RSSHackers take out EA's Scrabble after Scrabulous removed from Facebook
By Michael Hatamoto | Published July 30, 2008, 4:02 PM
After a legal threat from Hasbro, Scrabulous has been taken down from Facebook. But EA's official Scrabble game went up only to be promptly taken down by attackers.
The drama between Electronic Arts and Hasbro against Scrabulous and Facebook closely mimics that of a daytime soap opera, and it only continued this week as Scrabulous has officially ended service to North America.
Facebook users who tried to play Scrabulous were met with the following message: "Scrabulous is disabled for U.S. and Canadian users until further notice. If you would like to stay informed about developments in this matter, please click here."
On the same day that Scrabulous ended its run, EA said at least one hacker was responsible for maliciously taking down the company's official version of the game. Scrabble was unavailable this morning, and still appears to be down for users.
Some Scrabulous players have already vowed to abandon online Scrabble now that Scrabulous has been removed, but EA hopes there will be a large group of Facebook users making the transition in the future.
It seems the public backlash towards EA and Hasbro has only begun, with a passionate group of Scrabulous users clearly not happy with their favorite game being removed from Facebook. Hasbro waited until it launched a private beta of its own Scrabble game with EA before officially filing a lawsuit against the creators of Scrabulous and asking for the game to be removed from the site.
Even with a copyright lawsuit facing them, the Scrabulous co-founders, Jayant and Rajat Agarwalla, are preparing a legal defense and have vowed to fight to the end.
The Agarwallas said more than 450,000 users played the game per day, and the brothers made up to $25,000 per month through advertisements. Just 15,000 are playing the trial version of the official Scrabble game.
EA showed interest in purchasing the Scrabulous brand from the Agarwalla brothers, but they declined because the offering price reportedly wasn't high enough.
I think this is kind of humorous.
Score: 0
|I read that it was because the name was too similar that they are being sued. Is that really the reason? I'm assuming the patent has run out and now it's just about trademarking? If that's true and it's the only reason then the whole thing is stupid. I guess any tech company that has a product starting with "I" should just pay apple to use "their" letter, or maybe "tunes" shouldn't be used in any other product, EVER. They can't just be competitive and make a better product, and they sure can't offer it for free. They want to monopolize everything possible, personally I'd like a choice. So I'm glad if everyone is ticked and boycotts them.
Score: 0
|Well if EA offered to buy Scrabulus, and the developers declined, thats kind of shady...
Whats the point of putting the real Scrabble game on Facebook, only to cripple it by location restrictions, I mean... WTF
Score: 0
|Once again, a large corporation throws customer loyalty and satisfaction to the wind and gets the punishment they deserve.
When did common sense become so uncommon? Why do so many companies think insulting, punishing and even attacking their core customer base makes any kind of business sense? Oh well, I guess I'm too smart to be in business.
Score: 0
|Problem is its not a 'customer base' if the product is being copied by someone else.
The company/owner is getting nothing.
They then have only one option - protect their intellectual property rights.
Im guessing that the 'official' version of scrabble is not free?! if it is then it would seem a bit senseless to take down the other version.
Score: 0
|Problem is its not a 'customer base' if the product is being copied by someone else.
Exactly.
Im guessing that the 'official' version of scrabble is not free?! if it is then it would seem a bit senseless to take down the other version.
Even if it is free, they could make money off of advertising, just like Scrabulous was. So in essence, they would still lose money to a competing free alternative.
Score: 0
|"Problem is its not a 'customer base' if the product is being copied by someone else.
The company/owner is getting nothing."
That's true, legally. But the actual inventor is long dead and Scrabble has gone though many owners. I consider it's continued "ownership" a form of copyright abuse. I don't see Hasbro, who hasn't had anything to do with the creation of the game and bought it from bankrupt Coleco, having any right to continue profitting from the game.
I don't use Facebook nor play it's online games, but I'd like to see more "content owners" taken down. Buying a game portfolio from a bankrupt company is not the same as inventing a game. In the same vein, patent vaults should be outlawed as well.
Score: 0
|Whether it was legit or not, EA and Hasbro aren't helping themselves by upsetting this many fans. I can see why they felt like they had to draw a line somewhere, but they should have done it by charging a licensing fee or buying out Scrabulous instead. Now their actions will cause far more damage then the $250K that Scrabulous was bringing in each year. If anything the online version served as a commercial for selling the actual board games.
Score: 0
|The usual 'common sense' crap from a dweeb who valiantly volunteers someone else's property to others for no compensation.
Get your head out of your posterior and think genius. So, tell us what constitutes a "CUSTOMER" base? Just people who like the idea? Or people who pay for the use of the product?
Toss the words around all you like, but "common sense" would assume that you have an understanding of what the words mean! And you obviously haven't a clue!
Yup, your problem is that you are "too smart to be in business"! LOL!
Get the concept?, you junkie?
Score: 0
|...the actual inventor is long dead and Scrabble has gone though many owners. I consider it's continued "ownership" a form of copyright abuse.
Do you realize how stupid it is to say something like that?
If the founder of Betanews dies will Nate and Scott be abusing it's copyright if they continue writing articles? Since Bill Gates left Microsoft is Steve Ballmer infringing upon Microsoft's copyright? Hasbro owns Scrabble, not the inventor, just as Bill Gates never "owned" Windows. It has nothing to do with how many companies down the line it has had. It is just as ethical as it is legal.
Buying a game portfolio from a bankrupt company is not the same as inventing a game.
Of course it isn't. Nobody claimed it was the same. Hasbro purchased the rights from Coleco, however. This was a two way agreement, was it not?
What makes you think Coleco would have let another company profit from their game, anyway? Do you think if the inventor of Scrabble were still alive that that would change anything?
Really, what's your point?
Score: 0
|Fascinating. Nonsensical, but fascinating!
So,tell us why it is the obligation of the OWNERS to the rights of the game to behave magnanimously while it is NOT the original responsibility of the squatters to behave ethically?
And your amazing statement that is supported by NO factual basis: "If anything the online version served as a commercial for selling the actual board games." is COMPLETE NONSENSE.
Yup, and if it wasn't for YouTube, all of the same users would be sending videos to America's Favorite Videos. LOL!
Score: 0
|It's not a question of ethics, it's a question of business. Hasbro was slow to make it onto Facebook so the community left them behind and built a solution without them. Right or wrong, Scrabulous was able to attract a large fan base.
The internet has changed everything, consumers have a lot more control and if you fight them, you will always lose. If you work with them, even when they are supporting cheap knock offs, they will reward you with brand loyalty.
Picking a fight with a mob was a dumb move on their part and will certainly impact the goodwill that these consumers feel towards their brands.
The bottom line is that Hasbro and EA had very little to lose by letting Scababulous continue and by not taking the fans into consideration, they've provoke a backlash that hurts them more then their official game will ever help them. They may have the right to force Scrabulous down, but that doesn't make it the right thing for them to do.
Score: 0
|It was absolutely the right thing to do.
Copying and profiting illegally by using someone else's property is not.
Sorry you find it SOOOOOOooooo complected.
And it had nothing to do with ethics? Effectively stealing another's property and publishing it your own has nothing to do with ethics?
It has nothing to do with ethics like your idiocy has to do with logic!
Score: 0
|Im guessing that the 'official' version of scrabble is not free?! if it is then it would seem a bit senseless to take down the other version.
For up to $25000.00 a month in advertising revenue wouldn't you want the other version gone if you owned scrabble?
Score: 0
|