Did Amazon Delete Spore Reviews? [Updated]

from the they're-all-gone dept

Want to know how not to respond to criticism? By deleting it. Yet, it appears that's what Amazon has done. Earlier this week we wrote about the controversy of EA's decision to put cumbersome DRM on the highly anticipated video game, Spore. The response was that thousands of people started posting one star reviews of Spore, noting the problems with the DRM. Things then got worse when people realized that EA had misled customers about the fact that they could only have one user account on Spore.

Now, a bunch of people have noticed that Amazon appears to have deleted all of the reviews on the Spore page. This is only going to end badly. When you try to shut down a large group of people who feel wronged, you're not just whacking the bees' nest with a stick, you're setting it on fire with a flame thrower. The folks who were complaining are only going to complain louder, and louder. Remember what happened when Digg tried to takedown the AACS crack? Whoever was responsible for removing the comments -- whether it was Amazon or EA -- they may find that the reaction to trying to shut down the angry mob is only going to make folks that much angrier, and alert that many more people to the problems they have with EA's use of DRM.

Update: It appears that some, or potentially all, of the reviews are now back on the site, and Amazon is claiming that it was a "glitch" that they disappeared. Some people claim that their own reviews are not back yet, though, so the whole situation is a bit fluid. Either way, if it really was a glitch, it was a pretty bad time and place for such a glitch to occur.

Filed Under: backlash, deletions, drm, reviews, spore, streisand effect
Companies: amazon, ea

EA Admits That You Can Only Have One Spore Player Per Install

from the and-it-lied-in-the-manual dept

Things aren't getting much better for EA since critics of its overly annoying DRM on the new video game Spore expressed their displeasure in droves on the Amazon page for the game. Now, Consumerist alerts us to another, related, issue that is pissing off many of those who did buy the game: you can only have one player account at a time. That means that if you live in a multi-person household, and multiple people would like to play the game themselves... EA says you need to pay up for another $50 license. Of course, if the game didn't have DRM that wouldn't be a problem.

Even worse, the manual for Spore says exactly the opposite:

You may have multiple Spore accounts for each installation of the game.

Users, however, have been complaining that doesn't seem possible, and while it took a while, an EA rep finally admitted "our bad":

That section in the manual was a misprint and will be corrected in future printings of the manual. There is one Spore registration/account per game/serial code so you are correct in that you cannot make multiple accounts at this time.

This isn't exactly the best way to win fans over to the game, is it?

Filed Under: drm, spore, user accounts
Companies: ea

EA Ignored The Warnings; Now Getting Slammed For Spore's DRM

from the they-were-warned dept

Back in May, we wrote about an uproar in the gamer community over EA's decision to include some incredibly cumbersome DRM on some new games, including the highly anticipated Spore. That story got a ton of comments and plenty of other sites also wrote about it as well, leading EA to back down just a little bit, and promise to use slightly less draconian DRM. Either way, EA should have been well aware of how the community feels about DRM on games like Spore.

Apparently, the folks there didn't pay enough attention.

A bunch of readers have been sending in the news that Spore is getting slammed in reviews on its Amazon review page, as well over a thousand reviewers have all given the product one star, while trashing EA for the use of the DRM. Yet another lesson in what happens when your customers warn you ahead of time that they don't want you to cripple the products they buy from you -- and you fail to listen.

Filed Under: drm, reviews, spore, video games
Companies: amazon, ea

Has The Recording Industry Given Up On DRM For Streaming Music?

from the would-be-good-if-true dept

We recently mentioned that a big supporter of DRM stopped by in the comments to insist that DRM was here to stay despite plenty of evidence of its gradual decline in the market. Well, now the EFF has pointed out more evidence of the death of DRM. It wasn't that long ago that the RIAA was pushing for laws that would require DRM on any streaming music offering (yes, streams, rather than downloads). Since many streaming services simply stream straight MP3s, it's possible to record them, or to simply copy them from their "hidden" places on your hard drive. Yet, the EFF has noticed that even the big services that have officially licensed music from the big labels are using plain MP3 streaming, which would suggest that even the RIAA isn't insisting that its partners use DRM on streams.

Of course, this raises a second important question. If these services are officially allowed to download MP3s to your desktop, is there anything illegal in then keeping the files? Most of these services work by effectively downloading the plain MP3 into a slightly hidden folder (it's not really hidden, they just don't make it clear where it is). Considering that it's a legal, RIAA-approved service downloading a plain old MP3 to your hard drive, it's difficult to see how they could claim copyright infringement if you were to keep that file, right? Of course, considering how much the RIAA is trying to charge these sites, they may not live all that long anyway.

Filed Under: drm, streaming
Companies: imeem, lala, riaa

Who Can You Sue When It's Your Own Copy Protection That Hurt Your Reputation?

from the sue-everyone! dept

Video game maker Ubisoft has a rather long history of employing crappy DRM (and then even using someone else's code to crack their DRM when it caused problems for legitimate customers). However, this latest story involving a Ubisoft copy protection scheme may be the most bizarre. Chris Gruel writes in to let us know that Ubisoft is suing the CD duplicator firm it used to produce the video game Assassin's Creed, claiming that employees from that firm were responsible for the game leaking to the internet. It appears they have pretty good evidence that this did, in fact, happen (the leak was traced to an IP address controlled by an employee of the firm, and a copy of the game was found at that employee's home). So you can understand why they'd be upset about that (though, they had to realize that it would be pirated eventually).

However, here's where the story gets bizarre. Because Ubisoft was afraid that this might happen, the pre-release copy it sent to the CD duplicator included (on purpose!) a bug that would crash the game partway through. That was the copy that the employee leaked, so Ubisoft is complaining that this leak harmed their reputation, because people claimed the game was really buggy and crashed. Try to keep this straight in your mind here. Ubisoft put their own (crude, yes) DRM on the game because they were afraid it would leak. The game was leaked, and the DRM acted exactly as intended, and thus Ubisoft's reputation was harmed.

It makes you shake your head in wonder.

If Ubisoft had not included this DRM, then it would apparently have less to complain about. Thus, I think the only logical conclusion is that Ubisoft should be suing itself for including such damaging DRM on its own pre-release copies of Assassin's Creed.

Filed Under: copy protection, drm, lawsuits, leaks, reputation, video games
Companies: ubisoft

Is BitTorrent Realizing That Its Advantage Is In Distribution Technology, Not DRM-Laden Stores?

from the hindsight dept

We were among those who were quite confused last year when BitTorrent (the company, not the underlying technology) decided that its business model would be to give in to counterproductive Hollywood whims and focus on setting up a DRM-protected downloadable movie store. After all, there was plenty of evidence that the market wasn't particularly interested in such things. BitTorrent's advantage had always been in the distribution part of the value chain, and yet here it was basically focusing on things like DRM and e-commerce, where its expertise was minimal, as its business model of choice.

Since then, BitTorrent (again, the company, not the technology) has been almost totally lacking from any discussion about downloadable movies.

So, it's hardly a surprise to hear that the company is laying off a bunch of employees, focusing mainly on its sales and marketing staff. This likely means one of two things: that its business is not doing particularly well, and senior management has decided to scapegoat sales and marketing under the false belief that a new team will somehow magically make things work, or that it's realized this was a bomb of a business model and is about to move in a totally different direction, that requires different skills on the sales and marketing side.

Filed Under: bittorrent, drm, movies, technology

Dear MPAA: DRM Is Not A Requirement For Releasing Movies

from the nice-try,-but...-no. dept

We've written about the request from the MPAA to the FCC to grant a waiver that would allow the MPAA to use "selectable output control" (SOC) in order to block DVRs from recording their movies. As we noted, the movie studios basically would like to add in another movie release window, letting movies appear on television before they're released on DVD. Of course, there's absolutely nothing stopping them from doing so today. However, they claim that it's impossible for them to do so unless they get to implement DRM via SOC to stop people from recording these movies. The MPAA's own defense of this plan was exceptionally weak, but now some others are actually coming forward to defend the MPAA's position.

Ryan Radia, over at the Tech Liberation Front, has a long and thoughtful article where he tries to paint the MPAA's position as being pro-market and anti-regulation: "Consumers are willing to pay to watch new movies at home, and content producers are willing to transmit them, but government is standing in the way." It's a neat twist, but it's 100% wrong. The government is not standing in the way. If consumers are willing to pay, the movie industry can absolutely offer up the movies and let them pay.

Radia's claim is based on the entirely false premise that the MPAA needs this special kind of gov't approved DRM in order to release its movies. Radia plays a neat trick in spinning this the other way, claiming: "But content owners aren't required to ensure that all movies can be easily timeshifted and archived." Yes, indeed, nor are movie studies required to use DRM.

There is absolutely nothing stopping the movie industry from making use of this "new business model" other than its own unsubstantiated fear of non-DRM'd content. It's not a government regulation. It's not some weird FCC rule. It's the MPAA itself.

Mark Cuban gets it right when he points out what a huge mistake the MPAA is making in even bringing this issue up in the first place:

For all the money the RIAA wasted on trying to stop digital piracy, about all they accomplished was explaining to everyone exactly where and how to steal music. Please do not make the same mistake. Right now its a hassle to unitlize the analog hole to copy movies. Most people have no idea how to do it, particularly for HD delivered movies. Please do not go through a big process of teaching people exactly what the analog hole is in hopes of getting companies to prevent its use. All you are going to do is turn on the lightbulb for many who would otherwise not have a clue.

The theatrical exhibition industry just experienced a phenomenal several weeks with The Dark Knight setting record after record. People by the 10s of millions went to the theater, many multiple time to enjoy the unique experience of going to a movie. Could you please, please, please use the money you are going to spend fighting the unfightable and instead spend it on promoting the fun of going to the movies ? More people going to the movies is more people getting excited about movies. More people getting excited about movies means more people watching movies on TV, which is good for revenues, and more people buying DVDs or legal downloads of the movies. Again, good for revenues.

Piracy is not, and has never been, a real threat to the movie industry. The movie industry is doing incredibly well by releasing good movies that people want to see. Even if they're available for unauthorized download, movie watching is a social experience, and the better the industry makes that social experience, the better it will do. Wasting time demanding unnecessary DRM isn't necessary. It's not blocking any business model. Wasting money fighting for this "analog hole" to be patched won't stop piracy at all. If anything, it will attract more attention to that analog hole, while pissing off more viewers and making it that much harder to get movie fans to want to pay money to see movies. Even if the MPAA prevails, it won't put a dent into unauthorized file sharing. People will figure out how to get around the SOC protection, and once a single copy is out there, it's everywhere. Focusing on stopping file sharing is a lose-lose proposition.

So, please, movie industry, stop pretending you need DRM for your business models. You don't. You never have. And the more you pretend you do, the more trouble you're causing.

Filed Under: business models, drm, movies, mpaa, selectable output control, soc

Yahoo Offers Refunds Or DRM-Free Music In Exchange For Shutting Down DRM Servers

from the that's-better dept

We were a bit surprised last week when Yahoo decided to shut down its DRM servers, rendering all sorts of "purchased" music close to worthless. After all, when Microsoft had done the same thing, public outcry forced Microsoft to keep the servers running for a few more years. Now Yahoo has leapfrogged that decision, promising either refunds or a replacement DRM-free version of tracks that you downloaded via its service. This may turn out to be expensive for Yahoo, but that's what the company gets for agreeing to a DRM'd solution in the first place, rather than trusting its instincts and telling the labels to ditch the DRM years ago.

What's more interesting about this is that retailers may need to start matching this offer. In other words, people are now (reasonably) expecting retailers to "future proof" their music, so that they don't have to buy the same songs over and over again. If people are buying music, they expect to be able to continue to use that music no matter how the technology changes -- and they're pushing to make sure that happens. Yahoo's decision to now make its music (even as its shutting down the music service) future proof should make the recording industry realize that the days of getting consumers to rebuy all their music every time there's a format shift are long gone.

Filed Under: drm, music, refunds
Companies: yahoo

Did Yahoo Not Pay Attention To What Happened When Microsoft Pulled The Plug On Its DRM Server?

from the apparently-not dept

I recognize that Yahoo was a bit busy fending off the repeated acquisition offers from Microsoft a few months back, but could they seriously not have noticed the massive backlash that Microsoft received for telling people that it was turning off its DRM servers, effectively locking all the songs people had "bought" to their current computers. The loud complaints resulted in Microsoft backing down and agreeing to keep the servers running for a few more years.

So, what does Yahoo! do? It mimics Microsoft's original move. It's sent out an email to users noting that its DRM server will be shut down, preventing the "buyers" from moving the songs to new computers. This seems doubly ironic, given that Yahoo's last two music bosses, David Goldberg and Ian Rogers had spoken out against DRM. While neither is still with the company, it's rather amusing that Yahoo is now helping to prove the point -- though probably not in the way that was intended when either Goldberg or Rogers spoke up.

Filed Under: drm, music
Companies: yahoo

MPAA Doubletalk On FCC Request To Block DVR Recordings

from the the-mainstream-press-may-believe-you,-but... dept

You may recall back in June we wrote about the MPAA's petition to the FCC to block DVR recordings of certain movies by removing a restriction on "Selectable Output Control" (SOC), allowing it to set rules that forbid recording. What the MPAA is clearly trying to do here is start releasing movies on TV before they're available on DVD, but wants to do so in a way that users won't be able to record on their DVRs (though, they hardly come out and say that). Matthew Lasar has an absolutely hilarious interview with an MPAA representative where the MPAA guy tries to pretend that this has nothing to do with blocking recordings of movies and everything to do with stopping piracy.

"I can't emphasize this enough," Oster finally exclaimed. "We've hit on this a number of times so you might sense some frustration in my voice. 'Recording'—take it off the table. Put it out of your mind. This has nothing to do with recording at all in any way."

"Ok. I guess I'm confused," I replied. "What is selectable output control about then?"

"It's in large part, first and foremost, about the fact that our industry has a multibillion-dollar theft problem, which is that billions and billions of dollar's worth of film content is stolen every year," Oster replied.

"How is it stolen? What's the mechanics of its being stolen?" I asked. "What happens?"

"It comes in many forms," Dean Garfield interjected. "It comes in camcording."

"Did you just say the word 'recording'?" I asked.

"No!" Oster intervened. "He said 'camcording'!"

"But isn't that just basically recording?" I begged.

"No!" Oster insisted. "What we want is to offer consumers high-definition content earlier than they can today. That's what we want to do! We want our studios to have the flexibility to put in place business models that allow them to offer high definition content on demand to the home, earlier than they do now. Period! Full stop!"

Let's translate this for everyone. Basically, the MPAA falsely believes that it has a problem with camcording. It likes to come out with all sorts of bogus stats that don't add up. The truth is that camcorded versions don't keep people from going to the movies, and most movies online have studio quality versions leaked from insiders.

So what does that have to do with SOC? Not much, really. But the MPAA wants to change the release window pattern it currently uses for movies. Rather than theaters, video, PPV, cable TV, it wants to be able to put some movies on TV before they're released to video, hoping that it can charge cable channels a lot for showing them. But, if it does that, it's worried that it will undercut its own business model in the video rental space. So, it falsely believes that it needs this "exemption" from SOC to effectively enable DRM on those movies to prevent them from being recorded. It's the same old mistake, believing that DRM somehow enables new business models when the truth is that DRM only restricts opportunities. The content will still get recorded and released. The effective DRM will do nothing to stop that -- and once the content is out there, it's out there. However, this will be a pain for plenty of legitimate viewers who start wondering why their DVRs don't work properly.

It's not about stopping any kind of piracy. This won't do that. It's not about enabling any new business models or new content. It's about a misguided MPAA which thinks it needs DRM to add yet another way for it to make money while pissing off legitimate users. For that, the FCC should not grant a special exemption.

Filed Under: blocking, business models, drm, dvrs, fcc, mpaa, soc