Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Two New Class-Action Suits Against EA Over DRM

Posted by Soulskill on from the ea's-chickens-have-come-home-to-roost dept.

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."

22 of 336 comments (clear)

  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 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.

    4. 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?
    5. 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.
  2. 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?

  3. 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 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
    4. 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.

    5. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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?

    --
    Fight Spammers!
    1. 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."

    2. 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. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.
  9. 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.