EA sued over Spore DRM (Not A "Bash" Thread)

[Slachtbeest]

I'm extremely pleased that consumer rights are being addressed, and companies such as EA who pull this kind of garbage are finally being called on it hard, and consumer rights being addressed very seriously now.

However, I'm unsure about the last part, regarding the "DRM overseeing the computer" etc., unless they're referring to it "overseeing" when/how the game is being used and installed, and things such as what hardware you're running, which we know it does. As for it doing or "monitoring" anything else, I don't know about that...

Anyway, here's the link to article and the article itself:

Link

Class action filed in US District Court contends that publisher hides fact game installs irremovable SecuROM, violating two California laws.

Ever since Spore was released on September 7, an uproar has been growing. Many gamers have taken great exception to the fact the PC game comes bundled with SecuROM digital rights management software. One criticism is that SecuROM only allows the game to be installed on three computers before locking. As a result of the outcry, EA expanded the number of Spore installs to five PCs last week.

Still, a more persistent complaint is that, once installed, SecuROM cannot be removed. Accusations have also been leveled that the program amounts to malware or spyware, since it monitors computer use to prevent duplication.

Spore's use of SecuROM has sparked a major backlash, with pirates using the DRM as justification to download illegal copies of the title. A recent Forbes article pointed out that the game was widely pirated in the days after its release, with the blog TorrentFreak claiming 500,000 illegal downloads of the game were made in just one week.

Now, two weeks after the illegal response to Spore began, EA faces a new, legal challenge to its DRM policy. This week, a class action suit was filed in the North District of California Court by the law firm KamberEdelson on behalf of one Melissa Thomas and all other Spore purchasers. According to the filing, which was made available by Courthousenews.com, the suit contends that EA violated the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law by not informing consumers installing Spore will also install SecurROM.

"Although consumers are told the game uses access control and copy protection technology, consumers are not told that this technology is actually an entirely separate, stand-alone program which will download, install, and operate on their computer," read the complaint. "Once installed, it becomes a permanent part of the consumer's software portfolio. Even if the consumer uninstalls Spore, and entirely deletes it from their computer, SecurROM remains a fixture on their computer unless and until the consumer completely wipes their hard drive through reformatting or replacement of the drive."

The suit accuses EA of "intentionally" hiding the fact Spore uses SecurROM, which it alleges is "secretly installed to the command and control center of the computer (Ring 0, or the Kernel) and [is] surreptitiously operated, overseeing function and operation of the computer, and preventing the computer from operating under certain circumstances and/or disrupting hardware operations." The suit also claims the SecurROM takes over a portion of the PC's processing resources "to transmit information back to EA."

The filing asks the judge to certify the action as a class action, and award anyone in it damages equal to the purchase price of Spore and "actual damages, statutory damages, or treble damages." Given Spore's success, paying back thrice its $49.99 price tag could prove costly for EA, which had not responded to requests for comment as of press time.

Note: this thread was posted for those who actually care about consumer rights and even privacy, not as a "bash" thread, nor any "whining" about DRMs, for those who cannot handle a conversation about the issue that other adults wish to have, so please keep it calm and respectful to everyone here, thanks.

 

[FrozenLiquidity]

LOL awesome.

 

[SixtyWattMan]

EA sucks.

 

[k1pp3r]

So in theory, if their analysis of secureROM is correct. A virus aimed at exploiting secureROM could fubar even your hardware? That would be the end of a few peoples life, they would be sued into oblivion.

Interesting, i will follow this.

500,000 illegal downloads in 1 week huh, some good this did, lol

 

[Slachtbeest]

So in theory, if their analysis of secureROM is correct. A virus aimed at exploiting secureROM could fubar even your hardware? That would be the end of a few peoples life, they would be sued into oblivion.

Interesting, i will follow this.

500,000 illegal downloads in 1 week huh, some good this did, lol

Yeah, no kidding... worked wonders, didn't it?

As for the hardware, I believe they'd be referring to your DVD drives, as SecuROM has been known to prevent people from burning anything from their system onto a disc, due to the DRM "catching" that something is being copied from your system. It's happened to countless people. I've never heard (yet) of SecuROM interfering with any other system hardware, though it can definitely screw with many other things on your system.

If this situation doesn't have an impact on all this invasive DRM garbage, then I don't know what will. Perhaps a small tactical nuke fired on EA's headquarters? Because if they don't get the damn message at this point, then there's something seriously wrong with the thinking of the people who own and operate their company.

 

[Citizen86]

I just read that article on Gamespot and came here to see if it had been posted yet.... Pretty glad to see it, so ridiculous people who paid money have to live with EA's crap and piraters don't get any of it.

Wasn't a very fun game anyways

 

[rickyz]

sneaky bastards

 

[Spaxspore]

almost bought it, once i found it had Secrum, hell no.

 

[RX3]

Very nice. I will definitely follow this. Thanks Slacht.

Good thing I read here before I buy my games...I do not have Spore but I was almost thinking about getting Warhead.

 

[BladeVenom]

It's about time someone sued them over DRM.

 

[Redshirt #24]

Waiting to see how this goes. Just...waiting...

 

[Khanmots]

However, I'm unsure about the last part, regarding the "DRM overseeing the computer" etc., unless they're referring to it "overseeing" when/how the game is being used and installed, and things such as what hardware you're running, which we know it does. As for it doing or "monitoring" anything else, I don't know about that...

My understanding is that the SecuRom implementation used for Spore (as well as in MEPC) will prevent the game from running if certain other applications are running.

Applications such as Microsoft's Process Explorer.

 

[SockMan!]

I think all publishers/distributors should clearly state exactly what DRM their products contain and what additional software is additionally (and sometimes silently) installed. Full disclosure right on the box. If they don't start telling people what their products secretly do to their computer then force them with legislation. People have a right to know.

Gamers should not need to jump through hoops with customer service and support or go through pages of web searches and forums just to find out what DRM method, version, drivers, etc a game will install without the user knowing. And no, just stating arbitrarily that your games might have "copy protection measures" in the EULA doesn't cut it.

 

[Slachtbeest]

Very nice. I will definitely follow this. Thanks Slacht.

Good thing I read here before I buy my games...I do not have Spore but I was almost thinking about getting Warhead.

No problem, my pleasure. With an issue as important and serious as this, I like to stay informed myself, especially if we're perhaps (fingers crossed) on the verge of seeing a change in such unscrupulous behavior on the part of companies such as EA and others.

It's about time someone sued them over DRM.

I agree, even if no one receives money and it's only out of principal in order to be a catalyst for change.

My understanding is that the SecuRom implementation used for Spore (as well as in MEPC) will prevent the game from running if certain other applications are running.

Applications such as Microsoft's Process Explorer.

That, I did not know... only makes it all the worse. That's just insanely invasive and ridiculously problematic. If people are actually having system troubles to that extent, where SecuROM would interfere when even normal OS processes are running, then this most certainly needs to be dealt with swiftly and harshly, once and for all.

I think all publishers/distributors should clearly state exactly what DRM their products contain and what additional software is additionally (and sometimes silently) installed. Full disclosure right on the box. If they don't start telling people what their products secretly do to their computer then force them with legislation. People have a right to know.

Gamers should not need to jump through hoops with customer service and support or go through pages of web searches and forums just to find out what DRM method, version, drivers, etc a game will install without the user knowing. And no, just stating arbitrarily that your games might have "copy protection measures" in the EULA doesn't cut it.

Exactly right, and couldn't have been said better. Of course, such invasive DRMs shouldn't even be considered for use in the first place, so ideally, there should be nothing more than "CD key activation required" having to be listed on the box, as that would be more than enough "copy protection".

Hopefully this legal situation will, at the very least, bring serious attention to these issues, and a huge amount of bad press to EA, hopefully being the catalyst for them to change their ways.

 

[legcramp]

yay finally, maybe they can get rid of all this crap.

 

[H-street]

the problem is, SecureROM is part of Spore as far as the program goes (Software as the package).. that is how all DRM is perceived, it may use securerom as a library but in essence Spore includes securerom .. just as before, all games DRM is included and thought as "part" of the game and not a seperate entity..

starforce was the same way,

does anyone have a link to the actual filing (nvm found it Here).. what the OP posted was nothing more than usual media spin.. if you want to have an "adult" conversation about it, then start by posting the non-biased court case..

most of that article is 90% fluff and 10% content (The point of the filing is it violates the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law) but the article quoted gives no other information about and then goes on this hyperbole of media chunks..


the first question i'd have are these just ambulance chasers? just because its filed means nothing...

infact does anyone know how the starforce / ubisoft class action lawsuit ended up? its a little convenient that the Ubisoft starforce class aciton lawsuit also was file/originated from california..


after reading the actual court case i find it a little amusing they actualy used those "amazon" reviews in the filing which IMO 99% of them were probably bogus from the likes of the internet horde running rampant.. infact read section 18 of the filing and they use that '1star" statistic from amazon.. but they fail to mention that amazon was policing that rating due to bogus reviews


In the end the claim is an undisclosed install of secureRom that is part of Spore (which was consent to install). I mean if this seriously went in favor of the plaintiffs then almost every piece of software is going to be in violation of this.. Look at your basic OS system for example (Vista, XP, OSX).. do they fully disclose all "stand alone" programs? did vista /xp disclose it was going to install "cmd.exe" when you install the software or looked on the back of the box?

i agree that personal use rights need to be protected, but in this case (Sport DRM) i believe you need to vote with your wallet and not the courts.. and its frivilous lawsuits like this that rank right up there with Jack Thompson and its nothing more than some attorney trying to get a quick payout..

if this were a serious case, the damages seeked would be for removal the DRM instead they seek nothing more than money (no where in the relief section does it mention removal of DRM measures from plaintiffs systems)..

 

[nst6563]

It is good to see this come about. I for one have almost given up on games as a result of the crap they do these days. I use my system for work at times and often run things like Process Explorer as part of troubleshooting during testing for my job.

Kind of goes back to a statement I read a few days ago that said if the companies would focus more on the GAME and it's playable content rather than making damned movies and 20 minute theatrical cutscenes out of them, they could not only cut the costs, but they could make the games more fun, longer lasting, and sell more as a result.

 

[SockMan!]

My understanding is that the SecuRom implementation used for Spore (as well as in MEPC) will prevent the game from running if certain other applications are running.

Applications such as Microsoft's Process Explorer.

Don't know if that was intentional or not, but if a program blacklists or disables other programs then the box/packaging should fully disclose that too (the fact that there is a blacklist and what's on that list). I was pissed when one of the later Myst games explicitly stated that I had to remove a disk cloning utility on my computer before it would run. I ended up uninstalling Myst instead; too bad I already opened the package so I couldn't return it to the store.

Software developers/publishers/distributors seem to think that they can do whatever they want to a computer secretly and without disclosure. They're probably using the excuse 'what they don't know won't hurt them'. It doesn't matter if that's true or not - it's completely the wrong attitude to have.

Full disclosure would not only let people keep control over their computers but will also allow publishers to cover their asses and prevent these public backlashes. It'd probably help prevent lawsuits too when their 'secret' software breaks a person's computer or compromises security.

 

[nst6563]

I mean if this seriously went in favor of the plaintiffs then almost every piece of software is going to be in violation of this.. Look at your basic OS system for example (Vista, XP, OSX).. do they fully disclose all "stand alone" programs? did vista /xp disclose it was going to install "cmd.exe" when you install the software or looked on the back of the box?

the damages seeked would be for removal the DRM instead they seek nothing more than money (no where in the relief section does it mention removal of DRM measures from plaintiffs systems)..

Not trying to start a war here, but really... the OS doesn't do anything to stop you from doing anything. Also if Microsoft were to list all the apps on their box, you'd need a 1ton truck to haul it in. With respect to a game...it's just that. They'd have to list something like :
Core program
DRM/Copy Protection system
DirectX version
etc.

Not much to list there, and could easily be embedded right there along with the ERB rating box.
I don't have SecuRom on my machine, so I can't vouch for what it does/doesn't do but if it in fact DOES prevent the user from doing certain tasks or interferes with the OS in any way, then it should be disclosed. Especially if it's true that it remains embedded on the system even after the game is removed.

funny though that the removal from the systems isn't even brought up.

 

[H-street]

Not trying to start a war here, but really... the OS doesn't do anything to stop you from doing anything. Also if Microsoft were to list all the apps on their box, you'd need a 1ton truck to haul it in. With respect to a game...it's just that. They'd have to list something like :
Core program
DRM/Copy Protection system
DirectX version
etc.

but that is sort of the point i was making, a game is just "software", the label game is the type of software..

this type of claimed "secret" install applies to almost every piece of software (game or not) that you have ever installed.

When was the last time you installed any software that had a complete list of everything the software was going to install and were it was going to install it? Sure it may give you the disclosure of C:/Program Files/ but i have no idea what its putting there wheni push "install" and is no List ever disclosed..

When you consent to install software you are consenting to install everything (except where customization of installs are allowed) that is with the software..

in this instance the spore software includes SecureROM, just as other software inclues their components.


infact i went and read the ubisoft/starforce lawsuit filing and it is oddly similar in wording and allegations (not labeled installing of starforce, not removed on uninstall, violation of same California laws) the only difference is in the damages they were seeking an injuction of starforce game sells with the money, something this secureRom lawsuit lacks and does give it the sense of being not genuine in intent. it is almost a cut and paste filing.. Further digging this isn't suprising because HimmelFarb (Ubisoft/Starforce) is a Partner to KamberEdelson, the submitters of this EA/Spore lawsuit..

In the end, this is nothing more than the work of lawyers and money grabbers.. something i hate even more than DRM and hang nails..

 

[Citizen86]

In the end, this is nothing more than the work of lawyers and money grabbers.. something i hate even more than DRM and hang nails..

It's unfortunate, because this is going to a be lose-lose situation for everyone. Nobody wants all these DRM's, but people go about it the wrong way and pirate the game, which forces EA to believe they need stronger DRM....

And these money-grabbing lawyers obviously don't help a bit. It's a vicious circle/downward spiral and who knows when it'll hit bottom.

There's no way anybody is going to make the point to the 500,000+ people who pirated the game in the first week that they shouldn't be doing that

 

[nst6563]

yep, both sides have to come to an agreement, and like anything else there will be some that go against the agreement.

voting with the wallet is about the only way the companies like EA will see. Unfortunately, that has to be done en mass so they actually SEE the number of sales not going up. But the average joe consumer will simply buy the game, install it, THEN find out what it does or what else it's got installed and either be unhappy and complain, or just be unhappy and go about their business, or just plain won't care.

 

[Slachtbeest]

It's unfortunate, because this is going to a be lose-lose situation for everyone. Nobody wants all these DRM's, but people go about it the wrong way and pirate the game, which forces EA to believe they need stronger DRM....

And these money-grabbing lawyers obviously don't help a bit. It's a vicious circle/downward spiral and who knows when it'll hit bottom.

There's no way anybody is going to make the point to the 500,000+ people who pirated the game in the first week that they shouldn't be doing that

While this is true, there's one thing to keep in mind: while EA might try to make the case that such invasive measures are "needed" in order to "protect" themselves, their measures are overly invasive, and can be proven to be as such.

That, coupled with the fact that EA has clearly stated recently that the DRM was more to prevent second-hand sales, than it was to prevent piracy, that bites them in the ass even harder, as then having such an invasive DRM will appear even more unnecessary.

Regardless of the money-grubbing individuals (for those involved in this suit for whom money is their only motive, as opposed to principal), they could actually end up doing the rest of us a favor. With a close look being given into the DRM, with all the problems/issues involved, and the fact that it's not everyone and their mother attempting to become part of this suit (in other words, it doesn't look like everyone "jumping on a bandwagon"), that also is another strike against them.

All they have to do is research, look at the absolutely massive public outcries about the situation, and as I said, this could just be the catalyst for change in this situation.

Lawyers, well... much negative can be stated about the profession, but the bottom line is that it puts EA's (and possibly other's in/for the future) practices under very close scrutiny to see whether or not this is a legitimate problem. Upon seeing that it is, lets hope that action is taken to protect consumer's rights, as well as hopefully put a stop to the insane invasive DRM madness.

 

[SockMan!]

the problem is, SecureROM is part of Spore as far as the program goes (Software as the package).. that is how all DRM is perceived, it may use securerom as a library but in essence Spore includes securerom .. just as before, all games DRM is included and thought as "part" of the game and not a seperate entity..

In the end the claim is an undisclosed install of secureRom that is part of Spore (which was consent to install). I mean if this seriously went in favor of the plaintiffs then almost every piece of software is going to be in violation of this.. Look at your basic OS system for example (Vista, XP, OSX).. do they fully disclose all "stand alone" programs? did vista /xp disclose it was going to install "cmd.exe" when you install the software or looked on the back of the box?

The big difference is that documentation is easily and freely available (at least for Windows) if you want to get into the nitty-gritty of how the OS is installed and what's installed in the process. Go to TechNet and you'll find more than you'd ever want to know about it. On the other hand, DRM solutions often go undocumented; many publishers don't freely tell what their copy protection solutions do to a computer - or even what their copy protection solution is. Also, installing an OS is not making any unauthorized changes to an environment, it's making the environment (you can't run a computer without an OS).

SecuROM (or any other DRM solution) may be considered part of a program. However, everyone except the ignorant knows what your talking about when you say DRM. If I call up the developer and ask what copy protection and/or authentication the software uses, he/she should immediately know exactly what I'm asking for (whether the person would tell me is a different matter). Also, a lot of DRM/authentication solutions are third party which makes it easier to identify and state the copy protection methods used by a game; hell, it'd be damn easy if they put a 'Protected by SecuROM version 7' sticker on the box. They already put SpeedTree and Havok logos on boxes, why not logos for copy protection solutions too?

 

[number69]

From what i've read from various sources on the subject some games have Securom embedded in the games exe file. When you click the exe for the first time to run the game Securom goes into action and installs itself.



I wonder how many games with Securom actually install Securom when you're installing the game vs. Securom getting installed when you click on the games Securom embedded exe when you go to run it the first time.

 

[sparks]

Only question why was EA singled out on this ? Deep Pockets??
A lot of companies use this same crap. Don't get me wrong I hate EA but was wondering why the co that sells secur to them is not the main one listed on the suit. Why don't we see all games and co's that use it on this list ?

I wish EA and all the other co's would look and say we pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for this crap. What do we get out of it?

one thing look at punkbuster...pos
It runs on startup and not when the game is booting up and running, will not shut down when game ends. Always resident. This is pure bs too.
WHY does it not just run ONLY when the game you installed it with is running? >>>you agree to install and run it when you install the game but that does not give them the implied right to do whatever they want.

uninstall the game and PB is still with you.<<there has to be a reason all of them stay...spyware or something.

 

[spugnor]

I think all publishers/distributors should clearly state exactly what DRM their products contain and what additional software is additionally (and sometimes silently) installed. Full disclosure right on the box. If they don't start telling people what their products secretly do to their computer then force them with legislation. People have a right to know.

Gamers should not need to jump through hoops with customer service and support or go through pages of web searches and forums just to find out what DRM method, version, drivers, etc a game will install without the user knowing. And no, just stating arbitrarily that your games might have "copy protection measures" in the EULA doesn't cut it.

Indeed. I have been advocating this for years. We can't vote with our dollars unless we KNOW what's in the box. To me this is as important as the "food labels" that tell you what's in the food you're buying.

 

[jonneymendoza]

I'm extremely pleased that consumer rights are being addressed, and companies such as EA who pull this kind of garbage are finally being called on it hard, and consumer rights being addressed very seriously now.

However, I'm unsure about the last part, regarding the "DRM overseeing the computer" etc., unless they're referring to it "overseeing" when/how the game is being used and installed, and things such as what hardware you're running, which we know it does. As for it doing or "monitoring" anything else, I don't know about that...

Anyway, here's the link to article and the article itself:

Link



Note: this thread was posted for those who actually care about consumer rights and even privacy, not as a "bash" thread, nor any "whining" about DRMs, for those who cannot handle a conversation about the issue that other adults wish to have, so please keep it calm and respectful to everyone here, thanks.

well done

 

[Spaceman_Spiff]

I think its more than reasonable for publishers to have to clearly state on the box if an additional tool, service, or whatever is required to run and/or install a game, and that's all this lawsuit is about. I still think its crap that someone would sue over this when the information is easily found. I find it hard to believe that someone who knows all about securom and why he/she doesn't want it wouldn't also be able to google the game beforehand and find out if it has it. But hey, its america, why do your own research when you can just bitch about it afterward instead.

You can't and won't sue anyone into not using copy protection. They're free to put whatever they want into the game. It would be nice if it was on the box, so that consumers could make more informed choices. I'm willing to bet they wouldn't even lose noticeable sales, because everyone who would choose not to buy it on securom alone wouldn't need to see it on the box.

 

[Silus]

This already happened with Bioshock. Many customers filled small class action law suits against stores, mainly because they wanted their money back, given that 2K did NOT disclose important information about the DRM scheme applied. This eventually escalated to 2K.

People just took longer to get to the law suits, because they tried to solve things through support, but with moderators constantly locking threads and banning users, support didn't really exist. 2K had their money, so they didn't really care. In Spore's case, people just took the law suit step sooner and I think that's the right way to do it.

 

[Silus]

SecuROM (or any other DRM solution) may be considered part of a program. However, everyone except the ignorant knows what your talking about when you say DRM. If I call up the developer and ask what copy protection and/or authentication the software uses, he/she should immediately know exactly what I'm asking for (whether the person would tell me is a different matter). Also, a lot of DRM/authentication solutions are third party which makes it easier to identify and state the copy protection methods used by a game; hell, it'd be damn easy if they put a 'Protected by SecuROM version 7' sticker on the box. They already put SpeedTree and Havok logos on boxes, why not logos for copy protection solutions too?

They don't put it, because most people don't know or don't care about it. So it doesn't really matter that they are deceived into installing a piece of software not advertised, because by not knowing it's there or what it does, they can't complain about it.

And that's precisely why it's extremely important to make a big fuss about this, so that the uninformed become informed. And the "vote with your wallet" is much more effective, in the next releases, if it uses the same draconian DRM schemes.

 

[Slachtbeest]

And that's precisely why it's extremely important to make a big fuss about this, so that the uninformed become informed. And the "vote with your wallet" is much more effective, in the next releases, if it uses the same draconian DRM schemes.

Exactly, very true and very well put.

Originally Posted by Slachtbeest View Post
I'm extremely pleased that consumer rights are being addressed, and companies such as EA who pull this kind of garbage are finally being called on it hard, and consumer rights being addressed very seriously now.

However, I'm unsure about the last part, regarding the "DRM overseeing the computer" etc., unless they're referring to it "overseeing" when/how the game is being used and installed, and things such as what hardware you're running, which we know it does. As for it doing or "monitoring" anything else, I don't know about that...

Anyway, here's the link to article and the article itself:

Link

Note: this thread was posted for those who actually care about consumer rights and even privacy, not as a "bash" thread, nor any "whining" about DRMs, for those who cannot handle a conversation about the issue that other adults wish to have, so please keep it calm and respectful to everyone here, thanks.

well done

Thank you.

 

[damonposey]

500,000 illegal downloads in 1 week huh, some good this did, lol

Actually you can't prove what good or bad it actually did. It would have been downloaded like mad regardless of the copy protection because of the one constant called 'people like free games'.

 

[jonneymendoza]

hope EA get done for this stupid mess they ahve created to themselfes. DRM practicly stopped me from buying spore.

i wonder if warhammer online has thsi DRM shit in it. wont surprise me if it did

 

[sparks]

I like the by purchasing this item you agree to the enclosed eula.
if its important enough to mention, then its important enough to be printed on the box.

99% of purchasers don't know what eula stands for.
99% don't know or care what SecureRom is.
99% just want to play what they paid for.

so us 1% sound like hippie nuts when we say it is not in your best interest...SAD but true

 

[SixtyWattMan]

i wonder if warhammer online has thsi DRM shit in it. wont surprise me if it did

Warhammer doesn't need it because you need an account to log in and play. You could download the client off of bittorrent, but if you have no account it is useless to you.

 

[jonneymendoza]

Warhammer doesn't need it because you need an account to log in and play. You could download the client off of bittorrent, but if you have no account it is useless to you.

yea i kind o thought it doesnt BUT knowing EA you never know man.

 

[Slachtbeest]

I like the by purchasing this item you agree to the enclosed eula.
if its important enough to mention, then its important enough to be printed on the box.

99% of purchasers don't know what eula stands for.
99% don't know or care what SecureRom is.
99% just want to play what they paid for.

so us 1% sound like hippie nuts when we say it is not in your best interest...SAD but true

Heh heh, exactly... nail on the head.

 

[zleuth]

Does anyone have any hard data on how much processing power, memory and bandwidth SecuRom actually uses?

As someone that is perpetually 'behind the curve' for cutting edge hardware, I am concerned over all those little Drop-In-The-Bucket apps that take up so much of my systems resources. Sure, a small program by itself may have no noticeable effect on system performance, but 10 or 20 such programs certainly can add up and bog you down when you need it most.

What I want to know is, once installed, will SecuROM be a permanent drain, and how much of a drain will it be?

This whole thing stinks of the Sony Rootkit thing from a couple years ago.

 

[Adisharr]

I was going to comment but then I saw that this thread was intended for adult conversation. If I want adult conversation I'll go talk to my wife.