Kingdoms: General - Kingdoms SecuRom discussion - forum rules only [Archive]

View Full Version : Kingdoms: General - Kingdoms SecuRom discussion - forum rules only

Pages : [1] 2

Zenicetus

09-02-2007, 05:29

A quote from the closed thread:

I'm afraid that this topic is running very close to the line on our piracy rules here at the .org; considering the purpose of this topic was purely informative, I think it's best to slap a lock on it now, before someone posts something that we'll both regret

Personally, I doubt SecuRom's a big issue, anyway - it certainly won't effect my decision to buy the game or not...

Sapi, I don't care if you "doubt it's a big issue anyway". Some of us potential purchasers do care about that. So here's a thread to discuss the issue, and I'm asking that everyone avoid mentioning cracks and just stick to the official release by CA and what it entails.

If this thread is closed just because we want to discuss it, with no overt cracks mentioned, then I will definitely not be buying the Kingdoms expansion, and I'll be spreading that recommendation far and wide across the 'Net. I've enjoyed the CA games and I've tried to contribute to the forums here, but this is getting a wee bit Draconian, when we can't even discuss onerous copy protection as paying customers!

Now, the first question I have is whether or not CA plans to release a tool to remove the hidden SecureRom key after I uninstall the game? Does anyone have any information about that?

sapi

09-02-2007, 05:34

Stay away from discussing cracks, as happened in the other thread, and this'll be fine...

Our rules on that are quite clear, however, and aren't something that I can change, or bend...

Tafferboy

09-02-2007, 06:24

Now, the first question I have is whether or not CA plans to release a tool to remove the hidden SecureRom key after I uninstall the game? Does anyone have any information about that?

I seriously doubt it. I do know that if Sega/CA feel the dent in their wallets because lots of people boycott the game for its Securom, only then would they seriously consider releasing a removal tool/patch. Once they hit their anticipated sales profit from the game, it's highly unlikely they would release a Securom patch out of goodwill alone and very likely the next TW game comes with the same or worse copyright protection. Vote with your money if you want Sega to know they are not getting away putting invasive protection on their games and that you don't appreciate being treated like pirates. Sorry, CA, I love this series, but I am telling my friends not to get this game until something is done about Securom.

Link to original thread: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=90934

AussieGiant

09-02-2007, 07:30

Hasn't it already been cracked??

I mean, what is the point really?

Heinrich VI

09-02-2007, 07:40

i have already bought the game even paid 17€ more to get my hands on a us import version. until reading the now closed topic i wasnt even aware that my computer is now infected with securom...

while everything might work as usual and i had no problems playing kingdoms so far (and i use AVG!) i agree with zenicetus. i strongly dislike this bad habit of telling the customer (me) what kind of software i am allowed to run (daemon tools = the devil) by sneaking a trojan horse into my machine.

that said i wouldnt go so far to boycott kingdoms because of this. leaving aside that sega/ca already have my money its mostly the publishers fault and i just love tw games too much to not buy them immediately upon release! ;)

just :oops: and remove securom with:

winhex - brutal and risky
killbox - thats what i have used
unlocker
...

back to conquering britannia! :knight:

MStumm

09-02-2007, 07:59

Yes it's cracked already (although I didn't actually try using the crack).

More importantly I don't see a clear confirmation of SecuRom 7. The guy in the original post doesn't inspire much confidence in me. So if anyone has actual proof they should post it here.

Also there seems to be a general misunderstanding about the whole issue. Some people see "hidden" registry entries and go omg CA uses SecuRom, my computer is screwed. The real thread lies in the UAService7, that is allegedly being used to get ring 3 privileges from a non-administrative account. For XP users I guess it's not a big deal since it runs under administrative account by default and most people don't bother to change that. The threat lies in the ability of malicious programs to exploit the service and get administrative privileges. This threat exists for all system services, but if Microsoft can't sort out all their security issues, how can we trust Securom developer (is it Sony?) to do better, given that the program is not even removed properly after we are done with the game?

Tafferboy

09-02-2007, 09:49

More importantly I don't see a clear confirmation of SecuRom 7. The guy in the original post doesn't inspire much confidence in me. So if anyone has actual proof they should post it here.

Completely understandable. Low post count in forums generally correlates negatively with a member's perceived credibility, and vice versa. But I have no reason to lie about something like this if the game's copy protection is just a simple disc check. Maybe someone will back me up on what I said about Kingdoms using Securom v7, but if you want to find out yourself:
1. Install Kingdoms
2. Run RootkitRevealer. It should list a registry entry "hkey_current_user\software\securom\!CAUTION! NEVER ...."
3. Check timestamp to see that it coincides with installation of Kingdoms. (If it does not match and is an earlier time, Securom v7 had already been installed by another game that uses it e.g., NWN2, Bioshock, Overlord)
4. Open registry editor and you find you can't remove the entry.

Posting the address of a certain site offering cracks is against the rules, but you will see it lists the protection used by Kingdoms as Securom v7 and the original M2TW as Safedisc v4.

Stig

09-02-2007, 10:21

If it would be so bad and evil, why would companies be using it?

I think it's all blown up.

Didz

09-02-2007, 10:30

HANG ON!

Can someone post a link to this other thread for me? (NVM: just noticed that Tafferboy gives the link)

I have no idea what SecuRom is, but it doesn't sound good, and havng just received my two copies of Kingdoms from Play yesterday I want to know before I install them on my PC's.

(I may just send them back, which will be damned annoying)

sapi

09-02-2007, 10:34

It's a copy/piracy prevention system (wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Securom))

R'as al Ghul

09-02-2007, 10:39

From Wikipedia on SecuRom_v7 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SecuROM#SecuROM_v_7.x)

SecuROM v 7.x

Latest SecuROM Versions are all 7.x versions which are released and updated continuously.
SecuROM 7.x, if run under a non-admin user account, installs its own service called UAService7.exe — (ring 3), which works in ring 3 of the computer's operating system.
Securom has said: "it has been developed to enable users without Windows™ administrator rights the ability to access all SecuROM™ features"[1]

Known problems

* The version of SecuROM that comes with Armed Assault, S.T.A.L.K.E.R (European release only), Neverwinter Nights 2, Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars (patched to v1.04), Tomb Raider Anniversary (demo and full version), Overlord and Bioshock (demo and full version) prevents the game from running at all if Process Explorer, a free tool offered by Microsoft, has been run since the previous reboot, however a workaround for this Process Explorer v10.xx bug (v9.25 is not affected) can be found here[2].

* Certain games installed using SecuROM will prevent other select games from working correctly, and will continue to do so even after game is uninstalled.[citation needed]

BioShock game and Rootkit controversy

BioShock has been incorrectly accused of installing a Rootkit, as Securom is not a rootkit. An official announcement was even made stating that no rootkit is installed[3]. Users unfamiliar with computer security have taken to use a Microsoft tool known as RootkitRevealer, which flags issues on a computer that indicate areas needing additional scrutiny. Further scrutiny indicates that this flag was raised improperly on account of a null byte in a string of characters (a perfectly legal piece of data) being found in a registry entry. Null bytes in value strings are improperly interpreted by common registry visualization tools (RegEdit) as end-of-string characters; such tools then fail to display the whole string. This is a limitation of those tools, and not a problem in itself.

Bioshock/SecuROM also accesses the internet and attempts to bypass firewall permissions at some point during its installation, and installs files in a hidden directory[4] that cannot easily be deleted [5]. Users have stated that in order to install the game, their firewalls and antivirus programs needed to to be turned off and active virus monitoring services needed to be shut down with XP restarted with these programs and services properly disabled.[6]
...

Stig

09-02-2007, 11:00

Users have stated that in order to install the game, their firewalls and antivirus programs needed to to be turned off and active virus monitoring services needed to be shut down with XP restarted with these programs and services properly disabled.
From what I heard on .com loads of people didn't have problems installing, so this is not a real issue.

Darkarbiter

09-02-2007, 11:05

Stay away from discussing cracks, as happened in the other thread, and this'll be fine...

Our rules on that are quite clear, however, and aren't something that I can change, or bend...

Hasn't it already been cracked??

I mean, what is the point really?
https://img410.imageshack.us/img410/1313/failboatid5.jpg (https://imageshack.us)

Didz

09-02-2007, 11:23

Swiss Halberd Pike Landsknecht

09-02-2007, 11:39

btw

am I right in saying that M2TW (main game) doesn't have any Securom?

I've only had the demo, but in a few days will buy the full version

sapi

09-02-2007, 12:06

OMG! I've just read through some of this stuff on SecuRom, including their official website.

Isn't it illegal to secretly instal software on equipment owned by another person?

I thought that was the very basis on which the law prosecuted hackers and virus writers?

Why would that law not apply to a commercial enterprise that hacks my system?

Having never in my life downloaded pirated software or films, I am now in the ironic situation of seriously contemplating just that in order to be able to play this game without compromising my system, as it seems to me that even if SecuRom's motives are honourable the fact that it exists on my PC means it can be exploited by others with less honourable intentions.
I suspect there's a clause in the EULA which indicates what Securom is installing (and which, by clicking 'okay' to, you are accepting and waiving your right to challenge).

btw

am I right in saying that M2TW (main game) doesn't have any Securom?

I've only had the demo, but in a few days will buy the full versionM2TW uses Safedisc v4, iirc - I haven't heard of any complaints about it.

FactionHeir

09-02-2007, 12:15

Kingdoms has SecuROM, M2TW has SafeDisc.
Using (illegal) methods to bypass SecuROM checks will still not get rid of the entry, as this is (as far as I understand) installed during the game's actual installation, so merely installing the game will create said entries.

As for someone exploiting SecuROM entries, you wouldn't be able to sue SEGA or CA for it, according to the M2TW EULA.

In no event shall Sega or its licensors be liable for special, incidental, or consequential damages resulting from possession, use or malfunction of the Game Software, including without limitation the risks connected with lost profit, damage to property, lost data, loss of goodwill, console, computer or handheld device failure, errors and lost business or other information as a result of possession, use or malfunction of the Game Software, or personal injuries, even if Sega has been advised of the possibility of such loss or damages.

As SecuROM supposedly would be part of "Game Software".

I do agree with the person who posted in the earlier topic, that corporations should reward good behavior instead of punish bad behavior.
Afterall, if they were to include a great, illustrated, colored and detailed manual as well as say some bonus material like figurines, fancy CD packaging or cloth maps, there would be more incentive to buy the game.

Swiss Halberd Pike Landsknecht

09-02-2007, 12:15

ah OK

I was looking again at a trailer for Kingdoms, and just feel upset that I might not be able to use those new units, i.e byzantine flamer thrower troops, if I can't get the expansion due to the securom

barvaz

09-02-2007, 13:33

As for someone exploiting SecuROM entries, you wouldn't be able to sue SEGA or CA for it, according to the M2TW EULA.
...
As SecuROM supposedly would be part of "Game Software".

Well, I don't know about EULA's. Software vendors tend to put loads of crap in there of which half probably will not pass any sane court.

I am pretty sure that if you can prove that an intrusive software that was installed on your computer caused you real damages and you can clearly show what was the damages made, a stupid one-click agreement that no one ever reads won't convince a judge with half a brain that everything is alright.

Software vendors can put anything they like in those EULA's (and they often do) there got to be some line drawn to what these EULA's entitle them to. What about sending your credit card and then wiping your hard drive? That is allowed according to some EULA's

On the other hand, I can put a softwarevendorlicenseagreement.txt in the root of my c: drive saying that by installing software on this computer, the computer owner (me) is granted the permission to bypass any copyright protection and send the software to any of my friends...:laugh4:

- barvaz

sapi

09-02-2007, 13:43

Well, feel free to take it up in court - I can't see the expense being worth it, though :laugh4:

madalchemist

09-02-2007, 13:47

Maybe sapi is right.

I'll simply avoid to buy and play Kingdoms.

alpaca

09-02-2007, 14:35

SecuROM will most likely not stop you from being able to play the game. It can happen in rare cases, though.

Anyways, this is the wikipedia short definition of a rootkit:

A rootkit is a general description of a set of programs which work to subvert control of an operating system from its legitimate operators. Usually, a rootkit will obscure its installation and attempt to prevent its removal through a subversion of standard system security.

Looking at what SecuROM does: Installing without you noticing, stopping you from removing it, it exactly fits the bill and is a rootkit in itself even if it might not necessarily mean any direct or immediate harm to your system, the breach of integrity can already be seen as abusive behaviour. I actually wonder if one should sue computer game companies because of this and if I had enough money I probably would try it (the German courts are a bit more on the side of people's rights than e.g. the US ones)

As for EULAs: I completely agree, it's the same case as the disclaimers that a lot of sites used to put up that they're not responsible for content of links. They are, as has been ruled by courts from different countries (although there may be some where they aren't). So writing any ape**** in the EULA doesn't help. I could even argue that a one-click agreement is no binding contract if the content of said would-be contract is 90% useless junk.

FactionHeir: Very good point, I totally agree. Instead of buying a copy protection, SEGA should invest the money into a good manual and high-quality packaging. That'd be more of an incentive to buy the game. I guess a SecuROM license costs well more than 100,000 dollars.

Besides, the worrying tendency of only being able to install your game on one machine that came up with BioShock is actively driving me crazy. This alone is enough reason for me to not buy the game (because my computer won't be able to handle it very well anyways, so why bother). If I buy the game I should have the right to play it on more than one machine, or with a few friends. If they like it, they'll buy it afterwards. If they never get to try it they won't buy it at all, it's that simple.

Daveybaby

09-02-2007, 14:59

Besides, the worrying tendency of only being able to install your game on one machine that came up with BioShock is actively driving me crazy. This alone is enough reason for me to not buy the game (because my computer won't be able to handle it very well anyways, so why bother). If I buy the game I should have the right to play it on more than one machine, or with a few friends. If they like it, they'll buy it afterwards. If they never get to try it they won't buy it at all, it's that simple.
Its not so much that, as the fact that if you upgrade your hardware (e.g. new mobo or new HDD), or buy a new machine, that counts as one of your installs. In theory, if you uninstall the game from the previous machine first, it's supposed to give you that install back. However, people have been testing this and finding that it doesnt work. Also, if you suffer a HDD crash, you arent going to be able to uninstall the previous copy first anyway.

Apparently due to customer complaints the publishers of bioshock have extended the total number of installs from 2 to 5. Big deal.

Publisher: "Thanks for buying our game, now we're going to count to 10, and then kick you in the balls"
Customer: "Can i have my money back please?"
Publisher: "Since we value you as a customer, we are happy to announce that we are going to wait until we have counted to 20 before kicking you in the balls"
Customer: "Um.... thanks?"

I am getting slightly off-topic, admittedly, since this limitation doesnt (as far as i know) apply to kingdoms. But its a very worrying trend. Maybe by the time empires is released that sort of thing will be the norm.

Tafferboy

09-02-2007, 15:59

Publishers should really be compelled by law to provide information on the kind of copy protection (and if there are limited installs, as in Bioshock) they are using on their software, at least in print on the box itself. Customers have the right to know first-hand if a product is going to be bundled with intrusive software, not learn about it themselves the hard way or on a forum.

In short, if people's decision on whether to purchase a game is at all influenced by the copy protection it uses, I think publishers owe it to us to convey that information clearly. I myself will not knowingly buy any game using Starforce and Securom v7 no matter if it's the best ever, so my decision very well hinges on type of copy protection alone.

That said, I'm not hopeful at all on Sega or CA releasing a patch to remove Securom from Kingdoms. Unless a whole lot of people are refusing to buy the game because of Securom, I don't see that happening. Not many even know Kingdoms is using Securom in the first place or would care if they did.

Dutch_guy

09-02-2007, 16:29

King Bob VI

09-02-2007, 16:44

But basically the only thing this SecuRom does is add some not important line to your registry, and make sure you can only install the game an x number of times? Giving you back an install, if one un-installs the game ?

If that's all it is, what's the big deal really ?

:balloon2:

That's only for Bioshock, Kingdoms doesn't have an install limit, as far as I know.

So it's even less of a big deal, unless someone can provide proof of Securom itself actually damaging a computer or making a game unplayable.

Red Spot

09-02-2007, 16:52

glad to see this topic

I've neglected some warnings before and I'm simply not putting my tool-heavy system at risk cause of some copyprotection system.

All I can do is hope publishers feel this where it hurts them most and eventually change their ways ...

(I have like €200,- worth of games here that could just as well be binned as if I install them I can do a OS-reinstall afterwards, in certain cases without even being able to play the game without installing from a fresh OS-install, fun ....)

G

nameless

09-02-2007, 16:53

Hmmmm is it just me or is this being blown out of proportion?

I mean games like Bioshock can be an issue but there aren't tons of people out there that are having trouble installing/uninstalling the game now are they?

Plus I suspect a large number of the people who post and complain here want to pirate the game instead of buying it.

barvaz

09-02-2007, 17:36

Plus I suspect a large number of the people who post and complain here want to pirate the game instead of buying it.

Hmmm...no, not really. That is what so ridiculous about copy protection. The people who want to pirate the game have absolutely no reason to complain, they go and get the crack and are done with in about 5 minutes.

The people who have reason to complain are those who want to do the right thing and have a 100% legitimate system and are punished with this crapware sitting on their systems without the ability to remove it.

But most people don't care and call those who do "paranoids" and "blowing things our of proportions". It is the same with copy protection, DRM, DMCA, patents, privacy concerns, fair use, etc etc. Most people don't care as long as their systems/gadgets/games/movies/music appear to be working reasonably for them. Thing is, there is a thin line between this "it works for me" attitude and the point when your game stops working, your rights being violated or your privacy being breached. Some choose to take more active approach and protest before it reaches that point.

- barvaz

Daveybaby

09-02-2007, 17:53

Plus I suspect a large number of the people who post and complain here want to pirate the game instead of buying it.
Way to miss the entire point. If i wanted to pirate the game the copy protection wouldnt be causing any problems because the it will have been removed from the game entirely. It wont have cause any inconvenience to the pirates because the game will have been cracked within a few hours of release, if not before release.

The whole point is that the copy protection only hurts the paying customers. In other words: THE PIRATED VERSION IS A BETTER PRODUCT. More likely to work, less hassle, less intrusive crap on your hard drive. Publishers should be giving us incentives to buy their products, or at the very least not putting us off buying them.

I preordered kingdoms and its sitting on my desk next to my PC as i type this. If i'd known about the securom issues i'd certainly have thought twice about ordering the game. I'm holding off installing it until i've checked out the situation more (meh, i dont have time to play it this week anyway :brood: ). I'm definitely not buying bioshock - but i hear the pirated version doesnt have the 2 install limit (not saying i'm going to download it, just illustrating my point).

If somebody buys a game and it wont work on their machine because of the copy protection - or it stops something else working - or they upgrade one too many times and it wont install any more - or the company goes bust and the license server goes down and thus they cant play it any more - thats basically going to drive that person into the arms of the pirates. They'll download a crack to get the game they paid for working. And next time maybe they'll think "why bother buying the game if all its going to do is give me hassle - i'll just download the cracked version, at least i know it'll work"

Note: none of the above is an endorsement of piracy - i just think the game publishers are shooting themselves - and us - in the foot.

madalchemist

09-02-2007, 18:22

Way to miss the entire point. If i wanted to pirate the game the copy protection wouldnt be causing any problems because the it will have been removed from the game entirely. It wont have cause any inconvenience to the pirates because the game will have been cracked within a few hours of release, if not before release.

The whole point is that the copy protection only hurts the paying customers. In other words: THE PIRATED VERSION IS A BETTER PRODUCT. More likely to work, less hassle, less intrusive crap on your hard drive. Publishers should be giving us incentives to buy their products, or at the very least not putting us off buying them.

I was going to post again, but Daveybaby wrote my point precisely.

One more thing: if the Securom changes the system at the time of the game installation, piracy won't protect you, since you can remove whatever you want but have your registry (sp?) altered from the beginning; anyway if someone wanted to pirate it he woudn't post here the fact, that seems evident enough to me.

Brighdaasa

09-02-2007, 18:44

The big deal for me is the fact that this SecuRom installs software on my pc without either my consent or even without giving me an option not to install it. I'm using the installer of the game, not the SecuRom installer. So it would be basic courtesy to tell me it's going to install another program (I had the same gripe with starforce btw). This actually is the behavior of a VIRUS!! I will not buy any software that installs some random cr@p on my pc without me knowing or allowing it and that on top of it all is (nearly) impossible to remove.

Up until now i was still considering buying Kingdoms. It's the first in the TW series which i wasn't really sure whether to buy it. But this definitely tipped the scales. I'm won't buy Kingdoms if securom stays.

The Stranger

09-02-2007, 18:46

let me get this straight... it says it will update continuasly... but what if yur pc has no internet...?

i wont buy it now... i made up my mind

Daveybaby

09-02-2007, 19:00

let me get this straight... you can only install the game on 1 pc?
You can only install Bioshock on one PC (well actually 2).

However, it uses the same copy protection technology as kingdoms, so this is something which we may see in future TW games (e.g. empires).

Graphic

09-02-2007, 19:01

alpaca

09-02-2007, 19:08

let me get this straight... it says it will update continuasly... but what if yur pc has no internet...?

i wont buy it now... i made up my mind
No, you can install it as often as you want. It was an off-topic post that I made about copy protection trends in general (see Bioshock) and I probably should have known better that there are hundreds of people out there who just don't read properly :inquisitive:

Graphic: This is not about the game or whether it impedes how I can play a game, it's about a general unbalance in how the game industry looks upon its customers. They kind of reversed the presumption of innocence by treating everyone as a pirate in the first place and punishing them for something they didn't actually do. I just can't understand there are actually people who applaud them for that insolent behavior...

Besides, you could also argue people are buying the game under false pretences because nowhere does it say that it's going to install any additional third-party software on your system that you didn't want to buy.

Lusted

09-02-2007, 20:46

You can only install Bioshock on one PC (well actually 2).

It's been changed to 5.

nameless

09-02-2007, 20:51

Some of you seem to be making a mountain out of a molehill. You know securom is there, so it's not going to be a surprise if it installs it, and you legally bought the game, so it's not going to really actually do anything.

Some of you are going to deprive yourself of an awesome expansion because they didn't add an extra "Yes | Back | Cancel" to the installation?

Seems like a pretty frivolous thing to make a huge stand on. You are missing out big time one an awesome game.

Exactly, as a classmate told me once, if you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to worry about.

Now if Kingdoms required installations on the level of stuff like Quake, Half-life 2, Bioshock, etc. Then yes I think that would be an issue.

Hmmm...no, not really. That is what so ridiculous about copy protection. The people who want to pirate the game have absolutely no reason to complain, they go and get the crack and are done with in about 5 minutes.

Yes really, I've seen posts on various forums in regards to games asking about cracks over the years and in such idiotic form. Especially those who don't know how to crack but want to know how or where to find it. Like I said, there are much worse games out there that make it a *#)(@*$)(#@*$ pain to install. Relatively, Kingdoms is nothing. Installation done in 30 minutes tops and running fine and dandy.

To be honest, I'd think games like Supreme Commander(Which I own) and Galactic Civilization II are decent in that they don't require the DVD/CD to play the game at all. But then again every game is different (Unless CA provides monthly updates to the game which would be weird). I have other ideas on proper copy right protections though this isn't the point.

Graphic

09-02-2007, 20:59

Graphic: This is not about the game or whether it impedes how I can play a game, it's about a general unbalance in how the game industry looks upon its customers. They kind of reversed the presumption of innocence by treating everyone as a pirate in the first place and punishing them for something they didn't actually do. I just can't understand there are actually people who applaud them for that insolent behavior...How are you being punished? It checks to make sure you have the original disc. You bought the game. You have the original disc. Securom harms you in no way whatsoever. I'm not applauding them or criticizing them for including Securom as it means nothing to someone who bought the game legally, especially since it's so easily circumvented anyways if you have such a huge problem with it.

It just seems like an arbitrary stand to take just for the sake of taking a stand. Sticking it to the man is fun but come on, it just adds a registry entry and checks if you have an original copy, what is the huge problem with that?

antisocialmunky

09-02-2007, 21:08

The issue isn't that it checks for disk its that it embeds itself in your system and requires you to jump through hoops to remove.

The problems are:
1) It hides itself on your computer.
2) You aren't told that it is put on there.
3) Its pain in the butt to remove.
4) You're required to deactivate your computer's security because
a) It needs to bypass your firewall.
b) Your antivirus will flag it as a trojan virus because it acts liek a trojan.

I wish it was the old 'you must have CD and CD key to play' or even steam which isn't as ridiculous.

I don't have a big issue with DRM but its just badly implemented. Its almost as bad as Sony's first attempt at protecting music with freaking root kits.

Per Ole

09-02-2007, 21:10

I also think the issue some people are conserned about is that securom will lie on your pc, even after you uninstall the game, and a skilled hacker can exploit this and gain access to private information (bank accounts, pin numbers etc.) I've pre-ordered the game, but I will not install it until we get some fix for this.

Stig

09-02-2007, 21:17

4) You're required to deactivate your computer's security because
a) It needs to bypass your firewall.
b) Your antivirus will flag it as a trojan virus because it acts liek a trojan.
Cut the internet connection when installing, what's the problem.

Anyway, I asked someone I know who has the game, he did not have to deactivate any firewall. And since I installed the anti virus program on his PC I made sure it daily checks for viruses on the background, and it found nothing.

Next to that I asked him to do a rootkit search, again, nothing was found.

So, you get the choice:
1. SecuRom is not included in the game and this thread is a lie.
2. SecuRom is completely harmless and this thread is not needed.

You get the pick, choose wisely.

TB666

09-02-2007, 21:25

You're required to deactivate your computer's security because
a) It needs to bypass your firewall.

If I remember correctly it's just one type of firewall that you need to shut down.
I can't remember which firewall it was but I remember the same firewall was causing trouble for those that played Mount & Blade where the firewall caused the game to shut down because of copy protection.

antisocialmunky

09-02-2007, 21:57

Cut the internet connection when installing, what's the problem.

Anyway, I asked someone I know who has the game, he did not have to deactivate any firewall. And since I installed the anti virus program on his PC I made sure it daily checks for viruses on the background, and it found nothing.

Next to that I asked him to do a rootkit search, again, nothing was found.

So, you get the choice:
1. SecuRom is not included in the game and this thread is a lie.
2. SecuRom is completely harmless and this thread is not needed.

You get the pick, choose wisely.

Well, SecuRom is NOT a rootkit, Sony's previous attempt at a DRM for music CDs was. This may or may not be the reason why that rumor is going around. Also, as I did install bioshock, you need to have an internet connection during the install to update it to the latest patch(kinda like when you're installing windows). I don't know what happens if there is no connection.

You only need your internet connection on when your run it the first time so Securom can access its database and register with it. This requires you to let it get through your firewall, which is pretty much like steam or anything else, not a big problem, my wording might have exaggerated it a little bit but it needs to be allowed to send through your firewall.

Now, I ran into a problem with AVG since it kept flagging and quarantining it as a Dos based trojan virus(both the patch from the install stored in temp internet and the excutable). I only discovered this after I saw that the exe had disappeared. Infact, everytime on start up I had to restore it from AVG's virus vault to play the game until eventaully the exe got deleted by the antivirus accidentally(needed to use Restore AS instead of Restore).

I have a hard time believing that this virus originated from anywhere besides 2k game's patch or the Bioshock install as it was only present in those two file.s

And you didn't even touch on two of the most important things:

THERE'S NO EASY WAY TO UNINSTALL IT AND YOU'RE NOT INFORMED OF ITS PRESENCE.

On top of that, with Bioshock you only had two installs. If you lost your connection while trying to uninstall or you format your drive without installing, you're out one install. This doesn't seem to be the case with Kingdoms.

My argument is that this method is a poor implmentation of DRM. You can't see it, you have a hard time getting rid of it, it actually has conflicts with multiple games using securom under certain circumstances, and its just a piss poor way of doing things go get a Steam license - atleast they know how to do it right. Hell, it's even damaged 2k Game's mindshare and for what? A system that will STILL be cracked.

The Stranger

09-02-2007, 22:18

MStumm

09-02-2007, 22:25

Didz

09-02-2007, 22:59

Some of you seem to be making a mountain out of a molehill. You know securom is there, so it's not going to be a surprise if it installs it, and you legally bought the game, so it's not going to really actually do anything.

Some of you are going to deprive yourself of an awesome expansion because they didn't add an extra "Yes | Back | Cancel" to the installation?

Seems like a pretty frivolous thing to make a huge stand on. You are missing out big time one an awesome game.
I'm not sure you are right.

According to the Wiki reference to Securom there are already a number of known issues arising from allowing this software to invade your system.

Known problems

* The version of SecuROM that comes with Armed Assault, S.T.A.L.K.E.R (European release only), Neverwinter Nights 2, Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars (patched to v1.04), Tomb Raider Anniversary (demo and full version), Overlord and Bioshock (demo and full version) prevents the game from running at all if Process Explorer, a free tool offered by Microsoft, has been run since the previous reboot, however a workaround for this Process Explorer v10.xx bug (v9.25 is not affected) can be found here[2].

* Certain games installed using SecuROM will prevent other select games from working correctly, and will continue to do so even after game is uninstalled.[citation needed]
More to the point, as this software cannot be uninstalled, and as you the owner of the PC have no control whatsoever over what it does, then by implication you cannot control or prevent what it does to your system after you have allowed it to be installed.

Presumably, it must update itself by periodic downloads and upgrades, either dynamically or as a result of future game instals. That means that Sony or indeed anyone who once had access to how Securom works could simply expliot the presence of this software to gather information or interfere with your use of your PC.

Its bad enough that the vast majority of spyware that screws up our systems performance is paid for my commercial enterprises, but this peice of software is nothing short of a commercially sponsored system hack, and I'm certainly not going to knowingly allow it onto my PC, just becuase I want to play a game.

Zenicetus

09-03-2007, 01:03

Some of you seem to be making a mountain out of a molehill. You know securom is there, so it's not going to be a surprise if it installs it, and you legally bought the game, so it's not going to really actually do anything.

Well, actually it does do something -- it would leave a hidden registry key on my computer even after I've uninstalled the game, which may (or may not, but the potential is there) add a future backdoor to malware. Or maybe it will just trigger alarms in some future AV software I decide to use, which would also be a pain.

It's sheer arrogance to treat a customer's computer like that. I don't mind CP methods that go away when I'm finished with a game and uninstall it. This is different.

Some of you are going to deprive yourself of an awesome expansion because they didn't add an extra "Yes | Back | Cancel" to the installation?

Seems like a pretty frivolous thing to make a huge stand on. You are missing out big time one an awesome game.

Well, you make your decision and I'll make mine. It's a question of "how much do I want to put up with, and is it worth it?"

I actually bought Bioshock after hearing that 2K will remove the 5 activation limit after the main sales window expires, and that they'll be releasing a key removal tool for use when you uninstall the game. That's more than CA has done, so far. Unless we hear differently, they're planning on just leaving that hidden key on your computer.

antisocialmunky

09-03-2007, 01:30

@alpaca, i wasnt replying to a post of yours... i thought securom had something to di with that untill i read another post... i quickly edited my post after that... so my problem is not that i dont read properly... i just reply before i read and edit later... which is worse is up to you.

btw if its easily circumvented why implement it... those who want to get rid of it can do so easy... so why add it

second problem... i think its way to expensive... bioshock costs the same but is a full game... im not paying 40$ for an expansion that might and probably will turn into a dissapointment... ill wait till it costs half or less...

@ASM: so to install bioshock you need to have internet? is this the same for kingdoms? because i dont have internet on my gamepc.

I'm not sure, those are just my experiences. You will need it to Securom verify it. If Kingdoms has none of the invisible install and registry entries, then I'm fine with it. Too bad there's not too much info on it other than 'securom is on Kingdoms.' Personally as a Computer Scientist, I blame Sony for having a implementation that's absolutely pathetic :no:.

crpcarrot

09-03-2007, 10:33

what i dont understand is why people with the legit copy have to suffer intrusive software which may potentially cause harm to their computer.

if any pirate copy was made of the game i would assume the cracker would remove the security software so whats the point of having. basically its only going to be on the pc's of people who buy their games anyway.

and on the sumject on end user licenses

in the UK and i presume the EU siginig license doens not necessarily mean the vendor can take away your consumer rights. and limitaiton clauses have to be pretty well highlights so the consumer for it be applicable and the way u accept a EULA by clickinng a button would not hold up in a British court. not from what i know about contract law anyway.

Lord of the Isles

09-03-2007, 10:37

Exactly, as a classmate told me once, if you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to worry about.

Um ... takes deep breath ... you'd think that would be the case, but it turns out not to be.

I bought a perfectly legal copy of Silent Hunter III. Unknown to me, it had a copy protection program called Starforce bundled with it. Over a long period of time this caused problems which, at a conservative estimate, I spent 20 hours over. I normally bill my time at around $80 an hour as a computer consultant but I don't expect Ubisoft or Starforce are likely to recompense me :no:

Since almost nothing could be as bad as Starforce, I don't expect SecuROM will be. But I'll never knowingly put copy protection crap on my machines again, so the Kingdoms that I'm expecting any day now is going straight back to Amazon. I suggest CA/SEGA search the Web and read about the decision by Ubisoft, giving in to customer demand, not to use Starforce in Silent Hunter IV.

To be honest, I'd think games like Supreme Commander(Which I own) and Galactic Civilization II are decent in that they don't require the DVD/CD to play the game at all. But then again every game is different (Unless CA provides monthly updates to the game which would be weird). I have other ideas on proper copy right protections though this isn't the point.

There we can agree - Stardock (GalCiv) have a wonderful attitude towards their customers. If only all games companies did.

Darkarbiter

09-03-2007, 10:46

crpcarrot

09-03-2007, 10:48

Darkarbiter

09-03-2007, 10:51

ok having read theother thread can someone confirm what the problems with AVG are

i havent baught kindoms yet and havent decided if i want to, but if it is gonna cause problems with my antivirus software i certainly wont buy it.

isnt having to tun off your antivirus software iteself too much of a risk in a pc with broadband??
Heh well your the computer consultant :P
Although personally I've had quite a bit of experience with dealing with viruses on my own computer. If your worried about the virus in that situation then that means the virus must be a process. If it's a process it's usually quite a bit easier to detect as well.

TBH I don't get viruses much anymore and the ones I do get are easy to get rid of. Although I suspect if a virus has a line "Detect when AVG is turned off" it'd probably show up on the AVG scanner easily.

Daveybaby

09-03-2007, 11:35

For the people who dont care what the copy protection software does to their machine, a timely link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6968234.stm

Yes its Sony again. This is the second time their shoddily written DRM software has compromised the PCs of their paying customers.

Some history:
Sony slated over anti-piracy CD (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4400148.stm)
The rootkit of all evil? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4406178.stm)
Hackers are exploiting flaws (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4445550.stm)
Viruses use Sony anti-piracy CDs (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4427606.stm)

See if you can guess which company owns securom, the DRM software that comes with kingdoms. Go on, have a guess. I'll give you a clue - it begins with the letter 'S'.

crpcarrot

09-03-2007, 11:48

@ darkabiter

"Thank you for your expert advice."

its not expert adice i'm not a lawyer. as i said not from what i know about contract law.

about virus

well i'm not worried only about virus' but also hackers and spyware. i use my pc for a lot of my financial activities as well and also have a lot of sesitive information saved on it. i am no pc expert but i rather not have my pc plugged into the internet without a firewall or virus protection.

sapi

09-03-2007, 11:49

Note to all: Starforce is not SecuRom. They are very different tools, with very different methods of achieving their goals, and comparison is worse than useless - it actively invites misinterpretation of the facts.

Likewise, the link Daveybaby posted is to a story about the Sony Music DRM debacle, which actually did install a rootkit. SecuRom does not.

Stig

09-03-2007, 11:54

Well, I bought the game, as I was going to.
And I installed it, as I was going to.
And just for you guys I've run a virusscan (using AVG, as I use AVG).
And I found nothing.
And I scanned on spyware:
Nothing
Rootkits:
Nothing

Daveybaby

09-03-2007, 11:58

True enough sapi. But both examples are good illustrations of what can go wrong, and why we shouldnt blindly trust this stuff to not do any damage to our machines.

I'm going to bow out of this topic now, as i've been getting a bit soap-box-ey. :embarassed: Also i'm being a total hypocrite, as i'm almost certainly going to install the game tonight regardless.

Tafferboy

09-03-2007, 14:14

I just installed Kingdom (the worst installer i've ever seen) and looked more into the Securom issue. Sure enough I did find the "hidden" registry entries but the good news is that I can't find the UAServer7 mentioned in wikipedia.

So to me it looks like Kingdom's version of Securom merely checks for correct CD and creates strange registry entries, but doesn't install any actual software that I can see. Unless someone shows evidence otherwise I think there is no cause for concern.

Look under C:\Documents and Settings\(your user account) or All Users\Application Data. See a folder called "Securom" on it?

Now make sure you have first done this: Go to Tools>Folder Options>View>Under "Hidden files and folders" check "Show hidden files and folders". Also, uncheck "Hide protected operating system files".

Open the "Securom" folder. Don't be too surprised if you see...nothing. There are files in there that have been installed by Securom, but because they have intentionally been made to contain character errors, Windows explorer cannot recognize them and so there is no way to delete them.

Rootkits:Nothing

Did you use Micosoft's RootkitRevealer? It has been well-documented from Bioshock that a registry entry is created by Securom v7 that is identified as a rootkit. It may not be a real rootkit, but RootkitRevealer lists it as such for a good reason: it resembles a rootkit and has some of its properties.

Ask yourself whether you are comfortable having something that emulates a rootkit on your system that you can't remove. The argument that Securom is harmless and "not a big deal" is also subject to the fact that we don't completely know as of yet what it can do and whether hackers find a way to exploit it in the future. Can anybody be absolutely sure private information is not sent to the Securom servers? Would you fully trust copy protection developed by Sony after their music DRM debacle?

The bottomline is that publishers have no right to sell you a product using software that installs itself without consent and which you cannot remove if you choose to. I don't see how anybody can condone the use of such intrusive copy protection when the right to customise the system you own is infringed upon.

sapi

09-03-2007, 14:25

Open the "Securom" folder. Don't be too surprised if you see...nothing. There are files in there that have been installed by Securom, but because they have intentionally been made to contain character errors, Windows explorer cannot recognize them and so there is no way to delete them.If that's your only issue, you should easily be able to use the cmd tools to delete them... (cd C:\Documents and Settings\[whatever]\Securom\; dir; del [x]). It'd probably stop the game from working, though...

Did you use Micosoft's RootkitRevealer? It has been well-documented from Bioshock that a registry entry is created by Securom v7 that is identified as a rootkit. It may not be a real rootkit, but RootkitRevealer lists it as such for a good reason: it resembles a rootkit and has some of its properties.Have a quick read of the sysinternals page on rootkitrevealer; by no means does a hit mean that it's a rootkit...

Gaius Terentius Varro

09-03-2007, 14:31

The beef is that the game has been cracked 4 days ago and the ppl who stole the game don't have to deal with securom issues cos the crack stops it from installing on their comp. The only ones left with the unwanted baby are the ones who actually paid for the game which to me is totally nuts.

SpencerH

09-03-2007, 14:56

I'm glad to see such a healthy debate about this issue. Unfortunately, it doesnt amount to a hill of beans. Most gamemakers (and other software producers) continue to believe that they have the right to install programs on your PC without your knowledge or with deceptive tactics. There are two obvious answers to the problem; dont buy the games, and legislation. Neither of which is gonna happen since: 1) most people are not savy enough to know what has been installed and the potential problems so they buy the game, 2) since the "security" being installed is kept hidden from the owner, many of those who would not install the game will buy it first then will find the problem (which is what happened to me with some earlier games that didnt like alcohol), 3) and Congress is pathetically bamboozled by anything remotely technical so nothing will happen from that side.

Personally, Securom and Kingdoms is not an issue for me since CA lost me as a customer with M2TW. Now I just have another reason not to buy their games. I'm just hoping that someone will care enough to completely change M2TW in a mod sometime in the future. Given the enormity of that task, though, I doubt it will happen.

Stig

09-03-2007, 14:56

Did you use Micosoft's RootkitRevealer?
AVG anti-rootkit

afterall, a rootkit is a rootkit

Ask yourself whether you are comfortable having something that emulates a rootkit on your system that you can't remove. The argument that Securom is harmless and "not a big deal" is also subject to the fact that we don't completely know as of yet what it can do and whether hackers find a way to exploit it in the future.
Can't be bothered with it.
And if hackers try to attack me I'll personalyl pay them a visit, shoving their keyboards .... you get the point.

I get about 100 high rated attacks a day (being on the university network), and close to 2000 others. And none ever made it past my first line of defence.

crpcarrot

09-03-2007, 14:57

Stig

09-03-2007, 15:04

exactly why i dont understand why they include these software i the first place.
For the same reason as why on some housedoors it says that that house is protected electronically.
You'll get in by throwing in a window, but it can scare people off.

hirins

09-03-2007, 15:42

one thing really upsets me that i am not a person who understands all that technical things you are talking about, i am an artists. and i enjoy playing total war games.
i always buy original tw games never use cracked ones because i think it is good thing to support company who has developed something unique - (for me total war series are unique because it is only game that makes you think as a roman or medieval person and at the same time entertains you)..
and than i read all that stuff about secorum, and i am bloody disappointed, because i have planned to play tw kingdoms until empires hits shelves and i do not want to format my C drive or install windows again, because the info i am reading in the thread kind of scares me... i think many people are like me, who ar not experts in computers and windows and that is why they do not post in this thread but they read the thread and they are starting to doubt - to buy or not to buy...
sorry for my english, hope you people understood my thougths

Lord of the Isles

09-03-2007, 16:02

For the same reason as why on some housedoors it says that that house is protected electronically.
You'll get in by throwing in a window, but it can scare people off.

I'm sure you are right when it comes to their motives.

The trouble, to continue the metaphor, is that they are painting the notice that their house is protected on MY house walls, 98% of burglars get in through doors anyway, not windows, and the paint they are using might cause structural problems to my walls in the future.

But it's no big deal to me at least. I'm enjoying playing Lands to Conquer so I'll just return Kingdoms anyway. And if SEGA/CA think that copy protection is more important than losing the odd customer for Empire:TW, that's their call.

I have a moral objection to downloaded cracked versions of games; it's something I'd never do. So that means I'll just have to do without. Kind of ironic that.

Ferret

09-03-2007, 16:17

sorry for being ignorant but does Securom actually do anything to your computer, I haven't noticed anything different

Stig

09-03-2007, 17:02

sorry for being ignorant but does Securom actually do anything to your computer, I haven't noticed anything different
Nah, nothing. It's a myth

MStumm

09-03-2007, 18:12

Look under C:\Documents and Settings\(your user account) or All Users\Application Data. See a folder called "Securom" on it?

Open the "Securom" folder. Don't be too surprised if you see...nothing. There are files in there that have been installed by Securom, but because they have intentionally been made to contain character errors, Windows explorer cannot recognize them and so there is no way to delete them.

Thanks now I see it. The file names are garbled but they are still visible in vista. The date corresponds to the day I installed Kingdoms. If you are interested here is the readme file that's there as well:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PLEASE DO NOT DELETE THE FILES IN THIS FOLDER BECAUSE YOU MIGHT LOOSE ESSENTIAL DIGITAL RIGHTS.
READ BELOW
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Technical Information for the PC Administrator:

The files securom_v7_01.dat and securom_v7_01.bak have been created during the installation of a SecuROM protected application.
It guarantees more user convenience because the original disc does not have to be in the local drive at all times anymore.
It is necessary for copy protected CDs, demo versions and protected software downloaded from the Internet.
The file contains your licences for all products which are SecuROM protected, therefore it will not be deleted automatically.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PLEASE DO NOT DELETE THE FILE BECAUSE YOU MIGHT LOOSE ESSENTIAL DIGITAL RIGHTS.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The information contained in securom_v7_01.dat will not be transferred to any other computer without your permission.

This security system is connected with a MS Windows Service called "SecuROM User Access Service".
This module is started automatically when launching a protected application if the user is logged in with Windows administrator rights.
In case users do not have administrator rights we recommend to keep it running.

See www.securom.com for further information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

However these seem to be just data files, not software. I renamed this folder, installed the crack and the game appears to be working without any new services starting up, so its probably safe to delete this folder.

Gaius Terentius Varro

09-03-2007, 19:14

The whole point is that YOU CAN*T delete those files (the hidden ones with the nonsense name) EVER cos they won't let you since windows can't find them (win XP SP2 here) unless you DL a third party software like Unlocker (from http://ccollomb.free.fr/unlocker/ which i can't guarantee as SAFE software) but then your game won't work so you're back to the part of getting a crack which really makes me mad. I wonder how many of the ppl that were gonna steal the game got put off the 2 day wait (untill the scene's groups that were competing to be first to crack it = a matter of days) and bought this game as opposed to the ppl who were gonna buy the game but got put of by securom and abstained/got the pirate copy of the game.
Just look at the mess Bioshock is now.

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v147/Rebelphoenix/00311b.jpg

flambergius

09-03-2007, 19:47

sorry for being ignorant but does Securom actually do anything to your computer, I haven't noticed anything different

It is a security risk. As far as I know SecuROM does not significantly affect normal operation of your PC, that is to say it does not slow your PC down or use resources like CPU-time or RAM to a significant decree.

It is very hard at the moment say for sure what level of security risk SecuROM is general or what is the risk scenario in installing Kingdoms. I far as I know, it is not even known for certain what version of SecuROM Kingdoms has. In highly general terms, the risk seems low to moderate.

What is known is that SecuROM, regardless of version, has bugs and design flaws - all software has. No security flaw has been widely reported resulting from those bugs, nor has any attack been seen in the wild targeting SecuROM v7.x. That does not mean that SecuROM is safe now, although it likely is, but more significantly it says nothing about whether or nor the SecuROM installed on your PC remains safe. As SecuROM is difficult to detect, monitor and remove, you need to be concerned about SecuROMs safety for the lifespan of your current operating system installation (which often equals the lifespan of your PC). You can limit your exposure by diligently following computer security reporting. If you do, I would say the risks will remain low. If you don't follow the reporting then you are in effect betting that SecuROM is made by either really, really good programmers or at least very lucky ones.

(I had a whole paragraph here about UAService, but it got sort of technical without actually saying anything interesting, so I cut it out.)

In the end you must ask yourself two questions:
1) The risk being what it is, am I willing to accept it? While this is nowhere near the worst risk factor you must assume just to use a PC, remember that risks are cumulative.
2) This risk is unnecessary and it is being forced as a part of a trade by the other party for their gain (as perceived by them). Does this piss me off? If you do decide to make a stand, I would suggest that you don't just not buy the game but also make CA/Sega aware of your reasons.

Btw, one thing about security risks: you are not very likely to be the target identity theft or have your credit card number copied even if you have a very vulnerable system. You are much more likely to become a unknowing accomplice in spamming, cybercrime and/or cyberwarfare, also know as a botnet zombie. In that sense security risks are like dumping environmentally hazardous waste, the cost to society is often greater then the direct cost to you.

Anyways, I bought the game, and installed it. No problems and no issues for me, but then again my game rig is not networked in any way. No, I'm not paranoid, there are people out to get us. Having been on the business end of a DDoS I know that for sure.

rebelscum

09-03-2007, 19:55

Stay away from discussing cracks, as happened in the other thread, and this'll be fine...

Our rules on that are quite clear, however, and aren't something that I can change, or bend...
I'm sorry but I just can't help it .. he said stay away from DISGUSTING CRACKS .. (Beavis & Butthead chortle):hijacked:

HoreTore

09-03-2007, 20:13

in the UK and i presume the EU siginig license doens not necessarily mean the vendor can take away your consumer rights. and limitaiton clauses have to be pretty well highlights so the consumer for it be applicable and the way u accept a EULA by clickinng a button would not hold up in a British court. not from what i know about contract law anyway.

Spot on. Any contract made HAS to be legal. Even a signed contract won't matter if what it says is illegal. For example, let's say you get a job somewhere. That job is shitty, so it pays bad. Under the minimum wage required by law, actually. They give you a contract where which you sign and agree to the below minimum wage. However, if you take that contract to any court/authority, it will be declared null and void in a second. Even though both of you agreed to it, it's still not legal.

Tafferboy

09-03-2007, 21:09

In the end you must ask yourself two questions:
1) The risk being what it is, am I willing to accept it? While this is nowhere near the worst risk factor you must assume just to use a PC, remember that risks are cumulative.
2) This risk is unnecessary and it is being forced as a part of a trade by the other party for their gain (as perceived by them). Does this piss me off? If you do decide to make a stand, I would suggest that you don't just not buy the game but also make CA/Sega aware of your reasons.

I can agree to that. Don't buy a game if you think the publisher is treating you unacceptably as a paying, loyal customer by imposing invasive and unremovable anti-piracy protection that is not without risks. Protesting by not purchasing is the only way to discourage its use in the future and bring a solution in the form of a patch.

Buy a game with intrusive copy protection and you are basically sending a message to the publishers that you don't mind and it's alright for them to continue using it. The result is progressively more and more intrusive copy protection in future releases as publishers test how much further they are able to cut into customers' rights and get away with it. Pray Bioshock does not herald a new beginning where games of the future require online activation and allows set number of installations.

Anyway, here's a link with detailed instructions for the removal of the Securom malware.

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/98241-13-remove-securom-malware-uninstalling-bioshock-demo

It is a very complicated, risky, and painful process which is not for the faint of heart. I have not attempted it and can't say it will work in removing all traces of Securom.

Zenicetus

09-03-2007, 22:06

If that's your only issue, you should easily be able to use the cmd tools to delete them... (cd C:\Documents and Settings\[whatever]\Securom\; dir; del [x]).

No Sapi, it's not that simple, and that's what a lot of us are complaining about. Read this slashdot post about the way SecureRom hides the files and makes them undeletable, even after the game is uninstalled. It's from a thread about the DRM in Bioshock but it's the same version of SecureRom used in Kingdoms, as far as I know:

http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=279347&cid=20349927

This also shows why it's sometimes flagged by rootkit detectors and AV software, but again... the main issue (for me, anyway), is the arrogance of installing hidden files that aren't removed with a game uninstall, and that I can't remove without jumping through extraordinary hoops.

alpaca

09-04-2007, 00:19

After getting a look at the code for the kingdoms campaign scripts I think I won't buy it, either. The additional features are probably not worth 30 bucks (and being a modder I'm mainly concerned about additional feature I can fool around with).
Might pick it up when it's out for 15 euros or so but not full-price.
The fact that SEGA decided to use SecuROM which I'm 100% sure will object to my installation of DAEMON tools added to this.

Zenicetus

09-04-2007, 04:36

What amazes me about this whole fiasco is that the 2K devs realized early on, that they had a problem on their hands with the DRM for Bioshock, and they responded quickly to limit the damage. It's not a wonderful response... they're extending the activations and promising a total removal of activations, and they'll be releasing a tool for removing the hidden SecureRom files. But it's at least a response. It means you can have a clean computer after uninstalling the game, which is all I really care about, as long as the DRM isn't as bad as Starforce. It was enough to tilt me over the threshold, and I bought Bioshock on that promise... because I think they'll catch royal hell if they don't follow through. And frankly, Bioshock is the kind of one-every-five-years game that's worth it.

What's CA's response on this? Nothing. If they said they'd release a utility to remove the hidden key after I uninstall Kingdoms, then I'd pony up and buy the expansion. And c'mon... this is an expansion we're talking about... not some world-shattering new game. Without that, I'm not sure I want to buy Kingdoms.

Generals_Bodyguard

09-04-2007, 06:02

My only beef with Kingdoms copy protection is it takes longer to get going...M2TW safedisc verifies the disc faster and after the game starts i just remove the dvd..But in the Kingdoms manual it say you have to keep the Kingdoms DVD AT ALL TIMES...is this true?This securerom thing is just slow and annoying if you ask me...and yes i don't like using my DVD everytime i want to play the game...

Didz

09-04-2007, 08:31

Actually no, you buy a license. This means that you can do whatever you want physically with your cd/dvd, but you're not allowed to copy or anything else the game (software), only install it and use it. Only the CD/DVD is yours by legal rights, not the software, you're only allowed to use it.
Wowww! hang on there...basic principles of contract law.

A contract is not a contract unless.....

a) it is legal....

b) both parties are fully aware of the terms at the time the contract was entered into

c) there is measurable consideration

In other words, the contract is made at the time the customer hands over the cash in the shop. That is the only point at which consideration exists on the part of both the contractor (the shop) and the contractee (the customer). The shop provides the product, the customer provides cash.

Anything that happens after that is outside the terms of the contract as there is no consideration.

So, basically the license agreements that pop up as part of the installation process are not contractually binding on the owner of the software as there is no measurable consideration involved at that point on the part of the owner of the software which an english court would recognise as forming a contract.

For the EULA terms to be legally binding the shop would need to get the owner to sign them before handing over the money in the shop, and be able to show that the purchaser fully understood them. Even then, if the contract includes terms which require secret and illegal installation of invasive software onto the contractee's computer, the contractee cannot be forced to accept this as part of the contract as it is illegal.

It would be like a garage saying in their contract for the sale of a car "You can only buy this car, if you allow me to use it next week to rob a bank." The law would never accept that term as binding upon the purchaser, even if they agree to it.

The fact that in this case the purchaser is not made aware of the fact that this product includes a piece of invasive software which is going to embed itself permantently onto their system BEFORE they paid for the game. Means that the acceptance of this fact cannot form part of any contract related to the purchase of the game.

It is in fact a completely seperate issue. In legal terms the game producer is hacking the customers system using the game merely as a trojan horse to get their software onto the purchasers machine, in the same way as a virus writer might embed his malware into a World of Warcraft Mod. This has to be illegal under English law and I suggest we raise this with European Trading Standards as at the very least it is an unacceptable trading practice.

BTW:
The reason it is illegal to copy the content on the CD has nothing to do with the contract at the time of its purchase, or the acceptance of the license agreement that pops up when you instal the game. It is entirely based upon the general and existing legilsation protecting the copywright and intellectual property rights of the supplier which are legally binding on everyone whether they bought the game or not. After all if someone just gave you a copy of Kingdoms you still would not be entitled to copy it, even though you have no contract at all with the supplier.

Airfix

09-04-2007, 08:38

1) Thanks for all the info.
2) Based on what i read abaut Securom i will NOT buy Kingdoms.
3) Even the 600+ MB patch for MTW2 (which solves not all problems!) &%$§%&% me off.
Now i know why eBay was full of MTW2 games shortly after release...
4) Is Securom legal in Germany? I do not know and i am not wealthy enough to take it to court.
5) I enjoy playing MTW2 but CA is going to lose a long time customer.

AussieGiant

09-04-2007, 09:14

Have a read gentlemen.

This is the Bioshock write up on the SecuROM which can be applied to varying degrees to Kingdoms.

It's a good read.

The most important aspect I can see are the very unimpressive disclosure that something is being put on your machine permanently and that fact that only a few hardware changes can cause the problems documented here.

http://www.twitchguru.com/2007/08/27/bioshock_drm/

I'd also like to add that most people should not get intimidated by what is in reality company policy as apposed to the actual LAW.

It's like companies posting their refund policy and giving a whole bunch of conditions on how they will handle it.

In reality that will deter many many many people in the first place. However the fact remains that your rights as protected under actual consumer protection laws are what you should be referring to and not some legalise worded document created by company or industry lawyers.

An example:

I went to New Zealand for a snow boarding holiday. Qantas some how lost my rented snow board between Sydney and Wellington.

When I got back I told the snowboard rental company what happened and they said the replacement cost was about 500 bucks.

I contacted Qantas and they said their company policy was to cover only 250 dollars.

After some entertaining discussions I said to the Qantas rep that I have not interest in their company policy but am more interested in the law as it is stated in New South Wales. I had a lawyer friend write an letter...got the full amount back and more.

These companies survive because as Sapi said, the average punter doesn't have the money the "Test" the legal advise creating these contracts by the software companies who have a lot more cash than you do.

That's why consumer protection and privacy laws are in place. These "Agree" documentations are going to have a hard time fighting actual consumer protection law and privacy law if someone decides to have a go.

Darkarbiter

09-04-2007, 11:25

Didz

09-04-2007, 12:00

I'd also like to add that most people should not get intimidated by what is in reality company policy as apposed to the actual LAW.
There are loads of examples of this....companies often try to con customers into accepting that their company policy is in fact legally binding when it isn't. They do this because most people are stupid and don't know their rights, therefore it saves them money.

Classic examples:

CUSTOMERS PLEASE NOTE: All products purchased in this store are sold on a sight as seen basis, no returns or refunds will be given.
This is rubbish, English law states that all products sold must be 'fit for purpose'. Selling someone something that doesn't work and then refusing to refund them their money is actually a criminal offence. Its Theft.

CUSTOMERS PLEASE NOTE: Refunds will only be made if a valid receipt is produced within 14 days of purchase.
Again...rubbish. Consumer protection legislation states that any faulty goods can be returned at anytime provided that the customer can show that the quality of the product did not meet reasonable expectations. A receipt is not needed as long as the customer can satisfy the court that the product was purchased from that store.

Cars left in this car park are left at the owners own risk.
Rubbish....the owner of the car park is providing a service for a fee. As such under English law he has a duty of care to ensure that the service provided does not place his customers at risk. If he fails to do so he is liable and any number of notices saying otherwise doesn't change a thing.

Nebuchadnezzar

09-04-2007, 12:09

Have a read gentlemen.
I'd also like to add that most people should not get intimidated by what is in reality company policy as apposed to the actual LAW.

It's like companies posting their refund policy and giving a whole bunch of conditions on how they will handle it.

In reality that will deter many many many people in the first place. However the fact remains that your rights as protected under actual consumer protection laws are what you should be referring to and not some legalise worded document created by company or industry lawyers.

Agreements, contracts, licenses are put together by top-of-the-range corporate lawyers not some paralegal uni dropouts. Its most unlikely that they would include anything that conflicts with common law, although admittedly many a cunning lawyer will find leaks in almost anything. Also contracts have precedence over most other rights, provided its not criminal at least in Australia whether you wish to believe this or not. The example above "You can only buy this car, if you allow me to use it next week to rob a bank." is a bad example b/c the contract involves criminal intent. On the other hand if the contract included a clause for a third party to use your car every weekend then you could be bound to these terms whether your rights are eroded or not. This you should have considered before signing. You can breach a contract of coarse, many do but you run the risk of being sued for damages and legal costs which can run into horrendous costs even for just minor cases.

I also think your Qantas example is the exception not the rule. By corporate standards it involves peanuts and any challenge to their policy involves time and money which could easily add up too much more than $500. It's simply way easier to pay so that you just go away. I have seen this a hundred times and I doubt it would have anything to do with being intimidated by a lawyer friend. Corporations are not so easily intimidated, why should they, the people you talk to only work there. Its not as if they are personally being threatened with legal action.

Per Ole

09-04-2007, 15:04

loads of contract laws (sorry, but everything is too much to quote, too much space)

Who deleted my post? was nothing wrong with it. BTW I was not reffering to contract laws, only merchantile laws (or whatever they're called in English). You do not buy the game, you buy the right to use it. (same with all other software unless you're informed otherwise)

crpcarrot

09-04-2007, 15:12

For the same reason as why on some housedoors it says that that house is protected electronically.
You'll get in by throwing in a window, but it can scare people off.

how is this relevant to software??

the software exists to stop copies being made not to stop unauthorised access.

futhermore if u are selling your house u will have to let the buyer know about the security system and give him the choice if he wants it or not. in this case the systems been hidden behind doors etc and when the buyer finds out, he cant remove it. and further more it leaves a window here and there unlockable to the buyer thereby leaving him in otential danger to criminals

@ Nebuchan

your assumption that corporate lawyers are think about every aspect of the law before writing user contracts is not what happens in practice and its very common for companies to include limitation laws that infringe on other statutory laws. classic example is where some shops may say you have to return a product within 3 days if defective. this is clearly against the law when every consumer has the right to return the product within 14 days if not fit for purpose. also there is an underlying principle in Uk law where any clauses grossly unreasonable to one party whether the party agreed to it knowingly or not (even in writing) will be ignored by the court. this may not be tha case in other countries but in the UK we are quite well protected.

TinCow

09-04-2007, 15:20

I'd also like to add that most people should not get intimidated by what is in reality company policy as apposed to the actual LAW.

It's like companies posting their refund policy and giving a whole bunch of conditions on how they will handle it.

In reality that will deter many many many people in the first place. However the fact remains that your rights as protected under actual consumer protection laws are what you should be referring to and not some legalise worded document created by company or industry lawyers.

Very, very true. I recently bought two VPUs that had rebates from eVGA. One was approved, the other rejected due to the fact that they had already given me one rebate. I wrote them a polite (very important, IMO) and formal e-mail in which I summarized the situation, quoted their local jurisdiction contract law, and asked them to correct the 'error.' I got one reply, which stated that the second rebate was approved and apologized for the inconvenience.

Companies will often try to strong-arm you with the law and with their attorneys. When it comes down to it though, you need to remember that it is simply not worth it for them to argue with a customer over a tiny sum of money. They count on their ability to scare you away with a simple message from their general counsel/firm rep, but they don't really have time to deal with you. No company will spend a couple thousand dollars on court fees or out-of-house counsel if they can avoid it by paying a customer a tiny sum. If you are persistent, quote the law (rather than their policies), and polite (again, I cannot emphasize this enough) they will usually give in relatively quickly.

Didz

09-04-2007, 15:21

Who deleted my post? was nothing wrong with it. BTW I was not reffering to contract laws, only merchantile laws (or whatever they're called in English). You do not buy the game, you buy the right to use it. (same with all other software unless you're informed otherwise)
No English court would accept this view when dealing with the purchase of a game.

I agree entirely that most commercial software is purchased in this way.

If I decide I need to instal MS Office on 500 PC's as part of a commercial project I would simple ring MS Sales and order a 500 user license. I would also order as many master disks as I needed to ensure that there were enough for the installation teams. But this would be two seperate orders and thus two seperate contracts.

However, if I were to walk into PC World this afternoon to buy myself a copy of MS Office, merely select the box from the shelf, go to the checkout and pay £120 for it. PC World don't ask me how many licenses I want, nor would they be happy if I simply walked out the store without paying on the grounds that I already had a license to use the product and merely needed a spare installation disk.

Likewise, a kid going into Game to buy a copy of Bioshock doesn't for a minute believe he is buying anything else other than a box containing the game. The shop assistant does nothing to explain that in fact the box, the CD and the manual are free and all he is paying for is the right to use it.

Therefore, the contract is for the purchase of the game and all its components not the right to play the game.

To test this theory just try walking into PC World or Game taking a game off the shelf and walking out without paying. I doubt any store will allow you to do this even if you can prove you don't own a Pc and so have no way of using the software.

"You can only buy this car, if you allow me to use it next week to rob a bank." is a bad example b/c the contract involves criminal intent.
How was this a bad example. It was intended to illustrate that a contract cannot bind either party to comply with terms involving an illegal action, and you seem to have grasped this point very well.

The point being that any contract which requires the purchaser to accept that his system will hacked by the supplier is equally not binding because that too is an illegal act.

Per Ole

09-04-2007, 15:30

While I can understand your logic, I must sadly inform you that you are wrong :P You buy the license to use the game, the physical disk and the box, not the game itself. I find this quite hard to explain in English, but all software you purchase is sold this way.

You are not allowed to edit, copy or anything else the game becouse you don't *own* "the game", you own the right to use it. Most people do not know/care (and therefore, most likely someone at the disk in a cd store doesn't know), but it significally reduces the things you're allowed to do with it.

Daveybaby

09-04-2007, 15:48

Per ole, youre confusing copyright law with consumer law.

If you buy a book, you own that book. The publishers cant come and take it away from you, not even if they offer you your money back - you own that book - thats due to consumer law.

Youre still not entitled to make copies of it (barring exceptions e.g. for academic use etc) - thats due to copyright law.

The two things are entirely separate. Arguing that you dont own software because the license states that youre not allowed to copy it is meaningless. If youve paid outright for something, the owners are not entitled to take it away from you again. If they do so without your permission, it's theft. And youre still not allowed to copy the software (again with certain exceptions e.g. making a backup) regardless of whether you "own" it or not.

Licenses that say things like "you cannot re-sell this game" are on dubious legal ground in many countries (at least in europe - in the US consumers dont have as many rights). I'm waiting with interest for someone to test this in a court of law.

Per Ole

09-04-2007, 16:21

Daveybaby

09-04-2007, 16:33

Screwdrivers are not covered by copyright law. Books and CDs and software are.

The reason youre not allowed to copy software it is nothing to do with the EULA, its because of copyright law. Even if you dont agree to the EULA (both parties have to agree to a license for it to be legally binding) youre still not allowed to copy it. 10 years ago games didnt even come with EULAs - you still werent allowed to copy them.

Also, the EULA cannot remove certain legal rights from you, - these rights are defined by consumer law, and a EULA cannot overrrule them, any more than a EULA could state that "by clicking OK you agree that CA are allowed to come into your house and murder you in your sleep". Even if you click OK, CA are still not allowed to murder you in your sleep.

There is a LOT of stuff in these EULAs that is of questionable legal standing - (e.g. a company's right to withdraw a service that you have paid for, or your right to sell the software on to a third party) and so far none of it has been tested in court.

Edit - sorry misread some of your post, but will add this anyway:

The DMCA and the EUCD make certain things illegal, such as circumventing copy protection - however there is no law that prohibits you from altering software outside of that specific purpose. E.g. if i want to hack my copy of excel to make the add function perform subtraction instead i can do it quite legally. What I cant then do is distribute or sell modified copies of excel.

TinCow

09-04-2007, 16:41

a book and software are two compleatly different things. It's a special case when it commes to software, and that's not becouse of the EULA (it just states it, but same laws would apply even if it wasn't there). It's quite simple, but as I said not many ppl know/care about it. You are not allowed to copy/edit (and a bunch of other things) becouse you don't *own the game*, you own a copy of it and the right to use it.

They're not really that different. The only significant point is that a book is harder to copy due to the fact that it is not stored digitally. Copyright law applies just as much to photocopying a physical book as it does to pirating software. That in itself is not a major issue here. Copyright law is certainly incredibly out-dated and poorly designed to deal with digital media, but it's the actions of 2K and SecuROM themselves that are really in violation of the law here. The more appropriate analogy would be if Bloomsbury Publishing came to your house and repossessed your copy of Harry Potter after you had read it five times.

There is no doubt in my mind that 2K is in heavy violation of both contract and copyright laws on this matter, at least in the US. If I were them, I would be worried about a class action lawsuit.

HoreTore

09-04-2007, 17:37

The more appropriate analogy would be if Bloomsbury Publishing came to your house and repossessed your copy of Harry Potter after you had read it five times.

That's actually both correct and scary. We, as costumers, have somehow accepted that games/software isn't something we can share with others as we like. How would we react if book publishers tried the same thing, by saying that we can't lend a book to more than say 5 people? Would we ever accept such a thing? If not, then why have we accepted it for software?

gardibolt

09-04-2007, 18:23

TinCow

09-04-2007, 18:46

The install limit is particularly scary, since the usual response with any kind of problem with the TW series has always been "re-install." Can't get the patch to work? Reinstall. Graphics issues? Reinstall. Instead of including a proper uninstaller that deletes registry entries, so that end users don't have to muck around in their registries in order to reinstall the game, apparently CA has taken the opposite tack and is making the problem worse by putting in entries that cannot be deleted.

I'm seriously considering cancelling my Kingdoms order. This is ugly.

I want to make it clear that the installation limit discussion refers to Bioshock, NOT M2TW: Kingdoms. This discussion began because both use SecurROM, and it then jumped over the the additional problems that 2K are having with Bioshock. Please do not think that Kingdoms has any kind of installation limit because, as far as I am aware, it does not. It only runs the normal SecurROM copy protection software which, while many consider it bad, is nowhere near as horrible as what has happened with Bioshock.

rvg

09-04-2007, 20:10

mkay, that settles it for good.

*permanently crosses Kingdoms off the To-buy list*

I got screwed by Starforce once, not gonna let Securom do the same thing to me.

Guess it's the "fool me once...fool me twice..." thing.

Orda Khan

09-04-2007, 21:08

It's not only this issue that has confirmed my not purchasing this expansion. Regardless of Sega or CA who are at fault, the end product is a mess IMO

........Orda

Zenicetus

09-04-2007, 21:26

Copyright law is certainly incredibly out-dated and poorly designed to deal with digital media, but it's the actions of 2K and SecuROM themselves that are really in violation of the law here. The more appropriate analogy would be if Bloomsbury Publishing came to your house and repossessed your copy of Harry Potter after you had read it five times.

To complete that analogy, it would be like having the Harry Potter book delivered to your house by a guy who pounded a big nail into the wall of your library, and used it to attach a chain to the book. He says "I'll be back to repossess the book after you read it five times, and oh yeah... sorry about that hole in the wall, but I won't fix that. You'll just have to live with it."

The way CA is using SecureRom in Kingdoms isn't quite that bad, but they're still pounding that nail in the wall, and it stays there when you're finished reading the book.

The Outsider

09-04-2007, 23:20

Gosh! that was a long read i have just read the four pages in one go and i must admit that it was a bit scary :sweatdrop: until now i did not know anyhing about this topic and for gods sake i have already installed stalker, nwn2 and tiberium wars 3 without knowing anything about this programme and the thing is that i was not able to run firt two at all although my sytsem was suitable for handling it and i played tiberium war in uk and i tried to intall it to my pc in cyprus but the game just did not work. Do you know anything about this? sorry for getting of the topic but if see that i will have this kind of problem with kingdoms than i am not buying it although i was dying to play it.:thumbsdown:

SpencerH

09-04-2007, 23:24

Last time I discussed this here it was a bit of a brew-ha-ha between myself and a certain CA member that caused that interesting thread to be closed. Hopefully that wont happen again.

The other point on this issue that hasnt been discussed yet is "fair use".

Copyright law does not prevent me from photocopying a book I own, converting it to a PDF or to text, and reading or using it however I wish. So long as those copies are not distributed to others in any way, I've done nothing illegal. Every time an important "fair use" case has come up before the Supremes, it has been won by the consumer. Yet the gaming industry holds on to the idea they can decide what we can and cannot do with our copy of their software. IMO, they are terrified of the day when the case reaches the Supremes. Perhaps the Bioshock backlash will provide he impetous for change. There has to be a better way for the software industry to protect their investments.

RoadKill

09-05-2007, 00:40

Vuk

09-05-2007, 01:21

I am against such things. I already have StarForce on my computer, but I do not think I will get this. I see a load of potential security breaks. I guess I will have to send it back to Amazon. Good thing I didn't open it.

Vuk

Nebuchadnezzar

09-05-2007, 01:38

How was this a bad example. It was intended to illustrate that a contract cannot bind either party to comply with terms involving an illegal action, and you seem to have grasped this point very well.

The point being that any contract which requires the purchaser to accept that his system will hacked by the supplier is equally not binding because that too is an illegal act.

Very bad example by the simple fact that it has never been established that the bundling of securom crapware in with games and its subsequent installation on gamers PC's is illegal. If anyone feels that it is then they can certainly test this theory with the courts if they so wish. Good luck!

@crpcarrot
Its not uncommon for contracts to contain waivers Edit - removed example. Not intended to suggest basic consumer rights can be waived but other rights. - He may be able to find a lawyer that may convince a court the contract isn't legally binding for whatever reason. The courts may rule in his favour and he will get back his deposit and maybe if hes really lucky a portion of his courts costs. Then the vendor will sue for full cost of purchase, damages and court costs and the buyer will ultimately be either bankrupt or pay several times more than the initial purchase cost.

rvg

09-05-2007, 01:51

Very bad example by the simple fact that it has never been established that the bundling of securom crapware in with games and its subsequent installation on gamers PC's is illegal. If anyone feels that it is then they can certainly test this theory with the courts if they so wish. Good luck!

@crpcarrot
By the way, a contract has precedence where your rights can be waived. If for example consumer laws state a land buyer has a 3 day cooling of period to allow the buyer to change his mind but a contract may also include a clause were the buyer waives his rights to this cooling off period. If he changes his mind tough titties. He may be able to find a lawyer that may convince a court his basic rights were denyed because he was drinking at the time or suchlike. The courts may rule in his favour and he will get back his deposit and maybe if hes really lucky a portion of his courts costs. Then the vendor will sue for full cost of purchase, damages and court costs and the buyer will ultimately be either bankrupt or pay several times more than the initial purchase cost.

You have a point there, Neb. However, I think this discussion has transcended the legal aspects of installing Securom. I don't know whose bright idea it was, but whoever it is, they have pissed off a great many a customer. Now, instead of saving money on piracy prevention they will instead lose money on unbought copies of Kingdoms. I most certainly hope that einstein at Sega/CA/Wherever wakes up unemployed.

Nebuchadnezzar

09-05-2007, 03:27

Just to add a little more which hopefully puts this thread back on track.

Why use Securom. I'll take a wild guess and that would be to stamp out the second hand game business eg ebay and hand-me-down (I finished with it so you can have it now) game business for nothing more than to sell more copies even at the expense of a few fans deserting or jumping ship. The PC game business is all about mega-profits and insta-sales with little or no regard to consumers, quality or service and the current trend is witness to this fact. Has anyone ever got anything better than an auto-response from customer service at CA, SEGA, huh?

No demo, how convenient is that. Smells a little like Bioshock by releasing a demo with the launch of the official game. So that securom issue isn't discovered prematurely and affect the all important sales? mmm?

Have mercy, its only an expansion. So what can we expect in Empires for Heavens sake? Let me guess, a two time install? Yes indeed! Thanks SEGA

and I have no doubt that they will scream how the whole industry is at risk because of piracy.

If all this is getting too much than don't buy Kingdoms or better still write to your local consumer & competition regulatory body with a complaint. Perhaps in the future we can see better government regulations governing this runaway industry that has more characteristics of a scam than it does of a business.

AussieGiant

09-05-2007, 05:28

Well this certainly kicked off nicely :2thumbsup:

As TinCow states there are only some similarities with the secuROM version being used in Bioshock and the one being used on Kingdoms. Keep that in mind.

I'm pretty sure any company would have been told by their own lawyers that it has a substantial amount of risk attached to the strategy that believes they can install permanent files on a person’s private PC under the guise of purchasing an $80 piece of software.

Given the attempt at preventing...what ever they think they are preventing...has failed entirely (see any and all articles about the crack that happened within four days of release), all you have done has annoyed a whole boat load of people that are behaving correctly.

With regards to Bioshock's attempt then I'll summarise.

It's been ill conceived, poorly executed, badly communicated and has a real world impact on the enjoyment of the game and people ability to change basic hardware on their machine.

Guess what…I'd say the money they THOUGHT they were going to make due to this strategy has been ENTIRELY lost with the negative impact this has caused.

I love the phrase “opportunity cost” in economics and this is a classic example of the “opportunity cost” of what they have done.

The meeting goes like this:

Up steps the dude:

Money apparently saved due to the difficulty but not entirely preventable hacking of the machines….$400 000.

Money lost due to sales reductions and unplanned costs due to this being ill conceived, poorly executed, badly communicated and has a real world impact on the enjoyment of the game and people ability to change basic hardware on their machine…$800 000.

Total result…minus $400 000. Oh and I’ve not included the fee we paid Sony for implementing the secuROM solution.

As for someone commenting that corporate lawyers would be unlikely to attempt to have company policy conflict with law...boy I must be cynical, because that is just what I see everywhere and especially when it comes to the IT world and games.

Nebuchadnezzar

09-05-2007, 05:42

As for someone commenting that corporate lawyers would never attempt to have company policy conflict with law...boy I must be cynical, because that is just what I see everywhere and especially when it comes to the IT world and games.

I never said NEVER. I said unlikely and that was in reference to Agreements, contracts, licenses etc. not policies. Who cares about policies?

But anyones interpretation of the law will always differ from others and at the end of the day the only one that matters is the one decided by the courts.

AussieGiant

09-05-2007, 06:41

I never said NEVER. I said unlikely and that was in reference to Agreements, contracts, licenses etc. not policies. Who cares about policies?

But anyones interpretation of the law will always differ from others and at the end of the day the only one that matters is the one decided by the courts.

Totally true and it's those "Licensing Agreement" we all check "I agree" to, that leave a lot to be desired when it come down to it.

I'll change my post from "never" then, because I'd also suggest that it is it more than likely these agreement are designed to protect the purchaser of the legal advise as far as they can get it. Whether it is tested in court is the only real test to thier "attempt" at protection.

Tafferboy

09-05-2007, 06:46

This discussion has gone on for a good four pages (not including the locked thread) and Kingdoms has been released for a few days already, so can we please hear from Sega or CA on this issue? I know some representatives do visit this forum and post replies occasionally.

At the very least, an official confirmation is due to those who still have any doubts as to whether Securom v7 is used on Kingdoms. They and other prospective customers have a right to know this as it may well affect their decision to purchase the game. It isn't fair to have someone buy the game and unknowingly install some 3rd party malware they may come to regret later.

I also like to know if there are any plans for a patch release to remove Securom from my system. Many have taken a stand against the use of this intrusive copy protection and the reasons for this displeasure is clear. I believe many others are still sitting on the fence undecided on whether to purchase Kingdoms until they get an official response on this.

Darkarbiter

09-05-2007, 07:49

Last time I discussed this here it was a bit of a brew-ha-ha between myself and a certain CA member that caused that interesting thread to be closed.
Really?
Certainly I'm sure with the relative popularity of the org this thread has caused 1 less copy or more of kingdoms to be sold (and rightly so). To the issue at hand... I don't think this stops pirating and it hurts consumers.
The need for a cd stops 11 year olds from lending it to their friends but adds nothing.

Didz

09-05-2007, 09:26

While I can understand your logic, I must sadly inform you that you are wrong :P You buy the license to use the game, the physical disk and the box, not the game itself. I find this quite hard to explain in English, but all software you purchase is sold this way.
As Daveybaby has ably explained you are wrong. There are two seperate issues here Contract Law and Copyright Law and you cannot confuse the two.

SpencerH

09-05-2007, 11:35

Really?
Certainly I'm sure with the relative popularity of the org this thread has caused 1 less copy or more of kingdoms to be sold (and rightly so). To the issue at hand... I don't think this stops pirating and it hurts consumers.
The need for a cd stops 11 year olds from lending it to their friends but adds nothing.

Really.

The discussion was about my "right" to make images of the games (for my own use). After it was implied I was a thief it got a "little heated" IIRC.

AussieGiant

09-05-2007, 11:53

That might be true in your country, but in the UK the basic rule is that a consumer cannot waive their consumer rights (even if they want to) and any contract which attempts to force them into doing so is by implication illegal and not binding.

I believe that is the case in Australia also.

The Outsider

09-05-2007, 12:10

does anyone know whether the other games using securom (apart from bioshock) doeslimit the installation times in any way or not i mean for god sake many of my favourite games seems to be using this thing and i didnt even know that, probably many of the probles i encounter with the game was because of this programme.

sapi

09-05-2007, 12:40

Nebuchadnezzar

09-05-2007, 12:42

whatever

AussieGiant

09-05-2007, 13:07

Australian law is much the same as UK as both are based on the westminster system. This is not illegal. In fact it is standard practice with many contracts.

But that is the point I was trying to make Nebuchadnezzar.

Even though it is perhaps not illegal, any time I've seen these contracts attempt to infringe on consumer protection that don't stand up very well.

Especially when you can do the whole; "Big bad software company, against the poor young innocent consumer."

scsscsfanfan

09-05-2007, 13:38

I've been a fan since beta STW, I was always amoung the 1st line to buy the TW games as soon as they reach the shops, but this SecuRom is too disapointing. Tomorrow will be the 1st day Kindom on sale here in Adelaide, I will give it a pass the 1st time. If it still exist in ETW, I guess I won't buy it as well. I will reconsider to buy if this issue gets solved. May be most of the people don't care much and will try the Kingdom anyway, it's a small risk by the sounds of it, but I don't like to take any risk, I wants full control of my own PC, not to say how CA/ SEGA is treating their royal customers .....

Kraggenmor

09-05-2007, 15:21

1) On Aug 31, I installed Kingdoms
2) On Sept 2, I fired up “City of Heroes” (an MMORPG) and it patched itself with a patch released 08/30

When I tried to play “City of Heroe” after patching up on Sunday, if I tried to log in on a character that was in an outside environment the game would lock up before the loading in process finished. One time it did completely load in on a character which was outside – and after loading in I had framerate of less that 1, then it locked up.

I rebooted and tried logging into a different character - at this point I was just trying to log successfully log in on any of my characters - as it happened, the character I tried was in an indoor environment. I was able to move around and do what one normally does, I used the showfps command and found frame rate was only 38 or so. Pretty low for an indoor environment but, acceptable. I then took the character out into the world where you can actually play and boom! Fps dropped to .07 followed by lockup.

After a reboot, I noted that the only difference between the character that loaded in and the two that didn’t was that the one that did was ‘indoors’. I then made a lucky guess and loaded in on a different character who was ‘indoors’. I stayed on that character, without leaving that inside environ to see what would happen and eventually got an “out of memory” system message.

Log out, reboot, fire up task manager, log back in on that character while running task manager and I sit there watching the memory usage escalate.

O.k, it wouldn’t be the first time a CoH patch caused a memory leak so off to the official forums I go to see what is being said about it and…nothing (at this time, I still didn’t know SecuROM was involved with Kingdoms). No one else is squawking about a memory leak or anything. One post that did catch my eye said that CoX would not run after Bioshock was installed. Nothing really concrete there but, it got me thinking that I did just install Kingdoms and other than the patch that is all that happened.

I hop over to the total war forums and find the SecuROM thread and how Kingdoms includes SecuROM which is also used in BioShock yadda.

Hmmmm. So, that installed and now I have a memory leak that I didn’t have before. CoX patches have caused memory leaks in the game before but, there would be more people than just me bitching if that was the case. Maybe I found my culprit?

I rolled back to the restore point that was made just prior to installing Kingdoms and tried CoH, to find the same issues. Then I did a system search and found secuROm was still there. Even though I rolled back to a pre-Kingdoms restorepoint….

I downloaded the reg editing utility that post from Tom’s Hardware mentioned in how to remove secuROM after unistalling the bioshock demo but, that utility didn’t seem run on Vista. (the command line interface window flashes up briefly and goes away)

At this point I may not have enough evidence to satisfy those of you who want the same provenance you would need as if you were a federal judge issuing a warrant but, I do have a problem that didn’t exist before, and I have enough circumstantial evidence to satisfy me that I have my perp. I will keep digging – I have no choice, I pay monthly to play CoH and now I can’t!

As much as I enjoy TW and Kingdoms, it pisses me off that the game installs this software without my knowledge or consent. It pisses me off more that I can’t simply uninstall it when I find out about it and decide I don’t want it. It REALLY pisses me off that this is only a problem for people like me who took the time to go buy a legitimate copy of the game!!! The crakerz and hackers have already cracked the game and removed the secuROM. The people stealing it don’t have to deal with this [censored]!

God! That pisses me off!

FactionHeir

09-05-2007, 15:46

Actually, it seems its getting worse even.

So far, we had been assuming M2TW uses SafeDisc (OK) and Kingdoms uses SecuROM (Intrusive).
Well, looks like it changed.
I've just read elsewhere, that with 1.3, the vanilla M2TW exe file is now also SecuROM 7 rather than SafeDisc.
Of course, not having the 1.3 exe makes it kind of difficult to verify on my end, but if someone who has 1.3 installed (from Kingdoms or elsewhere) would like to check on its protection status (legally) using ProtectionID, that would be useful.

The Stranger

09-05-2007, 15:58

VIQ: CAN I install Kingdoms without internetconnection? Yes or No? Can someone answer this.

crpcarrot

09-05-2007, 17:05

@ stranger
no kingdoms wont work without SECUROM

_Tristan_

09-05-2007, 17:20

@ stranger
no kingdoms wont work without SECUROM

So if I understand correctly, I won't be able to install Kingdoms as my Game PC has no Internet Connection ? Right ?

Praxil

09-05-2007, 17:29

What the...?

A person does not need an internet connection to be able to install M2TW - Kingdoms.

We good? Clear enough?

Tafferboy

09-05-2007, 18:38

TB666

09-05-2007, 18:43

VIQ: CAN I install Kingdoms without internetconnection? Yes or No? Can someone answer this.
Yes you can.
This is not Bioshock.

B-DogKY

09-05-2007, 22:48

OK, someone mentioned that this thread probably caused someone NOT to buy Kingdoms. I admit it, I'm that one. I understand the points made by the people who say it is no big deal, but I am also for people's right to privacy, and thus totally opposed to the idea of any malware being installed on my system. To those people who say it's no big deal, I say this "It's only a game...." If you are willing to give up any of your rights just to play a game I say good on ya. But I won't. Lotsa games out there. If all the companies start adding this to all their games, well, then I play console games. The idea that you cannot remove this securerom by uninstalling the game is absolutely unbelievable to me. Whoever made this decision certainly did NOT "stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night". C'mon Sega or CA or whoever, get your thumbs out your duffs and fix this! It's bad enough what Microsoft is doing to us, but guess what! I need my operating system, although Linux is looking better and better.....I don't need this game. Period.

I'll never forget my excitement when I first purchased Shogun. I thought "wow, finally a game that gets it..." I bought every game since, but now that's all over. Thanks for the memories, CA

later,
B-Dog

Ulstan

09-05-2007, 23:11

ixidor

09-06-2007, 00:46

Yeah, i say "to hell" to this expansion. Well, to tell the true i didn't intend to buy it anyway. Why? Even though i liked the changes made to the 2handers, i completly disagree with the changes made with cavalry. I mean, these are medieval times, the golden times from cavalry. Even in the ancient times the importance of cavalry was showed by alexander (he who prooved how devastating is a frontal charge), by hannibal (and by scipio in the battle of zama, which he won essentially due to his better cavalry), and in the medieval times it got even more importance. Notice how genghis khan created the greatest empire the world had ever seen with an army with basicly 60% cavalry archers and 40% heavy lancers. Anyway, my point is, I think the cavalry power is very much balanced in MTW, and that Kingdoms make it weaker then it actually was.

Noir

09-06-2007, 01:09

Originally posted by ixidor
Well, to tell the true i didn't intend to buy it anyway. Why? Even though i liked the changes made to the 2handers, i completly disagree with the changes made with cavalry. I mean, these are medieval times, the golden times from cavalry. Even in the ancient times the importance of cavalry was showed by alexander (he who prooved how devastating is a frontal charge), by hannibal (and by scipio in the battle of zama, which he won essentially due to his better cavalry), and in the medieval times it got even more importance. Notice how genghis khan created the greatest empire the world had ever seen with an army with basicly 60% cavalry archers and 40% heavy lancers. Anyway, my point is, I think the cavalry power is very much balanced in MTW, and that Kingdoms make it weaker then it actually was.

Apologies for the OT post;

Many historians point out that armies in the medieval times were mostly composed out of infantry that are likely ignored in accounts. Things aren't as black and white as you present them IMO.

From a gameplay perspective the SP game in M2 can be won essentially with all cavalry armies that perform repeated frontal charges - tactics are degraded even to the most basic point of lacking the necessity of using flank attacks with horsemen; light cavalry is practically equally effective in frontal charges against infantry as heavy cavalry(!) Even if the historical accuracy argument would stand (although IMO it definitely doesn't) i'd surely prefer to play a game where tactical thought and maneuvers actually pay off, instead of head on rush charges.

Kingdoms contains gameplay/stat balancing that aims for a more satisfying experience without taking the flavor of the period. It is a pitty to depreciate the effort that actually seems to be the only from the part of CA in order to bring some balance in the very one-sided, gameplay of M2TW. I comment the community members and CA employes that worked to balance kingdoms for their choices and thank them for the effort, hard work and good ideas; if only the vanilla release was similarly treated!

Noir

DragonLord4950

09-06-2007, 01:14

I don't know if anyone realised this yet, but since securom apparently prevents any methods of backing-up the discs, is securom itself then in violation of this part of the liscensing agreement (re-printed verbatim from section d of the liscence conditions):

(d) make copies of the Game Software or any part thereof, except that you may make one (1) copy of the Game Software for backup or archival purposes, or make copies of the materials accompanying the Game Software;

for reference, I am no lawyer, nor do I pretend to be, but according to Title 17, Chapter 1, § 117 of the U.S. Copyright code, I am allowed to make (1) copy of any software program that I puschase a copy of for Archival Purposes only, provided that in the event that I no longer posess the origional copy of the program, that I then destroy the archival copy.

For those of you who want to follow this further, I referenced the website of Cornell University Law School (see this page for the specific section of the code:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000117----000-.html

Just wanted to point this out.

Also, please forgive my being long-winded, the following is my opinion on this issue:
To CA, I have been a loyal customer and fan on the Total War series for many years now, and for the record, I have legally purchased every Total War product I own. I have had absolutely no interest in ever trying to obtain a copy of any Total war product by less than legal means. I have done this because as a fan of the series, I have wanted the sereis to continue. However, since purchasing Kingdoms, and first gearing about the securom rootkit that was attached to the product and the issues that that program causes with other legitimite programs. It has caused me to seriously doubt whether I will continue to loyally purchase your products, or whether I call continue to call myself a fan any more.
I think that although protecting your product from the thieves and pirates of the world is perfectly admirable, if those "protections" intrude on and restrict my ability to enjoy your product and other software programs that I own, I have to wonder why as a customer, that I am being treated as such.

I know that just my voice alone might not have any effect, but if enough people voice thier minds and speak out against this type of restrictive programming, and if enough people from CA read this and realize the effects of what these types of "security" programs do to your customers and fans. Then possibly, we could prevent this sort of issue from occouring with the release of Empires. I hope that can still consider myself a loyal fan and customer when Empires is released as I seriously want to purchase that product when it is released.

I apoligize since it appears that my opinion was longer than my arguement.
But if you read through that entire post, Thank You.

Ramses II CP

09-06-2007, 01:32

While it is worth debating whether or not SecuRom and similar products are actually, technically legal, the fact is they will stand until someone knocks them down. Gamers aren't known for their willingness to pursue long and expensive lawsuits.

My position remains that SecuRom places an unecessary and unusual burden on the purchaser, and I personally won't be buying or recommending Kingdoms until there is, at the very least, a reliable method provided by the game's distributor for the removal of the program upon the uninstallation of the game.

I also want to say that I disapprove of piracy and will never steal a game, but if you want Kingdoms without SecuRom you can find it right now, you just can't do it honorably or legally.

:egypt:

ixidor

09-06-2007, 01:34

Noir, i think you are taking my point to deeply. I know that the fact that cavalry is so powerful may take so of the strategy that most of the hard players like but still, even though sometimes medieval armies lacked cavalry, (which, let's face it, harder to get and mantain), let's face it, several 80 kg man riding 500 kg horses and coming at full speed holding a big spear against simple armored men holding quietly? Of course the damage will be devastating, even in frontal charges, unless the momentum is broken or something (like pikes) can stop them...

fenir

09-06-2007, 05:24

Just some thoughts,

After reading all this, I have several questions/thoughts and observations.

1. If SercRom is placing hidden applications on peoples systems, is this not electricity theft? Have you/we agreed to it's use of our resources? The EULA does not give it this right.

2. If the Above is true, then it maybe, that by acting as a trojan, or rootkit which by definition it is, (if it "phones home, then it is also a Trojan), then are they not also in breach of many countries Privacy Acts. No law gives them this right, not even with a defense of self protection.
As any information must have the individuals' "written" consent?

3. Any item purchased by a consumer, in many English Speaking countires, is simply an offer to treat, Case law, Boots Cash Chemist.
The point of ownership, is when the money changes hands, as consideration has been given and recieved, Therefore a contract has been concluded.
Case law, Byrne.

4. The EULA, is just that, an agreement. And in many countries, holds no legal obligation, nor legal standing. Except where it confines itself to legal precendent, and copyright law.

5. A product offered to consumers, must be of reasonable fitness for use.
I just tried it, it will not install on my system, yet I have one of the most upto date systems you can get. And, i have had no problems with any other of my games. I run Xp on my gaming machine, vista sucks.

6. Sega, Cannot contract out of any obligation of harm done to anyones system by their Products in the following countries: New Zealand, Australia, and i suspect the United Kingdom.
Law of Torts. Consumer Act, Consumer Gurantee Act, Fair trading Act.

7. Sega cannot Contract out of harm done by any third party to a customers system. Again law of Torts.
See 1932, the Ginger beer Case. I think it's called Morrelli. A third Part owes a Duty of Care.
And in Uk, NZ and I think now Australia, The Courts can lift the "Corporate Veil". Also see NZ 1993 Companies Act.
If they could? We would not have a "Law of Torts". Thats why it exists.

8. A EULA cannot contract out of Consumer law, Fair trading Act, Consumer Gurantee Act of the following countries. New Zealand, Australia, United Kingdom. There are more, but i am not familar with their laws.

9. Most EULA are worthless, or more than worthless. As many countries, either do not recognise them, or they aim to circumvent existing laws. In which by definition is illegal, and null and voids the EULA. Except where dealing with Copyright. Patent law is not wholely recognised as concerns software, But mircoshite is trying to change that by setting small self claimed precedents.

Thoughts.
All these companies know who hack the games, but can do nothing about it without opening themselves up to attack. Because they do not gain from these efforts.
Most gain by reputation, not monetarly.
We are told that we can not resell the game. They are resold EVERYWHERE.
Why? Because we own it. We treated with the price offered, we accepted, they accepted. Contract forefilled.
Any further contract, requires consideration.
Simply warning people not delete a file that say "as you may/can not play or install a game", may not be acceptable to the courts due to consideration being exchanged for a product that should be fit for it's purpose, which is to install and allow us to play our game. Not one to be spied on.
But has yet to be tested.
Reason being, There has to be a system in place to protect the consumer. And any object encroaching upon a consumers rights will be looked at in very poor terms. Espeically one used to identify an individual.
The Manual tells us to Put CD in here, and it will run as long as you have a legal copy of M2TW. It is not working, EULA is breached, EULA Breach Consumer law of atleast 3 countries, Fair trading Act Breached, Consumer Gurantee law Breached. :oops:
EULA = worthless, Null and void, except where dealing with copyright.

EULA
End User License "Agreement". I can't find the End User License "Contract", or the consideration needed to forefill this "contract".
EULA is not made known to the Purchaser at the point of Sale. So does not form part of the sale, or the contract at sale.

An agreement is not necessarily binding? A contract is in regards to consideration being given and recieved.

When was the Last time an End User individual was procescuted?

Anyway, like I said, my questions/thoughts and observations.

fenir

Zenicetus

09-06-2007, 05:28

My position remains that SecuRom places an unecessary and unusual burden on the purchaser, and I personally won't be buying or recommending Kingdoms until there is, at the very least, a reliable method provided by the game's distributor for the removal of the program upon the uninstallation of the game.

That's the key point for me, too. The Bioshock game has come up in this thread as a parallel example. Well, I went ahead and bought that game, because 2K has said they'll release a tool for removing SecureRom after the game is uninstalled.

If CA/Sega said they'd do the same for Kingdoms, then I'd buy the expansion. But so far, unless I've missed something, all we're getting is silence from CA and Sega on this issue. So they don't get my money for the expansion. That's the only way we have, as consumers, to make our voices heard.

Nebuchadnezzar

09-06-2007, 06:16

Just some thoughts,

1. If SercRom is placing hidden applications on peoples systems, is this not electricity theft? Have you/we agreed to it's use of our resources? The EULA does not give it this right.

2. If the Above is true, then it maybe, that by acting as a trojan, or rootkit which by definition it is, (if it "phones home, then it is also a Trojan), then are they not also in breach of many countries Privacy Acts. No law gives them this right, not even with a defense of self protection.
As any information must have the individuals' "written" consent?

I don't have Kingdoms but I am sure that SEGA are not that silly as to not include it in the License/EULA. Are they?? Has anyone read it and is there any mention of it?

4. The EULA, is just that, an agreement. And in many countries, holds no legal obligation, nor legal standing. Except where it confines itself to legal precendent, and copyright law.

No! This is simply wrong. It is a license agreement and can constitute a legally binding contract.

6. Sega, Cannot contract out of any obligation of harm done to anyones system by their Products in the following countries: New Zealand, Australia, and i suspect the United Kingdom.
Law of Torts. Consumer Act, Consumer Gurantee Act, Fair trading Act.

7. Sega cannot Contract out of harm done by any third party to a customers system. Again law of Torts.
See 1932, the Ginger beer Case. I think it's called Morrelli. A third Part owes a Duty of Care.
And in Uk, NZ and I think now Australia, The Courts can lift the "Corporate Veil". Also see NZ 1993 Companies Act.
If they could? We would not have a "Law of Torts". Thats why it exists.

What????
The law of Torts is concerned with compensation for personal injury and damage to property. Securom is not going to jump out and hit you nor is it likely to damage your system anymore than other software. Just how many systems has windows damaged yet I don't see a line queueing up to sue them lol...

8. A EULA cannot contract out of Consumer law, Fair trading Act, Consumer Gurantee Act of the following countries. New Zealand, Australia, United Kingdom. There are more, but i am not familar with their laws.

My mistake. Most contracts can't although it doesn't seem to stop them trying.

9. Most EULA are worthless, or more than worthless. As many countries, either do not recognise them, or they aim to circumvent existing laws. In which by definition is illegal, and null and voids the EULA. Except where dealing with Copyright. Patent law is not wholely recognised as concerns software, But mircoshite is trying to change that by setting small self claimed precedents.

See above.

EDIT
Can anyone tell me if this crapware has been bundled with patch 1.3? No way I'm installing this patch until I get the all clear.

Daveybaby

09-06-2007, 08:34

blah blah blah cavalry blah blah
I know i'm not a mod, but this thread is about securom issues, not the balance of cavalry units. We've been very careful not to get the thread locked so far, so please dont derail it in other directions.

Back on topic - there's an interesting page here (http://www.playnoevil.com/serendipity/index.php?/archives/1548-Fair-Use-and-Anti-Piracy-Bill-of-Rights-for-Consumers-and-Best-Practices-for-Industry-A-Proposal.html), where somebody proposes a rating system for DRM software etc.

sapi

09-06-2007, 09:02

"Bioshock/SecuROM also accesses the internet and attempts to bypass firewall permissions at some point during its installation, and installs files in a hidden directory[4] that cannot easily be deleted [5]"

Sounds like a rootkit to me. I find it extremely humorous that it has correctly been identifie as a rootkit by the tool, and then they have to jump around and wave their hands and try to convince you that it's not a rootkit.

I guess that's easier than trying to explain why they think *they* should have the right to install hidden unremovable software on your system.
Rootkits, by definition, are pieces of software which attempt to subvert the usual running of an operating system in order to silently run malicious code. Under this definition, the SecuRom installation is not in fact a rootkit, as its existence is well known and easily verifiable. Issues with removal should not cause people to jump up and down screaming 'rootkit' - it may be bad, for some, but it's not necessarily that.

After reading all this, I have several questions/thoughts and observations.

1. If SercRom is placing hidden applications on peoples systems, is this not electricity theft? Have you/we agreed to it's use of our resources? The EULA does not give it this right.By this justification you could sue every software manufacturer who did not include a specific clause to use your electricity - that is, every single one of them...

2. If the Above is true, then it maybe, that by acting as a trojan, or rootkit which by definition it is, (if it "phones home, then it is also a Trojan), then are they not also in breach of many countries Privacy Acts. No law gives them this right, not even with a defense of self protection.
As any information must have the individuals' "written" consent?As long as no personal information is transmitted, I doubt it'll have any legal problems at all.

4. The EULA, is just that, an agreement. And in many countries, holds no legal obligation, nor legal standing. Except where it confines itself to legal precendent, and copyright law.An EULA remains as the only legal basis for any case of this matter until it itself is challenged and a legal ruling given; if you feel it will not hold up in court, it is your right to test that ~;)

5. A product offered to consumers, must be of reasonable fitness for use.
I just tried it, it will not install on my system, yet I have one of the most upto date systems you can get. And, i have had no problems with any other of my games. I run Xp on my gaming machine, vista sucks.Not a SecuRom issue.

8. A EULA cannot contract out of Consumer law, Fair trading Act, Consumer Gurantee Act of the following countries. New Zealand, Australia, United Kingdom. There are more, but i am not familar with their laws.Please feel free to give a specific example wherein the SecuRom software breaches that law?

9. Most EULA are worthless, or more than worthless. As many countries, either do not recognise them, or they aim to circumvent existing laws. In which by definition is illegal, and null and voids the EULA. Except where dealing with Copyright. Patent law is not wholely recognised as concerns software, But mircoshite is trying to change that by setting small self claimed precedents.
As I said, it remains until challenged ~:)

TB666

09-06-2007, 09:06

That's the key point for me, too. The Bioshock game has come up in this thread as a parallel example. Well, I went ahead and bought that game, because 2K has said they'll release a tool for removing SecureRom after the game is uninstalled.

Can't we use that tool for Kingdoms ??
Or is it Bioshock only ??

alpaca

09-06-2007, 10:01

Oh come on... There's no way to change the copy protection mechanism with a patch because the disc just won't have the right format.
1.3 is still SafeDisc protected and for those who want to be sure, I used ProtectionID to confirm it:

Scanning -> F:\Program Files\SEGA\Medieval II Total War\medieval2.exe
File Type : Exe, Size : 21165576 (0142F608h) Bytes
-> File has 1353224 (014A608h) bytes of appended data starting at offset 012E5000h
[!] Safedisc 4.60.000 detected !
[!] protection level: Standard
[!] Possible CD/DVD-Key or Serial Check -> CDKey
- Scan Took : 2.531 Seconds

Airfix

09-06-2007, 10:06

How to get rid of SecuRom?
Write to support@securom and you get following answer:

Greetings.

Thank you for your email. Please be informed that these files in your UserData folder are used to store licence information for SecuROM protected applications. They were created at the first execution of the protected program. Any manipulation in this folder may cause the SecuROM application to work different than expected. These files are not executables themselves and therefore can't affect your system in any way. Nevertheless if you want to delete the folder please follow the instructions below:

1) Open the command line by pressing "Start" and selecting the "Run..." option.

2) Type "cmd" (without "s) and push the [Enter] button on the keyboard.

3) Please type in the following command: rd /s "%APPDATA%\SecuROM" and press [Enter] on the keyboard.

4) Answer Y to the Y/N question and press [Enter] to complete the process.

Please be informed that the User Access Service is used to launch a SecuROM protected in a non administrator mode, and has nothing to do with spyware or any kind of software like that. If you want to uninstall it please follow the instructions below. Please understand that any application you launch that uses User Access Service will restart it.

1. Open a command line window (Start > Run, type "cmd", click OK).

2. Go to the System32 folder in your main Windows folder (e.g. type "cd C:\winnt\system32", then press enter).

3. Remove User Access Service (Type "UAService7.exe - remove", then press enter).

If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask.

The folder should now be deleted. Please understand that any SecuROM application that uses UserData will rebuild these files and folders with future launches.

Best regards,

SecuROM Support Team
SecuROM on the web: http://www.securom.com
or via e-mail: support@securom.com

To delete files that Windows won`t delete see here:
http://ccollomb.free.fr/unlocker/

markpoll

09-06-2007, 12:09

I have (purchased) copies of all other TW titles and was looking forward to this one, but won't be buying it.

I have no problem with copy protection per se, but on principle, I won't intall software that behaves like this. It makes a game with it an automatic no buy for me.

Didz

09-06-2007, 12:34

No! This is simply wrong. It is a license agreement and constitutes a legally binding contract.
Well that might be true in Australia, but under English Law that simply is not the case.

The contract is agreed and finalised at the counter in the shop where you bought the game. English law states that neither party may then vary the terms of a contract after consideration has been exchanged. Therefore, by implication the EULA which pops -up and asks for your acceptance prior to installation is just noise and is not legally binding on either party.

In fact, if you think about this logically allowing a vendor to vary the terms of their contract with you after you have paid for the product would open a whole raft of potential commercial problems. Therefore, the law is very careful not to allow it to happen.

As I explained before, for the license agreement to be legally binding it would have to be presented, read and agreed to prior to the customer paying for the game.

That is obviously possible if the software is being downloaded off the internet, but for most shop purchases it simply doesn't work like that.

What????
The law of Torts is concerned with compensation for personal injury and damage to property. Securom is not going to jump out and hit you nor is it likely to damage your system anymore than other software. Just how many systems has windows damaged yet I don't see a line queueing up to sue them lol...
A similar issue came up during the Blizzcon debate and I actually got a ruling on it from the Office of Fair Trading. Their view was that if it can be shown that the supplier has incurred a customer in any unecessary expense or inconvience as a result of their actions, or failure to act promptly and appropriately, then the customer is entitled to claim reasonable compensation and damages for any consequences that arise.

The specific issue here being that HMV were not only liable for the £50 cost game that I purchased from them but all my wasted time and effort in attending the launch and the loss of potential value arising from the fact that the product they sold me was known to be faulty at the time they sold it. It worked out in my case to be just under £200 per copy sold.

I can't see why this would be any different for a company like Play.com who have just sold me a game with a potentially damaging piece of hidden software secreted on the disk. So, I would say that if you can prove any damage or inconvenience has been caused by being conned into loading SecuRom onto your PC then you do indeed have a potential case for damages against the company that sold you the game.

katar

09-06-2007, 13:19

sorry... i`m not going to buy Kingdoms, i just dont want that type of program installed on my computer. :thumbsdown:

Didz

09-06-2007, 14:05

Right, I've just spoken to Consumer Direct and they have referred this issue to the UK Office of Fair Trading for a ruling. So, hopefully we will get some sort of official response applicable to the UK in the next couple of days.

If anyone else wants to do likewise the number is 08454 04 05 06 and their website is http://www.consumerdirect.gov.uk/.

Obviously, as with the Blizzcon case the more consumers who ring them the more likely they are to take action.

I have also spoken to Play.Com's cunstomer service line and informed them of the situation. They immediately offerred me a full unconditional refund and assured me that they had no idea that the software they supplied included any additional components. I informed them that the matter had been reported to the UK Office of Fair Trading and that I was awaiting an official ruling. I suspect that might have started a small ripple at Play.com which might filter back to SEGA.

thebigbossnahhh

09-06-2007, 14:05

Does this Programme try to access your Internet Connection for Spying purposes?

Kraggenmor

09-06-2007, 14:11

@AirFix - Thanks! DO you know if that will also remove the registry entires that SecuROM leaves behind?

Nebuchadnezzar

09-06-2007, 14:54

Well that might be true in Australia, but under English Law that simply is not the case.

I do not believe this is the case and I can't see how it would be different in Britain. A sales contract with the shop is a totally different contract regarding its sale. The EULA is a contract to protect the intellectual property (IP) rights of software developers. Check with your consumer body if in doubt.

You are right in one respect that a EULA is a grey area and as yet as far as I am aware has not been challenged in an Australian court.

As I explained before, for the license agreement to be legally binding it would have to be presented, read and agreed to prior to the customer paying for the game.

* Just clicking “I agree” probably binds you to the contract.

* You don’t have to physically sign anything. Some software packages, you may be agreeing to the contract when you remove the shrink-wrap on the package.

* Doesn't matter that you can’t understand licence agreements, onus is on the consumer. You either agree to the terms or you can’t use the software.

Right, I've just spoken to Consumer Direct and they have referred this issue to the UK Office of Fair Trading for a ruling. So, hopefully we will get some sort of official response applicable to the UK in the next couple of days.

I made a complaint to the ACCC (Australian Competition & Consumer Commission) regarding the state of M2TW some time back but I think they ignored me!

Oh come on... There's no way to change the copy protection mechanism with a patch because the disc just won't have the right format.
1.3 is still SafeDisc protected and for those who want to be sure, I used ProtectionID to confirm it:

Well it does seem obvious in hindsight. Nevertheless can't help feel big brother is watching and feeling paranoid about everything and all b/c of Kingdoms. Well that does it. I'm not buying Ecco the Dolphin.

Swoosh So

09-06-2007, 16:42

I dont mind software lurking around, what i do mind is that i cant run kingdoms unless i try about 15 times which takes about 30 minutes, it says im using a backup disk or cant validate in the time limit or something. So back to the shop its going for a refund.

I do use an old creative labs dvd drive but on the box it states dvd rom that can read dual layer disks needed but nothing about the speed.

Daveybaby

09-06-2007, 16:58

Swoosh So - try updating your drive's firmware - sometimes that helps in this sort of situation.

Swoosh So

09-06-2007, 17:18

"Unable to authenticate original disc within time limit."
SecuROM™ has determined you are trying to start the protected application with a backup copy or clone disc. Please refer to the following procedure to remedy:

Please disable all emulators, insert the original disc and re-try.
If the problem persists, please send a SecuROM™ analysis file to support@securom.com (see "Support Info" section on how to do that).

thats from scurerom website help section! lol i buy a full product and go for help and im told im using a clone disc! btw im not sure what firmware is i have a creative labs 6x encore i believe. Ive never had a problem with it with any game even medieval2 untill now. Pretty rediculous it found the game on the disc well enough to install it but now cant run a damn game unless i spend 30 minutes just clicking a damn exe file.

Ulstan

09-06-2007, 17:36

This is a really foolish move by CA. They secretly install malicious software that can't be removed and makes other programs not function correctly.

This is making CA *lose sales*. Some folks I know have decided that instead of paying CA money for a version that installs a rootkit on their machine, they'll simply download the rootkit free version...for free.

Others (and myself) are simply going to hold off on buying Kingdoms until they fix this issue, and will purchase it as soon as they do.

If no fix is forthcoming, well, there are plenty of other games on there. I refuse to install software on my machine that I do not want, that is going to interfere with programs I do want.

TinCow

09-06-2007, 17:50

thats from scurerom website help section! lol i buy a full product and go for help and im told im using a clone disc! btw im not sure what firmware is i have a creative labs 6x encore i believe. Ive never had a problem with it with any game even medieval2 untill now. Pretty rediculous it found the game on the disc well enough to install it but now cant run a damn game unless i spend 30 minutes just clicking a damn exe file.

I had the same problem yesterday with NWN2. It wouldn't run until I turned daemon tools off. Surely I don't need to point out to the SecuROM folks that there are plenty of legitimate uses for disk images.

Swoosh So

09-06-2007, 17:53

i tried it also on my new pc with a fresh install of windows xp and just the sims2 installed, same result.
It would be ironic if i had to use a crack to run a legitamite version of the game, ill try again tonight with the most up to date dvd drivers i can find.

gardibolt

09-06-2007, 18:16

As I said, it remains until challenged ~:)

It won't remain on my computer. I have cancelled my order for Kingdoms. I'm not having a rootkit installed that cannot be removed. If CA sees fit to provide a removal tool I'll reconsider, but for now, CA has challenged us and I'm refusing to play their game.

SpencerH

09-06-2007, 19:10

Please disable all emulators, insert the original disc and re-try. If the problem persists, please send a SecuROM™ analysis file to support@securom.com (see "Support Info" section on how to do that).

This message can mean that you have emulation software (like alcohol or daemon tools) installed on your PC. IIRC Safedisc4 and Securom check for those programs - not that you're using them - just if you have em, and if you do, you cant use your game.

TB666

09-06-2007, 20:34

phonicsmonkey

09-07-2007, 00:28

This message can mean that you have emulation software (like alcohol or daemon tools) installed on your PC. IIRC Safedisc4 and Securom check for those programs - not that you're using them - just if you have em, and if you do, you cant use your game.

Sorry but that is just not true in this case.

I have Daemon tools installed and I'm running Kingdoms just fine.

Let's all try to stick to the facts and avoid this very useful thread getting confused with speculation and hearsay.

I for one am monitoring this situation very closely, despite having made a decision to install the expansion and take a risk.

SpencerH

09-07-2007, 02:38

Sorry but that is just not true in this case.

I have Daemon tools installed and I'm running Kingdoms just fine.

Let's all try to stick to the facts and avoid this very useful thread getting confused with speculation and hearsay.

I for one am monitoring this situation very closely, despite having made a decision to install the expansion and take a risk.

I said CAN HAVE and IIRC in trying to answer a message that Swoosh So didnt understand at all. Maybe you should monitor the english language along with "the situation". Safedisc4 definitely looked for alcohol and I thought I recalled (perhaps wrongly) that Securom did too. MEA ******* CULPA!

Bellum

09-07-2007, 03:45

I boycotted Bioshock, but bought and installed Kingdoms too late to do anything. I suppose I'll have to be parinoid and check out every new game I buy now. *sigh*

I don't mind the software, actually. I'm not all that worried about the security of this computer. It's the principle of the matter. So I suppose if EB2 comes out for Kingdoms it will be worth it, I suppose. Because I'd gladly sell my soul for EB2.

phonicsmonkey

09-07-2007, 03:52

MEA ******* CULPA!

LOL!

apologies if I came across a little sanctimonious there, I didn't mean to

I've read the whole of this thread and in doing so heard a lot of scary things about Securom, many of which are very difficult to verify

so my intention was just to politely request that people refrain from posting things which were not backed up by actual experience, for the benefit of those of us who are worried about this and trying to get to the truth of the matter

now I'm off to monitor the English language

laters

HoreTore

09-07-2007, 07:26

* Just clicking “I agree” probably binds you to the contract.

* You don’t have to physically sign anything. Some software packages, you may be agreeing to the contract when you remove the shrink-wrap on the package.

* Doesn't matter that you can’t understand licence agreements, onus is on the consumer. You either agree to the terms or you can’t use the software.

That's simply not true. Law trumps EULA. Every single time. It's as simple as that, really. Yes, you agree to it, and you agree to bind yourself to it. HOWEVER, if what is said is not valid under your legal system, then it's worth absolutely nothing.

For example, if someone writes "it's illegal to share this software with friends" in the EULA, and you hit the agree button, thus binding you to that. However, since the law says that you can share it with your friend, then that EULA can go burn.

Btw(and completely off topic), I agreed to an EULA that prohibited me from using that software to create biological, chemical or nuclear weapons....

....it was iTunes.

Airfix

09-07-2007, 10:27

@AirFix - Thanks! DO you know if that will also remove the registry entires that SecuROM leaves behind?

You are welcome.
I do not know, sorry

To put something with substance into the legal issue.

Company behaviors considered illegal by state Attorneys General:

1) State of New York
Employing deceptive methods to prevent users from detecting and removing installed software, including: not making the software accessible in the "All Programs" or "Programs" list, hiding the software in folders not usually associated with programs, not listing the software in the "Add/Remove Programs" utility, not providing an uninstall utility for the software, and reinstalling the software after a user has deleted it.

2) State of Texas
Secretly installing files on a user's computer before the user has consented to the installation.

Failing to provide an uninstall utility for files secretly installed before a user has consented to the installation.

3) People of the State of California
Failing to adequately disclose that DRM software uses cloaking technology to hide itself on users’ computers.

Source: http://www.cdt.org/privacy/spyware/20060626spyware-enforcement-state.php

gardibolt

09-07-2007, 17:17

Can people please stop saying CA all the time ??
Seriously, they got nothing to do with this, developers rarely have a say on copy protection.
If you wanna vent your anger, pick the one that did put it on Kingdoms, SEGA.

SEGA doesn't read these forums. CA does. If CA hears enough people complaining about these things, they'll take it to SEGA and let them know it's costing them sales. Then things may change.

TB666

09-07-2007, 17:42

Ah yes that tactic worked fine during RTW.
Attack CA for activision's mistake.
Yep, worked perfectly

Not.
All it did was pushing them further into their shell.
It wasn't until people cooled down and stopped blaming them for choices they did not do that they became open again.
And SEGA does read the forums.

So stop blaming CA and blame SEGA.

FactionHeir

09-07-2007, 17:44

How do you know SEGA reps read this particular forum and care about the content?

TB666

09-07-2007, 17:58

How do you know SEGA reps read this particular forum and care about the content?
Because they have stated that they read the forums and since the Securom issue has popped up on the .com the chances are doubled.
Now if they actually care about the Securom issue however is another matter and is something we will see in either 2 responses, 1. they release tools to remove it or 2. they don't.
Only they can decide.

And if they happened to miss this particular thread then chances are higher that CA haven't.
And what will/do they see when they look at this thread ??
Them getting attacked for something they have no control over.
Again.
Not only is it a nasty reminder of how things were when RTW was released but it shows that once again the fanbase can't tell the difference between what CA does and a companies like SEGA does.
Are we gonna have people write to Gamespot again only to get an answer back that they didn't wanna hear ??
So shall we stop this madness before it goes out of control(again) and stop saying "CA did this, CA did that", stop beating that dead horse and actually complain to the real people behind this decision ??
I think we should.:2thumbsup:

The Stranger

09-07-2007, 18:11

TB666

09-07-2007, 18:25

gardibolt

09-07-2007, 19:37

In any event, I wasn't attacking CA. I just told them I wasn't buying Kingdoms because of this. Not an attack, but something I'd want to know if I were them.

Zenicetus

09-07-2007, 19:56

So shall we stop this madness before it goes out of control(again) and stop saying "CA did this, CA did that", stop beating that dead horse and actually complain to the real people behind this decision ??
I think we should

No, that's hair-splitting the difference between these two companies, when they're actually tied up in the same business operation.

It's entirely accurate and reasonable for me to say "CA isn't going to get my money for the Kingdoms expansion unless I hear that they're doing something about the files SecureRom leaves behind on my computer". That is, unless you think CA never gets a penny for sales of the expansion. If they're profiting from sales, then they're involved in this.

CA might not have known the DRM was going to go out with the expansion, but now that they do know it's there, they have a responsibility to work with Sega on resolving the issue (if they care to). If they don't care about it, that's fine too... there are plenty of other games out there I can buy. This isn't only about Sega, it's about CA's reputation being on the line too, and whether or not I pay attention to future releases by that company, whoever their publisher is.

Zenicetus

09-07-2007, 20:05

Allright, I can install without internetconnection, clear. Assuming that securom is with Kingdoms, what use does it have one a PC that has no internet, they can't update nor report to Sega... so what harm could it do or what use does it have on a PC without internet?

The "harm" it does is subjective, and it depends on how you feel about a program installing hidden files, that not only aren't automatically removed when you uninstall the game, but that you actually can't remove yourself by any normal method. Potentially, it's a back door for hackers who might be able to exploit the registry entries. Potentially, it's a future headache for anti-virus programs and rootkit detectors that will flag the file because it resembles known rootkit methods. So it depends on whether you want to allow this on your computer, and deal with any future hassles because of it.

My personal take on it, is that it's a nasty, arrogant form of copy protection, but it's not as nasty as true rootkit-like DRM like Starforce, which Ubi (among others) was forced to drop. If CA/Sega came out and said "we'll release a utility that completely removes SecureRom after the game is uninstalled," then I'd be comfortable buying Kingdoms. So far... silence.... so my money stays in my wallet. Everyone will have to make their own decisions about this.

P.S. on the "official" SecureRom removal tips posted earlier... I'd like some verification that it's a clean wipe, and doesn't leave hidden registry keys. I'm certainly not going to take SecureRom's word for it. And a solution for this really should come from CA/Sega, since they're the immediate cause of the problem (it's their disk I'd be loading into my drive to install this crap), and they should be made to understand that they're risking lost sales because of it.

Swoosh So

09-08-2007, 14:36

Hey davebaby thanks alot changing the drivers worked, btw guys what an excelltent expansion this is single player* you would have to be crazy to miss out on the excellent crusades campaign for a start just cause of some registry entry!

The Stranger

09-08-2007, 19:45

King Bob VI

09-08-2007, 19:53

OTQ: IS kingdoms worth it? Is it an improvement of MTW2 and a good game? are there any gamebreaking bugs discovered yet or not?
Yes, yes, and No. You should get it unless the Securom thing really bothers you.

Zenicetus

09-08-2007, 20:02

@Zenicetus, so if I understand it good enough it means that it actually only makes problems with a PC with internet, I mean hackers and firewalls... So if you dont have internet on your PC those 2 problems are not an issue, so apart from the fact that it installs stuff without letting you know those 2 are the only or main problems? IF thats it ill buy the game when the price drops, play it one day entirely and return it if i dont like it...

If you don't have your gaming PC hooked up to the Internet, then I guess you don't have to worry about anyone hacking it for back door access. The hidden files might still be flagged by current or future anti-virus software, but maybe you're not running any if you're not online?

BTW: You've did you intentionally miswrote your sig? if so what does the last word mean...

That's what one of the Mongol generals says in M2TW, when you click his icon on the strategy map -- "fear is a weapon, wise generals use well", but the hiliarious voice acting sounds like something out of an old Fu Manchu or Charlie Chan movie, where the villain swallows all the "L"'s. I just wrote out what I heard. :laugh4: I would have loved to have been there, during that recording session for the game. I'll bet they were all cracking up.

Csargo

09-08-2007, 20:43

https://img255.imageshack.us/img255/2996/threadhn9.jpg

Didz

09-09-2007, 09:28

Does this Programme try to access your Internet Connection for Spying purposes?
Looking at the marketing blurb on the SecuRom site this software comes with a number of different options.

The basic SecuCD-R and Electronic CD-Key encryption options seem to have no need to access the internet at all. They claim to be totally self-sufficient in the way they operate.

However, if you look here you will see that SecuRom are offering a number of additional (value-added) options to the basic system. http://www.securom.com/solution_market.asp

The most worrying of which is n-cd. n-cd is blatantly a spyware option, Securom actually highlight the fact that it can be used to 'Collect valuable customer data for 1 : 1 marketing activities' that means it must be monitoring your usage of your PC and reporting this information back to its owner.

Another optional feature will be the ability to force the user to access specific websites of the owners chioce automatically when the CD is placed in the drive. The selling point here being that the customer can also be prevented from accessing certain websites unless the CD is in the drive, but as the trigger is an executable, it also has the ability to access the internet and open the website for you. The potential commercial value of this is obvious and would be one stage better than the annoying pop-up problem we currently have to endure thanks to the desires of commercial marketing.

It also worth noting that not only are SecuRom distributing this program as a .EXE file, (Which is something we are all told never to download onto our PC's) they are also selling SecuRom toolkits to allow their customers to produce there own encrypted .EXE files for distribution by them. The only service SecuRom offer in this case is CD burning and distribution.

The implications of this would seem obvious. If a customer can produce their own personal variation of SecuRom, then the security of our systems is not even protected by whatever commercial integrity Sony may have in ensuring that the content of the .exe file is controlled.

Basically, any commercial customer of SecuRom could edit the content of the .exe file to suit their own aims, and more importantly it means that SecuRom Toolkits are going to be floating around commercial offices all round the world for hackers and other less desirable individuals to lay hands on and expliot.

Because we are merely the customer, and therefore have no control over this process, we have no way of knowing whether a disc has Securom on it, or what options the disc supplier has taken, or what the SecuRom.exe file might have been programmed to do and by whom. Therefore, our systems are completely at the mercy of person or persons unknown, and under normal circumstances the average customer would have no way of knowing that his system has been hacked by this program at all, as it does not announce its presence or ask our permission before installing itself on our PC's.

alpaca

09-09-2007, 11:37

Well as far as I can tell from what people say however SEGA didn't use a version with an executable in this case. So that's not exactly the problem.
I just don't like it on principle to have things installed in folders that I didn't even know were there, registry keys created I didn't expect and in general being forced to shut down cd-image mounting programs.

Didz

09-09-2007, 14:04

I do not believe this is the case and I can't see how it would be different in Britain. A sales contract with the shop is a totally different contract regarding its sale. The EULA is a contract to protect the intellectual property (IP) rights of software developers. Check with your consumer body if in doubt.
I am but I'm pretty sure that under English law, you cannot change the terms of a contract after consideration has been exchanged.

As I said before....this is completely different when buying software for commericial organisations because there you do contract for the purchase of blocks of licenses and the software itself is free.

However, even in the commercial sector the vendor is not allowed to change the terms of the contract after consideration has been exchanged, and I have actually been involved in cases where suppliers have tried to impose terms on the purchaser by printing information on their invoices, or in some cases on their user agreements after the order has been placed, and in every case the English courts have ruled that these terms were invalid.

* Just clicking “I agree” probably binds you to the contract.
Again...I think you will find that that is not the case in the UK. The basic issue is that there is no consideration being exchanged at that point and therefore there is no contract.

More importantly, you already have a valid contract for the supply of the game, which you entered into with the retailer and for which consideration was paid. Therefore, any attempt to change the terms of this contract would be deemed illegal under English Law.

* You don’t have to physically sign anything. Some software packages, you may be agreeing to the contract when you remove the shrink-wrap on the package.
Nope! again merely removing the shrink wrap on a box is not consideration. Particularly if you have already paid for the box and its contents. At that point you actually own the box and everything in it and nobody at that point can impose any further restriction on what you do with it.

* Doesn't matter that you can’t understand licence agreements, onus is on the consumer. You either agree to the terms or you can’t use the software.
As the terms are not binding this is not the case. The license agreement is nothing but noise and can be ignored. The only thing restricting your use of software purchased from a retailer are the existing and overarching laws relating to copyright and intellectual property.

I am interested to get an official ruling on this as I'm not sure if anyone has actually challenged this in a court of law before. The usual way of prosecuting software pirates is to use the standard laws, I'm not aware of any gaming company trying to actually enforce its licensing agreement. I suspect they would just get laughed at.

The Stranger

09-09-2007, 16:00

If you don't have your gaming PC hooked up to the Internet, then I guess you don't have to worry about anyone hacking it for back door access. The hidden files might still be flagged by current or future anti-virus software, but maybe you're not running any if you're not online?

That's what one of the Mongol generals says in M2TW, when you click his icon on the strategy map -- "fear is a weapon, wise generals use well", but the hiliarious voice acting sounds like something out of an old Fu Manchu or Charlie Chan movie, where the villain swallows all the "L"'s. I just wrote out what I heard. :laugh4: I would have loved to have been there, during that recording session for the game. I'll bet they were all cracking up.

im not running any firewalls... allright.. im convinced... im going to try it...

thanx:2thumbsup:

Nebuchadnezzar

09-10-2007, 05:52

I am but I'm pretty sure that under English law, you cannot change the terms of a contract after consideration has been exchanged.

Nope! again merely removing the shrink wrap on a box is not consideration. Particularly if you have already paid for the box and its contents. At that point you actually own the box and everything in it and nobody at that point can impose any further restriction on what you do with it.

When you buy software you own nothing but the wrapping and the physical cd but not whats on it! What you also get is a licence to use it under strict conditions. Similar to a rental agreement only more attractivaly wrapped to create an impression that the buyer is actually buying something more tangible than only a licence.

More importantly, you already have a valid contract for the supply of the game, which you entered into with the retailer and for which consideration was paid. Therefore, any attempt to change the terms of this contract would be deemed illegal under English Law.

Lets assume that EULA's are illegal under English Law (therefore same would probably hold true in Australia) then logically it would be illegal to bundle a EULA within the software. This is clearly not the case as I am sure all software and pc games (and in some cases music CD's and movie DVD's?) are sold with a full EULA included.

As the terms are not binding this is not the case. The license agreement is nothing but noise and can be ignored. The only thing restricting your use of software purchased from a retailer are the existing and overarching laws relating to copyright and intellectual property.

I am interested to get an official ruling on this as I'm not sure if anyone has actually challenged this in a court of law before. The usual way of prosecuting software pirates is to use the standard laws, I'm not aware of any gaming company trying to actually enforce its licensing agreement. I suspect they would just get laughed at.

As stated previously a EULA was originally developed to protect the intellectual property rights of software developers but the question remains can what essentially amounts to copyright licence be turned into a contract? Until a court rules otherwise the answer probably remains as an affirmative and as yet that has not been challenged in Australia.

Nevertheless the law regarding shrinkwrap, clickwrap and browsewrap licenses remains, in many respects unclear. But keep in mind it is corporations like Microsoft, Adobe etc that are endorsing more invasive and controversial legislation regarding copyright & Intellectual property laws. This is understandable since they do have a vested interest to do so which according to their reasoning would minimize piracy and therefore increase sales.

Having read a few recent cases regarding this shrinkwrap licences I would hardly describe it as something someone would laugh at. Sadly, more recent cases in the US seem to very much rule in favour of corporations. On the other hand European cases seem to favour the poor consumer which for some bazaar reasoning is always portrayed as a victim.

Realistically an individual has no real financial means to challenge a corporation which have become adept at drawing out court cases to the point of bankrupcy.

Interesting reading here
http://www.bellevuelinux.org/eula.html

Temujin

09-10-2007, 09:46

Similar to a rental agreement only more attractivaly wrapped to create an impression that the buyer is actually buying something more tangible than only a licence.
In my country, misrepresenting a product for sale or the nature of an agreement is considered fraud, punishable by fines and/or imprisonment. I sincerely doubt that this is what the game industry is doing when they wrap up their products in nice packaging.

Lets assume that EULA's are illegal under English Law
If English Law is anything like Danish Law, you assume incorrectly. EULAs are not illegal, they are simply not legally binding. Writing any kind of BS on a piece of paper and calling it an "agreement" or "contract" does not make it so. EULAs are no more legally binding than the writing on the receipt.

As stated previously a EULA was originally developed to protect the intellectual property rights of software developers
No. EULAs do no such thing, as IP rights are governed by applicable law.

EULAs were developed to push the corporate interpretation of the law on their customers. They are a PR efforts, nothing more.

Having read a few recent cases regarding this shrinkwrap licences I would hardly describe it as something someone would laugh at.
Links, please.

Interesting reading here
http://www.bellevuelinux.org/eula.html
A Linux site telling us that EULAs are really pacts with the devil, and that we should stay away from commercial software in favor of free software (incidently what they are trying to "sell"), is interesting?
Have you no critical reading skills whatsoever?

Didz

09-10-2007, 09:59

When you buy software you own nothing but the wrapping and the physical cd but not whats on it! What you also get is a licence to use it under strict conditions. Similar to a rental agreement only more attractivaly wrapped to create an impression that the buyer is actually buying something more tangible than only a licence.
Again, not in the UK. In the UK the essence of the contract is agree at point of sale, thus whatever the parties agree at the counter in the store (or the checkout of the electronic webstore) is the contract.

The customer is never informed prior to payment that he is not buying the software. He is allowed to beleive that he is buying the game, that means the entire product including the software. As that is the understanding at point of sale, then that is the essence of the contract entered into by the customer and anything that comes after that is not binding on either party.

This actually makes a lot of sense legally. If you think about it, if you were correct and all the customer was buying was the wrapping and physical CD then the customer would have no legal recourse to complain to the retailer if the software on the CD did not instal or work properly.

If the software on the CD was not included in the contract between the retailer and customer then the retailer would not be legally responsible for its quality, or indeed whether it existed at all. The only recourse the customer would have against the retailer would be if the packaging was defective or the CD was missing from the box. If the software was defective his only recourse would be against the software designers as by your argument his contract for the software would be with them, not the retailers.

The fact that this is not the case belies the fact that in the UK this is not the true. When you buy a game from a retailer you are paying FOR THE GAME, including the software, and the retailer is contractually responsible for the existence, quality and fitness for purpose of the entire product.

Thus, if the game does not run properly, you can take the game back to the shop and insist on your money back for failure to comply with the terms of the original contract.

Lets assume that EULA's are illegal under English Law (therefore same would probably hold true in Australia) then logically it would be illegal to bundle a EULA within the software. This is clearly not the case as I am sure all software and pc games (and in some cases music CD's and movie DVD's?) are sold with a full EULA included.
No thats playing with words....the EULA's are illegal in that they attempt to vary the terms of an existing contract. In actual fact they are attempting to impose terms on a contract which the writers of the EULA are not even a party too. Attempting to do this is not legal but its not an offence, in fact I have given several examples during this discussion of ways commercial companies try to con their customers into believing that they are able to do this, the most common being the printing of sale conditions on invoices, and signs in shops limiting the time you have to return goods. There is nothing to prevent a retailer doing this but attempting to enforce these conditions would fail and could result in prosecution for unfair trading practices.

So, basically software companies are free to bunble whatever legal looking crap they like inside the CD box and on the CD, but it doesn't mean anything, and if they attempted to take action to enforce any of it they could become liable for prosecution.

As stated previously a EULA was originally developed to protect the intellectual property rights of software developers but the question remains can what essentially amounts to copyright licence be turned into a contract? Until a court rules otherwise the answer probably remains as an affirmative and as yet that has not been challenged in Australia.
Thats not the case either....EULA's are not necessary to protect copyright or IP. Such things are protected under English Law in general along with all other such products. The reason we cannot see any case law confirming whether an EULA is enforcable or not, is quite simply because nobody has ever tried to enforce one.

Its not necessary, because the property is protected without it, and it would not be enforcable anyway because it was never the subject of a binding contract. As such it is just ignored by the customer and never becomes an issue to be challenged or enforced in court.

This is partly the reason why when I rang the OFT they were unable to give me an 'off the cuff' ruling, and presumably why they referred the issue up the chain for consideration. In fact, the SecuRom issue may be just be the catalyst that brings this issue to court, as SecuRom is being used to impose additional conditions on a contract (e.g. you may only instal this game 5 times) after the contract has been agreed. That IS an offence under English Law and could be challenged by a customer in a court.

Logic would suggest that any customer who buys a game which has been secretly restricted in this way, could take the retailer they bought it from to court and claim compensation for imposing a restriction on the use of the product which they did not disclose prior to purchase. This would then force the courts to make a ruling on whether this action is legal or not and that in turn would clarify the case law relating to all EULA's and their means of enforcement.

crpcarrot

09-10-2007, 12:12

@ Nebuchadnezzar

may i ask what u base your assumption that UK courts will take the same view as Austrailian courts on?

although most common wealth countries have the same old english law that that their thie legislature is built on, it dioes not necessarily mean they are applied in the same way today.

As you say american courts always take different view to european courts and i personally think the european courts have got it right. its the consumer who need protection not the corporation. they have enough money to employ the biggest lawyers to represent them consumers do not.

also would like to point out that UK courts always apply a test of reasonableness to any contract. i have first hand knowledge where 2 parties were operating undercontract for several years which was signed under no duress or misinformation. however the contrct was drawn out in a way that was totoally biased to one party and restrictive to the other. although the disavantaged party was fully aware of what they were signing (they didnt pay attention to detail due to personal trust) a majortiy of the ureasonably restrictive claused were ignored by the courts.

the point i'm trying to make is that any contract even if signed properly with full information will still not be binding if unreasonable to one party. similarly just because an EULA exists doesnt make it binding.

another point is that wheather ot not the EULA is legal/reasonable or binding does not matter if the vendor has not taken enough steps to ensure that the customer is aware of any limitation cluases. having clicked to the agreement is not going to be enough as the courts will look at the practical reality of what people actually do when they install software. i doubt enough people actially read an EULA or even understand it for it be legally binding.

Nebuchadnezzar

09-10-2007, 12:33

Again, not in the UK. In the UK the essence of the contract is agree at point of sale, thus whatever the parties agree at the counter in the store (or the checkout of the electronic webstore) is the contract.

The customer is never informed prior to payment that he is not buying the software. He is allowed to beleive that he is buying the game, that means the entire product including the software. As that is the understanding at point of sale, then that is the essence of the contract entered into by the customer and anything that comes after that is not binding on either party.

This actually makes a lot of sense legally. If you think about it, if you were correct and all the customer was buying was the wrapping and physical CD then the customer would have no legal recourse to complain to the retailer if the software on the CD did not instal or work properly.

If the software on the CD was not included in the contract between the retailer and customer then the retailer would not be legally responsible for its quality, or indeed whether it existed at all. The only recourse the customer would have against the retailer would be if the packaging was defective or the CD was missing from the box. If the software was defective his only recourse would be against the software designers as by your argument his contract for the software would be with them, not the retailers.

The fact that this is not the case belies the fact that in the UK this is not the true. When you buy a game from a retailer you are paying FOR THE GAME, including the software, and the retailer is contractually responsible for the existence, quality and fitness for purpose of the entire product.

Thus, if the game does not run properly, you can take the game back to the shop and insist on your money back for failure to comply with the terms of the original contract.

No. The wrapping, physical CD and the licence to use the game/software on the CD.

Off coarse they have recourse. It includes a warranty and the usual trade practices act, consumer act etc...

If you think you own it for $50.00 or whatever so install it on as many computers as you like, make as many copies as you wish and sell them off at a lower cost. Your kidding me right?

Thats not the case either....EULA's are not necessary to protect copyright or IP. Such things are protected under English Law in general along with all other such products. The reason we cannot see any case law confirming whether an EULA is enforcable or not, is quite simply because nobody has ever tried to enforce one.

A EULA nowadays includes many additions including any restrictions of use, disclaimers, warranties, support information and reminders of statutory rights to consumers just to name a few.

Your kidding me right. Adobe, Microsoft not enforce their EULA's
Where have you been lol...

Believe me. There are enough case reports, all you need to do is a bit of searching.

@Tamujin

What am I, your legal rep? Go and search your own links out. At the same time why not discover a book.

Temujin

09-10-2007, 13:43

@Tamujin

What am I, your legal rep? Go and search your own links out.
I have searched, and can find nothing on "recent cases regarding this shrinkwrap licences" where such things were enforced. I did find this, though:
http://www.freibrun.com/articles/articl22.htm
A clear example of a shrink-wrap license not holding up in court, in the "corp-friendly" US of A no less.

You claimed to have read of recent cases where such licenses were upheld. I politely request that you back that claim up with actual information.

At the same time why not discover a book.
And what the **** is that supposed to mean?!?

TinCow

09-10-2007, 15:41

Again...I think you will find that that is not the case in the UK. The basic issue is that there is no consideration being exchanged at that point and therefore there is no contract.

More importantly, you already have a valid contract for the supply of the game, which you entered into with the retailer and for which consideration was paid. Therefore, any attempt to change the terms of this contract would be deemed illegal under English Law.

This is a very interesting take on it. My gut reaction is to say that the payment to the retailer is the consideration, because the retailer is a licensed agent of the copyright holder. That would make the payment price the consideration for the EULA contract. That said, it would only work if the company you bought the game from really was acting as an agent. I wonder if all retailers have contractual agreements with the publishers?

However, even if the retailer was an agent of the publisher for the purposes of the original purpose, I doubt they are for the purpose of selling used games. I know that one of the reasons EB/Gamestop pushes used games so heavily is because they do not have to pay any royalties to the publisher for those sales. If no money is going back to the publisher, I cannot imagine that it can be considered the act of an agent. This would mean that there is no way for consideration to be exchanged with the publisher when buying a used game. Thus the EULA would be an invalid contract because of a lack of consideration.

Didz, I am very impressed. That is a line of legal analysis I had never even thought of before. I'm going to ask around the office and see what some of the other attorneys think.

FactionHeir

09-10-2007, 15:56

I'm not sure on this, but doesn't the agent (seller) pay the publisher to get the game on the shelf and the actual sale basically pays back the price of the game to the seller plus a bit more (which is the difference between amount paid to publisher and sold to consumer)?
At least I remember a friend who runs a bookstore telling me that he has to buy the books from the publisher and they basically belong to him, although he can send back a reasonable amount for reimbursement at times. Usually he jsut gets the difference or a royalty agreed witht he publisher when buying the books to sell.

TinCow

09-10-2007, 16:09

Yep, which is why the used game market is a major focus for game retailers. They do not have to pay royalties on them. So, even though the game originall retails for $50, the retailer may only get $5 of that. In contrast, the same game that sells for $30 used results in $30 for the retailer, so it is far more profitable, even though it sells at a lower price.

SpencerH

09-10-2007, 23:24

If you think you own it for $50.00 or whatever so install it on as many computers as you like, make as many copies as you wish and sell them off at a lower cost. Your kidding me right?

"Fair use" means I can install it on as many computers as I like (so long as I only play it on one at a time) and I can make as many copies as I like so long as I dont infringe on their copyright ie I dont sell the copies or give them to non-licence holders others to use.

Didz is correct in that companies make all kinds of statements that have no legal bearing whatever. They just count on an unsophisticated public to believe their statements are legally backed in some way. One of the more common ones here are signs on gravel trucks saying "keep back 300 ft - not responsible for broken windshields". I always laugh when I see those.

jepva

09-10-2007, 23:30

SpencerH

09-11-2007, 01:16

I recently paid $4000 for a computer solely for use as a gaming platform. I don't even have a word processing program on this thing. I have a package from Amazon waiting for me at home. Guess what's in it? Guess what will be going back to Amazon tomorrow morning?

That seems a little extreme to me. If I had $4000 for a gaming machine and I liked M2TW enough to buy kingdoms I'd play it. Re-formatting the drive when you're though isnt that big a deal. I guess you're playing other games though or maybe you're extremely principled.

Zenicetus

09-11-2007, 01:46

That seems a little extreme to me. If I had $4000 for a gaming machine and I liked M2TW enough to buy kingdoms I'd play it. Re-formatting the drive when you're though isnt that big a deal. I guess you're playing other games though or maybe you're extremely principled.

Are you serious? It's more than reformatting the drive. SecureRom installs hidden, non-deletable files in the Windows registry (and lord only knows where else). So we're talking about a HD wipe and a complete re-install of Windows to clear out the system. You'd do that just for one game?

Didz

09-11-2007, 08:05

No. The wrapping, physical CD and the licence to use the game/software on the CD.

Off coarse they have recourse. It includes a warranty and the usual trade practices act, consumer act etc...

If you think you own it for $50.00 or whatever so install it on as many computers as you like, make as many copies as you wish and sell them off at a lower cost. Your kidding me right?
The point you are ignoring is that if the contract at point of sale was only for the box and its content then there would be no contract with the retailer which covered the quality of the software on the CD, and if there was no contract to cover the quality of the software then the consumer would have no legal right to return the software to the retailer if it was faulty.

Under your scenario, the contract for the software would be the subject of the license agreement and not entered into until the consumer agreed to accept the terms of the EULA, At that point a second contract would be formed into between the consumer and the software supplier and so if the software proved to be faulty then the consumer could only hold the software supplier accountable for it and would have to deal direct with them. Not the retailer.

The fact, that in the UK this is NOT the case, proves, in my opinion, that the contract at point of sale includes the software on the disk. As such the retailer is legally responsible under the contract to rectified or replace any faulty software at their own expense.

This was in fact tested in the Blizzcon case where we were told quite clearly that despite being supplied with, and installing, the wrong software we had NO contract with Blizzard, only with the retailers who sold us the game. Thus despite the fact that we had been sold the wrong version of the software on the disk the only recourse we had was against the retailers who sold us that software.

A EULA nowadays includes many additions including any restrictions of use, disclaimers, warranties, support information and reminders of statutory rights to consumers just to name a few.

Your kidding me right. Adobe, Microsoft not enforce their EULA's
Where have you been lol...

Believe me. There are enough case reports, all you need to do is a bit of searching.
I have...and I've spoken to the OFC. We went all through this issue with the Blizzcon case. Just accept the fact the English Law doesn't work the way you think it does. The contract is soley with the retailer who sold you the game, the EULA has no legal impact, its just noise during the installation process and cannot be legally enforced. End of story.

This is a very interesting take on it. My gut reaction is to say that the payment to the retailer is the consideration, because the retailer is a licensed agent of the copyright holder. That would make the payment price the consideration for the EULA contract. That said, it would only work if the company you bought the game from really was acting as an agent. I wonder if all retailers have contractual agreements with the publishers?
I would argue that even if the retailer was the agent for the copyright holder, the terms contained in their EULA cannot be included as terms in your contract with the retailer as at the point of sale the purchaser is not given the opportunity to understand what those terms are. English Law states that the terms of any contract are only those terms which have been disclosed, understood and agreed prior to the exchange of consideration. Therefore, even if the retailer told the customer 'This purchase is subject to the terms contained in the EULA inside the box', those terms would NOT be legally binding upon the purchaser, becuase the purchaser had no opportunity to understand them before he paid for the product.

To make the EULA a legally binding part of the contract the customer would have to be forced to read and sign it before the retailer sold him the game, and I can just imagine the uproar about that in a crowded high street game shop. However, go and buy a mobile phone and that is exactly what you are forced to do before the phone is handed over and your money taken. Thats because the contract for the purchase of a mobile phone does have to include the contractual terms imposed by the network company who supply you with the service. Thus those terms have to be agree with the customer before the customer pays for the phone, otherwise they would NOT be legally binding on the customer.

Now, as I explained to Neb some game retailers that require you to DL the software off the internet might well force you to accept the terms of their EULA before you commence the download and they debit your credit card. Whether an English court would accept that ticking a tick box on an internet site is sufficient proof that the purchaser read the EULA is less certain but at least the process is in the correct sequence. In the Blizzard case, the ruling was that Blizzard's publication of a notification that their European Burning Crusade Collectors Editions contained the wrong version of the software on the disks was 'insufficient to ensure that all customers were informed of the error prior to purchase, and therefore did not vary the nature of the contract between the retailer the customer', which is not quite the same thing but gives some indication of how English Law views internet based disclosure.

If they did accept it as evidence of understanding then terms of the EULA would indeed form part of the contract, but this method of sale is still pretty rare. Most games are still sold as boxes and so the EULA has no legal value.

SpencerH

09-11-2007, 11:19

Are you serious? It's more than reformatting the drive. SecureRom installs hidden, non-deletable files in the Windows registry (and lord only knows where else). So we're talking about a HD wipe and a complete re-install of Windows to clear out the system. You'd do that just for one game?

Re-format the drive and re-install windows and hardware drivers. Depending on the size of the HD's and the "phase of the moon" (for windows), two hours tops.

As I said, if I spent $4000 for a PC (which I dont) and I liked M2TW (which I dont) and I had purchased Kingdoms (which I havent) I'd probably play it. After all I purchased my first PC to play CIV2 (used macs before that) and I've certainly purchased PC's with higher end graphics than I need in order to play TW (and RoN).

sapi

09-11-2007, 11:23

Akka

09-11-2007, 11:28

Re-formatting the drive when you're though isnt that big a deal.
Yes it is.
If you don't consider that having to format your drive after uninstalling a game is "big deal", then you should get a reality check.

FactionHeir

09-11-2007, 11:29

SpencerH

09-11-2007, 11:37

Yes it is.
If you don't consider that having to format your drive after uninstalling a game is "big deal", then you should get a reality check.

Down boy! Down!

I'm not a fan of Securom or of the fact that companies use such rubbish. [sarcasm]It took a whole half hour to get around CIV4's Safedisk "protection" after learning it didnt like alcohol[sarcasm].

As for reality, as I said in my last post I dont consider re-formatting and re-installing that big of a deal. I had to do it just a few months ago due to what I thought was a faulty catalyst control center - they are virtually impossible to remove too.

SpencerH

09-11-2007, 11:38

Considering how many files can still be recovered (by specialists) from a formatted hard disk, one does have to wonder whether all traces of these rootkit-like devices are truly removed and no longer readable.

If you do a full format and partition they're gone.

sapi

09-11-2007, 11:49

Considering how many files can still be recovered (by specialists) from a formatted hard disk, one does have to wonder whether all traces of these rootkit-like devices are truly removed and no longer readable.
They'll still be there, to be sure; but will be in a completely unreadable state, as the fresh OS can't 'know' that they exist, or where they are ~;)

TinCow

09-11-2007, 13:42

If they did accept it as evidence of understanding then terms of the EULA would indeed form part of the contract, but this method of sale is still pretty rare. Most games are still sold as boxes and so the EULA has no legal value.

I'll take your word on it for UK courts. US courts have consistently upheld the validity of EULA agreements, so long as the terms of the EULA are not unconscionable or otherwise abhorrent to the law. That said, I can't remember any discussion of consideration so perhaps that line of reasoning has not yet been advanced. Of course, now that I've said that, the more likely situation is that I have simply forgotten or never read the right caselaw in the first place.

Daveybaby

09-11-2007, 13:47

If you think you own it for $50.00 or whatever so install it on as many computers as you like, make as many copies as you wish and sell them off at a lower cost. Your kidding me right?
The difference between EULA restrictions and copyright law have been explained about 20 times during the course of this thread, and youre still trying to drag it out as a valid argument again?

One more time: Copyright law has nothing to do with EULA. Copyright and itellectual property law still applies whether a EULA exists or not, and regardless of whether you clicked 'ok' or if you even bought the software in the first place. Its a LAW, not an agreement.

Laws trump agreements, every time. Without fail.

Believe me. There are enough case reports, all you need to do is a bit of searching.

@Tamujin

What am I, your legal rep? Go and search your own links out. At the same time why not discover a book.
If you state something to be true, the onus is on you to come up with supporting evidence. We're not going to prove your arguments for you, thats your job.

TinCow

09-11-2007, 14:20

Nebuchadnezzar

09-12-2007, 07:45

The point you are ignoring is that if the contract at point of sale was only for the box and its content then there would be no contract with the retailer which covered the quality of the software on the CD, and if there was no contract to cover the quality of the software then the consumer would have no legal right to return the software to the retailer if it was faulty.

Under your scenario, the contract for the software would be the subject of the license agreement and not entered into until the consumer agreed to accept the terms of the EULA, At that point a second contract would be formed into between the consumer and the software supplier and so if the software proved to be faulty then the consumer could only hold the software supplier accountable for it and would have to deal direct with them. Not the retailer..

Please allow me to review a few cases I dug-up if I may.

In the shrinkwrap case Step-Saver Data Sys., Inc. v. Wyse Tech it was claimed that the contract was made at the time of sale (or in this case over the telephone) and the shrinkwrap license encased was a proposals for addition to the contract. The court held that the terms of the shrinkwrap license were not enforceable because Step-Saver had not assented to them.

and again with Arizona Retail Sys. v. Software Link, Inc. The court followed the Step-Saver rationale claiming the terms of the shrinkwrap license was a proposal for a modification to the contract.

But things start making a turn from this moment. The link Tamujin posted regarding the shrinkwrap case ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg is a classic in which the article describes how the court held that the license agreement terms contained inside the Select Phone package constituted additional terms to which Zeidenberg did not agree. Although I did notice a short statement in the article that the case is currently on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals. (Although its dated 1996) this particular case seems to be doing the internet rounds as a Samson Vs Goliath victory for consumers but the truth being that under appeal the ruling was reversed. ProCD, through the retail store, was the offeror, and had proposed a contract that the buyer would accept by using the software after having an opportunity to read the license. When Zeidenberg used the software he accepted, creating a contract including the terms of the shrinkwrap license.

Again M.A. Mortenson Co. v. Timberline Software Corp., where Mortenson argued that the license was a contract modification but the court followed ProCD and held that the license terms were part of the agreement.
Much of the litigation regarding clickwrap (the I agree popup thingy you have to agree too before install/use for first time in software) licenses the courts have found to be enforceable such eg in i.Lan Systems, Inc. v. Netscout Service Level Corp. and Caspi v. Microsoft Network.

Conclusions:

A contract is only completed when the user agrees to the terms popup and not at time of money change-over at the store. Take for example a sporting event where the purchaser pays money up front and later receives the tickets with the terms included. Logic dictates this is not uncommon nor unreasonable and should be regarded as a legitimate means of transaction. The money first terms later transactions are here with us to stay whether you like it or not. The onus is very much on the consumer which can request a copy of the terms before purchasing or even return the software if they do not wish to accept the terms at time of installation.

Just accept the fact the English Law doesn't work the way you think it does. The contract is soley with the retailer who sold you the game, the EULA has no legal impact, its just noise during the installation process and cannot be legally enforced. End of story.

I am not familiar with the Blizzcon case so am somewhat reluctant to comment especially a case thats still pending. But do forgive me for being sceptical because I don't accept the word of a single individual particularly if it contradicts more orthodox reasoning.

Nebuchadnezzar

09-12-2007, 08:27

The difference between EULA restrictions and copyright law have been explained about 20 times during the course of this thread, and youre still trying to drag it out as a valid argument again?

One more time: Copyright law has nothing to do with EULA. Copyright and itellectual property law still applies whether a EULA exists or not, and regardless of whether you clicked 'ok' or if you even bought the software in the first place. Its a LAW, not an agreement.

Thank you so much for reminding me, however you are incorrect. A EULA has very much to do with intellectual property and copyright. Since the software in most cases must be installed on the users computer there need to be restrictions to protect the commercial interests of the makers and its simply very naive to think that standard copyright and IP laws are sufficient. A EULA is used to expand control over someones work for which the standard copyright protection law is deficient and perhaps denied. It can also be used to protect the IP rights and copyright in countries were such laws are absent or deficient.

If you state something to be true, the onus is on you to come up with supporting evidence. We're not going to prove your arguments for you, thats your job.

I would have thought my opinion as pretty orthodox from a commercial perspective. If someone wishes to provide an alternative opinion then don't you think they should be providing the supporting evidence? If they wish not to accept it then thats OK too.

I could just as easily quote Tamujins reply-post with "Links Please" replies.

crpcarrot

09-12-2007, 09:35

I am not familiar with the Blizzcon case so am somewhat reluctant to comment especially a case thats still pending. But do forgive me for being sceptical because I don't accept the word of a single individual particularly if it contradicts more orthodox thinking.

all your examples are from outside UK and didz and others including me are arguinh about UK law. the coujtry you reside in may not pretect the consumer but the britsh law does.

if u have aproblem with a particular individual's argument it would be better for you to research what he talking about (british law not american or australian) all you have done so far is repeat yourself endlessly provide no backup ( except for this instance where u provide irrelevant data about another countries ruling) and choose which bits of an argument to accept or not and completely ignore points that have been explined over and over again

furthermore the argument is not unorthodox at all if you have any idea about contract law in the UK.

fenir

09-12-2007, 15:51

Nebuchadnezzar, Sapi

Sapi, I didn't say all those things deal with Sercurecom, you are not reading them correctly.

OK just a few things, IN contract law in UK, New Zealand, Australia.

Let me Try and Explain. What is a contract. From my law books.

A contract may be defined as an agreement between two or more persons which is intended to be enforceable under law. The most common sort of contract is one whereby the parties make reciprocal promises to each other - for instance.
A promised to sell to B a house in return for $150,000. Promised by B;
C promises to work for D in return for a weekly wage of $1000.00 promised by D.

Of course the possible subject matter of Contracts is endless.

But the essential elements of a contract are as follows, this is not a discussion, this is our law. It is Fact.

1. There must be an agreement between the parties as to the terms of their bargin. This agreement is normally arrived at by a process of offer and acceptance, (case law; Byrne & Co, v Van Tienhoven & co (1880) offer and acceptance), whereby one party makes the other an offer containing the terms on which he is prepard to do business, and the other accepts that offer. It is used commanly to be said thjat a contract involved a "consenues ad idem" or meeting of the minds. Although such a statement has it's uses, it must surely be treated with caution. Evidence of agreement must be gleaned objectively, ie by looking at what a person has said and done rather than at what he or she thinks in his or her innermost mind;
What is relevent is what a reasonable person would understand that person to have agreed to rather than what he or she secertly thought he or she was agreeing to:

2. The parties must have intened to create legal relations.

3. There must be consideration. This is an expession of the essential bargin nature of contract. Each party gives the other something and each party gets something in return.
Thus in the example of the sale of the house given above, the consideration for A's promise to transfer the house to B is B's promise to pay $150,000, and vice versa.
A promise for which there is no consideration is not enforceable as a contract - for instance a promise to give a friend $1000 as a wedding present.

4. Both parties must have the capacity to contract.
This deals with minors, under age of 18. You cannot by law contract a minor.
Unless, they are legally married, in which they have limited contractual capacity. Or those delared bankrupt, or mentally ill. SO by definition anyone under the age of 18 can not be held by anything Sega has written.

BY law, these four points must happen, to make and complete a contract.

Legal Authorities.
Byrne & Co, v Van Tienhoven & co (1880) Acceptance and offer.
Hire Purchase Act 1971 Concerns conditions and quailty.
Consumers Guarantees Act 1993
Minors Act.
Oh hell i can't be bothered looking them all up.

The Law Says.
Shops, A display in a shop window is only an invitation to treat: (Case law, Fisher v Bell [1961] 1 qb 394, [1960] 3 All ER 731)
IN effect, since shop sales will be bilateral contracts, the shop window display is treated under the princple governing advertisements.
The same Rule will usually apply to displays of goods within a shop. These are normally an invitation to treat by the shopkeeper. The contractual offer is made by the customer who approaches the cash desk intimating a willingness to buy the good in question and the shopkeeper may accept or refuse this offer:
Case law: Pharmaceutial Society of Great Britian v Boots cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd [1953] 1 QB 401, [1953] 1 All ER 482

Our Contract has never been with Sega, or CA, it is with the shopkeeper. So we purchse our product from a shop. Yesss thats right we own our OWN copy. NO LICENSE. Except if you live in the USA. You only have a right to use it, and you only have a license.
It's like buying your own copy of the Ford Falcon XR6, you don't buy a license to park one in your garage.
We have no contract with Sega, even after clicking the "I Agree", except where it deals with Copyright. FOr the hard of Hearing.....THATS WHAT THE LAW SAYS.

The Eula
In no event shall Sega or its licensors be liable for special, incidental, or consequential damages resulting from possession, use or malfunction of the Game Software, including without limitation the risks connected with lost profit, damage to property, lost data, loss of goodwill, console, computer or handheld device failure, errors and lost business or other information as a result of possession, use or malfunction of the Game Software, or personal injuries, even if Sega has been advised of the possibility of such loss or damages.

Not true, In fact I publicly call Sega a lair....that is right for the USA, but Sega must comply with the Consumer Act. Which says Sega has a duty of Care to it's customers, and the fair trading act says their product must be fit for purpose.
Fair Trading Act: "Prohibts conduct in trade which is misleading or decptive and certain false representations in connection with the supply of goods and services or in relation to land".
"Persons who suffer loss or damages caused by the conduct in breach of the act may institute civil procedings for the amount of loss and or damages".
It further goes on to say, that any term in a contract purporting to contract out of the provisions of the Act "can be of No effect".
Authority: Smythe v Bayley's Real Estate Ltd (1993) 5 TCLR 454
Justice J Thomas recognised in his summation, that it could not be ousted by any private agreement. And went on to say...
"The Courts could not allow anyone simply to opt out of a statute decreeing fair trading in the public interest". <====That says it all.
Simply put people, it says the EULA is useless in regards to limited liability and limited express warranty.

*******************************
EULA
2. Ownership of the Game Software
You agree and acknowledge that all title, ownership rights, and intellectual property rights connected with the Game Software and any and all copies (in particular any titles, computer code, themes, objects, characters, character names, stories, dialogues, catch phrases, places, concepts, artwork, animation, sounds, music, audio-visual effects, text, methods of operation, moral rights and any related documentation) are owned by Sega or its licensors. The Game Software contains certain licensed materials and Sega's licensors may protect their rights in the event of any violation of this Agreement.

AND THE KEY HERE IS THIS CLAUSE:
Guarantees to title:
S5 THe Supplier has a right to sell the goods, Secondly, the goods are free from any undisclosed secuirty. Thirdly the consumer has the right to undistrurd possession of the goods.

READ AGAIN...........WE OWN OUR COPY IN UK, NZ AND AUST AND SASKATCHEN - CANNADA. NO LICENSE CRAP. because sega cannot by law impose one on us.

Authorities
Sale of Goods Act (UK)
Trade Practises Act (Aust)
Consumer Products Act (Sask)
Consumer Guarantees Act (NZ)
*******************************

EULA
3. Use of the Game Software
You agree to only use the Game Software or any part of it in a manner which is consistent with this License and you SHALL NOT:

(a) without the permission of Sega use the Game Software or any part of it for commercial use, for example use at a Internet cafe, computer gaming center or any other location-based site;

(b) without a further license, use the Game Software, or permit the use of the Game Software, on more than one computer, game console, handheld device or PDA at the same time;

(c) make copies of the Game Software or any part thereof;

(d) use the Game Software, or permit use of the Game Software, in a network, multi-user arrangement or remote access arrangement, including any online use, except as otherwise explicitly provided by Sega and subject to acceptance of the terms and conditions of use;

(e) sell, rent, lease, license, distribute or otherwise transfer this Game Software or any copies without the express prior written consent of Sega;

(f) reverse engineer, derive source code, modify, decompile, disassemble, or create derivative works of the Game Software, in whole or in part unless provided for in section (j) below;

(g) remove, disable or circumvent any proprietary notices or labels contained on or within the Game Software;

(h) export or re-export the Game Software or any copy or adaptation in violation of any applicable laws or regulations; and

(i) create data or executable programs which mimic data or functionality in the Game Software unless provided for in section (j) below.

(j) use the part of the Game Software which allows you to construct new variations ("Editor") to create new levels which (i) can be used otherwise in connection with the Game Software; (ii) to modify any executable file; (iii) to produce any libelous, defamatory or other illegal material or material that is scandalous or invades the rights of privacy or publicity of a third party; (iv) to use the trademarks, copyright or intellectual property rights of any third party; (v) are then commercially exploited by you (through pay-per-play or timesharing services or otherwise). For the avoidance of doubt you are solely liable and responsible for any claims by a third party resulting from your use of the Editor.

You agree to read and abide by the Game Disc Precautions and Maintenance Instructions and the Safety Information which is set out in the documentation accompanying the Game Software.
________________________
ANSWER:

WRONG, WE OWN IT we by law can do what we like. THERE HAS NEVER BEEN, AN END USER PROSECUTED. because they cannot.
THe only time you can be prosecuted, is in regards to copyright of the material in the game. You cannot obviously copy the game, and sell those copies, it is illegal. But if you own a copy, you can use in your domestic use as you see fit, as long as you do not drive any money from it. Then you are not protected by any law, and you will face the crimmal law.
***************************************************
4. Warranty
The Game Software is provided without any warranties or guarantees save as specifically provided in these conditions and to the extent permitted by the applicable law.
This License does not affect your statutory rights as a consumer

_____________________
Sega breaking the law again? naughty naughty. I just told you, you cannot by law contract out, Justice J thomas told you that in regards to the fair trading act.

***********************************************
5. Liability
Sega will not be held responsible for the risks connected with lost profit, damage to property, lost data, loss of goodwill, console, computer or handheld device failure, errors and lost business or other information as a result of possession, use or malfunction of the Game Software, even if Sega has been advised of the possibility of such loss.

Sega will not be held liable for any damage, injury or loss if caused as a result of your negligence, accident or misuse, or if the Game Software has been modified in any manner (not by Sega) after it has been bought. Sega does not seek to exclude or limit its liability for any death or personal injury arising from its negligence.

Sega's liability shall not exceed the actual price paid for the Game Software.

If any of the conditions in this License are held to be invalid or void under any applicable law, the other provisions of these conditions will be unaffected and remain in full force and effect.

____________________________
ALREADY EXPLAINED, you telling lairs now Sega. Again,, Fair trading Act, and Consumer guarantees act of atlrast 7 countries.

:smash: so your conditions in your words are held, invaild, or void under applicable law.......now you admit finally you have no legal legs.

**********************************
6. Termination
In addition to other rights of Sega that may be available to it, this License will terminate automatically if you fail to comply with its terms and conditions. In such event, you must destroy all copies of the Game Software and all of its component parts.
__________________________________________
SEGA, you cannot terminate something you have already sold. You no longer have title to it. By law, I already explained.
************************************
7. Injunction

Because Sega could be irreparably damaged if the terms of this License were not enforced, you acknowledge that Sega will take such action as may be required, including seeking an injunction and other equitable remedies, in addition to any other remedies available to it under the applicable law.
____________________________________
ROFLMAO, oh now you realise you have no rights.
**********************************
8. Indemnity

You agree to indemnify, defend and hold Sega, its partners, affiliates, contractors, officers, directors, employees and agents harmless from any claims, costs and expenses (including legal expenses) arising directly or indirectly from your acts and omissions to act in using the Game Software not in accordance with the terms of this Agreement.

__________________________________________________
Indemnify? you cannot be indemnified by a consumer, you have no redress in which any law will permit you.
***********************************
9. Miscellaneous

This License together with the Subscriber Agreement that you will enter into if you wish to play the Game Software online represents the complete agreement between Sega and yourself in relation to the use of the Game Software and supersedes all prior agreements and representations, warranties or understandings (whether negligently or innocently made but excluding those made fraudulently).

If any provision of this License is held to be unenforceable for any reason, such provision shall be reformed only to the extent necessary to make it enforceable and the remaining provisions of this License shall not be affected.

Nothing in this License gives or claims to give to any third party any benefit or right to enforce any term of this License, and the provisions of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 (as amended or modified from time to time) are expressly excluded.

This License is governed by the laws of England and is subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the English Courts.

_____________________________________
Wrong again sega. you are only covered by online play. Then you have offer and acceptance. I have no contract with you.
No part of this agreement is enforceable.

*******************************

Don't Argue, I have given you the law above, it's not a discussion.

I openly challenge SEGA, here in public, I have on sold your games (Espeically the ones I don't like). I have used your?? So called catch pharses, what you trying to copyright the English language now?
I have My games installed on 3 computers in my house, so I have breached your so called License again, But their is no way the missus is getting on my computer, or the kids.
And I own my "copy". I dare you to try and sue me.

SO there you have it people, if you live in one of the above countries, you own your copy, it's not a license.
You have no contract with Sega, your contract was with the shopkeeper. Any conditions or limited warranties laid down by Sega or the EULA are useless, I Have publicly showen you that according to their fancy words, i have broken the agreement, and therefore can expect to be sued.....ROFLMAO......sued :laugh4:

Sorry I have legal title to my games. Only the poor buggers in the USA don't.

Post Scipto: SAPI, that enough for you? Or you want me to really spend some time quoting law? :whip:

For those that don't realise, this is not getting at Sega, or CA, I dearly love CA, hence I tell them off like the naughty children they are, when they do't put my toys in.
BUt people, the above is fact, And i standby my words, I dare anyone, to try and sue me for the above, becuase i know you cannot.

THe things that are enforceable: If you Breach copyright, CA have done some fantastic work, I personally would think it disgusting that some would rip off another persons hard work, And therefore agree with the copyright to stop them. Because without it, we don't get advancement, or development and we don't get our toys. So every time someone copies a game and passes it on, you are hurting us all.
But in regards to the rest, we have no contract with sega, we only have the law in regards to Copyright law. And we own our copy outright, we just don't own the rights to the game coding and such. That does belong to Sega.

Fenir
:smash:
Oh yeah baby I been bad:whip:

Lusted

09-12-2007, 16:01

Well what TinCow posted would contradict you:

Didz:

I talked to a contract law specialist and it seems we're both totally off-base. Consideration isn't required for the EULA because the EULA isn't a contract at all. It's a Licensing Agreement (Duh! ) which is simply the terms that the copyright holder imposes to allow the user to use the work. Since it is not a contract, it can be revoked by the copyright holder at any time. Licensing Agreements made with consideration (such as a specific payment to Microsoft to allow 50 copies of XP to be installed for business purposes) become valid contracts, but that is not the case for typical retail sale of games. MMOs demonstrate contractual licensing agreements, as the contract is directly with the publisher and a monthly fee is partly consideration for use of the work.

Essentially, when you buy the game in the store, you are simply purchasing the physical box, manual, and disk, not the right to use the work on the disk. In order to use the work, you then have to agree to the non-contractual EULA which can be revoked by the copyright holder at any time.

Obviously, the EULA itself cannot violate copyright or contract law, and any provisions in it that do so are invalid and non-binding. However, any terms that are otherwise construed as legitimate by the courts are binding as part of your agreement with the copyright holder to use the work. So, the real question is not whether the whole EULA is valid (which it generally is) but rather whether the individual clauses are unconscionable or otherwise in violation of the law.

Good thing I haven't been asked to write any contracts recently!

crpcarrot

09-12-2007, 16:04

thanks fenir nie work so the law down under is pretty similar to the UK except for the US where the corporation is king :D

fenir

09-12-2007, 16:10

Rozanov

09-12-2007, 17:05

Is there a limit on the number of times Kingdoms can be installed?

The reason I ask is that those people who write and test mods often have to do a clean install each time they test / play a new version of a mod.

If there's a problem here it won't show up immediately but may well in a few weeks time.

fenir

09-12-2007, 17:12

the answer is no, there is no limit, you can install it as many times as you like, but in a personal and domestic capacity.
in others words, you may not pass the game on to your friends computer if he has not got a legal copy. But their is no reason why you cannot install it as many times as you see fit, on your own computer.
You are only limited in regards to copyright material, ei: no coping, no selling or using game code without Sega's permission.

fenir

TinCow

09-12-2007, 17:35

Lusted
Actually it doesn't, it is correct, EULA is only right in regards to Copyright. Which is protected by law anyway, therefore making the EULA useless. Anything else in it apart from copyright, is totally unenforceable.
Hence they put the disclaimer about it in Clause 5

Like I always said

fenir

Correct, though fenir is mainly speaking about legal systems derived from English Common Law, it is fairly harmonious with US law. The nature of the EULA agreement essentially means one thing and one thing only: it gives the publisher the right to revoke your license to use the software if you do something they don't like. Piss off the publisher and they can legally remove your right to play the game. However, unless you actively break the law (i.e. copyright violation), they have no real ability to sue you or press criminal charges.

At the same time, the publisher cannot legally disclaim away any rights that the user has under normal consumer protection, contracts, and copyright law. Just writing it down doesn't mean anything. It's like those notices in restaurant coat-check rooms ("Management is not responsible for lost or stolen articles."). They can say it as much as they want, but since they have no ability to disclaim away those rights, it will not be upheld in court.

fenir

09-13-2007, 12:20

Ok, I did had some more beer, then i got a little glint in my eye. :help:

I thought, why would someone revoke a license? Is there a set of grounds on which this could happen, or could this be a relevent factor in the right of code owner, ei; Sega.

Anyway, i did some digging, then I phoned my Father in law at the university, (he's the head of the Law faulty). :beam:
now you know why my A's leed to a good chat. Strange really, all the crazy profs at uni all have nice daughters. :yes:

It seems, that if sega did at some point try and pull the plug on it's license on the game usage, they would get a smack down.
It's a little grey, but it seems this would interferr with S5(1)(c) of the Consumer Act.
For Sega would be trying to stop the "undistrub possession of the good". And for the want of trying, I can not see anyway they can get out of it.

So Sega cannot pull someone's license, or "right to use the game", as long as you give them no legal cause. ei; Breach Copyright.
For Sega to have the ability to revoke your game license, you will first need to breach copyright, and then Sega would have to prove it.
So in essence, Sega must show just cause, to revoke your game usage. Otherwise they will be in breach of S5(1)(c).

Just some food for thought.

fenir :whip: oh baby, have i been bad?:inquisitive:

crpcarrot

09-13-2007, 13:25

well have we got any word on if sega will relase an uninstaller for scurom. i really want kingdoms but i wont have it installing anything i cant remove on my pc.

Nebuchadnezzar

09-13-2007, 13:58

A contract should also have legality of the purpose: Contracts for illegal goods, services, or for illegal purposes, are not enforceable.

Don't Argue, I have given you the law above, it's not a discussion.

Every clarification breeds new questions.
Arthur Bloch

-------------------------

Copyright: The Copyright Act accords protection to original literary, dramatic, artistic and musical works, as well as published editions of such works*. Literary work is defined to include computer programs**.
* Parts III and IV of the Copyright Act.
** Section 10 of the Copyright Act.

Copyright is infringed when a person who is not the copyright owner in Australia,
without the licence of the owner, does any act which the copyright owner has the
exclusive right to do***.
*** Subsections 36(1) and 101(1) of the Copyright Act.

Next!

An agreement to use not only the copyrighted material but also any trademarks, patents etc not covered by copyright acts (which by-the-way are not automatically and exclusively protected by law in all countries).

Software and pc games install a copy of the computer program on his or her computer so its only obvious that a license needs to be obtained to use the material. This is the exclusive right of the owners. No ifs or buts.

and for EU
Software is copyrightable in the European Union. Specifically, it is (with a few very limited exceptions) unlawful for anyone other than the owner of the rights to run the program, copy the program, modify the program or distribute the program, except with the permission of the rights owner.

"A guide to copyright license". Nov 2006
A statutory licence for the use of copyright material may be required and the amount of remuneration payable must be agreed with by copyright owner.

THE EULA
I,ve tried to explain earlier that its principal purpose is Intellectual property.

Case law: Pharmaceutial Society of Great Britian v Boots cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd [1953] 1 QB 401, [1953] 1 All ER 482

I did a search and can only find that it related to the issue of selling a listed poison with a registered pharmacist present.

Authority: Smythe v Bayley's Real Estate Ltd (1993) 5 TCLR 454
Smythe v Bayleys RealEstate Ltd I thought his was about a real estate agent who failed to pass on to prospective purchasers her knowledge that a tenant was in financial strife.

WRONG, WE OWN IT we by law can do what we like. THERE HAS NEVER BEEN, AN END USER PROSECUTED. because they cannot.The only time you can be prosecuted, is in regards to copyright of the material in the game.

Intellectual property such as trademarks and patents are also protected by laws and the owners may wish to remind users of this fact and any limitations associated with their use. Such infringements are usually considered more serious because they are the hallmarks of a business and usually have greater value.

Here's a few I found at wiki. As you can see most but not all are copyright associated. Its also been debated whether piracy is a copyright infringement.

"CD-R infringment" is the illegal copying of software using CD-R recording technology. This form of copyright infringement occurs when a person obtains a copy of a software program and makes a copy or copies and re-distributes them to friends.

"Commercial Use of Non-commercial Software" is using educational or other commercial-use-restricted software in violation of the software license is a form of copyright infringement.

"Counterfeiting" is the duplication and sale of unauthorized copies of software in such a manner as to try to pass off the illegal copy as if it were a legitimate copy produced or authorized by the legal publisher. This is also often a violation of trade mark laws.

"Hard-disk loading" occurs when an individual or company sells computers preloaded with illegal copies of software.

"Internet infringement" is the illegal uploading of software on to the Internet for anyone to copy.

"OEM infringement/unbundling" is known as OEM (original equipment manufacturer) software, is only legally sold with specified hardware. Whether misappropriating OEM software constitutes copyright infringement is subject to interpretation

"Softlifting" is a neologism invented by anti-copyright infringement advocates, and is a term used to describe when a person purchases a single licensed copy of a software program and loads it on several machines, in violation of the terms of the license agreement.

"Unrestricted client access infringement" occurs when a copy of a software program is copied onto an organization's servers and the organization's network "clients" are allowed to freely access the software in violation of the terms of the license agreement.

-----------------------

It seems that publishers use the same eula in all countries that was mostly written for the US and offering only language changes for the rest. This seems really reckless since it doesn't take it to consideration local laws and requirements.

I openly challenge SEGA, here in public

What we need is a litmus test for someone to directly challenge a EULA. Volunteers anyone?

SpencerH

09-13-2007, 17:40

TinCow

09-13-2007, 18:41

I lost track of who's on what side. Lets see if I can sum this up (feel free to correct me of course).

Fenir's position: In those countries he names, buying software is similar to buying a book. One owns the book including the pages and ink with which the book is written but not the intellectual property ie the words and language etc. Similarly with software, one owns the disk and whats on it (the software) but not the intellectual property (which includes the software).

Nebu...........'s position: Software is different from a book. One owns the disk and package but not the software (code) since that is intrinsically entwined with intellectual property.

So when software that is quite possibly destructive is installed on your PC without your knowledge or permission is it better for the copyright holder to claim ownership or not ?

If that's the distinction then Nebuchadnezzar is entirely correct. I have to be honest, I find fenir's writing style very difficult to follow, so some of his point have simply been lost on me.

The first example you give ("one owns the disk and whats on it (the software) but not the intellectual property (which includes the software)") is entirely fallacious, unless by "whats on [the disk]" you mean the actual divits that encode the 1s and 0s. Software has no actual existence as in a material form. It is the order in which the 1s and 0s are arranged that is copyrighted, not any particular method of storing or displaying them. Going back to the book analogy, you own the actual ink that the words are written in, but not the amorphous concept of arranging the ink in the proper fashion to spell out the words. It's the 'arrangement' itself which is the intellectual property.

Since the arrangement is impossible to link to a single material form (you can write binary in the dirt or with a sky-writing airplane), you cannot gain ownership over the arrangement by possessing a representation of it. Even if the arrangement is not owned by anyone (i.e. a work in the public domain, such as a Shakespeare play) you still do not own it. In that case, the only difference is that no one can stop you from using it in any way that you want to.

.....

I'm not even sure what we're discussing anymore; this is just IP 101. How does this relate back to Kingdoms and SecuROM?

Vacuity

09-13-2007, 18:43

I've read all eight pages now and I'm feeling a bit braindead, so please correct any mistakes I make here.

I have not yet purchased Kingdoms and am very unsure whether I will or not. I really want to check that I understand this stuff correctly before I make a purchase decision. I'll tag questions on the end, I'll even try and edit this post to take account of any mistakes I make when writing this that people correct me on, that way hopefully people can make sensible decisions about whether or not to purchase this product.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

1) Securom does not uninstall when you uninstall the game. [stated all through this thread]

2) The copy of Securom provided with the game currently has no simple-to-use uninstallation tool. Contacting Securom with questions about the uninstallation procedure will get you an e-mail detailing a number of steps involving command lines. Following these steps will still not remove all traces of the software from your system.

3) While Securom is not a rootkit, in that it does not attempt to subvert your computer in any way, it does use much the same technology as a rootkit. The difference is principally that there is no malicious intent. (I'm not an expert on this, so please correct any mistakes)

4) While other versions of Securom are known to cause conflict with some other programs there's no confirmation as yet of the version shipping with Kingdoms causing conflicts.

5) The version of Securom that comes with the game neither requires an internet connection to allow you to install and play the game, nor does it limit the number of installs you make.

6) While Securom undoubtedly has security weaknesses (like pretty much every other piece of complex software) there are currently no known viruses or other malware that exploit any security weaknesses in Securom.

If there are any other pertinent facts that anyone sees I've missed then please post and detail them. If I've messed up in one of the above points then please correct me.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Opinion:

OK, I'm going to say outright that there's no way I am going to buy this until I am certain that it will be possible to remove Securom from my system completely without having to hack my registry manually, or download some code of questionable integrity from a site of questionable integrity that promises to remove everything.
While I've done enough installs of Windows to not consider it more than an annoyance to reinstall the system it is still exactly that: an annoyance. Playing games shouldn't be annoying.
Quite honestly, I firmly believe that uninstalling the game software via the included uninstall option should completely remove all components of the software from my system, copy-protection software included. Exceptions to this would be allowing options to retain save games and custom content (because many users cannot navigate their way around their own filesystem to make backups). Everything else *should* be removed without question, particularly software that is known to cause conflicts with other software!

I think it's ridiculous that software is installed "on the quiet" and then cannot be uninstalled by any simple means. I have no issues with companies including some kind of DRM system with their products, as long as it does not infringe on my rights, but I'm not going to knowingly install anything on my machine that I cannot easily uninstall. Give me an uninstallation tool for Securom and I'll pay my money and play the game. Better yet, integrate uninstallation of the DRM software with the game uninstallation software and I'll actually be happy.

Vac

edited with updated info

Phats

09-13-2007, 19:47

Even with a removal tool to use after you have finished with and uninstalled the game, I can't see myself installing anything with potential back door and privacy issues onto my pc if I can avoid it, therefore sadly I find myself unable to play Kingdoms.

Ulstan

09-13-2007, 20:37

The one thing this thread tells us is how western legal codes have gotten far too bloated and complicated. It's a mess. No wonder your ordinary joe has to hire lawyers to figure out what on earth the laws mean.

Almost makes one pine for the days of hammurabi's code or the 10 commandments :p

Zenicetus

09-13-2007, 21:43

Has anyone from CA or Sega commented yet about whether they'll either patch Kingdoms to remove SecureRom when uninstalling the game, or release a separate removal tool? I don't visit the .com forum (only have time for one) so I don't know if they've responded over there.

At this point, the silence is deafening. I know there must be many people here besides myself, who are waiting to buy Kingdoms until we hear from them about this.

Ramses II CP

09-13-2007, 22:30

Re: Vacuity:

1. Confirmed from multiple sources.

2. The steps listed in this thread as coming from the program's creator will not remove every trace of SecuRom. I don't know of a detailed procedure to remove all of the version that comes with Kingdoms, but the procedure for other games is complex and quite technical.

3. I'm no rootkit expert, but I'd say this is accurate.

4. The version of SecuRom that is installed with Kingdoms hasn't been confirmed to interfere with the use of any other applications. Conflicting reports exist here. Other versions of SecuRom clearly do make it difficult to run, for example, Daemon Tools.

5. Confirmed multiple times correct.

6. There's no way to know if this is true or not. There are no known mass abuses of the vulnerabilities SecuRom introduces to my knowledge.

My primary objection here is a consumerist one. Copyright law already protects Sony's rights here, and the SecuRom software places an unecessary burden on the purchaser for an increase in protection that has, at best, an extremely limited record of effectiveness. If I thought millions of people were stealing this game and that SecuRom could prevent it, I might be okay with it. In fact I think that this software might dissuade a few casual thieves about as effectively as older, safer forms of copy protection, but for the experienced ones who do the majority of the thievery it is completely meaningless and already broken.

My advice would be not to buy the game as a statement on the importance of your rights and the availability of other, high quality, and not risky or burdensome games.

:egypt:

SpencerH

09-14-2007, 00:55

The first example you give ("one owns the disk and whats on it (the software) but not the intellectual property (which includes the software)") is entirely fallacious, unless by "whats on [the disk]" you mean the actual divits that encode the 1s and 0s.

Yes, thats what I meant.

you own the actual ink that the words are written in, but not the amorphous concept of arranging the ink in the proper fashion to spell out the words. It's the 'arrangement' itself which is the intellectual property.

Thats what I said.

King Bob VI

09-14-2007, 01:02

lancelot

09-14-2007, 01:50

Well, Ive read about the first 15 or so posts in this thread and Im none the wiser really...

Someone correct me if Im wrong here-

This SecuRom stuff is supposed to prevent illegal copying of the game, correct?

This seems fair enough but what are the issues here? Is it the fact that it is installed on your machine somewhat 'quietly' shall we say? Or are there other issues?

Perhaps it would be mightly fine if a CA or Sega rep took the time to come and explain it all officially...

Zenicetus

09-14-2007, 02:55

This SecuRom stuff is supposed to prevent illegal copying of the game, correct?

This seems fair enough but what are the issues here? Is it the fact that it is installed on your machine somewhat 'quietly' shall we say? Or are there other issues?

There are many CP methods that do all sorts of things "behind the scenes," but they're designed so that when you uninstall the game, any nastiness goes with them. The current version of SecureRom isn't like that. If you buy Kingdoms, then uninstall the game a year from now, it will leave behind hidden files that *may* cause problems with antivirus and anti-rootkit flagging software (even though it's not an actual rootkit), and that *may* be a security risk if some hacker figures out how to use it as a back door.

Not only are the files hidden, but you can't delete them by any normal means, short of just formatting the drive, which means re-installing Windows. To me, it's unacceptable for a mere game, as good as it may be, to treat my computer that way. When I uninstall a game, any copy protection should be uninstalled also, and not left behind as useless and potentially harmful garbage on my computer.

Vacuity

09-14-2007, 04:28

Thanks Ramses II,

I've updated the original post to take account of your info.

Vac

fenir

09-14-2007, 12:38

Tincow, Sorry if you couldn't follow my train of thought, it's a bit jumbled. :laugh4:

We have a big wedding coming up, so lots of people have been coming out of the wood work lately. Hence, We have been drinking quite a bit.
Then of course, i get home and go online........thats when all the trouble starts i think?:oops:

The general idea of what i have written is this.
The EULA is useless, in all three countries other laws take precedence. Copyright law, Intellectual Propertry Rights et cetera...
But anything in the EULA not connected to these two things has no legal standing. The License has no Legal standing because they are trying to distrub your possession. In other words, trying to impose upon your right of "shall enjoy", which is in the UK statute. Which the courts have deemed to be your quiet possession of future enjoyment of your good.
I should redo them, and post in a more coherent fashion. :idea2: NAH I wil have another beer first.

Ok EDIT: I posted and saw your post DiDz, nice way of putting it, ....See DIDZ gets it.........that begs the question? I must not be drunk enough?

fenir

Didz

09-14-2007, 12:38

Didz:
I talked to a contract law specialist and it seems we're both totally off-base. Consideration isn't required for the EULA because the EULA isn't a contract at all. It's a Licensing Agreement (Duh! :wall:) which is simply the terms that the copyright holder imposes to allow the user to use the work.
Yes....I did realise that.

The issue then becomes where does the Licensor obtain the authority to issue the license, and more importantly on what grounds are the terms of the licence binding upon the licensee.

Under English Law a license is 'A power of authority to do some act which, without such authority, could not be lawfully done.' So, in order for a licence to have validity it must be shown that doing the act without it would render the licensee liable to prosecution.

Now, under contract law, the terms of a licence can form part of the contract and therefore acceptance of the terms of the licence would be binding upon the purchaser and failure to comply with those terms would then be a breach of contract. Therefore, a licence gains validity by being part of the contract.

However, as already explained ad-nausem, this is not the case with the EULA we all have to agree to during the installation process of our games. As this licence is only presented after the contract has been agreed over the shop counter.

So, the only other way a Licence can have validity is if it is supported by statute. For example, in the UK you need a driving licence to drive a car not becuase it forms part of your contract with the garage you bought the car from but because UK government legislation requires everyone to have a licence to drive. Likewise, you need a licence to photograph nesting birds for the same reason.

The question then is.....Is there a statute that requires us to have a licence to play a game?

The answer to this question may actually vary from country to country and in the USA even from state to state. However, UK law states that a Licence is only valid if the law states that doing an act without it would be a tresspass. (in other words illegal)

Now, it turns out that this is an area of some controversy. I've not been able to find any legislation on the UK statute books that makes it illegal to play a computer game without a licence. However, I did stumble across a very interesting article on this very problem in the USA.

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/itmanagement/0,1000000308,39115577,00.htm

It appears that a group of lawyers acting for the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL), has been trying to force legislation through the US state legal system called the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (Ucita).

However, so far only Maryland and Virginia have enacted the law, whilst four states (Vermont, Iowa, West Virginia and North Carolina) have actually passed anti-Ucita laws designed to protect their citizens from its pro-corporate and anti-consumer terms.

At the same time the organisation Americans for Fair Electronic Commerce Transactions has formed a national coalition that opposes Ucita.

So, what this suggests to me is that, at present, at least, in both the Uk and most of the USA, the EULA which we have to click on to play our games has no legal validity and we are not bound by its terms.

The consequence being that as Securom is enforcing these terms, it is actually enforcing restrictions which were not part of the contract and therefore not legally binding. Therefore, SecuRom could be acting illegally in placing restrictions on the consumer which the consumer did not agree to, and was not made aware of at time of pruchase.

It will actually be interesting to see what happens if a customer actually goes to court over this.

PS. Just noticed that Fenir (below) has come to about the same conclusion.

Didz

09-14-2007, 12:49

This SecuRom stuff is supposed to prevent illegal copying of the game, correct?

This seems fair enough but what are the issues here? Is it the fact that it is installed on your machine somewhat 'quietly' shall we say? Or are there other issues?
The issue really is that software companies do NOT need SecuRom to prevent illegal copying of the game....and that it doesn't actually do that anyway as its already been by-passed by professional crack companies.

The issue is that SecuRom can do a lot more than just that and that once its on your PC it can be explioted both by its owners and others that Sony licence to use it in order to spy upon your activites and to mess with your PC.

It is also potentially an open door through which other less well intentioned people could gain access directly to your PC and by-pass your firewall and anti-virus protection.

fenir

09-14-2007, 13:20

Nebuchadnezzar,

Most of that was copied word for word from those case laws I gave you. ANd the Precedence they set, and the accepted judgements of those cases.
I hereby asked anyone who has been to university in those countries, to check those facts, and the that those case laws, set the precedence that i have listed.

Case law: Pharmaceutial Society of Great Britian v Boots cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd [1953] 1 QB 401, [1953] 1 All ER 482

IS the teaching case law of Contract laws Offer to treat example. Is quoted in first year University contract law along with fisher.
The Coruse they treach is called ComL 203 Law of Commerce.
***************************
Smythe v Bayleys RealEstate Ltd -- The what? .............aaahhh you have never studied law :beam:

ROFLMAO, That case is about a legal point of law. Yes you are sort of correct in your understnading of it. but the point of the legal judgement following that case, that became a pillar of the law.
Is that because they didn't tell them, and because they tried to claim that they had an agreement, to "contract" out of the fair trading act. Which was the whole point.

The judgement came down against them, because justice J thomas said you cannot contract out of fair trading practises when they are in the public interest.

That was the whole arguement of the case, it has nothign to do with their personal money status, and if you had done first year law at university, you would have found that out. PS: See Butterowrth commercial law teaching law, it's listed in the front, i'm sure you can find it. :book:

Simply put, I said all along, the EULA means nothing, except where dealing with copyright. And those laws are already enforce, and therefore trump the Eula again.
So we agree on the same points, but to become insulting?
Mine was a joking example of the EULA being ineffective. Had notihng to do with attacking Copyright and intellectual property rights which are already enshrined in law. I was supporting them.

Ok I could go on, but it is really boring me.
Mainly because you have insulted me, you quoted the wiki? How deeming :shame: The great internet of disinformation. And i gave you the legal position of those laws as well.

omg, the wiki? I quote the law, and you quote opinion?

I have been in volved in contract law since leaving the army and going to university.
I was an accountant for westpac Head office.
And later, as now, started my own company. To which I forefill, and conduct contracts all day, everyday.

So after two degrees and a professional post grad Diploma in Professional Accy, I of course, admit to you Nebuchadnezzar, I know nothing of the law of commerce. And i humbly bow to your great wisdom. And I only wish that my years studing under the Law Lord, Lord Cook of Thorndon, had some effect upon me.

I am sorry to have troubled you.

sincerely (not) fenir

Bugger, I might have to get a job as a street sweeper.

Odin

09-14-2007, 14:03

The issue really is that software companies do NOT need SecuRom to prevent illegal copying of the game....and that it doesn't actually do that anyway as its already been by-passed by professional crack companies.

The issue is that SecuRom can do a lot more than just that and that once its on your PC it can be explioted both by its owners and others that Sony licence to use it in order to spy upon your activites and to mess with your PC.

It is also potentially an open door through which other less well intentioned people could gain access directly to your PC and by-pass your firewall and anti-virus protection.

For my 2cents didz is and has been one of the more credable forum members we have had since STW.

If any part of what he is saying above is true, I wont get it. I normally wait for patches and mods anyway to fix the ridiculous balance issues, but this kind of kills it for this consumer.

Hopefully others take note before purchase.

lancelot

09-14-2007, 18:00

The issue really is that software companies do NOT need SecuRom to prevent illegal copying of the game....and that it doesn't actually do that anyway as its already been by-passed by professional crack companies.

The issue is that SecuRom can do a lot more than just that and that once its on your PC it can be explioted both by its owners and others that Sony licence to use it in order to spy upon your activites and to mess with your PC.

It is also potentially an open door through which other less well intentioned people could gain access directly to your PC and by-pass your firewall and anti-virus protection.

Cheers for the clarification...if this really is the case then I would again call for someone from CA or Sega to get their asses in here and explain why they are using such questionable products- and more importantly-if they are prepared to actually do anything about it.

gardibolt

09-14-2007, 19:24

Odin

09-14-2007, 19:34

I'm more than a little irritated that neither CA nor SEGA can be bothered to give an explanation of why they're treating their paying customers like common thieves. My order for Kingdoms remains cancelled. It's bad enough that I have one rootkit on my computer thanks to their patch 1.2; they really didn't have to add another one with Kingdoms.

Why would they explain anything to anyone? Consumers continue to buy thier products no questions asked, expectations unfulfilled.

This isnt the 1st title or 1st addon for them, they gaming business model has been working like this for sometime. Its customers like you who have chosen not to make the purchase based on this criteria, that, and only that is the method by which to expect change.

SpencerH

09-14-2007, 22:30

It's bad enough that I have one rootkit on my computer thanks to their patch 1.2; they really didn't have to add another one with Kingdoms.

Eh? Rootkit with 1.2?

Swiss Halberd Pike Landsknecht

09-14-2007, 23:40

I hope that isn't true ~:( (about the roolkit with patch 1.2 for M2TW)

Stig

09-14-2007, 23:42

Eh? Rootkit with 1.2?
No, since I scan for rootkits every 2 weeks, and don't have any on my pc.

Didz

09-15-2007, 01:41

@Odin and Lancelot

Thanks for the vote of confidence in my opinions guys, but I would urge you to take a look at SecuRom's own site just to satisfy yourselves that my interpretion of the risks are valid.

http://www.securom.com/solution_market.asp

If you spend a few minutes just reading though the Optional Products list in the menu in the left hand margin you will see exactly what Sony are offering their customers as potential valued added benefits with SecuRom, and by implication what SecuRom must be capable of doing to your PC.

I was particularly concerned with the additional features being sold to customers under labels n-CD and Web-Link.

Gaius Terentius Varro

09-15-2007, 02:07

@Odin and Lancelot

Thanks for the vote of confidence in my opinions guys, but I would urge you to take a look at SecuRom's own site just to satisfy yourselves that my interpretion of the risks are valid.

http://www.securom.com/solution_market.asp

If you spend a few minutes just reading though the Option Products lists in the menu in the left hand margin you will see exactly what Sony are offering their customers as potential valued added benefits with SecuRom, and by implication what SecuRom must be capable of doing to your PC.

I was particularly concerned with the additional features being sold to customers under labels n-CD and Web-Link.

Yeah lol "Collect valuable customer data for 1 : 1 marketing activities" doesn't spyware do that?

Incongruous

09-15-2007, 06:52

@Odin and Lancelot

Thanks for the vote of confidence in my opinions guys, but I would urge you to take a look at SecuRom's own site just to satisfy yourselves that my interpretion of the risks are valid.

http://www.securom.com/solution_market.asp

If you spend a few minutes just reading though the Option Products lists in the menu in the left hand margin you will see exactly what Sony are offering their customers as potential valued added benefits with SecuRom, and by implication what SecuRom must be capable of doing to your PC.

I was particularly concerned with the additional features being sold to customers under labels n-CD and Web-Link.
Man, oh man.
CA have totally dropped in my expectations and views:whip:
Well I that puts me off ever buying another one of their games for ethical reasons. :yes:
Too bad guys, I had mostly enjoyed you're games but oh well...

SpencerH

09-15-2007, 12:28

No, since I scan for rootkits every 2 weeks, and don't have any on my pc.

I didnt think so.

Didz

09-15-2007, 13:26

Yeah lol "Collect valuable customer data for 1 : 1 marketing activities" doesn't spyware do that?
Exactly...

Man, oh man.
CA have totally dropped in my expectations and views:whip:
Well I that puts me off ever buying another one of their games for ethical reasons. :yes:
Too bad guys, I had mostly enjoyed you're games but oh well...
Well to be fair the insertion of SecuRom on the kingdoms CD would not have been CA's decision it was probably made by Sega.

Also as far as we know the option used is merely the basic CD encryption system, nobody has any evidence that it includes any of the value-added features offered by Sony. In fact, one of my biggest issues with this action by Sega is that it has been done in secret without disclodure to the customer and therefore the customer has not been given the option to make an informed decision on whether to accept the conditions imposed by Sega on the use of their software. I think if companies are going to use SecuRom or similar products then it should be their legal duty to inform the customer, before purchase, that their product includes invasive software which could compromise their privacy and system security.

The other thing we don't know, because it isn't explained to non-customers on the SecuRom site, is whether the basic SecuRom installation can be upgraded insitu. It would certainly make good marketing sense if this were the case...in other words....if the basic encryption programme could be used as a trojan horse to facilitate the download of other options like n-CD or Web-Link options at a later date when either Sega or another customer decided they wished to purchase the option. Also given the fact that Sony are offering to license out the SecuRom toolkit to their customers so that they can produce their own enhancements the ability to download such features onto pre-'infacted' PC's would make sense.

grapedog

09-15-2007, 16:42

It's just sad that the paying customers are the ones most hurt. 99% of the pirates who get this game will already have had the copy protection removed before they get it.

I personally buy a retail copy of the games I want to support, sit it on my shelf, download and burn a pirated copy and use that for installations with my paid for CD key. It takes a few extra days for games to become available, cracks too...but it's well worth the hassle of completely avoiding any of this crap they try to put paying customers through.

Kingdoms is an excellent expansion, and I would highly recommend it to anyone who enjoys the series.