bit-gamer.net

EA to face class action lawsuit over Spore DRM

EA to face class action lawsuit over Spore DRM

EA has drawn repeated criticism for the use of the SecuROM copy protection system.

EA is to face a class action lawsuit apparently, after plaintiffs have emerged who allege that the SecuROM copy protection used in Spore breaches consumer law.

The copy protection system used in Spore is one of many games lately using the SecuROM DRM system, with others including EA's Mass Effect and Take Two's BioShock on the PC. EA has also confirmed that it will be using the system in Red Alert 3.

Though Spore only allowed itself to be installed on three PCs and to be linked to a single account, EA has since pledged to loosen the restrictions. This hasn't proved to be enough to placate some gamers however who object to the extra software being present on the disc, or who have had issues with DRM solution.

Now though, according to Gamespot, plaintiffs are alleging that the DRM system used in Spore puts the game in breach of consumer law. The complaint, which has been filed at the class-action level, seeks damaged for trespass, interference and unfair competition.

The case also seeks disgorgement of unjust profits and claims that SecuROM is "secretly installed to the command and control center of the computer (Ring 0, or the Kernel), and surreptitiously operated, overseeing function and operation on the computer, preventing the computer from operating under certain circumstances and/or disrupting hardware operations."

Electronic Arts has responded only that "We do not comment on matters of pending litigation."

If you still haven't checked out Spore then make sure you check out our full Spore review and analysis before heading to the forums and letting us know what you think of DRM.

41 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
Grasshopper 26th September 2008, 10:44 Quote
It was about time something like this to happen. Hopefully they think twice before spending money on DRM again. :)
Paradigm Shifter 26th September 2008, 10:54 Quote
An interestingly phrased poll - a SecuROM Bad Y/N type question would overwhelmingly be yes. However I find myself agreeing with both answers. So in that way, it's poorly phrased. Regardless...

It is understandable that EA want to protect their investment.

It is also unforgivable that SecuROM is presented in such a way that the only time it is actually a nuisance is to legitimate purchasers of the product it is included on.

Therefore I can understand why EA have used it, but find their execution of the system unforgivable and therefore do not wish to support it.
CardJoe 26th September 2008, 10:55 Quote
It's deliberately poorly phrased. You can't have it both ways.
Paradigm Shifter 26th September 2008, 11:01 Quote
I gathered that much. Just trying to explain why I couldn't agree 100% with either option.
Dr. Strangelove 26th September 2008, 11:20 Quote
Personally I feel that people who start suing like that should be taken out back and shot.. if you don't like it... uninstall the game.

I agree that the box should say "uses SecuROM" or something like that, which I believe it does not.

EA made the game and can sell it with what ever they want, be that DRM, links to P0rn sites, offers for ridiculous loans what ever, as long as it says so on the box so that you can make your decision based on that.

At the end of the day it's a question of weighing your "desire" to play the game vs your aversion for DRM such as SecuROM.

I think we can all understand that companies like EA would like to somehow prevent their product which has costs them a lot of money to create to be easily copied, even if we all know that DRM like this gets cracked almost before the game is released.
Arkanrais 26th September 2008, 11:31 Quote
I hope EA get shafted big time by this.
either way, EA should learn a lesson (if they don't have their heads stuffed up their collective asses), and this will at the very least, bring attention to game developers that including draconian anti-piracy systems on any of their products is going to backfire on them and f- their sales figures up.
it would be funny to see a shelf at game stores labeled 'secuROM games' with a bunch of game boxes covered in dust and cob-webs.
Tyrmot 26th September 2008, 11:43 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove
Personally I feel that people who start suing like that should be taken out back and shot.. if you don't like it... uninstall the game.

And EA have already got your money... you can't return it open after all. I think is the main cause of the upset here. The EULA is only presented to you *after* you've bought that game. So if you reject it... what? You've just bought a shiny £30 drinks coaster. Even just saying on the box 'this product contains secuROM' doesn't help as again, it tells you nothing about what you are actually buying with that product.

The only way around this is to:
1) Somehow make the EULA available *before* the product is purchased
2) Accept full-money refunds for anyone who rejects the EULA after purchase of the product.

I mean really, think about this, it's absolutely ridiculous that with software like this you are presented with the terms of the license *after* you have bought the product! How does that make any kind of sense? Try and apply that bizarre logic to any other situation and see how you'd feel
Deadwolf 26th September 2008, 12:03 Quote
Tyrmot - excellent comment, agree %100

If you don't' like the policy don't buy the game, but you have to be made aware first of the policy... which is what i would go after in this case..
Dr. Strangelove 26th September 2008, 12:18 Quote
-> Tyrmot
I agree with you, making the EULA available before you buy a product would be a good way to go forward.

I guess what I'm aiming at is that I'm dead tired of people feeling that suing is the only way to solve a problem. I mean think about it.. lets say EA has to now pay out a couple mill $, where is that money coming from? Well either it will come out of the development budget for the next game EA is making or it will just be passed onto the price of the next game... who are we really hurting? You may argue that a couple of mill is nothing for a company the size of EA, but really what happened to dialog? Has the people now suing EA actually tried to start a dialog with EA before suing (I don't know), or have they just been screaming "we don't want DRM"?
You could probably get the companies to make each game's EULA available through their website so that you can read it before you buy the game, in reality probably no more 0.0001% of the people even thinking about buying the game would actually go read it though.
DXR_13KE 26th September 2008, 13:06 Quote
question: who here reads the EULA?
Firehed 26th September 2008, 13:08 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deadwolf
Tyrmot - excellent comment, agree %100

If you don't' like the policy don't buy the game, but you have to be made aware first of the policy... which is what i would go after in this case..

Seconded. Made the same point at /. and some guy responds by posting a link to some third-party site containing the EULA. Yeah, because the fact that it's visible SOMEWHERE prior to purchase (not even on the publisher's own site!) makes it OK. So I'm done with EA, and done with other companies that use similar tactics. If they want to use DRM, fine, but I'll do like everyone always says and vote with my wallet.
UrbanMarine 26th September 2008, 13:15 Quote
If you don't like it don't buy it. Don't clog up the CJS with BS lawsuits. I hate EA 110% and would like to see them shutdown but it's their game to do whatever they want with it.

It's bad enough everyone had to invest in getting the rating system pasted all over products.
LeMaltor 26th September 2008, 13:22 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DXR_13KE
question: who here reads the EULA?

In all my years I'm proud to have never read one :D
D B 26th September 2008, 13:45 Quote
Yeah, your right UrbanMarine.. it is their game and they can put whatever they want in it

but ... it's MY computer and I have a right to determine what goes on it .. if I have to pay money for something only to find that it has something I dont agree with AFTER the fact, I'm suposed to suck it up and take the loss???

.. and then try the same thing all over again with someone elses product ???
Silver51 26th September 2008, 13:45 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DXR_13KE
question: who here reads the EULA?

I give the EULA a quick scan just to make sure I'm not agreeing to anything nasty.
Thacrudd 26th September 2008, 13:52 Quote
I personally feel bad for Will Wright. This is his brainchild that he wanted to create so badly for everyone to play and they won't just enjoy the game because of EA's DRM bulls**t. (even though he's filthy rich) I personally don't care about the DRM, I know it's there and I agreed to install it. If it's in the EULA, I do not see this lawsuit standing any ground.
UrbanMarine 26th September 2008, 14:03 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by D B
Yeah, your right UrbanMarine.. it is their game and they can put whatever they want in it

but ... it's MY computer and I have a right to determine what goes on it .. if I have to pay money for something only to find that it has something I dont agree with AFTER the fact, I'm suposed to suck it up and take the loss???

.. and then try the same thing all over again with someone elses product ???

Yes and no. You do have the right to determine what goes on your PC. But the thing is some user agreements state that the game/software even though you bought it isn't yours and the company has the right to do what they want. They also sometimes state that they're not responsible for hardware damage etc etc.

ex. Blizzard has all the rights to my copy and wow account. Based on the user agreement they have the right to terminate my account and I don't get a refund. I can't even sell my copy to someone because it violates the user agreement. Which in turn violates the wonderful legal system.

Real life ex. I paid for my drivers license but the state has the right to take it away from me because in their agreement it states that my license is state property.

Anyways the whole anti-piracy war is just a waste of money. Spore was cracked in a few days by the pirate community and now millions of dollars are going to be wasted in court over something that wasn't even worth it.
Kúsař 26th September 2008, 14:04 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DXR_13KE
question: who here reads the EULA?

I actually did - few times. But it was just for one purpose - what rights I had when I bought game 10 years ago and what rights I have now when I buy game. 10 years ago - you were forbidden to decompile, modify software...and so on...but: you owned the right to use the software and you were even allowed to make backup copies!!! Now - you're forbidden to make backup copies(and if your disc(s) gets damaged you'll have to pay undisclosed price for new one), you don't own game - it's rent to you.

Some week ago, chrisuk wrote:
"And no, you don't have any right to put it on more than one machine......all that has changed is that the technologies now exist to enforce what has been in EULAs for a long long long time."

I think it's exactly the opposite - They're changing EULA because they (think they) have technology to enforce it.
---

But I must say I feel very pitty for developers(especially for guys behind Spore) - they often put so much effort just to see their effort being ruined by intrusive DRM. If only some publishers put more trust in gamers...

On the other hand - just read through the news section of SecuROM(Sony DADC) webpage. It's really OUTRAGEOUS they attribute success of some high-selling games to themselves!!! Not even EA deserves to suffer for whatever brainwashing techniques SecuRom uses against them to lure them to use their DRM.
////\oo/\\\\ 26th September 2008, 18:33 Quote
Whether SecuROM is illegal or not, I will not be purchasing any game that implements it, which is a shame really, cause I really did fancy Spore and Red Alert 3.

I'm sure there are many other potential customers like me, I thought we'd established by now the DRM = BAD and is effectively shooting yourself in the foot, especially the draconian versions like SecuROM
Saivert 26th September 2008, 18:36 Quote
Kúsař : The reasons the EULA has changed this much over the past 10 years is because game developers and publishers expect more revenue on it than they did back then. Back in the golden years of gaming, game developers were happy if they sold a few thousand copies and had enough money to just finance their next project. People did pirate games then as well. People have always been pirating. It's not a new thing. It's just that now it is seen as a threat because they don't cash in bucketful. It's all down to being greedy and nothing more/less.

This culture is not only prevalent in the games industry. It's everywhere. Money rule too much. And our society will suffer because of it. Something is seriously screwed up when a company does something that they know will cause controversy and mistrust, but still go on with it because they can't let go of the greed.
Why do you think we have a financial crisis at the moment? This is just a taste of what to come.
Darth Joules 26th September 2008, 18:39 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kúsař
On the other hand - just read through the news section of SecuROM(Sony DADC) webpage. It's really OUTRAGEOUS they attribute success of some high-selling games to themselves!!! Not even EA deserves to suffer for whatever brainwashing techniques SecuRom uses against them to lure them to use their DRM.

QTF. ;) EA bought SecuROM as a replacement for Stardock DRM 2-3 (?) years ago. Back then SecuROM was as benign as Stardock was, they were almost identical products and nobody really had a problem with it. However SecuROM has now quickly evolved into a "meaner" restrictive version and unfortunately EA are seemingly blindly tithed to Sony and using their DRM software.
calipip4 26th September 2008, 19:15 Quote
So many people have the whole idea of SecuRom and the x amount of activations all wrong.
It's not just a simple DRM, it installs separately to the game without your knowledge...if you un-install the game...it DOESN'T un-install the SecuRom, which makes it a rootkit (malware), so if you don't know this, you will think it's gone because it hides in "hidden folders" and in your "Registry", not to mention disabling of some AV's ,the damage it does to some PC hardware, and stops you from being able to use legal software that SecuRom has been programmed to black band. EA deserves to be sued over this issue alone.
The other issue I have with this type of Draconian DRM is that when you can't afford the internet anymore, you can no longer Play a Game you Paid for, and that is wrong...most games aren't played over the Net so why do we have to be connected to it. ( It's to Spy on PC users, that's why it Phones Home with Encrypted Data.)
There is a lot bigger picture than what we're seeing here right now, this is only a baby step to the end plan. This has nothing to do with piracy, because we know that the pirates will never be stopped and it is proven once again with the amount of torrented copies of Spore downloaded so far in less than a month. Why is EA adamant about continuing to use SecuRom when they know it’s not doing what they say it was intended for and is only effecting the paying customers. I will not buy anything that is put out by EA or Sony anymore, even though I would love to buy Sims2 IKEA, Sims2 Apartment Life, Spore and Red Alert 3, but I just don't trust EA or Sony. All they have done for the last 18 months is lie through their teeth to save their neck and not a bit of concern for their paying customers.
I'm also a member at Reclaim Your Game: http://www.reclaimyourgame.com/ and we’re dedicated to helping other gamers with their issues with SecuRom and get info out to educate to public. We also have a SecuRom Removal Instruction Walkthrough Tutorial on the site for people to use and we’re in the process of updating it.
So please feel free to visit our site and see for yourself.
Darth Joules 26th September 2008, 19:43 Quote
@ calipip4 and what he's saying. I wonder if this would render Spore, as a retail product, as "not fit for purpose" under UK retail law? If so, this would fully entitle you to return the game for a refund.
sotu1 26th September 2008, 22:23 Quote
really, this is just another case of suing for the sake of suing. let's sue for anything we can think of. really, has the DRM actually genuinely affected anyone in a really bad way?
Ryu_ookami 26th September 2008, 22:55 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove
-> Has the people now suing EA actually tried to start a dialog with EA before suing (I don't know), or have they just been screaming "we don't want DRM"?

There's a 53 page thread (last time I looked) on the spore forum that EA specifically set up asking for comments the moment their realised that the comments were all about the DRM they stopped responding despite posting on other parts of the forum so I would say Yes, people have tried to start a conversation with EA but EA have stuck their fingers in their ears and started humming loudly at the top of their voice so that they don't have to listen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotu1
really, has the DRM actually genuinely affected anyone in a really bad way?

Give it a very little while then watch as people start to complain over the fact that they can not install the game that they purchased on their PC any more because they have used the 3 installs.
impar 26th September 2008, 23:41 Quote
Greetings!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryu_ookami
Give it a very little while then watch as people start to complain over the fact that they can not install the game that they purchased on their PC any more because they have used the 3 installs.
EA has kindly extended to five activations.
Ryu_ookami 27th September 2008, 03:24 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by impar
Greetings!

EA has kindly extended to five activations.

LOL like that makes it any better lol

EA needs to sort this PR disaster out before it costs them even more as prior to this. it was just gamers that were complaining about the DRM but this situation has now got the general buyers complaining as well. That can not be good for business.
talladega 27th September 2008, 05:49 Quote
I havent read much on this DRM thing as I dont care for Spore but what is bad about SecuROM? I have a game from 2003 that uses SecuROM. What does SecuROM do that is so bad? I havent had any problems with the game I have that uses SecuROM. FYI, its Nascar Racing 2003 and it has online play in it. I dont get how SecuROM is bad. I made a (as close as possible to 1:1) backup copy of it on a cd and a cd image if I want to run online or I just use a no-cd. Maybe its an older version of SecuROM or something but I dont understand why copy protection is bad.

The only copy protection that i've known is pure evil is Starforce which happened to actually wreck some peoples dvd/cd drives.
impar 27th September 2008, 09:42 Quote
Greetings!
Quote:
Originally Posted by talladega
I havent read much on this DRM thing as I dont care for Spore but what is bad about SecuROM?
Its the current version of Securom that brings nasty features.
EA and other companies are using it to limit paying customers use of the game.

You have to authenticate online a single player game in order to play it and you are limited to the numbers of times you can activate the game, usually three or five activations.
Besides, Securom is a pain to uninstall from your system.

As always with DRM, its use is pointless.
Whoever pirates the game has free liberty to install and uninstall the games as he/she/it pleases, but the paying customer has limitations to the use of the game he/she/it bought.
talladega 27th September 2008, 16:39 Quote
Oh, I see. Must be a very new version as you say. My game just has a cdkey like most, no need for authentication. And there is no Securom installed either.

I'll make sure I avoid any games with the new Securom then. THanks!
Ryu_ookami 27th September 2008, 17:27 Quote
cool i just realised that sotu1 has quoted me in his sig "ahhh, i feel so special"
impar 28th September 2008, 10:28 Quote
Greetings!
Quote:
Originally Posted by talladega
And there is no Securom installed either.
Securom is usually in a hidden folder in the Windows user folders.
anduril 28th September 2008, 18:22 Quote
i sometimes wonder what the budget is for drm research. what percentage of the retail price accounts for drm costs?
personally i'd say make it cheaper **** the drm.
cheaper game= more sales.and it's done with the same profit margin as u no longer need to pay for drm development.
untill the guys at ea and co figure this out i'll pirate whatever game i want. i'll happily spend money on a game il like that comes without any fancy drm crap.
in the end theyjust hurt themselves. if u want to turn a profit u gotta keep the consumer happy.
talladega 28th September 2008, 23:02 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by impar
Greetings!

Securom is usually in a hidden folder in the Windows user folders.

must only be with new Securom version. I have no Securom things installed. I think the Securom on my game is used in a different way.

On mine its just to prevent copying the disc (it was very hard to make a backup).
crazybob 29th September 2008, 04:33 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanMarine
...You do have the right to determine what goes on your PC. But the thing is some user agreements state that the game/software even though you bought it isn't yours and the company has the right to do what they want. They also sometimes state that they're not responsible for hardware damage etc etc.
ex. Blizzard has all the rights to my copy and wow account. Based on the user agreement they have the right to terminate my account and I don't get a refund. I can't even sell my copy to someone because it violates the user agreement. Which in turn violates the wonderful legal system.
Real life ex. I paid for my drivers license but the state has the right to take it away from me because in their agreement it states that my license is state property.
Anyways the whole anti-piracy war is just a waste of money. Spore was cracked in a few days by the pirate community and now millions of dollars are going to be wasted in court over something that wasn't even worth it.
There's a big difference between your driver's license example and your DRM example: you are made aware of the terms of a driver's license before you pay for it, and you are free to choose not to get one. DRM is different; it's not advertised on the box. The first you will know about it is when you skim the EULA. I wish you the best of luck trying to return the game at that point, with the packaging open. Because of the way this works, by the time I encounter an EULA I disagree with, I have two choices: 1) accept the terms of the agreement, including potential hardware damage or operating system corruption, or 2) eat my $50 loss. No retailer will take the game back just because I claim to disagree with the EULA - they will assume I have already copied the game. DRM acts as though legitimate customers are all pirates.

Second, you are wrong about Spore being cracked after only a few days. Spore was available on torrent sites, with all that pesky DRM removed, well before the release date. EA has irritated thousands of paying customers by including DRM which had already failed to achieve its intended purpose before it was even released.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sotu1
...really, has the DRM actually genuinely affected anyone in a really bad way?
I doubt anyone has been terribly affected yet, but that's not the issue. The real issue is the almost certain future impact. I have been looking forward to the game since it was announced, but I will not be buying it. I'm abstaining because I'm well aware that the DRM would have a great impact on me in the future. Just last weekend, I installed Scorched Earth 1.5 and had a grand time playing for several hours. This game, released in 1995 (the first version was actually released in 1991), included no DRM, which is the only reason I was able to do this - I've installed the game dozens of times in the 13 years since that final version was released. I can say with confidence that three activations would have been insufficient. Indeed, so would the five activations Spore now allows. EA has responded to the issue by announcing a patch which allows computers to be deauthorized, but I'm fairly sure that even this falls a bit short. Will their activation server still be running in 13 years? Will my game still be playable, or will EA drop it when it becomes a waste of money to keep the servers running? If they drop the servers, will they release a patch which allows the game to be installed without activation, or will they simply assume nobody is interested any more?

I didn't rent the game. I bought it. When EA inevitably shuts down the activation servers or goes bankrupt, I will lose my ability to play the game. EA will have essentially stolen my game from me, simply because they were concerned that I would steal it from them. In reality, the worst I would have done with the game is reinstalled it on my own personal computer several times. Is that considered stealing, these days?

Software companies don't treat software licensing correctly. This could be a long rant, and is only slightly related to the topic, so I'll instead direct you to a very interesting article I stumbled across a few days ago.
scarrmrcc 29th September 2008, 14:46 Quote
wait a minute....

so, people are mad that:

1. 3 or 5 or 7 intalls:
they want to buy a game once, and then use it on multiple installations, on different computers, ect ect..
seriously, i know many people are like "what i can only install it 7 times?!?!?! i format my harddrive every 3 weeks!" but seriously, the way it is now you can put it on 7 computers, and you just call them when you format, reinstall ect... 7 computers people.

2. you only get 1 user account per disk.
well, frikken duh. 1 person bought the game. if you want the whole family to use the game, then the user account is for the family. the purchase reflects the usage.

3. greed? where does come from? they are not being greedy, by selling you what you pay for. too many people think "i have a computer, i GET to have stuff for free" like copies of friend's games, copies of CD's, copies of DVD's. if people would just start getting used to paying for their stuff, they would realize that tis is not greed, it is business. you want it, they have it....pay for it. if you don't want it enough to pay what they want for it, it is not just your RIGHT to have it for less, or free.

4. well, i am done typing for now....about it, but think people.

"OMFG, i has to pay for stuff? BS, i own a Computer, i can just borrow (i.e use forever and never actually pay for) other people's stuff for free."

secureROM does not do the evils that people act like it does, quit jumping on the "i heard form this guy in a forum" bandwagon and buy or it, or don't buy it, don't sue becasue they want you tp actually pay for the game.


if it is that bad, torrent it.
impar 29th September 2008, 15:54 Quote
Greetings!
Quote:
Originally Posted by scarrmrcc
if you don't want it enough to pay what they want for it, it is not just your RIGHT to have it for less, or free.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scarrmrcc
if it is that bad, torrent it.
Your reasoning eludes me.
Bladestorm 29th September 2008, 20:56 Quote
How hard would it be for this to happen really?

You start installing the game, something, anything randomly goes just slightly wrong during installation. The game does not work but activation #1 is used.
You ring up EA tech support, they tell you to uninstall and re-install the game - Activation #2 has now been used.
The game now works, but you find your pc struggles with it, so you buy and install a new graphics card. The securom checks the hardware and finds it has changed, so qualifies this as a new PC, activation #3 is now used when you start the game back up.
You happen to log onto a different user account on the PC for some reason, the securom identifies this as a new install, activation #4 is now used.
Back to the original user account and it again picks up as it being installed on a different pc, activation #5 is used.

Nothing too fantastical there and most of them backed up by accounts of users running into those types of problems with mass effect too, so its far from impossible for a normal user to run into problems quickly, never mind wanting to come back and play the game again later as many of us do.

On the general topic of DRM, I've been reading the pieces published on Penny arcade's frontpage just lately with interest and am particularly fond of this final paragraph of the piece by the CEO of Three rings (puzzle pirates etc)
Quote:
DRM takes a big poo on your best customers -- the ones who've given you money -- whilst doing nothing practical to prevent others from 'stealing' your precious content juices. Worse, it makes these renegades feel nice and righteous about sticking it to 'the man'. Stop trying to persuade people to love you more by hitting them a rusty pipe. Put down the pipe, and give up on DRM.
DXR_13KE 30th September 2008, 00:11 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by scarrmrcc

1. 3 or 5 or 7 intalls:
they want to buy a game once, and then use it on multiple installations, on different computers, ect ect..
seriously, i know many people are like "what i can only install it 7 times?!?!?! i format my harddrive every 3 weeks!" but seriously, the way it is now you can put it on 7 computers, and you just call them when you format, reinstall ect... 7 computers people.

i already call MS to activate windows, i don't want to do this with my other games, that and considering the cost of the calls... yes, i am very angry about this.

edit: they also reserve the right to say no to your plea to request another installation...
Major 30th September 2008, 00:37 Quote
What makes me laugh at these big companies (who are suppose to be clever), is that the bullshit they put on their discs that are suppose to force people to buy the games (as it's suppose to stop pirating) does the total opposite. And in reality all it does is persuade the consumers to think between buying a legit copy or d/l a pirate copy. If you remove this crap, you'll increase your sales, pirates won't be seen as elite, you won't get sued, and no one will complain. On the other hand, you keep this, you lose sales, you delay pirates by about 4 minutes, and you make people download from torrents.

So basically, it's a lose lose situation, and I don't understand that.
impar 17th October 2008, 12:25 Quote
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums