Spore patch loosens DRM, but again misses the point

I admit that I have been repeating myself too much on these forums about the same issue. I'm probably older than most here. I have been a PC gamer for nearly 20 years. That is why I am so passionate about saying how unhappy I am about this DRM scheme. Younger gamers who haven't experienced as many of the good old days of PC gaming may be more accepting of this scheme. Trust me when I say this. This DRM scheme marks the end of an age. I can probably deal with the DRM if I wanted to, but I will not buy these games on the ethical grounds. Falconoffury

I admit that I have been repeating myself too much on these forums about the same issue. I'm probably older than most here. I have been a PC gamer for nearly 20 years. That is why I am so passionate about saying how unhappy I am about this DRM scheme. Younger gamers who haven't experienced as many of the good old days of PC gaming may be more accepting of this scheme. Trust me when I say this. This DRM scheme marks the end of an age. I can probably deal with the DRM if I wanted to, but I will not buy these games on the ethical grounds. Falconoffury

DRM has existed for as long as games... i would prefer this, assuming it works, to looking up some phrase in the games manual. What if you lose the manual? Sure you might be able to order a new one if the company is still in business... I would bet more active drm schemes will eventually hit consoles too. It might take a generation or two but it will happen.

This is far more tolerable and only an extreme minority will have actual problems with the game now. If anyone's still complaining, it's just a matter of principle rather than practice. But I think the smart thing to do would have been to remove all install-limiting DRM on Spore. After kicking someone in the nuts, you don't appease them by slapping them in the face. People are still really pissed and this isn't the solution right now.

EA would do well to drop the install limit entirely for Spore and save it for lower profile games that aren't mentioned in broadsheet newspapers. Obviously, doing away with install limits entirely would be preferable, but if EA insists on using it, it shouldn't be in a game like Spore. Save it for Red Alert 3 and Mirror's Edge.

It isn't a question of how many computers upon which the game can be installed. It has more to do with the power that the publisher now has over the customer's ability to install and play the game that he purchased. I find it an unethical business practice. I'll admit that my decision to not buy these games is 80% principle, 20% practice. Just know that there are practical issues with this. Yes, you can recover your activations either through the utility, or a phone call. That is still time and hassle on the customer's part who already paid full price for the game. Falconoffury

how is this combating piracy again?promajo

have no idea...I once thought that it was a way to prevent/limit used game circulation, but I was enlightened by corporate friends that it wasn't.

and we all know that both Spore and Warhead got cleanly and totally hacked and craked within one day of its release, so obviously it has nothing to do with making the game more difficult to be cracked either.

how is this combating piracy again?promajo

Actually its not stopping piracy at all. That's the thing EA needs to realize. Spore was cracked and up on torrent sites in a day and a pirate isn't affected by DRM. It only creates problems for the people who buy originals.

[QUOTE="promajo"]how is this combating piracy again?iNF3RNO666

Actually its not stopping piracy at all. That's the thing EA needs to realize. Spore was cracked and up on torrent sites in a day and a pirate isn't affected by DRM. It only creates problems for the people who buy originals.

but there must be some reasons right? Corporate people don't make meaningless financial decisions, especially those will make cost greater than income.

now lets see...while pirates are happily enjoying DRM free cracked Spore and Warhead, EA/Crytek are busy writing patches to fix this and that, taking customer complaining phone calls and making anncement to counter the customer backlash from the real and virtual spheres...

[QUOTE="promajo"]how is this combating piracy again?teardropmina

have no idea...I once thought that it was a way to prevent/limit used game circulation, but I was enlightened by corporate friends that it wasn't.

and we all know that both Spore and Warhead got cleanly and totally hacked and craked within one day of its release, so obviously it has nothing to do with making the game more difficult to be cracked either.

...I cannot think of another reason for implementing this sort of DRM (as well as its fixing back now). we need corporate minded people to enlighten us.

I don't think it has anything to do with preventing piracy at all. As you point out, it has a 0% effectiveness rate.

But I was going to buy Mass Effect recently, and seeing as how the game is quite old, I thought to myself - given that it's a singleplayer game, there's really no reason for me to not buy it used. I can probably pick it up on the Amazon Marketplace for half the price of a new copy.

Then I realised... no, I can't. I can't buy it used at all. In fact, I daren't even buy it new from an independent retailer through the Amazon Marketplace for a slightly cheaper price because they might not be telling me the truth.

And I'm pretty sure that is the specific purpose of the install limit DRM. It's to significantly reduce or outright kill the used market for the game (as EA gets 0% of every used sale) and it's to significantly reduce or outright kill people lending games to friends (we've all done that, right?).

This seems concurrent with the games which originally used this DRM, too. They're all singleplayer games. BioShock, Mass Effect, Alone in the Dark... EA has of course since applied the system to most or all of their future releases, but it seems like singleplayer games (which have far more resale and lending power) were all targeted for the install limit DRM.

Now, obviously, EA and 2K and the rest can't come out and say that they're applying these systems not to prevent internet piracy, but to prevent something far less insidious - resale and lending. They're simply controlling what people who own the game can do with it, but the public would not be very open to that concept, so EA and co continue to quote internet piracy figures in the hopes that people will eventually accept that install limit DRM is necessary to protect against internet piracy, even though it clearly has an effectiveness rate of 0%

Even with 5 installs and an install credit redeeming tool, would you want to buy that game used? It's a gamble at best.

Edit: just noticed you said I once thought that it was a way to prevent/limit used game circulation, but I was enlightened by corporate friends that it wasn't. Can you elaborate upon that? My first hand experience with the install limit DRM all but proves (as far as I am concerned) that install limit DRM exists specifically to kill the used market.

Again I would say "don't buy any game from EA, DRM or not!"

EA treats its costomers as nothing and enforces DRM to its supporter,

we give our money to EA and the only thing we get is trouble,anger,and inconvencience.

As long as online activation(or check) and installation limits is bundled with games,

I won't buy it! I have been a loyal paying customer for a long time, from now on not anymore.

[QUOTE="teardropmina"]

have no idea...I once thought that it was a way to prevent/limit used game circulation, but I was enlightened by corporate friends that it wasn't.

fatshodan

I don't think it has anything to do with preventing piracy at all. As you point out, it has a 0% effectiveness rate.

And I'm pretty sure that is the specific purpose of the install limit DRM. It's to significantly reduce or outright kill the used market for the game (as EA gets 0% of every used sale) and it's to significantly reduce or outright kill people lending games to friends (we've all done that, right?).

well...this has been what I've been saying all alone, but you can see the quote I kept from my own post above. people are telling me that preventing used game circulation is NOT the purpose either. Maybe they will tell you why your logic is flawed.

ADD:

see your addition in your previous post...well, I didn't get stright anwers, they just told me that whatever EA is doing (=now making the DRM less restricted through future patches) is indicating that my thought (limiting/preventing used game circulation) is wrong. well, I still cannot understand why they want to implement this kind of DRM in the first place (if I was wrong to begin with of course).

[QUOTE="fatshodan"][QUOTE="teardropmina"]

have no idea...I once thought that it was a way to prevent/limit used game circulation, but I was enlightened by corporate friends that it wasn't.

teardropmina

I don't think it has anything to do with preventing piracy at all. As you point out, it has a 0% effectiveness rate.

And I'm pretty sure that is the specific purpose of the install limit DRM. It's to significantly reduce or outright kill the used market for the game (as EA gets 0% of every used sale) and it's to significantly reduce or outright kill people lending games to friends (we've all done that, right?).

well...this has been what I've been saying all alone, but you can see the quote I kept from my own post above. people are telling me that preventing used game circulation is NOT the purpose either. Maybe they will tell you why your logic is flawed.

ADD:

see your addition in your previous post...well, I didn't get stright anwers, they just told me that whatever EA is doing (=now making the DRM less restricted through future patches) is indicating that my thought (limiting/preventing used game circulation) is wrong. well, I still cannot understand why they want to implement this kind of DRM in the first place (if I was wrong to begin with of course).

I think your original belief was right, it is to kill the used market. Unless they can give you straight answers, there's no reason to believe them at all.

After all, look at the numbers. The install limit DRM has a 0% effectiveness at reducing internet piracy (Spore is the second most pirated game of all time at present I believe), while the install limit DRM has a high effectiveness at reducing the used sales market. I can't put a specific number on it without research, but in my own personal experience, it's 100% effective at eliminating the used sales market.

After all, look at the numbers. The install limit DRM has a 0% effectiveness at reducing internet piracy (Spore is the second most pirated game of all time at present I believe), while the install limit DRM has a high effectiveness at reducing the used sales market. I can't put a specific number on it without research, but in my own personal experience, it's 100% effective at eliminating the used sales market.

fatshodan

that's what I thought. pople nowadays buy and sell-and then sell again. there's no telling how much install the original owner or owners already used. even with the upcoming, deplete with detail, revoke tool...how do we even know the previous owner take good care of using that tool? yeah, like you say, it's a liability for the sellers (once the game doesn't work, their rating will definitely go down) and a gamble for the buyers. and eventually, no one will sell and buy instll limit DRM implemented used games.

I think EA just cannot stand that all those retail games being sold that they cannot get a cut. They are trying to make as sure as possible that most or at least a big portion of the legit games in circulation are sold through legit retailers (so they can get their cut).

I think the revoke tool is a step in the right direction and softens the wounds a little for us paying customers and now we need to see it happen with ME, RA3 and Warhead but I still don't agree with this sort of DRM.

What I would like to see is what 2K Games have done with BioShock by removing the install limits completely after the game has been out for a while, I think that is the only acceptable solution with these games that already have these DRM methods in place.

how is this combating piracy again?promajo

It's not, it's encouranging piracy instead.I know quite a lot of people who wanted to buy Spore, but as soon as they heard about this nice thing called DRM they said "forget it, I'll save me the trouble and download it instead"

The last thing I've heard was that Spore was on the way to become the most pirated game ever

If it was the used games marked they were trying to destroy, they should have looked at Steam, whichas far as I can tell has a higher chance at winning the battle against used games, without annoying the customers

But I've read several places that there's laws in a lot of countries that says that you should be allowed to resell used software, if that's true then this is breaking the law!!! Anybody who knows if this is true?

I never buy/sell used software myself, as IMHO it's worse than piracy. Take a look at this scenario:

Scenario 1:

X downloads a game from favorite piratetracker. Installs it and plays it. Decides that the game is worth the money and tha the wants to play online, so he goes down to his favorite store to buy the game. The game developer gets their money

Scenario 2:

X buys a used copy from Y. He installs it and plays it. He likes the game, but as he already "own" the game there's no reason to to a store to buy the game. The game developer doesn't get their money from this sale. Sure they get the money from the sale to person Y, but he would also have bought the game in the first scenario.

Scenario 1 gives 2 sales, scenario 2 only gives 1 sale

If it was the used games marked they were trying to destroy, they should have looked at Steam, whichas far as I can tell has a higher chance at winning the battle against used games, without annoying the customersADG_

Did you know EA is trying to buy Valve - and Steam along with it? EA also runs its own download store, but I don't know if this functions in a similar way to Steam. Either way, I get the impression that install limits aren't EA's endgame. Install limits do work, though.

But I've read several places that there's laws in a lot of countries that says that you should be allowed to resell used software, if that's true then this is breaking the law!!! Anybody who knows if this is true?ADG_

But that's the thing, EA isn't taking any steps to actually prevent resale. I could buy Mass Effect, play it and sell it on to someone else. Nothing EA is doing is preventing either me or any potential buyers from participating in the transaction. What EA is doing is making it very, very undesirable for the buyer because there is the possibility that the game won't function, making every purchase a gamble for the buyer.

This is exactly what a CD key does. People who buy used games will generally buy singleplayer games, or games that they intend to play mostly offline. The CD key significantly reduces the desirability of online games that require a key, because there's always the chance the software won't function and given how long keys have been around, I think it's fair to assume the legality surrounding CD keys is sound.

Whether you're selling a CD key based game or an install limit game, the burden during resale is entirely on the seller, not the manufacturer. A game with install limits was designed and shipped as a functioning product, but if I install it too many times and then choose to sell it on, it will not function for the person who is buying it from me because of my actions, not the manufacturer's. That would be exactly the same as me tearing my CD key out of the manual before selling it. That certainly wouldn't be the manufacturer's fault. Afterall, they did sell the game to me as a functioning product.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending them, but while I admittedly know nothing about any laws ever, it doesn't strike me as illegal for a manufacturer to use an install limit. It just makes it undesirable for the buyer, just like a CD key.

[QUOTE="promajo"]how is this combating piracy again?ADG_

It's not, it's encouranging piracy instead.I know quite a lot of people who wanted to buy Spore, but as soon as they heard about this nice thing called DRM they said "forget it, I'll save me the trouble and download it instead"

The last thing I've heard was that Spore was on the way to become the most pirated game ever

If it was the used games marked they were trying to destroy, they should have looked at Steam, whichas far as I can tell has a higher chance at winning the battle against used games, without annoying the customers

But I've read several places that there's laws in a lot of countries that says that you should be allowed to resell used software, if that's true then this is breaking the law!!! Anybody who knows if this is true?

I never buy/sell used software myself, as IMHO it's worse than piracy. Take a look at this scenario:

Scenario 1:

X downloads a game from favorite piratetracker. Installs it and plays it. Decides that the game is worth the money and tha the wants to play online, so he goes down to his favorite store to buy the game. The game developer gets their money

Scenario 2:

X buys a used copy from Y. He installs it and plays it. He likes the game, but as he already "own" the game there's no reason to to a store to buy the game. The game developer doesn't get their money from this sale. Sure they get the money from the sale to person Y, but he would also have bought the game in the first scenario.

Scenario 1 gives 2 sales, scenario 2 only gives 1 sale

Your logic is seriously flawed. In scenario 1 the pirated copy was only bought once for thousands of illegal copies. Most people who got the game that way are not going to purchase the game afterwards. 1 sale

DRM is an effective way to combat the old-fashioned way of lending the same copy to friends and family.

5 activations with a tool to reclaim by uninstalling is a pretty reasonable DRM scheme to me. Apple iTunes has the exact same DRM, and I've never had issues with it. If you forget to use the deactivation tool FIVE times, who is really to blame here? They give you all the necessary tools to take preventative measures, and save for a virus or hard drive failing, I can't think of any other circumstance wherein you would lose an activation due to means beyond your control. And, realistically, most people really aren't going to have problems like that.

This is a DRM scheme I can live with. And now may even consider purchasing Spore.

But I think the smart thing to do would have been to remove all install-limiting DRM on Spore.

fatshodan

I don't think that would be a smart plan. They'd lose a lot of their remaining sales, as everyone would just lend the game to their friends.

*Edit* Urgh, this has already been pointed out. Note to self: read other people's posts. :P

I don't think that would be a smart plan. They'd lose a lot of their remaining sales, as everyone would just lend the game to their friends.

*Edit* Urgh, this has already been pointed out. Note to self: read other people's posts. :P

Planeforger

As opposed to the actual plan, where it is being pirated left and right. Yes, it seems much better this way.

Like someone who posted earlier, I've been a gamer for 20+ years, and it still amazes me how anyone would be able to accept this DRM. Not only that, but they pick on anyone that rejects to be abused by the DRM by saying we are killing PC gaming.

Seriously, people at Gamespot will never cease to amaze me, in that wicked "WTF" way.

The limit installs with a revoke tool is somewhat ok with me, but there still needs to be some changes. Like, I need to see a few more benefits. For example:

-No DVD is required to play the game.

-You can play local LAN (2 players max or something) on the same version of the game.

-Two written guarentees in the EULA. The first is that after a set period, install limits will be removed from the game (or perhaps the whole DRM scheme). The other is that if the publisher wishes to stop supporting the servers for activation, they must provide a patch to remove the check completely.

The limit installs with a revoke tool is somewhat ok with me, but there still needs to be some changes. Like, I need to see a few more benefits. For example:

-No DVD is required to play the game.

-You can play local LAN (2 players max or something) on the same version of the game.

-Two written guarentees in the EULA. The first is that after a set period, install limits will be removed from the game (or perhaps the whole DRM scheme). The other is that if the publisher wishes to stop supporting the servers for activation, they must provide a patch to remove the check completely.

Vampyronight

Your second request is already allowed, and why the hell would you care if you want the NO DVD required to play the game...it's not big deal and it helps protect from extremely casual piracy

Your logic is seriously flawed. In scenario 1 the pirated copy was only bought once for thousands of illegal copies. Most people who got the game that way are not going to purchase the game afterwards. 1 saleGog

Try to look a bit further, then you'll see that my logic actually works...

Let's take scenario 1: There's 100,000 people who download the game, 0.1% of those decides to buy the game. That means 100 of those will buy the game. That is 100 sales for the publisher

Then look at scenario 2: 100,000 people buys the game second hand. None of that money goes to the publisher

Now anyone who's not blind should be able to see that in the above two scenarios, scenario 1 would be the best for the publisher (100 sales are always better than 0 sales, right?)

Did you know EA is trying to buy Valve - and Steam along with it? EA also runs its own download store, but I don't know if this functions in a similar way to Steam. Either way, I get the impression that install limits aren't EA's endgame. Install limits do work, though.fatshodan

DRM is an effective way to combat the old-fashioned way of lending the same copy to friends and family.

Gog

I'd extremely appreciated if EA/Cryte just say this plainly and loudly that their definition of *piracy* also includes lending and borrowing games. It's my guess that most customers don't know they're *pirating* when they loan or borrow games.

I've been a gamer for 20+ years, and it still amazes me how anyone would be able to accept this DRM. Not only that, but they pick on anyone that rejects to be abused by the DRM by saying we are killing PC gaming.

Seriously, people at Gamespot will never cease to amaze me, in that wicked "WTF" way.

Lonezerth

yeah, and look at how they do this, either riding righteously at their corporate moral high horse or preaching softly as a nice school teacher. XXX company is being "generous" to us...somehow in the corporate world, we paying customers become the poor soul at the receiving end of corporate's generosity and they want us to remain thankful as to how much *rights* they decide to give us.

Try to look a bit further, then you'll see that my logic actually works...

Let's take scenario 1: There's 100,000 people who download the game, 0.1% of those decides to buy the game. That means 100 of those will buy the game. That is 100 sales for the publisher

Then look at scenario 2: 100,000 people buys the game second hand. None of that money goes to the publisher

Now anyone who's not blind should be able to see that in the above two scenarios, scenario 1 would be the best for the publisher (100 sales are always better than 0 sales, right?)

ADG_

You're a funny one. That's 101 sales (original pirated one plus 100 legal copies "inspired" from it) against 100 000 sales (the ones that bought the game and re-sell them) Who is being blind now?

The kind of logic people come up to justify pirating never ceases to amaze me.

[QUOTE="Gog"]

DRM is an effective way to combat the old-fashioned way of lending the same copy to friends and family.

teardropmina

I'd extremely appreciated if EA/Cryte just say this plainly and loudly that their definition of *piracy* also includes lending and borrowing games. It's my guess that most customers don't know they're *pirating* when they loan or borrow games.

I think that goes without saying. That was the most common type of "pirating" years ago and maybe still as many people don't have access to broadband.

[QUOTE="teardropmina"][QUOTE="Gog"]

DRM is an effective way to combat the old-fashioned way of lending the same copy to friends and family.

Gog

I'd extremely appreciated if EA/Cryte just say this plainly and loudly that their definition of *piracy* also includes lending and borrowing games. It's my guess that most customers don't know they're *pirating* when they loan or borrow games.

I think that goes without saying. That was the most common type of "pirating" years ago and maybe still as many people don't have access to broadband.

[QUOTE="teardropmina"][QUOTE="Gog"]

DRM is an effective way to combat the old-fashioned way of lending the same copy to friends and family.

Gog

I'd extremely appreciated if EA/Cryte just say this plainly and loudly that their definition of *piracy* also includes lending and borrowing games. It's my guess that most customers don't know they're *pirating* when they loan or borrow games.

I think that goes without saying. That was the most common type of "pirating" years ago and maybe still as many people don't have access to broadband.

thank for enlighten the ignorant me who don't know by defult that loaning/borrowing = thieving/pirating.

[QUOTE="Gog"]

DRM is an effective way to combat the old-fashioned way of lending the same copy to friends and family.

teardropmina

I'd extremely appreciated if EA/Cryte just say this plainly and loudly that their definition of *piracy* also includes lending and borrowing games. It's my guess that most customers don't know they're *pirating* when they loan or borrow games.

Well unfortunately it's not just EA. In the "End User License Agreement" for pretty much every PC game that has ever come out is language that states that by purchasing this software you are permitted to install ONE copy of it on ONE computer at any one time. A back up copy may be made in case the original disk gets lost or damaged.

You might try reading the EULA now and a gain to find this kind of helpful information out from time to time.

You might try reading the EULA now and a gain to find this kind of helpful information out from time to time.

Johnny_Rock

thanks for the heads up.

Does anyone know if selling a used game goes against copy right & the user agreement? I've never actually read those agreements when installing a game. Herrick

You may not either temporarily or permanently transfer sublicense your rights to use the product under this Agreement without the prior written consent of KOCH Media Ltd.KOCH Media Ltd EULA

This is for S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Clear Sky. Why do sites like Amazon and Ebay allow people to sell used games if that violates the EULA?

[QUOTE="Herrick"]Does anyone know if selling a used game goes against copy right & the user agreement? I've never actually read those agreements when installing a game. Herrick

You may not either temporarily or permanently transfer sublicense your rights to use the product under this Agreement without the prior written consent of KOCH Media Ltd.KOCH Media Ltd EULA

This is for S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Clear Sky. Why do sites like Amazon and Ebay allow people to sell used games if that violates the EULA?

[QUOTE="fatshodan"][QUOTE="teardropmina"]

have no idea...I once thought that it was a way to prevent/limit used game circulation, but I was enlightened by corporate friends that it wasn't.

teardropmina

I don't think it has anything to do with preventing piracy at all. As you point out, it has a 0% effectiveness rate.

And I'm pretty sure that is the specific purpose of the install limit DRM. It's to significantly reduce or outright kill the used market for the game (as EA gets 0% of every used sale) and it's to significantly reduce or outright kill people lending games to friends (we've all done that, right?).

well...this has been what I've been saying all alone, but you can see the quote I kept from my own post above. people are telling me that preventing used game circulation is NOT the purpose either. Maybe they will tell you why your logic is flawed.

ADD:

see your addition in your previous post...well, I didn't get stright anwers, they just told me that whatever EA is doing (=now making the DRM less restricted through future patches) is indicating that my thought (limiting/preventing used game circulation) is wrong. well, I still cannot understand why they want to implement this kind of DRM in the first place (if I was wrong to begin with of course).

I'm going to say your corporate friends may be wrong instead. After all, EA has flat out said they don't like the secondary market, and they want to get rid of it. Wait, actually, let me try that again. I think they are partially wrong. EA has also said they want to go to a more "subscription" based model, where they would measure their income as dollars per customer rather than units sold. This may be part of that strategy as well. Regardless of which is true, it stinks. I fully intend to buy EA games in the future... once they remove the activation limitations.

Does anyone know if selling a used game goes against copy right & the user agreement? I've never actually read those agreements when installing a game. Herrick

Doesn't matter if it goes against the user agreement in the United States, at least. The first sale doctrine has been applied to software sales in the past by federal courts. Since the first sale doctrine (after you buy something, you can sell it or whatever as you wish) is part of the overall copyright concept as enshrined in the Constitution, I don't believe user agreements, especially blind ones, can contradict it legally. IANAL, but that's my read from the case law I was able to find regarding the first sale doctrine and software.

[QUOTE="Herrick"]Does anyone know if selling a used game goes against copy right & the user agreement? I've never actually read those agreements when installing a game. Royas

Doesn't matter if it goes against the user agreement in the United States, at least. The first sale doctrine has been applied to software sales in the past by federal courts. Since the first sale doctrine (after you buy something, you can sell it or whatever as you wish) is part of the overall copyright concept as enshrined in the Constitution, I don't believe user agreements, especially blind ones, can contradict it legally. IANAL, but that's my read from the case law I was able to find regarding the first sale doctrine and software.

you are correct and I'd say more. EULA has no power of legal sanction. It's wirtten by corporates as contract with customers, and that's all. If this contract contains items against current *law* or consitution, then even if it's *agreed* by both parties, that part of contract will be ruled by courts as illegal or unconsitutional. and of course it shall be common knowledge, even law can be unconsitutional.

Corporate moralists have great influence on how USA and most *free* conutries are running now, but corporations are not official legal insitutions, at least not yet. So, a EULA that's infriging first sale principle very possibly will be rule as illegal or even unconsititional.

Corporates like EA actually have weaker standing in legal case with the license part, since game can even ruled as non-licenese software -- it's a piece of entertainment, unlike the professional software which people are making money or career out of it, and so they need to buy license to use the software.

at any rate, corporate friendly gamers can talk about moral problem of piracy all they want, but don't throw "illegal" at people too carelessly because if a class law sue really is brought in court there's no telling whether it's EA or the customers that'll be ruled breaking laws.

just remember, whatever corprates write in their user agreements are NOT laws...at least not yet.