Securom on Games

[mindcycle]

Originally posted by: Aberforth

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Originally posted by: Aberforth
oh sure, the company is lying now??

How could I put this so that you will understand it? Let's see: yes. How's that?

If a company lies, it qualifies for a class action- go file it.

There already has been a suit filed over this.

http://www.neoseeker.com/news/...akes-threats-over-drm/

Since the result of the lawsuit hasn't yet been decided we can only speculate whether or not SecuROM actually has Ring 0 access. I found the following forum post (among others) but the one below explains things pretty well IMO. I guess decide for yourself.

http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10448

I know many of you will see this issue as being beaten to dead, but IMO it's still a valid concern since it's still being used by publishers. Sure, many threads have been posted here concerning SecuROM, i've posted many of them myself. But how does that possibly make it irrelevant if companies like Capcom are still making public announcements about it? The fact of the matter is that it's still an important topic. Like wanderer27 mentioned above, there are many here that don't get it and never will, but threads like this one still hold merit IMO if only to further discuss an issue that is actively being looked at by the industry itself.

 

[NoWhereM]

Originally posted by: Aberforth
I post this because I don't like people spreading F.U.D to carry out their own hidden agenda. As a gamer myself, I'm only trying to tell users that DRM does not cause problems to the end-users, only in exceptional scenarios when the protection is unreasonable it might be true just like any other annoyances.

SecuROM FAQ

Read more: http://www.securom.com/support_faq.asp

It does cause problems for end users and Securom knows it does. If you want to quote Securom than quote one of their troubleshooting guides of known issues like this one http://www.disciples2.com/D2/i...curom_Known_Issues.pdf.

I have more than ten of the games listed in the op. So far no problems (knock on wood). One possible reason I don't have problems is I also have a few games with Starforce on them and I had to buy a second CD/DVD drive after installing those games because my name brand drive was no longer able to read all of my retail game disks.

I'm not real happy with the new trend of limited installs with no revoke tools, I change hardware often, but so far Securom is working out for me. I'm a cheapskate and I used to buy most of my games used. Now because so many people are refusing to buy games with DRM on them at the full retail price PC games drop in price fairly quickly and I can just wait a short time and buy them new.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

Originally posted by: Aberforth
oh sure, the company is lying now??

How could you be so incredulous? Is this really so uncommon? Why place such faith in faceless SecuROM, and not the vocal community that has been personally affected and contradicts its claims?

 

[Aberforth]

Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy

Originally posted by: Aberforth
oh sure, the company is lying now??

How could you be so incredulous? Is this really so uncommon? Why place such faith in faceless SecuROM, and not the vocal community that has been personally affected and contradicts its claims?

Because you are criticizing a piece of technology used to combat piracy, made by the same frustrated people who felt that they needed to do something about it,people lose their jobs on a daily basis because of piracy, companies lose millions of dollars. Therefore support anti-piracy technology, improvise it and make gaming better not the other way- your ways are absolutely rebellious which is totally unacceptable. You guys play a big role in this financial crisis, therefore- don't be a fool and jump in a pointless bandwagon, be productive and be logical.

If you are concerned about privacy issues, don't use Windows at all. Buy a console and enjoy risk-free gaming. Don't under any pretext criticize people who are trying to restore a dying platform- PC.

 

[JoshGuru7]

Companies have a lot to gain by distorting the truth, either by exaggerating the positive or hiding the negative. Why would human nature change just because people are advancing the agenda of a company rather than their own personal agendas?

 

[mindcycle]

Originally posted by: Aberforth
If you are concerned about privacy issues, don't use Windows at all. Buy a console and enjoy risk-free gaming. Don't under any pretext criticize people who are trying to restore a dying platform- PC.

How is adding additional roadblocks that paying customers have to deal with restoring the platform?

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

Originally posted by: Aberforth

Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy

Originally posted by: Aberforth
oh sure, the company is lying now??

How could you be so incredulous? Is this really so uncommon? Why place such faith in faceless SecuROM, and not the vocal community that has been personally affected and contradicts its claims?

Because you are criticizing a piece of technology used to combat piracy, made by the same frustrated people who felt that they needed to do something about it,people lose their jobs on a daily basis because of piracy, companies lose millions of dollars. Therefore support anti-piracy technology, improvise it and make gaming better not the other way- your ways are absolutely rebellious which is totally unacceptable. You guys play a big role in this financial crisis, therefore- don't be a fool and jump in a pointless bandwagon, be productive and be logical.

If you are concerned about privacy issues, don't use Windows at all. Buy a console and enjoy risk-free gaming. Don't under any pretext criticize people who are trying to restore a dying platform- PC.

Honest question here: is this a joke? Seriously. You really just suggested that users should not be allowed to criticize this piece of software or its creators for any reason because its purpose is to revitalize the PC gaming scene. Not only that, but to criticize SecuROM is to contribute to the financial crisis. I'm sorry, but I am utterly shocked at your leaps of logic and I feel dumber for having read this post.

I will ask again: Are you truly unable to separate the concepts of SecuROM from DRM in general and the discussion about piracy? There are real, valid problems that stem from installing SecuROM that legitimate, paying customers have experienced and described here in this very thread. SecuROM is either buggy or intentionally malicious, end of story. Neither scenario bodes well for PC gamers, the consumers, the real people for which you should be concerned. Pointing this out doesn't make me a fool, a pirate, or a rebel.

 

[mindcycle]

Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy
I will ask again: Are you truly unable to separate the concepts of SecuROM from DRM in general and the discussion about piracy? There are real, valid problems that stem from installing SecuROM that legitimate, paying customers have experienced and described here in this very thread. SecuROM is either buggy or intentionally malicious, end of story. Neither scenario bodes well for PC gamers, the consumers, the real people for which you should be concerned. Pointing this out doesn't make me a fool, a pirate, or a rebel.

Good point. Until users like Aberforth and chizow can drop the whole "everyone against DRM is a pirate" mentality, then there is no use arguing with them. My argument against SecuROM, is, and always has been, that SecuROM and other malicious forms of DRM only serve to hurt the companies who use them. One, by causing real issues or even perceived issues (roadblocks) for the legit paying customer. Two, the fact that SecuROM does nothing to stop piracy. See Spore as an example. Three, it takes away "first sale rights" that we as consumers can't afford to lose. Four, we are essentially now "renting" games instead of actually purchasing them.

So lets discuss those "real" issues instead of just calling everyone against DRM a pirate or a pirate sympathizer, or someone who wants to see PC gaming collapse, which is simply just not the case here. Me along with others who are against SecuROM are PC gamers at heart who want nothing more than to see the platform thrive, but see invasive DRM as a threat to that goal. Is that really so hard to understand?

 

[mindcycle]

oops, delete

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: mindcycle
I've gathered a short list of links for those of you still undecided about whether or not to be concerned about SecuROM, and I do mean short. Just type securom into google if you want to know what i'm talking about (seriously, just take 10 seconds and actually do that). I've tried to interject an equal amount of anti vs pro (some neutral) SecuROM articles and posts so you can get a clearer picture. It's obviously not perfect, but it's better than nothing. So if you have the time, take a look through some of these links and decide for yourself.

.....links.....

I've read over those links and have already read many of them in the past, unfortunately they simply build upon the multiple layers of FUD that have been laid before them.

Again, there's no need to reinvent the wheel here, I'll just refer to Tweak Guides article about it where author Koroush Ghazi covers many of these points and refutes each in turn with actual evidence and testimony from people who actually know what they're talking about. I know he doesn't like people to lift large quoted portions, but I will in this case because most of the ignorant and uninformed in this thread would blithely remain so by not bothering to click on the link and read for themselves:

I've already touched on the issue of Ring 0 access in the StarForce discussion further above. For one thing, it hasn't even been proven that SecuROM has Ring 0 access, however even if it turns out that it does, a wide range of third party programs will install device drivers as a normal part of their behavior, some of which have Ring 0 access. In fact some of them even have known security vulnerabilities, as we saw with SpeedFan. A search of the trusted security advisory site Secunia doesn't show any past or present listed security vulnerabilities in SecuROM, while other third party drivers, even older versions of protection methods such as SafeDisc have had such vulnerabilities in the past, though they are usually patched quickly. However rather than getting into a confusing technical debate about this issue here, let me instead point you to this discussion on the official Daemon Tools forums, conducted between one of the parties involved in the Spore class action lawsuit (username sblade), one of the developers of Daemon Tools (username LocutusofBorg), and a knowledgeable person with verified experience in the field (username evlncrn8). I direct your attention in particular to this post in which he (evilncrn8) counters the vague, deliberately misleading and unverifiable claims against SecuROM. As he states, after conducting extensive research and debugging of SecuROM on his own, he can't find any evidence that SecuROM does anything malicious, nor that it does any of the things that the other anti-SecuROM so-called experts claim it does:

• It appears you guys didn't really do your research properly and are spreading misinformation, no other ulterior or secret motive... I know the protections, pretty much all of them, I've debugged them, I've cracked them in the past.. and nothing you've posted so far matches up.

The developer of Daemon Tools backs him up:

• With all respect, please stick to FACTS that you can write down and show everyone before make such claims - at least here at our forum. It's total different if you dislike Securom or love it OR to write informations that are not based on facts... What concerns evlncrn8, rest assured that this guy knows what he wrote, even if you dislike it.

This is the heart of the issue: people with no real knowledge of SecuROM are deliberately and systematically creating and then perpetuating absolutely unverifiable, often patently false claims against such protection systems, more to debase and undermine the protection system's credibility in the eyes of the public than anything else. Even a quick check of Wikipedia's SecuROM article shows that the entire article is flagged with the heading: 'The neutrality of this article is disputed' and 'This article may contain original research or unverified claims.' Facts are taking a back seat to hysteria and a clear agenda to demonize SecuROM.

He goes on to tackle some of the claims about SecuROM being a rootkit or malware that embeds itself in a user's system, and not only refutes them, but demonstrates popular tools like Alcohol and Daemon Tools are more akin to malware than SecuROM:

In any case these Registry entries don't consume any resources or spy on your system. They're hidden because aside from preventing accidental deletion, they're used by SecuROM to track their protected game licenses. Since some anti-malware programs such as RootkitRevealer mistakenly flag them as suspicious, they've come to be seen as a sign that SecuROM is a rootkit or spyware. As it stands, there's never been any genuine evidence presented anywhere to show that SecuROM is a rootkit or spyware, or does any harm to performance or system stability; only conjecture and not surprisingly, a lot of misinformation deliberately created by crackers and perpetuated by piracy-related websites. SecuROM does have confirmed issues, I've posted them further above. However there is no evidence that SecuROM is conducting any harmful or mischievous activity on your system.

Here's the best part though: although there's never been any real indication that StarForce or SecuROM are rootkits or malware of any kind, the same can't be said for the most popular tools used to bypass copy protection: Alcohol and Daemon Tools. When Mark Russinovich, noted techie and author of various SysInternals tools such as Process Explorer and AutoRuns, took a close look at these popular emulation utilities, he concluded that:

• There?s no proof that Alcohol and Daemon Tools use rootkits to evade DRM, but the evidence is compelling. If they do their usage is clearly unethical and even potentially runs afoul of the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). In any case, there?s no reason for these products, or any product as I?ve stated previously, to employ rootkit techniques.

So if the same standard of evidence and logic that StarForce and SecuROM have received is applied to Alcohol and Daemon Tools, we see that these tools are indeed rootkits, and hence supposedly lay a system open to malware attacks. Furthermore, if users are genuinely concerned about introducing malware into their system which can compromise security and stability, then you'd think they'd avoid downloading pirated material. It's well known that one of the most common ways in which people pick up malware is through file sharing, because torrents in particular are saturated with fake files deliberately designed to infect a system with trojans, viruses, spyware and yes, even genuine rootkits. Not surprisingly however, no campaign to boycott torrents, or Alcohol, or Daemon Tools will ever gain any momentum, despite the potentially greater threat they represent to the security of users than SecuROM or StarForce ever will.

So there it is. You can weigh the evidence, or lack thereof, with regards to all the claims and FUD about SecuROM and decide for yourselves if you want to continue to perpetuate misinformation or not. There's no doubt SecuROM, particularly the activation limit implementation, has potential issues, but to claim its a major problem that causes more harm than good is not only asinine, it undermines any attempt at presenting a valid argument. Riccatiello's numbers of 0.2% are based on actual reported issues with valid key activations, which makes sense given the what needs to occur before an end-user exhausts all of their activations.

 

[mindcycle]

Lol. Yet again with the everyone against DRM is a pirate or a pirate sympathizer angle. I didn't happen to see anyone discussing Deamon tools or Alcohol, or any other cd emulation app in this thread, did anyone else? Am I missing something here? lol

Here's the important part of your post chizow "For one thing, it hasn't even been proven that SecuROM has Ring 0 access". So link to the article, let people read it. But posting portions of that article to prove your everyone is a pirate argument is just laughable. I at least made my best attempt to post links supporting both sides of the argument.

Originally posted by: chizow
Riccatiello's numbers of 0.2% are based on actual reported issues with valid key activations, which makes sense given the what needs to occur before an end-user exhausts all of their activations.

That data is from Oct. 2008. Given that Riccatiello was only talking about Spore, which had been on the market for around a month at that point, I don't see how this is at all relevant to the discussion. The chance of someone running into install limit issues, which is what he was referring to there, is much more likely to happen later on than in the first month. Again, do a search for securom on google if you want to get a feel for the real issues people are having with it today. Install limits are only one small portion of the problems reported. Using data that is six months old and an obvious PR statement just makes you look stupid.

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/39766/98/

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: mindcycle
Lol. Yet again with the everyone against DRM is a pirate or a pirate sympathizer angle. I didn't happen to see anyone discussing Deamon tools or Alcohol, or any other cd emulation app in this thread, did anyone else? Am I missing something here? lol

Ya obviously you are missing something here as the OP and a few others specifically mentioned SecuROM's incompatibility with copyright circumvention or virtualization tools. I've also acknowledged its a semi-valid complaint which requires the user to essentially decide between the programs. And no I'm not lumping everyone into the pirate sympathizer group, only you as you've proven so repeatedly unwittingly or not, we'll see about the others.

Here's the important part of your post chizow "For one thing, it hasn't even been proven that SecuROM has Ring 0 access". So link to the article, let people read it. But posting portions of that article to prove your everyone is a pirate argument is just laughable. I at least made my best attempt to post links supporting both sides of the argument.

I posted direct evidence showing many of the programs people are complaining about incompatibilities with are more akin to spyware and malware than SecuROM itself. This directly refutes claims about entitlement with regard to "legally purchased" software used for "legally ambiguous" purposes that somehow have higher authority and precedence to exist on your PC than SecuROM, which exists only to protect the copyright licenses you agree to when you accept its EULA.

That data is from Oct. 2008. Given that Riccatiello was only talking about Spore, which had been on the market for around a month at that point, I don't see how this is at all relevant to the discussion. The chance of someone running into install limit issues, which is what he was referring to there, is much more likely to happen later on than in the first month. Again, do a search for securom on google if you want to get a feel for the real issues people are having with it today. Install limits are only one small portion of the problems reported. Using data that is six months old and an obvious PR statement just makes you look stupid.

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/39766/98/

Yes he made those comments at the height of Spore's anti-DRM negativity about the same time all of those spurious law suits were filed. I'd love to see updated numbers, but of course they probably don't exist. Last I checked those suits aren't doing so well, probably because there's just not a lot of substance behind them. You'd think that if even 1% of users (at least 17,000 based on 2008 sales) were experiencing such problems those class action suits might have some teeth. But then you have to look at the incredibly unlikely scenarios required for someone to exhaust all 5 of those installations, especially now that EA has also released a license revoke tool. Which again brings my argument full circle. The overwhelming majority of end-users will never have a problem with SecuROM, nor even know it exists on their PC. This "big problem" is clearly overstated by a vocal minority that clearly do not know what they're talking about when spreading misinformation about SecuROM.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

Summary: Some knowledgeable guy claims that SecuROM does not have ring 0 access. Some other programs do.

Even supposing this is true, that does nothing to disprove anybody else's claims about the problems they have had with SecuROM, or difficulties removing it.

 

[mindcycle]

Originally posted by: chizow
Ya obviously you are missing something here as the OP and a few others specifically mentioned SecuROM's incompatibility with copyright circumvention or virtualization tools. I've also acknowledged its a semi-valid complaint which requires the user to essentially decide between the programs. And no I'm not lumping everyone into the pirate sympathizer group, only you as you've proven so repeatedly unwittingly or not, we'll see about the others.

I've looked through the thread, I see the OP mention Nero (perfectly legit cd burning software), and another poster mentions an ISO program, which could mean any number of applications, nero included. Yep, nothing about Deamon tools or Alcohol. So i'll admit that nero could be considered a cd emulation app as it includes that functionality, so the statement I made was inaccurate. But you claiming that people are talking about copyright circumvention apps is just unfounded and ignorant. As for your personal attack on me specifically, i'm just going to ignore it as it has no relevance to this thread.

I posted direct evidence showing many of the programs people are complaining about incompatibilities with are more akin to spyware and malware than SecuROM itself. This directly refutes claims about entitlement with regard to "legally purchased" software used for "legally ambiguous" purposes that somehow have higher authority and precedence to exist on your PC than SecuROM, which exists only to protect the copyright licenses you agree to when you accept its EULA.

Once again, there hasn't been a single mention of Daemon tools or Alcohol, or any mention of apps which circumvention copyright protection as their only function. That's simply not what we're talking about here. I'm humble enough to admit when a statement i've made is inaccurate, are you? I'm guessing not since you obviously have a huge ego and are unwilling to take a step back and actually think about what you are trying to preach here, so I fully expect some more nonsense justification quoting the paragraph I just wrote.

Originally posted by: chizow
Yes he made those comments at the height of Spore's anti-DRM negativity about the same time all of those spurious law suits were filed. I'd love to see updated numbers, but of course they probably don't exist. Last I checked those suits aren't doing so well, probably because there's just not a lot of substance behind them. You'd think that if even 1% of users (at least 17,000 based on 2008 sales) were experiencing such problems those class action suits might have some teeth. But then you have to look at the incredibly unlikely scenarios required for someone to exhaust all 5 of those installations, especially now that EA has also released a license revoke tool. Which again brings my argument full circle. The overwhelming majority of end-users will never have a problem with SecuROM, nor even know it exists on their PC. This "big problem" is clearly overstated by a vocal minority that clearly do not know what they're talking about when spreading misinformation about SecuROM.

Which is an educated guess on your part, just like everyone else's educated guess in this thread. Quoting an article on tweakguides doesn't really prove anything if you think about it. The guy that runs that site is just another internet poster like everyone here. I read that article and agree with some of his points, but it doesn't stop me from being vocal about SecuROM and that fact that it's unnecessary.

Anyway, have fun calling everyone a pirate, we all know how much you love doing that.. lol

 

[Red Irish]

chizow, you state that the author of the article you cite demonstrates that "popular tools like Alcohol and Daemon Tools are more akin to malware than SecuROM"

Let's assume that I accept this claim, there is nevertheless one glaring difference here:

users choose to install these programs on their systems, nobody chooses to install Securom, it is installed along with the game without our knowledge. The EULA only makes reference to "an enclosed license" or some other nondescript item, at no point is Securom ever mentioned. Why is this the case? The argument that Securom is not mentioned in order to avoid making the work of the pirates easier is nonsensical, given the piracy figures for games that include the most stringent forms of Securom. Why do the companies simply not include a disclaimer stating that their game comes with Securom and that Securom will remain on the system after the game has been uninstalled? If Securom is as innocuous as you repeatedly suggest, why do the game companies consistently fail to mention it on their merchandise?

 

[Aberforth]

Originally posted by: Red Irish
chizow, you state that the author of the article you cite demonstrates that "popular tools like Alcohol and Daemon Tools are more akin to malware than SecuROM"

Let's assume that I accept this claim, there is nevertheless one glaring difference here:

users choose to install these programs on their systems, nobody chooses to install Securom, it is installed along with the game without our knowledge. The EULA only makes reference to "an enclosed license" or some other nondescript item, at no point is Securom ever mentioned. Why is this the case? The argument that Securom is not mentioned in order to avoid making the work of the pirates easier is nonsensical, given the piracy figures for games that include the most stringent forms of Securom. Why do the companies simply not include a disclaimer stating that their game comes with Securom and that Securom will remain on the system after the game has been uninstalled? If Securom is as innocuous as you repeatedly suggest, why do the game companies consistently fail to mention it on their merchandise?

There is no necessity to mention securom- even in the EULA, plenty of companies out there use external wrappers to protect their applications, when you do such wrapping it will be called as a Single Application not multiple applications, many such wrappers leave traces like license and evaluation information on the user's system without their knowledge - if they have knowledge they would be able to reverse it, that's the point. So this is totally up to the company who publishes such protected programs not the protection tools themselves. This is not illegal anyway, if such a company or a program misuses private information for their own purpose then it would be actionable.

 

[Red Irish]

Aberforth, whether or not it is legal remains to be seen, I think other posters have pointed out that legal action has been taken over this very issue. However, that is not the question here, the question is that, even if it is legal, do you feel that the failure to mention Securom is entirely honest? Don't you think that this is questionable on moral grounds? Don't you feel that companies should be required to specifically state that Securom is included on their software? If not, why not? Laws, after all, can be changed: we, as citizens, are the source of all legislation. If people feel that their rights are being infringed by a failure to disclose the use of Securom, don't you think that this should be reflected in legislation?

Incidently, with or without knowledge, they seem to be reversing it anyway.

 

[Aberforth]

Originally posted by: Red Irish
Aberforth, whether or not it is legal remains to be seen, I think other posters have pointed out that legal action has been taken over this very issue. However, that is not the question here, the question is that, even if it is legal, do you feel that the failure to mention Securom is entirely honest? Don't you think that this is questionable on moral grounds? Don't you feel that companies should be required to specifically state that Securom is included on their software? If not, why not? Laws, after all, can be changed: we, as citizens, are the source of all legislation. If people feel that their rights are being infringed by a failure to disclose the use of Securom, don't you think that this should be reflected in legislation?

No, it helps protecting privacy- since these programs don't do anything spooky I'm not at all worried, as for leaving traces- that's the point of every protection program...you download a shareware program from downlod.com it does leave traces to save trial data on the system even after you uninstall it, but they are passive traces.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: Aberforth

Originally posted by: Red Irish
Aberforth, whether or not it is legal remains to be seen, I think other posters have pointed out that legal action has been taken over this very issue. However, that is not the question here, the question is that, even if it is legal, do you feel that the failure to mention Securom is entirely honest? Don't you think that this is questionable on moral grounds? Don't you feel that companies should be required to specifically state that Securom is included on their software? If not, why not? Laws, after all, can be changed: we, as citizens, are the source of all legislation. If people feel that their rights are being infringed by a failure to disclose the use of Securom, don't you think that this should be reflected in legislation?

No, it helps protecting privacy- since these programs don't do anything spooky I'm not at all worried, as for leaving traces- that's the point of every protection program...you download a shareware program from downlod.com it does leave traces to save trial data on the system even after you uninstall it, but they are passive traces.

You may not be worried, but others are. Do we simply disregard them? Bear in mind that legislation includes many grey areas as it is unable to keep up with technological advances. In the future, companies may be required to expressly state this information, assuming that this is not currently the case. Another question: is it so difficult to remove all traces of Securom during the process of uninstalling the game? This would undoubtedly increase acceptance of Securom amongst the community without preventing this software from functioning as you suggest it should. If the game is no longer on my system, what purpose does security relating specifically to the game serve by remaining on my system?

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

Aberforth makes unsubstantiated, uninformed statements and constructs the most ridiculous straw men. He is not worth addressing. I've tried to keep an open mind, but this guy takes the cake. At least chizow makes an effort.

 

[smackababy]

Everyone here against SecuROM, I've got a suggestion. Stop buying games from companies that use it. Obviously, it isn't intrusive enough as most people merely complain about it or don't notice it at all. Start your own development and publishing company and don't use it. Until you can, either don't buy the games or don't bitch about it.
I have NEVER had any problems with any DRM, save for the iTunes mp3 garabge they release. The only people who are making this issue an mountain out of a mole hill are people who've also never been adversely effect, yet like to jump on the "hate whatever the hate flavor of the week is" types.
While there are seemingly legitimate arguments agaisnt using this type of DRM, I would say they are a drop in the bucket. If SecuROM was so bad it effected most users, it wouldn't get used at all. As it stands, the people who actually have issues are in the minority.
Now, while most would state otherwise, DRM does prevent piracy. In order to pirate most mainstream games, one has to be fairly skilled. Back in the old days, you merely needed a CD burner and now all your friends have the game. It was much more rampant, just not nearly as pronounced. Prior to the huge file sharing issue, it was very hard to track who was pirating what.

 

[Red Irish]

Smackababy, thanks for the helpful advice. I, and many others, already have stopped buying titles with Securom, but we refuse to "stop bitching about it". Nobody is forcing you to listen to us or our "seemingly legitimate arguments". The fact that companies still use Securom does not necessarily imply that it is not adversely affecting a large number of users, but rather reflects more on the companies' willingness to listen to their customers. Check out the reviews for EA games on Amazon. How many posters do you think it required to move those reviews down to one or two stars?

Once again, to you and all the other Securom apologists, I would like answers to the following questions:

Is it so difficult to remove all traces of Securom during the process of uninstalling the game? This would undoubtedly increase acceptance of Securom amongst the community without preventing this software from functioning as you suggest it should. If the game is no longer on my system, what purpose does security relating specifically to the game serve by remaining on my system?

Please do not respond by stating that the traces that are left are harmless, but rather explain why it is necessary to leave any traces at all once the game has been uninstalled and why it is necessary to manually remove Securom from our systems.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

Originally posted by: smackababy
Everyone here against SecuROM, I've got a suggestion. Stop buying games from companies that use it. Obviously, it isn't intrusive enough as most people merely complain about it or don't notice it at all. Start your own development and publishing company and don't use it. Until you can, either don't buy the games or don't bitch about it.

Refusing to purchase games that include SecuROM is definitely one way to protest it and I've personally chosen to go this route. But it's not the only way. A consumer might choose to buy games with SecuROM even if they don't like its behavior, and they're free to complain both here and directly to the developers/publishers, even if it means they have to put up with your caustic comments in reply. Telling people to sit down, shut up, and ignore existing problems is pointless and rude. And you really think you have to have your own software publishing company in order to complain about how SecuROM works? Please.

I have NEVER had any problems with any DRM, save for the iTunes mp3 garabge they release. The only people who are making this issue an mountain out of a mole hill are people who've also never been adversely effect, yet like to jump on the "hate whatever the hate flavor of the week is" types.
While there are seemingly legitimate arguments agaisnt using this type of DRM, I would say they are a drop in the bucket. If SecuROM was so bad it effected most users, it wouldn't get used at all. As it stands, the people who actually have issues are in the minority.

Are you blind? People in this thread have provided personal testimony or links to detailed accounts of problems related to SecuROM. A monkey could do a Google search and turn up dozens more. And who cares if it's a minority that is affected? It's still a nonzero number of people who have legitimate complaints. If anyone should want to hear from them, it should be the makers of SecuROM! How can they address defects or complaints if they're never discussed because you people think the software is somehow sacred? Just because you haven't had any problems doesn't mean a significant number of others have not, and you are no more special than they.

Now, while most would state otherwise, DRM does prevent piracy. In order to pirate most mainstream games, one has to be fairly skilled. Back in the old days, you merely needed a CD burner and now all your friends have the game. It was much more rampant, just not nearly as pronounced. Prior to the huge file sharing issue, it was very hard to track who was pirating what.

Totally, 100% irrelevant to this discussion. Fundamentally, DRM limits usage of software. That's it. Preventing piracy may be one aim, but at its heart it's about control. Implementations and the motives for using it may vary. We're talking about SecuROM here, not the validity or effectiveness of the concept of DRM. How many people have stated and restated this? This is becoming frustrating.

 

[smackababy]

So basically, my (and MILLIONS of others) accounts of SecuROM not having any negative impact on any system, doesn't count, but the few who do have problems are the only ones heard? Sounds a little bias to me. SecuROM isn't as bad as everyone makes it out to be, just like most other things. But, I am not really here to argue with any of you. I was merely giving my opinion on the subject and how I've had no problems with it.

 

[mindcycle]

Originally posted by: smackababy
So basically, my (and MILLIONS of others) accounts of SecuROM not having any negative impact on any system, doesn't count, but the few who do have problems are the only ones heard? Sounds a little bias to me. SecuROM isn't as bad as everyone makes it out to be, just like most other things. But, I am not really here to argue with any of you. I was merely giving my opinion on the subject and how I've had no problems with it.

I don't think anyone is arguing that that majority doesn't count. The fact of the matter is that SecuROM does cause issues and it is a reason for concern for a good number of people. Just do a google search for securom if you want to get a feel for it.

Your opinion is valued, whether or not you are for or against SecuROM, but you can't come in here claiming that you've never had problems and expect those of us who have to just say "oh, well some random guy didn't have any problems, so I guess the problems i've had don't matter." Pretty much everyone actively posting in this thread has had problems are are voicing a valid concern for the continued use of software that doesn't do what it's designed to do. But then again, what it's designed to do is up for debate, so lets discuss that and not some imaginary threshold of users who need to experience problems before it becomes a valid issue.

You claim that legitimate arguments are a drop in the bucket. So I guess the threads all over the internet with people experiencing issues should just be ignored and forgotten. If EA or Ubisoft starts losing lawsuits and it ends up costing them more in legal fees/payouts then it does to keep the software, then they will drop SecuROM like a ton of bricks. Ubisoft dropped Starforce a few years back and the reason that happened is because consumers were vocal about it and didn't just blindly accept it.

Again, why do we continue to argue over the percentage of people having issues? Why is it so hard to realize that SecuROM is causing issues, and the concern is perfectly valid even if it's only a small percentage of the user base of a game. There is no way to come up with an actual number. Those who are saying it's a small number are only making an educated guess, just like i'm making an educated guess that it's enough to warrant concern by doing a google search and finding 50 pages worth of forum posts and articles.