Kingdoms SecuRom discussion - forum rules only

[sapi]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

exactly why i dont understand why they include these software i the first place.

[Stig]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Stig]

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]

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:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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]

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.

[flambergius]

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]

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)

[HoreTore]

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]

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/98...-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]

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.p...7&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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

Qantas's policy is rather worrying. I'm sure a lot of people carry items worth well over $250 with them.

[Didz]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.