Kingdoms SecuRom discussion - forum rules only

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nebuchadnezzar

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.

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:

Well what TinCow posted would contradict you:

Quote:

---

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!

---

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

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

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fenir

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.

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:

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.

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

I openly challenge SEGA, here in public

---

What we need is a litmus test for someone to directly challenge a EULA. Volunteers anyone?

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 ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpencerH

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?

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

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.

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

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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ulstan

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

---

Hey, a complicated world requires complicated laws.

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lancelot

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.

Thanks Ramses II,

I've updated the original post to take account of your info.

Vac

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

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...9115577,00.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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lancelot

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Didz

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Didz

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.

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.