"3 year olds with more comprehension"...How mature of you! I had a feeling you wouldn't keep this civil. BTW I would tend to agree...throughout the history of man there's got to have been a few genius 3 year olds that would have kicked my butt in comprehension. Nonetheless, frivolous litigation and false claims bother me, so I'm responding.
Again, YOU'RE the one suing and the burden of proof is on YOU. YOU'RE the one that keeps spamming these boards (and others) about how EA and Securom is wrong/evil. Despite of that, you've provided no actual, specific reasons as to why Securom has exactly broken your PC or others (for example: X software did this, and Y software did that, so my drive broke) and have kept referring to the "professionals" when queried. "Trust me, this professional has studied it and knows why", doesn't cut the mustard when the subject you're dealing with isn't that complicated. So I'm left with 2 conclusions: you either don't have concrete reasons, or are unwilling to state them. Not a very good position for a spokesman for a cause to be in.
You dug through that entire site and found some archived layman's early on investigation when they were still trying to figure out what Securom was doing to crash these drives? How typical of you. Perhaps you should have read further to see these "crashed" drives eventually cease to function at all. Stage one.
I do, for your sake hope you stick to the world of ticker tape as denial of the obvios and truth eludes you, as it apparently tends to do those in the commodity fields, if that is all you take from the stacks of info available on that entire site.
We have our proof, our documents are all in order, and I assure you we have the necessary professional documentation to have our case stand on it's own in any court.
The very fact that you can read the information there and not see anything wrong with this unremoveable third party software that does the kinds of things Securom does eludes me. I have seen 3 year olds with more comprehension.
'nuff said' in your own words. And don't expect another response.
Potential issues pertaining to conspiracy theories regarding data mining, lack of un-installation, etc.....it's all noise as these issues on their own don't warrant litigation. The underlying issue is that you claim Securom causes your pc damage. The fact is that the potential of harm is different from the proof of harm. All I've seen is circumstantial evidence (for example: my PC broke in the same way as a bunch of other people, this software is similar to the one in the Sony BMG case, etc.). Case in point is this excerpt from the link that you reference:
"When Securom was originally introduced to the Sims, we were all baffled as to how it managed to crash people's CD and DVD drives. We have finally found a potential explination of why this issue occurs. It appears that these processes occur in a Legacy part of Windows which is not designed to work for an extended period of time and are not supported in modern drives. This process can also be used by other manufacturers as a place to install their add-ons, which can lead to a conflict. The drive does not like the checks that Securom tries to have it do and then becomes unstable and crashes. We believe this explination goes a long way to potentially clear up why we've had so many drives crash since the introduction of Securom to the Sims games."
Lack of spell checking aside, notice the number of "cans" and "potentials" this uses? 'Nuff said.
You are still looking at the Eula for Spore and not for the games not requiring activation limits or an internet connection to launch, and as I have said untold numbers of times, I DO NOT HAVE SPORE!!!So you need to erase any mention of internet connect needed and limited activations because the Securom7 that came with the Sims 2 series, unlike Spore uses a a key code to launch, a Securom controlled launcher system, and requires the game to be played from the DVD-rom; which like the music BMG damage to dvd-roms, our DVD-roms cease to function when Securom is activated and takes over control of the pc. No internet is required in our Eula, or on the box, or in the instructions; so why when we use the game does Securom need to keep connecting to the net. People without high band internet cannot launch their game after a while because Securom needs to update. The fact that neither EA or anywhere in or on the game box or on the pc instruction does it tell you that you must have an internet connection, so you end up owning a game that will not play, with a very uncontrollable program running in the background trying to fulfill it's programing to connect. Why EA could not bother to tell customers they had changed to Securom and it required an internet connection flies in the face of all their ten years of loyal The Sims game fans. If Securom was uninstallable along with the game as previous DRM EA used, then we would not need to reformat our pcs to remove Securom and regain access to components, but instead Securom continues to fully function after removal of the software. So unlike you seem to think Securom does a lot more than just protect the game it comes with. While it resides in ring 0 it override numerous Window needed functions; it randomly connects to the internet sending and recieving encrypted information to and from both EA and Sony DADC. It operates exactly like Spyware and a rootkit as it uses rootkit technology. Sony DADC tried to deny this before with the BMG suite as well, and the courts proved they were lying. You want to see more information on this, go to reclaimyourgame.com and it gives you all the information you want. I'm a staff member there as well. I also belong to several other more technical sites, but reclaimyourgame.com is set up so all the "know nothings" and non technical persons can fully understand exactly what Securom does. If you understood DRM technology you would be aware it does not have to reside in the main kernal to be affective.
You want a link my telephone calls and my snail mail? Don't hold your breath. Believe it or not, people still do use telephones and house mail for communicating with officials. I spoke with the Attorney general on the telephone. Who told me to contact the FTC and a lawyer. I filled out the online form with the FTC and they sent me a bigger form to fill out and to attach a physical copy of the statement from the Techs who worked on my pc and confirmed the damage done by Securom. Fact is I did all the things I legally was instructed to do.
Sure I see it. Right here:
"Technical Protection Measures. Our Software uses access control and copy protection technology. An internet connection is required to authenticate the Software and verify your license. If you are not connected to the Internet, you will not be able to use the Software until you reestablish an internet connection and verify the license..."
They don't spell out the word S-E-C-U-R-O-M, but this is a good enough explanation of it to me. They should have specified that it was a Ring 0 residing DRM? Implementation details are hardly ever provided with software. Also, see my previous statement/question about Ring 0.
So you know what Securom uses (or at least the term), but explain why that is bad. Running in Ring 0 is the only way DRM can properly function, without it being easily spoofed and bypassed. That in itself is not a reason to cry foul. There are many hundreds, if not thousands, of device drivers that have such kernel access. So, that being said, please explain to me exactly what Securom does in Ring 0 that is so bad and how is it deliberately and/or accidentally braking PCs en masse? Educate me. An appeal to authority ("computer technicians") is insufficient and the burden of proof is on you.
The FTC and the attorney general said that, huh? Have a link for that or is that just another unsubstantiated statement? However, if what you say about first sales doctrines is true, IMO you are going to see that law redefined for digital media in the upcoming few years. Mass, rampant, electronic piracy is a brand new IP issue for the courts and, EVEN IF that's the current regulation, the ONLY way to combat piracy will be to continue to allow limited installs. You get to experience the product once on a limited number of computers. Under exceptional circumstances one can contact customer service to install beyond that limit. If the consumer accepts this upon purchase and installation, IMO there's nothing irrational about that.
"Enough" of this? You're the one suing for damages. Me (John Q Public)--I'm the one trying to understand why you're taxing our legal system (massively funded by our tax dollars) with what I believe to be a frivolous lawsuit akin to the McDonald's hot coffee cases.
Also regarding that Eula, I know the Eula quite well, but number 2 - hmmmm don't see the name Securom there. DO you? That makes a big difference as EA has used DRM for years, and the only difference in that Eula and this one was the activation info. The difference in the previous DRM and the DRM Securom is a real big deal, and EA should have informed users the DRM was changing to a Ring 0 residing DRM. We have a copy of the former Eula and the Eula I have on my game where I have Securom 7 but the activation feature is not a part of the game I have, and the wording is exactly the same with Safedisk DRM as with Securom. No one had any problem with Safedisk, so when our pcs suddenly started breaking naturally we took them to the shop. In my case my pc had been built for me not even 5 months before I installed that game. I had no other games on my pc, as I do some of my job related work from home using my pc. As no one knew about the massive change EA had done, and this is a series game from EA that I have, I already had played 7 previous expansions to this series over the last 8 years, and with 4 different pcs. Also I update my pc weekly, I run clean disk and defrag daily, so don't give me that crap and I've been using pcs since before they had an OS. I used to write machine basic programming. I was not born yesterday and know precisely how an OS functions.
#3 - You see it states the first sale doctrine right there, but it's a lie, as even though it is printed in their Eula, they are not giving out activations to the new purchaser, and reseller refuse to take these games now because EA has not honored this Law. Every single person who has tried to get the games activated from EA has been told only the account holder can get an activation, and they only allow 1 account ever to any of their games period. EA obviously knows the law, but they don't abide by it - which is why there are numerous resellers in this suit I am in as well.
Boy do you need a good education!!!!
The only thing that you just said that was correct is that Spore did not damage my pc. If it had I'd have been amazed because like I said in my post I did NOT have Spore, nor was I a part of that lawsuit. I specifically said I was with a total separate lawfirm for a totally different case that has to do with damage to our pcs due to Securom. I also said we have documented proof, and we have a seriously large number of professional technicians verifying damage that technician from all over this entire country that actually worked on our pcs and documented the damage. I just love you people who think you know it all and know nothing!!!! As for EA's own technician and game engineers I worked with them along with several other gamers whose pcs had the same damage of mine back when this first happened (long before Spore ever came out. I've been ging through this since September of 2007 and now there are literally thousands of us with the same exact damages and actually have had components and drives replaced. So you know nothing, and EA's team have seen what happened to us first hand after our pcs were fixed, they had us reinstall the same games, and guess what, they were damaged again. I have my emails back and forth from working with EA techs for over several weeks, and so do the others that did the same.
By the way, try checking Federal laws on first sale doctrines, as this is what the FTC and attorney general also state EA had violated with this particular DRM. The Attorney General made the first complaint and encouraged the suit to begin with.
Do you know anything at all about the OS system and about Securom 7? The OS which is the brain of the pc lives in what is the RING 0 sector of the pc. Most DRM run in the ring 3 sector. 2 DRMs run in the ring 0 sector, Starforce and Securom 7. So there's you a start. Go learn all about the Ring 0 sector of pcs. Go learn the Federal trade laws of our land, as you cannot equate a physical purchased product to a night at the movies. The only way you could equate that if the tickets you buy to go to the movie, if what if you could not go, but the company you bought the tickets from would not allow you to give or sell them to another person. Still tickets do not fall under the same group of rules, that pc games do. If you own music disc, movie discs, and pc software, no one can tell you that you cannot sell these products, but when a company makes the game unusable, you are stealing if you try and sell this product. Resellers are not accepting limited validation software.
But enough of this, try educating yourself and actually learn what is true today, and not the way this technology worked before. Fact is Sony has already lost a lawsuit when their music DRM damaged the players they were played on. Sony makes this DRM and funny we have the same damage and more. The courts ordered Sony not to use this system again. This was proved in court before. Read up on the lawsuit against Sony BMG.
Nope. The DRM is referenced in the Spore EULA. Here's a link:
No one is stopping you from reselling it, it's whether the product has a re-sellable utility is the question at hand. Who said that video games HAVE to be able to be transferred to another user? There are lots of examples of this NOT being the case in various products. ITunes media, digital copies shipping with movies, etc. they all have user restrictions. When you play on Xbox live, earn achievements, etc. your achievements are non-transferable. When you go to a theatre and watch a movie, there's the expectation that you get to watch the movie once, and that's it. Just because it's a physical product, doesn't mean that there's a requirement for the product to be transferable--as long as it's clearly stated before installation. Though this is explicitly mentioned in the Spore EULA, it's not highlighted by a giant flashing dialog box, so perhaps EA (and ALL other like companies) would have to add that. Nonetheless, this would seem to be a bleeding edge legal and cultural issue as ALL media companies are being hit by rampant priracy and unfortunately new measures such as strict DRM are required. IMO I don't see how any judge could rule in favour of fewer IP rights management in this day and age.
There's no chance it was the Spore drm that physically damaged your computer. It'll be easy to prove it...they'll bring in the developers to simply explain that the Securom DRM does not affect any other operation other than the game, etc. it's related to. The burden of proof will be on your lawyer to prove that Securom definitely broke your PC. Hmmmm..... Windows crashing and one needing to reformat their hard drive, etc.? There's MILLIONs of possible causes for that! Hence, you haven't been damaged in ANY way due to Securom and this is a perfect example of the over-litigation of America. Sigh. What happened to people spending their time and effort to produce something useful/creative/meaningful/fun for the benefit of society?
I am not a part of the Spore suit, and I have a complete copy of the suit I am involved in. I do think I know what I told my lawyer after all. The Spore lawsuit which is about EA putting Securom on people computer without indicating it was in the game and without their permission; as there is no mention of Securom in the Eula, in the game phamplet, or on the box. There was no mention of limited activations, and further more any discussion of the DRM on Spore forum boards got gamers threatened with bannings. In Spore if you are banned from Sporepedia, your game gets deactivated - which means players would have to buy another brand new copy of the game to get another account. That group is also going after EA over the "First sale of fairness doctrine" because US laws allows people to sell whatever they purchase, only this Securom prevents the game from being useable by anyone but the original purchaser because EA refuses to reactivate the key to launch the game. I know all about that lawsuit.
It is you who needs to go back and read the filing as we are suing EA for installing Securom with out our permission, as it is a complete third party software, as well as having no tool to remove Securom completely which results in damage to high computer systems, and for the documented damage done. In other words we needed receipts from repairs and statement from reputable technicians that our pc damage was caused by Securom and the extent of damage done. The lawsuit I am involved in covers a number of different EA games, and I do have my own copy of the original filing October 27th. My lawyers are not the same lawfirm as the Spore and Mass Effect Lawyers, but my lawyer do know the other group well.
I was talking about the "Shorter" comment. That tells how little you know by assuming.