Spore SecuROM copy protection system draws lawsuit

Despite Electronic Arts' good-faith effort last week to relax copyright restrictions in Spore, gamers aren't buying it — the digital constraint tactic, that is. The game, on the other hand, is selling faster than you can evolve a virtual amoeba.

Spore has already sold a million copies since hitting stores earlier this month, but critics of the game's digital rights management have been vehement, bringing their protests to Amazon.com reviews, message boards, blogs and now federal court.

On Monday, just three days after EA apologized for the DRM controversy and increased the number of computers each game could be activated on (from three to five), a lawsuit seeking class-action status was brought against the company in the U.S. District Court for Northern California.

The case targets SecuROM, a DRM technology meant to prevent PC game piracy. Spore installs the program on users' computers without their explicit knowledge and cannot be easily removed, according to the 36-page document (PDF download) filed by Melissa Thomas and law firm KamberEdelson. In trying to protect its own intellectual property, EA compromises the consumer's own property — their computers, said Scott Kamber, the firm's managing member. EA says it doesn't comment on matters of pending litigation.

Similarities will no doubt be drawn between this and the Sony BMG rootkit case, in which the Federal Trade Commission ruled last year that the company couldn't install hidden software on users' computers without their permission. KamberEdelson, which commonly covers class-action technology cases, is the same firm that led the rootkit suit. And perhaps more ironically, the SecuROM software that EA uses with Spore was developed by Sony.

KamberEdelson also won a 2006 suit against game developer UbiSoft for its invasive StarForce PC copy-protection program. "These corporate executives don't see anything wrong with putting this uninstallable program on people's computers," Kamber said.

-- Mark Milian

Spore image by Electronic Arts

Comments

[Alamaric]

Yes, Its about time. I knew it would not be too much longer before someone with some "political power" sued EA. Now I personally hate lawyers, even though my younger sister is one, but in some rare cases as like this, they really do some good and keep the big boys in check. I waited for this game for years and when I finally got it, I was slapped in the face. I had to completely reformat my computer because I tried to remove it and it created many errors on my system.

I just never undestood if they are so worried about piriacy why do they not just simply remove ALL copy protection, give customers a key when they get the software, have customers activate it on thier servers and then forget about it. Once activated the program works the way it should with no other "added software".

Once activated though they can tie it to an account on thier server that limits to three installations. However a person can then uninstall it and it will then give back an instalation by contacting thier servers and saying, this program with this key was uninstalled add one install to this key.

Paperport does this exact thing and everytime I wipe and reload I just uninstall the program and I am amble to reinstall again when I am finished. Easy, no mess, no securerom, no name registration or anything. If I do not activate my paperport software in 14 days, then it will not let me continue unitl I do activate it.

If EA followed this model I doubt anyone would complain because there is no additional software on your syste, no one is giving out thier personal information, and if you keep unistalling the product before you wipe, no one will have to worry about how many installs they are allowed. Follow the Paperport model EA and this woould never happen. Also what do you expect from a company who treats thier software programmers the way they do. Google the lawsuits on thier business practices or look it up on wikipedia. There is a reference there.

Between the way they treat thier programmers and everything

[craigd]

Erm...did you say EA made a good faith effort?

Seriously?

Applying a band-aid to a gaping head wound does not ordinarily constitute a good faith effort, in my opinion.

If you really think EA made a good faith effort then you clearly do not understand the issues that the protesting gamers are concerned about. So, how about you trying to talk to the upset gamers before making up your mind about whether EA's damage-control exercise is good faith or not.

I hope the lawsuit forces EA to actually come to the table with their customers and actually get serious about addressing the issues we have with their system.

[Matthew Dearlove]

That is completely bogus

Just because Kamber Edelson can find loopholes to win some cash doesn't mean that EA is doing anything wrong. I own the game, I love the game, and people who said that this DRM is "spyware related", are completely bogus.

I hate nerds with attitudes, go get girlfriends and stop installing this game so many times.

[Ryan]

Honestly, I'm happy about this. Why? Because it shows that us PC gamers can fight back when companies try to put us down.

[sarah]

Its a game a really fun game
All they have to do is tell people about the hidden software, tweek future games with a pop up that warns the person.
And send an e-mail or a letter or something to as many people that they can who have already bought it
Its as simple as that

[J]

Sure won't see me buying it.

[Anonymous]

And the delicious irony about these sort of DRM tactics is......................................

The pirates that download the game don't have to deal with the issues of only being able to install it 5 times, or have hidden software installed on their computers

It's the same with the lame messages that come up when you buy a dvd from the store "is this dvd pirated, piracy is bad don't do it" and waste about a minute of your time displaying a message that isn't targeted at you........

The pirates that download the film....oh wait, they just cut that bit out before they put it out there, so they don't have to watch it

Video game companies should seek to make it difficult for you to circumvent copy protection, such as with online activation (at install and for major updates)
but not have a limit on the activations. The hardcore pirates will still download it, as they always would, and you dont end up pissing off the users that actually paid for it.

As for all the fear mongering about what if EA goes bust or they take down their activation servers, well chances are they'll take down the rest of the online components, and then you just have to download the crack, and other companies would likely open their servers up to all users, as they can no longer tell who is a valid user or not with the authentication servers down

[Scott]

EA did not make an effort in good faith.

[Life Time Gamer]

BURN - IN - HELL EA

I'm a faithful 'buyer' of their really good products, but after having my machine
lock-up, disable, hang and otherwise get all screwed up over their drm crap I can
say for certain; I'm done with them.

Give me STEAM over their garbage any day. They just burned a loyalist!

[Fantastic Sid]

This is bunk. The entire point of purchasing an item, be that a lawnmower, a hovercraft, a domicile, or (heaven forbid) a copy of a protected work, is that one retains first sale rights over that ONE INSTANCE of that item. In the case of my first three examples, whereby only one instance of a particular unique item may ever exist due to the laws of physics, copyright law enters into the fray not.

In the case, however, of 'intellectual property', however nebulous that term may be:- the entire purpose of such is to essentially force non-tangible items into the tangible realm, and force the end user to deal with one INSTANCE of such as they would deal with one INSTANCE of 'real' property.

In other words: selling/renting/giving away/public performance/etc were always meant to be perfectly permittable by those who first framed copyright. In much the same way that I can (should I desire) sell tickets to a performance (sic) of me mowing my lawn, I should be able to do the same with intangible property. Where things get grey is when I leverage my ability to make perfect copies of same in order to defeat the natural monopoly of the creator in order to subvert their 'rights'.

This, truthfully, I happen to agree with. DRM, however, I do not.

DRM treats customers as criminals, whilst the criminals (if such they really be) manage to get a better experience for a lesser outlay. In other words, the guy who stole next door's mower has better blades than the guy who bought his own mower from the mower shop. This is a farce.

EA are merely perpetuating this by suggesting that DRM is something which paying customers must live with.

Make no mistakes, this is not about 'piracy', which, last time I checked, was a term which applied to brigands who roamed the sea, and should not be applied to non-mariners who copy intellectual works. My best friend's father, incidentally, happens to be chief engineer on a very large (300,000ish DWT displacement) supertanker which regularly makes runs from Gulf->Singapore->Sydney and back. Whenever he's in his home port and a little bit drunk, he goes on a rant about how comparing the two is an insult of idiotic proportions to mariners, but that's a side issue.

This entire issue is about resale rights. If EA control who (and when that whom) is allowed to (re)authenticate a product, then they can effectively kill the resale market. The RIAA have been using strawman tactics over the last ten years to do the same thing to the second hand CD market (google 'used music raid' if you disagree; start at the 4th hit and progress from there.)

Ultimately, anyone is permitted to tie themselves to any set of conditions they see fit at point of sale, before consideration is exchanged (barring statutory, non-waivable rights.) Problem here, of course, is that these conditions are not explained to the citizen until such time as she has taken her purchase home and StarFuck or SecureROM have taken root on her PC (which, not being a sysadmin, she will likely have no idea how to fix.)

Sony should be taken out and shot over this (again,) for purveying this excrement upon an (ailing) industry which is simply trying to recover.

EA should be put in the stocks for believing that honest consumers deserve fewer enumerable rights than copyright infringers (who are, as discussed above, NOT pirates in any sense of the word. Avast.)

/S

[Fantastic Sid]

@sarah

The merits of the game aren't what's being discussed. Yes, I've played it (at a friend's house,) yes, I think it's fun, no, I wouldn't buy it.

I wouldn't buy it simply because of what I've heard from others (including the aforementioned friend) concerning the godawful DRM inside the box. Saying "send an e-mail or a letter or something to as many people that they can who have already bought it" is insulting to the sensibilities of the people who have already paid (given that it's an EA title) over tote for this turkey. Such restrictions must be disclosed a priori, or the product is defective.

It really is that simple.

[Thad]

As other posters have noted, EA's effort was not "good faith". It was a load of nonsense based on a series of straw men -- it "fixed" only a very small complaint and ignored the more serious ones. SecuROM wasn't even mentioned, and the head of EA made the absolutely boneheaded statement that DRM is important for preventing piracy (it is impossible that he does not know Spore's DRM was cracked BEFORE THE GAME WAS RELEASED).

The foremost issue here, as you note, is that SecuROM is installed without a user's permission. I believe that is open and shut; companies do not have the right to install software on my computer without my permission.

The second issue is that there is evidence that SecuROM is actually HARMFUL to systems it's installed on. In which case, it doesn't matter if the user DOES give consent, if the vendor deliberately installs software that disables functionality on the user's computer, that is still actionable.

Aside from that we get to the more general issue of ownership and consumer rights. EA asserts that when you buy Spore, you are not buying a game, you are buying a license to play it, on their terms. I disagree. I believe a game is clearly a product, not a service, and if I buy it, I should have the right to install it on as many computers as I want -- if I decide, ten years down the line, that I want to play through it again, I should be able to do that, whether or not I've used up 5 installs or whether or not the activation site is still active. Or, I have the right to resell it to someone else (so long as I uninstall my own copy).

EA's "okay, we're upping the number of installs from 3 to 5" response is not good faith. It is cynical and insulting. It addresses NONE of these concerns.

[AvangionQ]

It seems that EA won't listen to their customer base, so a class-action lawsuit seems the logical next step ... however, what surprises me more is that Spore is selling so fast, despite the complaints of the draconian DRM which installs hidden SecuROM software onto their computers without their knowledge ...

[Angel Elf]

Code that hides in a computer and is installed without the users consent or knowledge, that cannot be uninstalled without degrading or disabling ones computer, and automatically updates itself should be considered malware. This practice should not be allowed.

[Kal]

Listen to yourselves. You all made a judgement call that the game was worth playing *despite* the DRM and went and bought it.
The time to complain was pre-launch, when the sale revenues might have been jeopardized by consumer opinion.
Think EA gives a toss now? They've already got your money. As for the lawsuit...how much was Sony inconvenienced by their rootkit "scandal"?

You got what you paid for...deal with it :D

[Tax Man]

The ironic thing in this; is that EA is rather pushing the customer TO HAVE REASON to first buy the game, THEN TO DOWNLOAD IT, and install the downloaded copy that doesn't include their hidden software. Why? Because people would be able to play a game they payed for a liscense for, without their computer being harmed by software which restricts functionality, and in that sense acts like mal-ware. Give it up for these guys; the same one's from EA that have a certain reputation in the gaming community and for "customer service", to actually give people reason to download the stuff due to what is suruptisciously installed on people's computer from the CD that actually came in the box.

It is seriously unconcienable however that this malware called SecuROM should be suruptisciously slipped on people's hard drives in this manner; necessitating people to format their hard drive and reinstall ALL of their software; because simply uninstalling gave some registry errors and what not. That's the sorta thing that should be sorted before software leaves the alpha development stage, not what people pay for. But then wait, they specifically designed it to debilitate people's systems...

And the very fact that one can NOT typically return opened software at most retail stores for a FULL refund is further reason why this shouldn't get a free pass. I'm glad for the lawsuite, even though I didn't buy this game in particular (and also keeping in mind how a free pass here; could give people incentive to use this SecuROM on other products in the future, and slip it in just as suruptisciously there also). Fact is, if one finds out about this after purchasing and installing the game; there is little remedy for them.

- Cleaning up the computer requires a format/reinstall, a laborious process which though a PC can use from time to time, can take DAYS or longer to get everything reinstalled (depending how much software one has). Add to this also, any updates, service packs, etc which must also be systematically applied to a fresh install, including any tweaking the system might need.

- Retail stores won't take it back (for being opened software), even with a receipt. For a time, Gamestop did take opened software back, but then those were also the days where the resale market was also there. As moves like this push it out, the small minority of retailers who would accept opened software back; it becomes a service harder to provide.

So there's lost money for something one can now not reinstall if they reformated due to the malware this has added.

- Ship it back? As I don't own it, haven't looked in specifically, but just watch one has to pay for their own postage and handling to ship it back; whereas one should get full cost AND sales tax returned to them, with NO shipping charges at all, if one is left with no choice but wanting to return it, after finding out the product was presented like this, after the sale was made.

LOL
"If you are under 13 years of age you may read this message board, but you may not participate. "

[PhoenixUltima]

The whole SecuROM business is the reason I didn't buy a copy of Spore to go with my new computer. Not the limited installs part (though that is dumb), but the laundry list of other harmful things it does (prevents 16-bit executables from being deleted, among other things - gee, that's not a gaping security hole). Plus they never even tell you about it. So, basically Spore installs a program that installs without your knowledge or consent, that restricts what you can do on your computer, makes certain actions impossible, and from what I hear can even cause hardware damage (some CD/DVD burners don't like being told to run at a lower speed, which I *think* SecuROM does - or was that StarForce?). How is this different from a virus, again?

[dan]

Why don't these big companies just use a protection that is "good enough" for the average user. Nothing is crack proof. If anything, they should take it as a compliment that so many people want it. For most users, even if they do obtain an illegal copy, bets are that if they like it that much, they will pay for it. That bs slight of hand trick is just that. BS! What's next? A fingerprint scan to verify a registered user? HA! I will go back to making my own games. More fun anyways.

[Ricky]

Well, the game is fun, and i mean really fun, but i did'nt know about the how the program could harm my computer, that dos'nt sit right with me. At all. I do see ne need for copy protection, but not on a hidden levle or harmful level, Im, going to look in to thiss a bit more. gotta know ALL the facts.

[othello]

Simple solution:

1. Buy the game...
2. Download the pirate
3. Install the pirate
4. Everybody happy!!!

[Ben from Baltimore]

You would think that these idiots would learn after the Sony rootkit music CD copy protection scandal of 2005? Neil Diamond had went back to work with Rick Rubin (American Recordings) because he said that the Sony rootkit scandal screwed him over big time. My laptop that I had in high school (Pentium 3 750 mhz, Windows 2000 Pro, Internet Explorer 6) got messed up by the Sony rootkit software and my stepdad, a civilian PC technician for the US Army, spent hours trying to fix it and ended up wiping the hard drive and reinstalling Windows. Now my friend's coworker's sister claims that her college's PC technician said that Spore's SecuROM DRM had caused her laptop to freeze up whenever she tries to start any other program then IE7, Firefox, or Opera for Windows. Thank God that she backed up her work on her USB flash drive and took her factory reinstall image CDs with her.
Ben

[Lachlan]

I've been considering this - and I think I may have found a loophole:
Consider this:
1) You are not informed of the installation therefore...
2) You never signed away rights in the EULA screen and therefore...
3) You have the right to disassemble the code and release any useful source on the internet without being sued!

[Paul in Chicago]

Check out our campaign to not purchase any software from EA and its friends until they remove DRM and SecuROM from their software. We're trying to get at least 15,000 people to sign up to get EA to notice. To sign up, the campaign is at http://www.thepoint.com/campaigns/ea-games-without-drm-and-secu-rom

Thanks!

[Douglas Byrd]

In order for securom to work, it is a given that it MUST have higher authority than the administrator, otherwise a pirate could stop it from effecting their computer.

In order for securom to work, it is also a given that it MUST have the power to monitor, and prevent other programs from function.

In order for securom to work, it is also a given that it MUST be able to receive information from the internet.

Lets combine these three shall we? You have a computer program with higher authority than the user has, that can view and prevent other programs from working, and can be sent commands to have its 'orders' changed in patches whenever a user accesses the internet.

Does this sound like a program that you want on your computer? I think not. This program is not protecting a piece of software, it is one step away from forcefully taking over your computer at the programmer's digression!