn't work so I donwloaded the crack", "wouldn't work because of the DRM and will never buy from that company again", "The DRM fucked up my system, can I sue them?", "I've seen so many people telling me how the DRM fucked things up that I'm just going to download the cracked version of TPB"

      Yes, and I've seen things like "the game is crap, I'm just gonna download it", "$5 is too expensive", not to mention the countless evidence on torrent sites of software without DRM that still gets uploaded. It's almost as if pirates will do or say anything to support their criminal behaviour so their brains don't asplode from cognitive dissonance...

      Execs knowing sweet fuck all about computers and being taken advantage of by scammers causes DRM.Piracy is just a bogey man the salesmen pull out to scare the execs.

      So you're saying that piracy has absolutely no financial impact on the developers? And what about internally-developed DRM systems? Are companies like Valve and Stardock scamming themselves?

      You know you didn't deal with the point raised at all.You seem to have responed to a different post entirely, did you have the wrong window open?

      You seem to be incapable of simple human logic. Are you sure you aren't a bot? Because you just failed the turing test.
      Making the point that pirates don't see DRM, while true, is invalid because the logic that surrounds it - that if something doesn't work 100% of the time and isn't the most convenient for the end user, we should give up on it (like working, earning money, authenticating software, providing police...) - is completely invalid. Providing hospitals is an inconvenience because it costs money. And people still die anyway. Therefore by your logic we shouldn't have hospitals.

      Oh lots of people disagree with piracy, but nobody outside the DRM industry who has a clue about computers could think DRM works.

      That's funny, because it only seems to be pirates that think it never works.

    43. Re:Should not have to. by oracle128 · · Score: 1

      Pleanty of people get finacially harmed when drm intentionally or otherwise damages their property. Google -drm "broke my"- and you get thousands of hits.

      Google - DRM "broke my" +"irrefutable evidence"- Wow a whole 3 hits that aren't related to the search subject!

      DRM is shitty code sold by scam artists.

      As I said in another post, what about internally-developed DRM?

      You know it is illegal in the UK to block a public right of way even if you own the land?

      You know it's not illegal in any country to be punished for jaywalking or slander?

      Fair use is the IP version of public rights of way yet shysters still try to block it.

      DRM has never stopped me from playing a game, taking video or screenshots or other excerpts of a game, or copying the game into memory or on hard drive in order to run it. And if I buy games online, I even get to have them backed up as long as the company exists, and that's not even a fair use right! Which part of my right to fair use is being violated by DRM?

      I have. You must never have acutally used anything with DRM.

      Well let's see...Bioshock (before the DRM removal patch), Spore, FarCry2, Red Alert 3, Fallout 3, all the Battlefields, Crysis, all the Quakes, all the Unreal Tournaments, several Steam games, a couple Impulse games....these are just the few I happen to have right in front of me. Never had a problem with any of them being played offline. Maybe there's something wrong with your copies? Which torrent site did you download them from?

      Or I can have a perfectly good internet connection but my ISP's DNS system cuts out occasionally.

      My electricity cuts out sometimes. Can't do much with the game then, can I? And that's not even listed on the box as a requirement!

      I meet every requirement on the box but they haven't given every requirement.

      Well, looking at Spore, it says "Internet connection, online authentication and end user license agreement required to play". Those sure sound like requirements to me. But it doesn't say anything about "unstable internet connection". But I have the Galactic edition, maybe it says something different on the .jpg box cover that came with yours?

      Or stops me playing my legitimate copy of spore on my completely up to spec laptop util I spend 2 hours on an international phone call to their support line. Real great that.

      This is the "up to spec laptop" that doesn't have a stable internet connection and thus doesn't meet the requirements, right? Or perhaps you had some other reason to spend 2 hours on an international phone call that you'd like to mention?

      No it's like locking out your tennents when they have the key, are the people who rented the room. Got a haircut and have tried to unlock their door more than 3 times since they last called you for your permission to get at their property which they have paid for.

      No it's like your condition of renting the property is they can't have any more than 3 guests at a time which they have agreed to, but every day they come inside the house with a different guest, and you never see any of those guests coming out, then whinge when you want to come in and have a look to confirm there are only 3 guests in there, but they bitch that that's invading their privacy, even though they already agreed to that condition, because if they're tenants, it's technically your property.

    44. Re:Should not have to. by oracle128 · · Score: 1

      Intent is the difference. The intent of malware is to harm. The intent of DRM is to protect the developer's rights, and thus the entire gaming industry. Unless of course you only believe it's the end result that matters. In which case, I wish you luck when a murderer attacks you and you kill him in self defense
      Not that you've even show how DRM hurts the consumer anyway. If the best argument you've got is a whole 30 seconds of entering a CD key equating to having your machine turned into a spam relay or having the drive erased, you're really clutching at straws.

    45. Re:Should not have to. by xouumalperxe · · Score: 1

      Fine, I can accept that people have problems with having to spend all of 30 seconds entering a key code. Some people are just really lazy and stupid.

      I never said I have a problem with serials. Hell, a few days ago I even mentioned that it's one of the few reasonably effective methods of copy protection. What I did in my previous post was specifically state a few reasons why DRM makes a product worse for myself as a paying customer:

      When I do a full install of a game, I shouldn't have to keep the disc in the drive just so the game can validate I'm a legitimate user. There is no legitimate reason why I shouldn't be able to resell the game (or just give it away) when I'm done with it and a friend wants it. I shouldn't have to dial up the editor of the game when I want to install the game more than x many times over the course of its lifetime, and most of all I shouldn't be dependent on the license server still being up when I want to play it in 10 years' time for old times' sake!

      All you have to say to that is that the DRM wouldn't be there if it weren't for the evil pirates, when there are, in fact, very few cases where DRM actually prevented pirating of a game, or a DVD, or whatever else. For example the infamous sony rootkit, which is completely innefectual when you can simply play (and rip) the affected albums under linux.

      The way to get rid of it of course, is to stop encouraging piracy or making excuses for it.

      Excuses? I'm not making excuses. I'm pissed at the fact that I bought Worms 4, installed it, the piece of shit wouldn't work with my soundcard, and when I uninstalled it I still had the freaking copy protection software left behind. We might argue over whether DRM is legitimate at all, but there simply is no legitimate reason why software houses get to leave it behind when I uninstall their product. And if they can't assure safe removal, they don't have the right to install it in the first place.

    46. Re:Should not have to. by oracle128 · · Score: 1

      I never said that, I did say that it happens more because of DRM.

      And DRM happens more because of piracy.

      And people have problems with the games they own not working because the DRM servers have been switched off or are offline because of a new release by the company or the DRM

      Evidence? Of course not. As I said before, it's paranoia that drives your argument.

      OK you've wandered away from all logic here. So if I stop saying that DRM is snake oil then it will go away?

      No, but if you stop making excuses for piracy, society won't have this view that piracy is good because everybody does it and nobody gets caught (as it does now), thus piracy will decrease, thus DRM measures will decrease.

      You might as well claim that shoplifting will go away if you clap your hands and believe! Believe with all your heart!

      No, but I bet if people stopped shoplifting, stores would have no financial incentive to hire security guards to protect their products.
      Because, you know, they're a company, and their goal is to make money, not terrorise people for the sake of it, as you seem to think. If the store believes that the cost of a security guard outweighs the loss of shoplifting, they won't hire security guards. But it doesn't really matter what the store believes anyway, because if they make the wrong choices, they go bankrupt. Thus the proof is in the pudding.
      And guess what? EA believes that the loss of piracy outweighs the cost of using DRM (which includes loss of sales due to misinformation and scaremongering by pirates and apologists). And they're a multi-billion dollar company (recent economic downturns, rabid piracy advocat-sponsored anti-DRM slander campaigns, and losses of piracy notwithstanding).
      Or is that simple logic beyond you?

      Why? Because I like the majority of humanity will line up and pay of their own free will.

      Because you have just enough morals to believe stealing physical property is wrong, but not enough to believe stealing intangible property is wrong, even though they both required the same amount of labor and resources to produce (in fact, often more so in the case of intangible property).
      So you're almost a moral person. Good for you.

    47. Re:Should not have to. by oracle128 · · Score: 1

      Firstly, it makes no difference whether DRM is actually effective or not. If companies perceive it to be effective, DRM measures will stop increasing. One way to incite companies to perceive DRM as working, and arguably the easiest way since it can be done by consumers, is to stop breaking the fucking law. It really isn't that difficult a concept, yet here we are, what, 10 posts later, still explaining the same fucking thing over and over again.

      Secondly, leaving things behind after install - here's the part where we reintroduce the DirectX thing, because it seems the fatal flaw of the rabid anti-DRM crowd (aside from being illogical, irrational, zealous, etc) is they can't remember an argument for more than 12 hours before going round in another circle.

    48. Re:Should not have to. by oracle128 · · Score: 1

      At no point did he say DRM was an excuse for piracy.

      Correct. I should have directed that comment to you. I apologise. It's hard to keep up with all these different users who, purely out of coincidence, all happen to be using the exact same roundabout logic, have the same hatred of companies protecting their investment, and all make the same wild, baseless claims.

      Are you really a bot set to respond with certain arguments whenever a keyword is used?

      Yes. I find it's easier that way. It works so well too, because you just keep using the same stupid circular arguments again and again, it really isn't that hard to write a bot that refute them and predict what's coming next.

    49. Re:Should not have to. by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      CD keys are one of the most mild forms of DRM.
      You ignore the ones which datamine, call home, screw up settings etc etc.

    50. Re:Should not have to. by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      Wow a whole 3 hits that aren't related to the search subject!

      and if I ass "purple monkey dish washer" to the search I get zero hits! It's funny how adding uncommon phrases cuts down the number of results. It's fairly funny that you still got results even after adding that.
      As an experiment I tried "red ring of death""irrefutable evidence" just to see how many hits I got for that phrase along with something which isn't disputed as being a fairly major problem. I only get 5 hits. So would this mean it's killed half as much hardware as the well known the red ring of death?

      And if I buy games online, I even get to have them backed up as long as the company exists, and that's not even a fair use right! Which part of my right to fair use is being violated by DRM?

      Well lets see. DRM isn't just on games, you'll find it on music and videos too. Stunning isn't it.
      Only decent example of this I can think of is steam and they had to add a great deal of carrot and remove a lot of the DRM stick for that to really become popular.
      So the only examples you have of DRM being less than an utter and complete fuckup is with the absolutely least offensive forms of DRM or the absolutely best behaved companies?

      "unstable internet connection"

      I have a perfectly stable internet connection. I can still connect to my shell accounts, I can still ping any server I want, but some system laid on top of IP goes offline and for some reason I can't play my games.

      maybe it says something different on the .jpg box cover that came with yours?

      You really are slow grasping this. I got the legit version of spore and got screwed royaly. I should have grabbed a cracked copy since I wouldn't have had to deal with all the shit from the DRM. it would have been less hassel to be an illegal user. If I had a jpg box cover I would have had an easy time and no shit from DRM but unfortunatly I'm a fool for trying to use legitimate software.

      This is the "up to spec laptop" that doesn't have a stable internet connection and thus doesn't meet the requirements, right? Or perhaps you had some other reason to spend 2 hours on an international phone call that you'd like to mention?

      Have you been living under a rock? 3 activations then you have to call with "please sir, can I have some more sir".My internet connection is perfectly stable. my local DNS is fine most of the time but that isn't my internet connection.

      No it's like your condition of renting the property is they can't have any more than 3 guests at a time which they have agreed to, but every day they come inside the house with a different guest, and you never see any of those guests coming out, then whinge when you want to come in and have a look to confirm there are only 3 guests in there, but they bitch that that's invading their privacy, even though they already agreed to that condition, because if they're tenants, it's technically your property.

      Be funny if you were a landlord. Here and in most western countries if you tried that your tennent could take you to court and roast you over a fire and could sue you. For a lot of money. Any such clause in the contract would be very very illegal.
      who said anything about guests? Last time I checked the agreements for most games said "no guests".
      You yourself unlock the door to the house you have bought and after doing that 3 times you then get locked out until you call the builders and beg their permission to get back in.

    51. Re:Should not have to. by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      "if you're trying to kill someone, you should expect them to defend themselves by poking you in the eye"

      No no, DRM it!
      "if you're trying to kill someone, you should expect them to defend themselves by poking EVERYONE EXCEPT THE ATTACKER in the eye"

    52. Re:Should not have to. by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      Actually, considering how many sales were made in those weeks, yes.

      Because 100% of sales are due to the lovely DRM. Many would say those sales are in spite of the DRM, not because of it.

      How many users would have pirated it without DRM? 1% 2%? possibly more but then what percentage don't buy it who would have otherwise because of DRM? 2%? 3%%? probably more considering the amazon ratings.

      Then look harder, and do your best to overcome that confirmation bias.
      like my confirmation bias that the ocean is wet.

      not to mention the countless evidence on torrent sites of software without DRM that still gets uploaded

      Not having DRM is not a magic bullet, your software will end up on the torrent sites either way but if you spend 10% of your dev budget on DRM which gets broken days after release then you have wasted a great deal of money.

      So you're saying that piracy has absolutely no financial impact on the developers? And what about internally-developed DRM systems? Are companies like Valve and Stardock scamming themselves?

      Oh I'm sure it has an impact, much much less than the impact of shoplifting on shops but sure there's a discernable impact there. What I'm saying is that DRM has zero or worse net impact on piracy. How many sales do you gain from having DRM?

      Those willing to pirate it know very well that every game gets cracked in a few days or weeks so unless they want it in the first hours after release they'll just wait until the crack comes out. They won't havr to wait long. Hardly any sales are gained by stopping the game from hitting the torrent sites for a few hours and while you still have DRM on the game you lose a small portion of sales by people who are offended by that model of software control. You can't claim that the huge cost of DRM is justified when it isn't going to increase your profits or stop them from being decreased.

      You seem to be incapable of simple human logic. Are you sure you aren't a bot? Because you just failed the turing test.
      Making the point that pirates don't see DRM, while true, is invalid because the logic that surrounds it - that if something doesn't work 100% of the time and isn't the most convenient for the end user, we should give up on it

      In no way have you shown this logis to be invalid.
      And it isn't a case of not working 100% of the time. it's a case of working 0% of the time. I never ever ever ever works. No matter how many programmers you have building your DRM there's a hundred times that number of bored, skilled teenagers and adults out there all willing to break it for fun to prove that they can. People who will spend hours, days, weeks or months working hard every night to find holes in your system because they can and they enjoy it.

      You can either piss into the wind trying to beat them or you can accept that they will beat you and save yourself time and money and run your buisness like a sensible real world buisness. Walmart doesn't shackle everyone who buys their products for fear of shoplifters, they accept a certain ammount of loss to shoplifters on the basis that they lose more sales from legitimate customers who get pissed off if they get treated like criminals.

      (like working, earning money, authenticating software, providing police...)

      one of these things is not like the others...
      Hmm. no, not matter how much bullshit you spew DRM doesn't fit in with those others.

      - is completely invalid. Providing hospitals is an inconvenience because it costs money. And people still die anyway. Therefore by your logic we shouldn't have hospitals.

      If hospitals never kept anyone alive more than an extra week or so then this would be quite true. If DRM ever held for decades then you might have a point. but it doesn't.ever. It gets broken much faster than it gets written.

    53. Re:Should not have to. by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      Teach me for not re reading this properly or running spell checker.

      *have not havr
      *"sales to people" not "sales by people"
      *logic not logis
      *"It never ever" not "I never ever"
      *"no matter" not "not matter "

    54. Re:Should not have to. by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      I see nothing you have refuted in any sensible way.

    55. Re:Should not have to. by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      And DRM happens more because of piracy.

      You miss spelled "idiocy" there.

      Evidence? Of course not. As I said before, it's paranoia that drives your argument.

      You've provided none for your view. You're the one pushing the paranoid "ze hackers will ruin us all" line, not me.

      No, but if you stop making excuses for piracy, society won't have this view that piracy is good because everybody does it and nobody gets caught (as it does now), thus piracy will decrease, thus DRM measures will decrease.

      Hah!
      You forgot the second hand games market. DRM is great for killing this market. Why should copyright holders of games have any more right to prevent me selling my games on than book publishers have to stop me selling my books second hand?

      And they're a multi-billion dollar company (recent economic downturns, rabid piracy advocat-sponsored anti-DRM slander campaigns, and losses of piracy notwithstanding).
      Or is that simple logic beyond you?

      Hmm. EA makes a move towards more and more DRM over the last few years, has a disaster with some more recent games and backlash from over the top DRM, starts having problems to the point that they have to start dropping a fuckload of employees.
      And it's the pirates fault. Right.
      When sane people look at this they see : The store just pissed off too many customers by having security guards who treat the legit customers like crap.
      Or is that simple logic beyond you?

      Because you have just enough morals to believe stealing physical property is wrong, but not enough to believe stealing intangible property is wrong, even though they both required the same amount of labor and resources to produce (in fact, often more so in the case of intangible property).

      Wow, can you even read? Remember back where I said I made the mistake of buying a legit copy of spore? I buy my software and hence I am one of the people who is hurt by DRM. It helps me in no way shape or form and only makes me look like a chump next to people who had the sense to get DRM-free copies. If legit copies had any advantages over pirated ones then I might not feel so cheated but since they're worse I'm being pushed away from the legit market.
      People like you who push for more DRM encourage piracy more than any social acceptance ever could.

    56. Re:Should not have to. by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      "exact same roundabout logic"

      Roundabout logic like "you need oxyge to live", "ducks go quack" and "DRM pisses off legitimate consumers, does nothing useful and is never even encountered by pirates"

      Funny how people can be too thick to understand simple ideas like that.

    57. Re:Should not have to. by Pofy · · Score: 1

      >It's hard to keep up with all these different users who,
      >purely out of coincidence, all happen to be using the exact
      >same roundabout logic, have the same hatred of companies protecting
      >their investment, and all make the same wild, baseless claims.

      Exactly WHAT wild, baseles claim did I make in the post you replied to?

      Were have I shown any hatred to "companies protecting their investment"?

      I do however have the opinion that if the "protecting their investment" includes prevent me from for example re-selling something I bought, or preventing me from re-installing a program in the future or demanding that there is DRM installed on my computer especially one that will not be removed with the game, then it is ver bad acting by the company. Perhaps you are of the opinion that any and all critisim or complain equals hatred and should not be allowed and that consumers should just accept anything that companies do with the argument "we protect our investment"?

      For the record, for me, buying a game is an investment, I I also protect that investment and want to make sure that I can use it in the same way anything else I buy without the maker interfering with that in ways I gave examples of above. You seem to not accept that. Sad.

    58. Re:Should not have to. by oracle128 · · Score: 1

      Exactly WHAT wild, baseles claim did I make in the post you replied to?

      Well primarily I was referring to the claim that DRM physically breaks hardware. And yes, re-reading your post, I can see you personally didn't claim that, but as I said, all these people with the same stupid rhetorical gets me confused.

      Were have I shown any hatred to "companies protecting their investment"?

      Here:

      You seems to use "piracy" as an excuse for adding any and all sorts of control to a product that in many cases has nothing to do with piracy or have severe effects not realted to piracy. Just scream "piracy" and everyone should accept anything and anything is excused appearantly.

      That sure looks like hatred to me.

      Perhaps you are of the opinion that any and all critisim or complain equals hatred and should not be allowed and that consumers should just accept anything that companies do with the argument "we protect our investment"?

      And perhaps you are of the opinion that any security mechanism is an abuse of your imaginary personal right to do whatever you want with the stuff you bought, almost as if you have no basic concept of written law.

      For the record, for me, buying a game is an investment, I I also protect that investment and want to make sure that I can use it in the same way anything else I buy without the maker interfering with that in ways I gave examples of above. You seem to not accept that. Sad.

      Obviously then, you've never bought a car, which comes with locks you can't feasibly remove, creates an inconvenience to you, and does nothing to stop criminals from stealing it or its contents. Oh sure, technically if you really wanted to you could remove the locks, if you don't mind paying for someone to do that, then perpetually paying higher insurance premiums. Almost like constantly buying the same game, or being fined for circumventing the DRM, really. You seem not to understand that. Oh poor fool, how I pity thee.

    59. Re:Should not have to. by oracle128 · · Score: 1

      If you truly were a decent, moral person with legitimate reasons for hating DRM, you would want to be doing everything you could to prevent its use, not encouraging it. Right? By claiming that DRM is the reason X% percentage of pirates download games, you basically show that you agree that it's a valid reason in and of itself. You don't even have to agree that it's a legitimate excuse for piracy, all you have to do is agree that it's true, which is what you're doing.

      Of course the simple fact is that it isn't a true statement, it's yet more lies brought to you by the people who have every reason to say anything they can to legitimise what they do (breaking the law) lest people have reason to think they might just be doing it because they're bad, immoral people, or just plain assholes. There's always some excuse - it hasn't always been DRM - but the last thing you want to do is carelessly legitimise those excuses.

      (As an aside, people like yourself don't make very good judges, because all you'd end up doing is letting everyone off. "Oh, he just needed to feed his family, it's ok that he stole that food", "You say you promise you'll pay back the dealership for that car you stole? Well that's good enough for me. Everyone needs a car", "I agree, that guy was being a jerk, he really did deserve to die. No murder setence for you!")

      Because if you legitimise it, you give more reason for more people to do it more often. Which as we know is only going to lead to more invasive DRM - and because no software is perfect, more people who claim DRM wrecked their computer (even if these claims are never backed by evidence); or God forbid prevents them from installing the same game on the 10+ dedicated gaming machines they just happen to have lying around; all frequently used, naturally.

      In other words attacking DRM, instead of attacking the cause of it (piracy), (or you know, doing something constructive like coming up with better, non-invasive implementations of DRM) is only going to lead to more DRM, which you claim to be against. This is about as simple as it gets - YOU (not personally, but people with your mindset) are the cause of increasing DRM.

      It is for this reason I do not believe you truly have good intentions in your anti-DRM arguments at best, and at worst are merely a troll spreading DRM FUD to help fuel your justification for criminal behaviour. Somewhere in the middle is the possiblility that you're extremely incompetent, and simply unable to comprehend the ramifications of your actions.

      Another reason I don't believe your intentions are honorable, is that you keep claiming piracy and DRM are unrelated, yet you also keep claiming DRM is a major cause of piracy. Clearly both cannot be the case. This isn't your only contradiction, but it is by far the easiest to point out for the sake of argument.

      Nobody WANTS to be typing in that CD key at install. Obviously no one WANTS even the remote possibility that their product might not work in the future. You'd have to be crazy to enjoy it. But some people tolerate it because it's in their best interests (more peace of mind for developers - whether substantiated or not - means more productions, more risk in innovation, lower profit margins); and some people don't tolerate it because, in their opinion, the clear benefits outweigh the inconvenience of having to unlock your software like you do your home, which brings about the possibility that one day, the key might break, get lost/stolen, or someone changes the locks on you, and that's the fault of the lock salesman. You obviously belong to the latter category. But the way you go about trying to resolve that intolerance, if not hatred, is not going to get you what you want, and in fact will only get you further from that goal.

      Unfortunately, something tells me you're either going to ignore the message this post is conveying, nitpick at it, or misinterpret it and create some strawman argument for why this cannot be the case. As you have proven time

    60. Re:Should not have to. by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      If you truly were a decent, moral person with legitimate reasons for hating DRM, you would want to be doing everything you could to prevent its use, not encouraging it. Right? By claiming that DRM is the reason X% percentage of pirates download games, you basically show that you agree that it's a valid reason in and of itself. You don't even have to agree that it's a legitimate excuse for piracy, all you have to do is agree that it's true, which is what you're doing.

      I could also prevent it's use by trying to get my government to recognise it as the scam it is and making it illegal in the same way that a shotgun tied pointed at a door with a string to the trigger is illegal even if it is to protect your property.Or like how snap inspections by landlords are illegal. That would prevent it's use much more effectively. Even if I pushed for it to be made law that companies must give a DRM unlocking mechanism to a legal firm or the government for distribution in case of them going bankrupt(because the last thing they'll care about if their company is going under is having someone write an unlocker.) that would be a step in the right direction.

      Of course the simple fact is that it isn't a true statement, it's yet more lies

      Look back, you haven't shown this at all. anywhere. you just keep repeating it. repeating it does not make it true.

      brought to you by the people who have every reason to say anything they can to legitimise what they do

      Can you not understand that some people simply don't like their computer being infected by a virus?

      (As an aside, people like yourself don't make very good judges, because all you'd end up doing is letting everyone off. "Oh, he just needed to feed his family, it's ok that he stole that food", "You say you promise you'll pay back the dealership for that car you stole? Well that's good enough for me. Everyone needs a car", "I agree, that guy was being a jerk, he really did deserve to die. No murder setence for you!")

      Wow, and people like you make really really awful judges because they make blanket statements about whole groups of people based on a tiny snapshot of their views. "He's black? Lock im up! they're all criminals, they just try to justify their disrespect for the flag and civil disobedience as some kind of 'civil rights movement' when really they just want to stab people in the face for fun"
      As an aside you know in some more civilised countries stealing food isn't actually a crime if it is for your own consumption. The shop can ban you and get you for trespassing if you come back but if they call the police when someone steals a non-luxury food item they'll be told 'that isn't illegal'
      Judges often do come back with "No murder setence for you!" when they decide that there really was good reason like your property or life being in danger. DRM endangers my property and so removing it protects my property.(Property, not licensed crap, places with sane laws on the matter reguard copies of games like they reguard copies of books- as your property to buy, sell second hand or if you so wish, eat.) But your blanket assertions cover everything! You can't be wrong in any way!

      Because if you legitimise it, you give more reason for more people to do it more often. Which as we know is only going to lead to more invasive DRM - and because no software is perfect, more people who claim DRM wrecked their computer (even if these claims are never backed by evidence); or God forbid prevents them from installing the same game on the 10+ dedicated gaming machines they just happen to have lying around; all frequently used, naturally.

      Wow. people like you really exist? so people who's computers are wrecked by DRM should keep quite? People who can't play their games because of poorly written DRM should pretend it all works? People should accept scammers installing software on their machines? and if they do a

  11. Factual information, please? by Edgewize · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Does anyone have a solid description of specifically what this form SecuROM "installs", what it does, how it is harmful, and why it can't be removed?

    Every time this topic comes up it becomes a "How dare they!" bitchfest so I've never been able to figure out the answers to the above.

    I'm not saying that this is definitely just a pile of FUD combined with general anti-corporate hate against EA. But I'm leaning that way without real evidence.

    1. Re:Factual information, please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you have a computer running windows, haven't you? Then just go to EA site, download and install the demo. Then, please, come again to this thread and tell us how "fucktual" your experience was.

    2. Re:Factual information, please? by Repossessed · · Score: 5, Informative

      Reading over the legal filing for the creature creator demo, a few very specific complaints are made.

      It allegedly disables a number of semi legitimate (Any DVD, Daemon tools), and completely legitimate (Process Manager, Alchohol 120%) software tools. (10 specific programs are named) It also claims that it interferes 'in some circumstances' with having a secondary CD drive (I assume it prevents burning a copy of a CD that's in the other drive), and that all of this occurs whether the demo is running or not.

      Looking at the filing, they mention process manager as its own claim, given that this is a legitimate tool used to identify rogue processes, EA can't really claim, (falsely or otherwise) that it is a piracy tool, the way they'll surely claim with the others. AnyDVD is a particularly interesting one as well, since to my knowledge, it only affects movies, and has nothing to do with any EA product at all.

      I can't actually say if the claims are correct for the specific version of SecuROM in the demo game, or if a lawyer simply looked at the things SecuROM is known to do and filed those, depends on how bright s/he is I suppose.

      --
      Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
    3. Re:Factual information, please? by Baldrake · · Score: 2, Informative

      This article has a fairly comprehensive list addressing the "how is it harmful" question.

      The truth is, most people will never notice that SecuROM is installed. But if you do run into a problem, SecuROM is very hard to remove, and in fact goes to great lengths to conceal its presence.

    4. Re:Factual information, please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have had the demo installed on my computer for weeks, and everything is fine, and I don't have any unrecognized services or processes. My DVD burner and my copy of Daemon Tools are working fine.

    5. Re:Factual information, please? by Morlark · · Score: 1

      The question of what it installs and how to remove it have already been covered in other comments, listing the relevant files, registry keys, and services. The problem with removing it is not so much that it's "impossible", but more that the removal process is quite beyong the capabilities of your average user, so for all practical intents and purposes it is impossible to remove for them. Even worse than that, each new version of Securom adds (or can potentially add) a whole batch of new things in different locations that you'd also need to remove, so you can't even draw up a list of easy-to-follow removal instructions for the more technically capable users.

      The question of how it's harmful has rather more possible answers. The obvious response is that once it is installed, it is permanently running on your computer, using up your system resources even when you're not playing a Securom game. Then again, it is quite prudent to oppose Securom just on principle, because its sole purpose is to prevent legitimate users from playing the games they have paid for (or who are downloading free games, as in the case of the Spore Creature Creator in this article) if it doesn't like the look of their CD or CD drive, or if it objects to certain software they have installed. (Pirate copies of games do not include Securom, so end-user pirates are unaffected, and the process of removing the Securom from games is largely automated, so the cracker pirate groups are similarly unaffected. Meaning that Securom quite literally does not affect pirates, and only targets legitimate users.)

      --
      Santa's suicide mission go!
    6. Re:Factual information, please? by Edgewize · · Score: 0, Redundant

      The problem is that I don't believe the article, because it's written by someone totally clueless as to how his own computer works.

      Interfering with the firewall? It made an internet request, and the firewall popped up an accept/reject box. That's exactly what it's supposed to do (internet authentication), and the firewall is working exactly as it should.

      It hides a folder in Application Data? Try this on for size: the Application Data folder is hidden by default. Furthermore, the files in the Application Data \ SecuROM folder have a README.txt explaining exactly what they are and what they are used for.

      It disables Process Explorer? No it doesn't. It doesn't let you run the game until you reboot if you have run an old version of Process Explorer, and that was fixed a long time ago (by Microsoft) as of Process Explorer v11.

      The only thing that site has under Player Stories is a bunch of people saying things like "My XXX software doesn't work or is buggy! I blame SecuROM!". The claims (it disabled my antivirus! my hard drives crashed and my dvd phyiscally broke!) border on hysteria and don't offer any more solid proof.

      All I want is someone to actually look at the SecuROM protection that comes with Spore or Mass Effect and then tell me why it is bad, without falling back on "I heard that SecuROM does terrible things!"

    7. Re:Factual information, please? by Edgewize · · Score: 1

      The problem is that the information in all the other posts is of the "I found this on the internet and haven't tested it" type.

      I would happily accept that if it weren't for the fact that I have a copy of Spore Creature Creator installed and my Daemon Tools work fine, my Process Explorer works fine, and none of the files that these instructions tell me to remove even exist.

    8. Re:Factual information, please? by Repossessed · · Score: 1

      According to the complaints in the Sims 2: Bon Voyage filing, it prevented the primary plantiff from using 'backup' copies of other sims games. If this is in fact intentional, and not a bug, EA may be attempting to force people who pirate some games and buy some games to buy all the games.

      --
      Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
    9. Re:Factual information, please? by TheSunborn · · Score: 1

      But the big problem is that EA refuse to say exactly what it does.

      They don't even want to say what consist a new computer and thus requiring a new install, and I could not even get the Spore license from their webiste(Despite the fact that the box say to go to their website and download it before buying the game).

      After 3 mails to EA tech support I have simply given up finding out exactly what what the license for Spore is, what exactly SecuROM does and if it overwrite my boot sector(There were some versions of SecuROM that did that).

      So now all we know is that it will install some software that can't be removed, and which for some users prevent other software from running.
      Exactly what it does, how it affect the users and what hardware changes require a new install, is as deep secret.

      Martin

    10. Re:Factual information, please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It installs a 'driver' with pemanent ring 0 access that wraps all your drives in windows explorer. It can cause missing drive syndrome and make your computer go apeshit for no apparent reason. It poses a major security threat, I mean It's a ring 0 program designed to stay there ffs. Hence the bitchfest.

    11. Re:Factual information, please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, what's the name of this driver, where is it located on disk, and are you sure that Spore installs it?

    12. Re:Factual information, please? by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      It allegedly disables a number of semi legitimate (Any DVD, Daemon tools)

      What is 'semi legitimate' about AnyDVD or Daemon tools? As far as I'm aware, they allow you to perform acts that are completely legal, and really rather useful. They have as much potential to be used for illegal purposes as any other tool such as a hammer or screwdriver.

    13. Re:Factual information, please? by Repossessed · · Score: 2, Insightful

      To my understanding, AnyDVD contains features that are specifically illegitimate (bypassing region codes). Daemon tools, why not illegitimate on its own, is frequently used for illegitimate purposes (note that playing a game you bought with Daemon Tools is probably not allowed under the games EULA, many of the ones I've actually read say something along the lines of 'only play the game with the original CD'.

      Please keep in mind I'm not saying either of them is *wrong*. The DMCA, coupled with the ridiculous notion of allowing the copyright holder to dictate what you can and can't do with a copy you paid for, tends to produce (in my completely not in any way legal advice opinion) ridiculous results, and my goal in the post was to give unbiased information about what *is*, not what should be.

      --
      Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
    14. Re:Factual information, please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure Spore starts it.

    15. Re:Factual information, please? by Digital+Vomit · · Score: 1

      What is 'semi legitimate' about AnyDVD or Daemon tools?

      Hey, stop picking on the guy -- who may or may not be a pedophile -- because he used the word "semi-legitimate" to describe something that does things he doesn't like.

      --
      Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
    16. Re:Factual information, please? by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      I know I used GameDrive years ago until the DRM schemes basically made it unusable by hijacking any and every disc service. And they supposedly had permission from the publishers that the saves were coded to only your PC. I've had to re-flash disc burners several times because DRM killed them with nothing but standard Nero installed.

    17. Re:Factual information, please? by ion.simon.c · · Score: 1

      Truly. This fellow -who may or may not have been involved in date rape- is merely confused about the usefulness of said software.

    18. Re:Factual information, please? by laparel · · Score: 1

      I too am quite interested if the SecuROM is really able to screw a PC up, and how exactly. As Edgewize pointed out, many of the complainers do seem a bit hysterical.

      But that's besides the point anyways, what would people's reaction would be if SecuROM or DRM applications works flawlessly as intended without causing any harm to the system?

    19. Re:Factual information, please? by iivel · · Score: 1

      Illegitimate: maybe ... but not in all cases. IMHO the region codes and DRM are the illigitimate things here. As an American expat living overseas / traveling to the the US the region codes only prevent me from watching movies where I'm physically located & if the DMCA applied to me, I wouldn't be able to load them on the Zune / Laptop. Somehow buying all my discs from the US and shipping them over here just doesn't seem appealing. *FWIW I totally agree with your statement other then AnyDVD having illegitimate features. It's all point-of-view.

    20. Re:Factual information, please? by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      I figured out that Sims 2: Freetime has SecureROM when, after I installed it, on execution, it would pop up a 'I won't run until you uninstall Nero Burning ROM' message.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
  12. Gamers should Boycott All DRM'ers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The gaming industry does not listen to its customers, and has not for years. Before 'EA' became the monster it is now, it was called 'Electronic Arts', and in the early nineteen eighties it had a motto: "By gamers and For gamers". Sadly it has cast aside these noble intentions for over a decade. Like 'Lord British' with "Ultima IX", the industry cares nothing for its customers except how much cash can be wrung or extorted from them. The industry has also centralized into a de facto monopoly. As such their bad behavior has intensified as they now know that they don't care, they do not HAVE to care, as they think that customers can go nowhere else. It is this public be damned attitude that needs to be addressed. Obviousely the industry is not listening because it does not have to listen with its ears. Its ears were wired shut years ago. It only listens with its ass! Kick it hard enough and often enough and it will be forced to listen or go broke. We gamers need to realize that:
          One: All the good games have already been invented
          Two: There is a great deal of good old game software, like WarZone 2100 (open source now) out there that we can use
          Three: We customers have the power to bring these monopolistas down by using the boycott.

    Boycotting the monopolistas will eventually force them to take DRM out of their products, and to bring quality products back to a marketplace that has been bereft of them for years. Companies are increasingly putting 'eye candy' in products at the expense of playability..another gripe. Back to the point, DRMers will at first claim to be free of it, but many will conceal it and lie about it. The way to stop this is to demand that companies put up a 500 million dollar bond that instantly forfiets to all its' registered customers as soon as DRM is found concealed in their new products. Some may call a half a gigabuck as too excessive, but present day monopolistas are capitalized in multi-gigadollars American, and a half a gigabuck is the smallest present day amount that will cause real pain to a producer enough to force change. Remember these monopolistas are soulless present day BuchenWalders who take pleasure in forcing ninety years old grandmothers to live under bridges and freeze and starve in the dark all for 'the possibility of so called infringment'. Remember also that these monopolistas who hide behind the artists who create their capital often do not pay those artists anywhere near their due. These crimes by publishers are an old story run over from the music industry. Perfect example is the lowball 5 million bucks paid the Beetles for an early collection of their songs. One only need do a little googling to find other examples of cheating by the industry of their benefactors. Again, kick this industry monopoly in ass with boycotts until it hurts, and hurts enough to force DRM out of our machines. While we are doing that, we should also look to our fawning sock puppet politicians who are drunk with industry bribes. Yes bribes. Common folk do not 'contribute' near the amount that monopolistas do, and monopolistas do their bribing (political contributing) far more directed and get far better results. The way to counter this is with something that we gamers have that the monopolistas do not, boots on the ground. We can act personally and collectively to campaign for change, and for the political opposition of the lackeys of the monopolistas. We can to this for free, and collectively if there are enough of us we can make a difference. Maybe enough difference to give pause to these servants against the public trust before the next time some monopolista calls in a 'marker' from them.

    1. Re:Gamers should Boycott All DRM'ers by cthulu_mt · · Score: 1

      One: All the good games have already been invented

      Everything that can be invented has been invented.
      Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. patent office, 1899

      I'm not defending EA but that statement is 87 kinds of stupid.

      --
      Virginia is for lovers. EVE is for griefers.
  13. Of course... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is entirely Barrack Obama's fault, can't you see that? IT'S IN REVELATIONS PEOPLE!

  14. Banned from the forums? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    EA, the company where being banned from their online forum results in you being unable to play your puchased offline games.

  15. What is wrong with EA? by Ender77 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have personally stopped buying any EA PC games after spore and I know of other who have also. I am also aware that piracy for EA games have SPIKED after they started implementing the DRM scheme. You have to seriously wonder what is wrong with EA. While the games are still making a buttload of cash, They have to realize that they are probably not making nearly as much as they would if they had not implemented the DRM scheme. On top of that they are pissing off the fan base into rabid hatred for them, and motivating the fans to not only pirate the games, but to go to review sites and post negative reviews about the games because of the DRM. Buisiness 101 should tell them this is not a good business in the long run and if you are a shareholder I would suggest getting rid of the stock because this is going to come back and bite EA in the ass.

    1. Re:What is wrong with EA? by Tatsh · · Score: 1

      It's true. Piracy will only continue to spike too either as a real 'stick it to the man' type of attitude of gamers or simply 'I don't have the money but I really want to play'. Honestly, I support both opinions because I hate DRM. Even the cracked games still run the normal installers which still install SecuROM or SafeDisc or whatever they want to use at any given time. So yeah you still have that 'garbage' running on your PC that can never be fully removed, seemingly. The EXE (and other files) are cracked to return success to every SecuROM request. That is all. Like a dongle emulator crack. As far as on-line play, so many games have had their server software cracked so you can just play with other 'piraters'.

      Sony owns SecuROM. Where are they now? Where's their remover? They should have one, and I think I remember that they do.

      Regardless, the DRM does not work as every game gets cracked eventually (crackers love doing it, it is fun for them and it gives them the reputation they want amongst the others in the 'scene'). Even StarForce (a strong VM-based copy protection, at first) games got cracked eventually; the release group RELOADED even released their documentation on the protection. Honestly, what has not been cracked yet? All companies can do, like Sony, is make new versions of SecuROM and fix whatever exploit/bug/etc that the crackers found and used as part of their 'fix'. Then the next big title has that fix from Sony/Macrovision/etc, and the crackers figure out their next workaround.

      If the game companies would just realise that no copy protection is going to stop piracy, then they would stop wasting money on it. Even console copy protections, now PS3 even (although still a work in progress), get cracked, under the guise of wanting to use homebrew software (which should be allowed even if a copy protection for games is still present, in my opinion).

      The first solution to the whole problem of piracy is make better games and stop milking series. Why does this keep happening? Call of Duty X, Medal of Honor X, Need for Speed X, Tony Hawk's X, and etc. Get back to creativity and make some new games. Spore is a good step towards this but unfortunately it comes with SecuROM. Yes, everyone wants Diablo III and C&C Red Alert 3 (even me), but I also want new games too. Perhaps those can go into series, but companies are so bad at making these kind of products in general that once one version becomes a hit, they want to make another knowing many people will outright buy it (they might even leave a cliffhanger at the end of the story just to make you get the 3rd which will come out who knows when). I would say 7 or 6 times out of 10 this scheme does NOT work. People buy said title version 2 or whatever, but often companies do try hard (and I give the developers credit), but they cannot top their first version.

    2. Re:What is wrong with EA? by jez9999 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Honestly, I support both opinions because I hate DRM. Even the cracked games still run the normal installers which still install SecuROM or SafeDisc or whatever they want to use at any given time.

      I have a warezed version of Spore installed, and I don't see any of the SecuROM stuff (reg key, service, system32 file, etc)... so I'm not sure about that.

    3. Re:What is wrong with EA? by Tatsh · · Score: 1

      I'm glad to hear that, but I've installed several games before that would still install their copy protection and the EXE (and other files if necessary) was cracked.

    4. Re:What is wrong with EA? by Digital+Vomit · · Score: 1

      Buisiness 101 should tell them this is not a good business in the long run

      Business 101 (and 201, and 301, etc.) is only concerned with the short term these days.

      --
      Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
  16. This ain't going anywhere by westlake · · Score: 1
    There are - many - reasons why courts have pruned back severely your right to prosecute a class action lawsuit.

    To waste their time on so fundamentally trivial a complaint as the DRM used to protect a free demo - is ludicrous.

    1. Re:This ain't going anywhere by AnonGCB · · Score: 1

      It's not just about the demo, it's about all games that use this type of copy protection. RTFA.

      --
      http://CryoLANparty.com/ A lan I'm staff on!
    2. Re:This ain't going anywhere by Khyber · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Umm, BULLSHIT.

      SecuROM revokes some of your administrator priviledges and disables other legitimate programs on your computer. This is anti-competitive behavior (interfering with other products from other companies/individuals,) and a violation of my property rights. I own this computer, you do not have the right to revoke some of my administrator priviledges and make it to where I cannot delete files from my own goddamned system.

      Maybe in YOUR bizarro world this wouldn't go anywhere, but then again facts always fly in the face of the bizarre.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    3. Re:This ain't going anywhere by Repossessed · · Score: 1

      Read the rest of the articles, if you look at the two filings, one was specifically about the free demo. The other appears to be about Sims 2: Bon Voyage.

      --
      Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
    4. Re:This ain't going anywhere by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      I think the test should be to install the retail version of every game EA currently sells (DRM and all) on all of EA's development PCs and storage servers. If any are rendered broken then EA is screwing with people's stuff. and they get to spend a few millions cleaning up the mess!

    5. Re:This ain't going anywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They prosecute virus/trojan writers. They should pursue SecuRom as a criminal case without any class action in the first place.

      And the captcha is: GUILTY, Slashdot has an AI for sure.

    6. Re:This ain't going anywhere by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Actually one doesn't even need to go that far.

      I just need to go into court with a fresh system, load up a fresh copy of XP and all related drivers, then install the game and check what's changed, then attempt to remove what's been changed. Without Dial-A-Fix or a full reinstall, I'd not be able to regain my removed administrative privileges, thus making me unable to delete leftover stuff from the game's installation.

      That's wire fraud and computer hacking proven in court, live. No other demonstration would be needed.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  17. How does one join the Class Action? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks to this article, I just learned that I got SecuROM from Spore Creature Creator.

    Is there any way I can add support to the class action suit?

  18. For those who want to join any SecuROM lawsuit by yamiyasha · · Score: 2, Informative

    http://www.reclaimyourgame.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=section&layout=blog&id=17&Itemid=57 this site has all the information to contact the lawfirms handling 4 EA lawsuits over DRM covering Spore, Mass Effect, The Sims and other EA games

    1. Re:For those who want to join any SecuROM lawsuit by hort_wort · · Score: 0

      Thanks for pointing out there is a trial for the other titles too. I've had Windows Explorer crashing every hour since installing Mass Effect. Uninstalling didn't help (which lost me an activation, also). Then I finally managed to find a SecuROM shell extension and disable it using ShellExView. I've never had a game cause widespread system failure before. Totally unacceptable. No more EA titles for this guy.

  19. You got served by unity100 · · Score: 1

    it doesnt take two monkeys to understand that placing something on someone's computer without their consent and knowledge constitutes not only a violation of their rights, but also an information technology crime, as same as hacking a pc.

    but apparently it takes infinite amounts of lawyers to understand that as a company. or, EA's lawyers were TOTALLY stupid, or bloodless bastards.

    this is 21st century, not wild west. enjoy your class action damages, jerks.

    1. Re:You got served by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      next up.. those "helpful" people that send me emails to help them with money problems will add a "click thru" then the virus and spambots will be perfectly legal?

  20. The other complaint by Repossessed · · Score: 2, Informative

    Ok, looking at the complaint over Sims 2: Bon Voyage, the same allegations of not informing the consumer of SecuROM is made (including not making the user agree to it in the EULA, which is moronic in the extreme in my completely non legal advice opinion, EA may lose this on the basis of having crappy lawyers). In this case, ambiguity as to exactly what SecuROM does is lessened, since the primary plantiff's personal experiences are listed.

    Allegedly, backup CDs of other Sims 2 games stopped working. Her USB flash drive and Ipod failed (I assume this means it busted USB data transfer altogether),. Forum posts of the time indicate numerous people having the issue after installing the Bon Voyage expansion.

    There is not, as far as I can tell, any hard evidence linking the problem to SecuROM, since she neglected to try and duplicate the issue after an operating system reinstall, and 'Dell tech support said so' isn't really reliable evidence. These issues could be from another program, a virus other than SecuROM, or just a bug in the game (iTunes does similar things on occasion after all). Seems like a weak case, though they could be building a better analysis of SecuROM as I speak.

    --
    Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
    1. Re:The other complaint by Edgewize · · Score: 1

      Thanks for reading them through for someone whose brain shuts off after the first page break of a scanned document :) It sounds like the complaint is based on prior versions of SecuROM, so I'd be interested as to what comes out of the discovery phase. I guess I'll keep a news alert out on it in case something interesting crops up.

  21. Paragraphs, please learn to fucking use them.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Posting Options -> Comment Post Mode to "plain text"

  22. Rip 'Em Good by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 2

    I'm waiting for a DRM-using company to get so fully and completely ripped that no other company in the future will ever try it again. I'd hoped it would be Sony over their audio CD rootkit, but that lesson didn't seem to stick. Perhaps this will be the one.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  23. What we need to do... by Khyber · · Score: 1

    Band together, plan out a distributed attack against EA in court. file multiple individual lawsuits for different charges for the maximum allowed in your small claims court area.

    Basically a legal-system DDoS - no lawyers allowed in small claims court, and multiple suits (loss of property, trespassing, etc.) will be enough to bring up so many criminal charges against the company they'll likely lose their business charter and be sued out of existence by their shareholders.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  24. flash drives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you wonder why they don't just use a write once flash drive with a drm chip in the drive that the software verifies when run...

    It would be the same as a cd check but harder to copy

    Essentially hardware drm

    As long as it didn't install some drm software I'd be fine with that type of drm

  25. Good luck to them, DRM is killing PC gaming by BuckoA51 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Only recently I went back to my copy of STALKER - Shadow of Chernobyl only to find it was unplayable on my PC unless I downloaded a no-cd crack. I don't buy it when companies say "oh don't worry we'll make sure you can always play your game" since I've not had a satisfactory answer from THQ as to why my game won't run unless I use a legally dubious hacked version. It really puts me off buying PC games at all, and I know that I'm not the only one.

  26. Re:15 minutes and no posts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Some of us wanted to RTFA.

  27. No. That's not right... by Eric+Damron · · Score: 5, Informative

    Their EULA says nothing about installing hidden software that will never be removed.

    Even by agreeing to the EULA you don't agree to "all things not mentioned."

    If so where would it end? Could they search my harddrive for credit card information? Format my harddrive on a whim? Store their own stuff on my computer without telling me? Of course not!

    --
    The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
  28. Re:No. That's not right... by panda+cakes · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Their EULA says nothing about installing hidden software that will never be removed.

    Even by agreeing to the EULA you don't agree to "all things not mentioned."

    If so where would it end? Could they search my harddrive for credit card information? Format my harddrive on a whim? Store their own stuff on my computer without telling me? Of course not!

    I would not be so sure. Especially if they've licensed their DRM from a third party, which I believe is the case with the stuff EA normally uses. And yes, they could if there were provisions in EULA allowing them to do so, not necessary in a form of "And, hey, we're gonna to install hidden software that you should not know about, gedit? Lol!" This is why EA itself clears EULAs of the software they use through their own lawyers.

  29. If you agree to their TOS you really cant sue. by Phizzle · · Score: 1

    If you read through EAs Terms of Service you are agreeing to pretty much anything they want to do to your computer. Its vague and broad and pretty much absolves EA of any wrong doing. I chose to vote with my wallet, I stopped buying their products few years ago. Hitting companies in their pocket books, especially in todays economy, is the way to go. Regards!

    --
    I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.
    1. Re:If you agree to their TOS you really cant sue. by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > If you read through EAs Terms of Service you are agreeing to pretty much anything they
      > want to do to your computer. Its vague and broad and pretty much absolves EA of any
      > wrong doing.

      Such contracts are generally not enforceable in the US.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  30. Do people still krack games? by PCM2 · · Score: 1

    I haven't really played PC games in 20 years, but back in my day the procedure was to remove copy-protection checks from illicit copies of games before you redistributed them. Are people still doing this? Or is there something about the way that SecuROM works that makes it difficult to remove a game's dependence on the service?

    It seems to me that not having to install irremovable malware would be a very strong motivator to install pirated versions of games, rather than the store-bought ones.

    --
    Breakfast served all day!
    1. Re:Do people still krack games? by antdude · · Score: 1

      Yes, but some games check for these invalid changed files online especially for multiplayer. :(

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  31. Missing the point by nfc_Death · · Score: 1

    What EA and others need to do is realize that they have been sold snake oil. These anti-copy, DRM, and invasive copyright enforcement products SIMPLY DO NOT WORK. The are circumvented all the time. In fact its absolutely ridiculous that a money making entity would continue to spend money on a client-alienating product add-on that does not fufill its advertised intended purpose. This product does not function as intended and never has, the fact that companies like SecuROM and Starforce are still in business speaks volumes to their sales teams. Cheers to their exceptional sales skills, jeers to the stupidy of game producers for buying into it.

    1. Re:Missing the point by Shados · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Depends: games like Fallout 3 have minimal DRM with the ONLY purpose being to prevent "impulsive" piracy. That is, pumping out 5 copies of the game for all your friends simply because its as simple as copying the CD.

      To pirate the game, you have to actually "try", as easy as it can be. For that, DRM is successful. Any efforts beyond that (like what EA does a lot), is futile.

    2. Re:Missing the point by MattLees · · Score: 1

      The problem with Fallout 3 is that they are still doing a FULL install on SecuROM on your system. It just so happens that the game only uses the "CD in the drive" aspects of the DRM and not the "phone home" and "limit my installs" aspects. At the end of the day your PC is still infected however you look at it.

  32. Re:15 minutes and no posts by KGIII · · Score: 1

    You must be new here.

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  33. The simple answer? by markass530 · · Score: 1

    I know it's like an open secret here, but why not just pirate the damn thing? I got started doing this in the 90's when it was hard, now even joe the plumber could do it. If you were really self righteous buy the game after you get the pirated one up and running. Not all downloads work, but at 90-95%, it's better odds then the DRM Crap. Side note, every once in a while to assuage my conscience I will buy a game (specifically if I liked the previous iterations) and even then I'm batting .500 at best. And I'm lazy, irresponsible, and disorganized so I loose those fucking cd's all the time. so I say fuck it.

    1. Re:The simple answer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally, I don't want to be sued/lose my internet connection.

      EA has already sent one copyright infringement notice to me for a game I own, but downloaded an unauthorized patch for (to remove some of the insane DRM). I'm not sure of the legalities, but since I can't easily change providers, I'm screwed if it happens again.

      Just out of interest... do the stores accept returns on DRM'ed games after opening? If they do, I'll try and return it. I might even uninstall it first.

  34. What we need now... by Bones3D_mac · · Score: 1

    ...is a way to implement a KVM-style switch box for internal storage devices. A setup that would all the user to have multiple boot drives for the same system while keeping both unaware than the other exists.

    This way, the user could install a separate OS license on each drive, then use one drive for games and other invasive software and the other drive for day-to-day mission critical use. Then, the user would simply shut down the system, hit the A/B switch, then reboot without the system being any the wiser as to what just happened. (Assuming the software on either drive doesn't modify the system firmware directly to test for this...)

    --


    8==8 Bones 8==8
  35. Re:No. That's not right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Think of all the mod points that were wasted on this guy :(

  36. Check in Australia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Region coding is illegal there. So should all the companies be sued because someone can buy a US DVD and play it in Australia and the DVD is illegally region coded?

    It is not necessarily illegal in the US (it isn't in the UK because it would still be a civil action). After all, you STILL bought the DVD and the DMCA allows breaking encryption for interoperability.

  37. What happens if "we" win? by Vitani · · Score: 1

    A serious question - does EA have to pay each person who bought the game a settlement figure, or would they have to put a big notice on game cases saying "This game contains SecuROM", or would they be barred from using software like this in the future (the best outcome imho)?

  38. Criminal, if you could just get it enforced... by coats · · Score: 1
    Given what looks like a systematic attempt to avoid informed consent about what will in fact be installed, and that it cannot be un-installed, and given a previous (ostensibly-expert) poster's

    It has gotten bad enough that when a customer brings in a PC for cleaning and repair I look for SecuROM and Starforce just like I look for worms and trojans. Because the "virus free" computers that are brought to me because they are screwing up always seem to have either SecuROM or Starforce onthem,and its removal makes the problems go away...

    this looks to me like a case of unauthorized access under the (Federal) Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. And that this unauthorized access has caused serious economic damage -- PC repairmen are decidedly not free!

    In my non-humble opinion, some Sony execs should be doing serious jail time for their rootkit exploits. If they had, EA might not have done this. In the absence of that (or in addition to it), EA execs should be put in the slammer--for five years per incident, as the law specifies.

    DISCLAIMER: I'm in that minority that doesn't use my computer for playing music, and in the smaller minority that doesn't use it to play EA-style games (I play KPatience, sometimes), so the axe I'm grinding is purely my interests in legal behavior, individual freedom, and Constitutional restraint.

    --
    "My opinions are my own, and I've got *lots* of them!"
  39. You already have it by bradley13 · · Score: 1
    Just install two partitions, and hide the "working" partition from the "games" partition. You can do this most simply by removing the drive-letter assignment in the disk manager.

    I have done this for my wife, who wanted to get Mass Effect. The problem is: it's a pain having to reboot every time you want to switch between playing and working.

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
  40. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  41. You wouldn't steal a movie! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But you frankly should if stores forced you to wear video cameras on your head while visiting.

  42. How to sign onto the class action suit? by Asmor · · Score: 1

    How would one who had installed one of those programs become involved in the class-action lawsuit?

  43. BOYCOTT EA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    EA is about the worst software distributor in the market today. After dealing with substandard half broken products for the past couple of years ive decided to never buy an EA title again no matter how interesting it looks. Whats worse is if you own an xbox 360 most of the new titles are published by EA consequently for the last 6 months my 360 has sat untouched. When the new generation microsoft console comes out i wont be buying it because 90% of the titles will be released through EA. Maybe when microsoft starts losing sales they will dump EA in the gutter like they deserve.

  44. EA, Evil Assholes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why did the stupid Evil Assholes put SecuROM on a TRIAL version? Are they stupid or something?