One could argue that EA might interpret that as "people happy with the game and are buying it, but there are more people pirating it even with this level of DRM, so we need to make it more restrictive." Unless they can correlate people using cracks with the people buying the game, that's not going to get your point across.
Rather than (or perhaps in addition to) taking this passive-aggressive route, why not contact EA directly and say "Hey, I bought this game, I like it, but I can't deal with these bullshit restrictions." That way you make your opinion known unambiguously without having to rely on their interpretation of pirating information.
It's inevitable that there will be errors in the process of converting from one format to another. While it's regrettable, it's not really avoidable - microfilm conversions are quality-checked by both the film producer and the recipient (at least in theory), but even the best quality checking will make some mistakes. Similar omissions can occur in the physical papers themselves. A page may have been lost at some point during the binding process, removed by a vandal, etc.
If you read Nicholson Baker's Double Fold (which is an excellent read, but a horribly inaccurate book), you might be inclined to think that we can and should keep all original copies of newspapers in some sort of giant warehouse at minimal cost. The problem with this assessment is that it grossly underestimates the requirements of preservation. If you put old newspapers in a warehouse without temperature and humidity control, you'll get yellowed, brittle paper that will be destroyed the next time it's used. If you wanted to keep them all in a 24/7/365 climate controlled environment, that's a lot of money to spend on something that's going to be used so infrequently.
I empathize with your friend's situation. It sucks when you find that some information you want is not available. However, the libraries that threw out their hardcopies didn't do so because something better came along (not to imply that microfilm is an improvement over original copies), but because it was the only feasible option.
Technically, you probably have no right to play the game on WINE.
Strangely enough, I don't see that contract clause on the outside of the box so that I can give informed consent.
How about the system requirements that specify that you need XP, Vista, or Leopard to run the game? The requirements for running the game are on the package. If you don't meet those requirements, you should assume that you can't run the game. That's your "informed consent".
If I buy a game for PS2, I have no "right" to play it on my 360. Even if there were a program capable of running most PS2 games on 360, and the one I bought didn't work, I couldn't claim that my right to play it had been violated. I couldn't claim that I wasn't able to give "informed consent" that the game wouldn't run on my alternative system. If the package says it runs on PS2, I can expect it to run on PS2. They haven't violated my rights by not specifying what it doesn't run on.
I don't agree with the DRM imposed by Spore, but your argument against it is weak. I can't run the game on my DVD player, but that's not an issue of DRM either.
I wonder what the chances are that the anonymous contributor of this "news item" is 16systems themselves? What an excellent way to raise publicity for their "contest" with a terrible prize that would net them some valuable information!
Thankfully the average consumer is well-enough informed to boycott such a deeply-flawed product, thus preventing Microsoft from profiting off of this business model! I mean, can you imagine if they were selling millions of 360s, taking broken units back, and still making money?
If you can figure out a way to store digital information for 25 years without migration or emulation, and then retrieve it, you could probably do some bigger things than time capsules.
Slashdot Mirror
One could argue that EA might interpret that as "people happy with the game and are buying it, but there are more people pirating it even with this level of DRM, so we need to make it more restrictive." Unless they can correlate people using cracks with the people buying the game, that's not going to get your point across.
Rather than (or perhaps in addition to) taking this passive-aggressive route, why not contact EA directly and say "Hey, I bought this game, I like it, but I can't deal with these bullshit restrictions." That way you make your opinion known unambiguously without having to rely on their interpretation of pirating information.
It's inevitable that there will be errors in the process of converting from one format to another. While it's regrettable, it's not really avoidable - microfilm conversions are quality-checked by both the film producer and the recipient (at least in theory), but even the best quality checking will make some mistakes. Similar omissions can occur in the physical papers themselves. A page may have been lost at some point during the binding process, removed by a vandal, etc.
If you read Nicholson Baker's Double Fold (which is an excellent read, but a horribly inaccurate book), you might be inclined to think that we can and should keep all original copies of newspapers in some sort of giant warehouse at minimal cost. The problem with this assessment is that it grossly underestimates the requirements of preservation. If you put old newspapers in a warehouse without temperature and humidity control, you'll get yellowed, brittle paper that will be destroyed the next time it's used. If you wanted to keep them all in a 24/7/365 climate controlled environment, that's a lot of money to spend on something that's going to be used so infrequently.
I empathize with your friend's situation. It sucks when you find that some information you want is not available. However, the libraries that threw out their hardcopies didn't do so because something better came along (not to imply that microfilm is an improvement over original copies), but because it was the only feasible option.
Technically, you probably have no right to play the game on WINE.
Strangely enough, I don't see that contract clause on the outside of the box so that I can give informed consent.
How about the system requirements that specify that you need XP, Vista, or Leopard to run the game? The requirements for running the game are on the package. If you don't meet those requirements, you should assume that you can't run the game. That's your "informed consent".
If I buy a game for PS2, I have no "right" to play it on my 360. Even if there were a program capable of running most PS2 games on 360, and the one I bought didn't work, I couldn't claim that my right to play it had been violated. I couldn't claim that I wasn't able to give "informed consent" that the game wouldn't run on my alternative system. If the package says it runs on PS2, I can expect it to run on PS2. They haven't violated my rights by not specifying what it doesn't run on.
I don't agree with the DRM imposed by Spore, but your argument against it is weak. I can't run the game on my DVD player, but that's not an issue of DRM either.
I wonder what the chances are that the anonymous contributor of this "news item" is 16systems themselves? What an excellent way to raise publicity for their "contest" with a terrible prize that would net them some valuable information!
...if I lived in Japan that might be ranked as insightful.
Thankfully the average consumer is well-enough informed to boycott such a deeply-flawed product, thus preventing Microsoft from profiting off of this business model! I mean, can you imagine if they were selling millions of 360s, taking broken units back, and still making money?
If you can figure out a way to store digital information for 25 years without migration or emulation, and then retrieve it, you could probably do some bigger things than time capsules.