The Internet furor over Spore's (pictured) use of digital rights management may have blown over for the most part, but the lawyers and plaintiffs who filed suit against EA for its use of SecuROM are continuing to form their cases against the megapublisher.

We saw Monday that Melissa Thomas, the representative plaintiff in a class action lawsuit against EA, had voluntarily dismissed her case on November 18. But it's not a sign of giving up on her complaint, her lawyer said in a phone interview.

"She chose this path in order to take a speedier route. ... She still desires to be a representative plaintiff and prosecute her case," said Scott Kamber with KamberEdelson, LLC.

Kamber's firm, which was also the lead counsel in the case surrounding the infamous Sony root-kit, is in the process of consolidating cases that have been filed in the Bay Area so they can be heard by the same judge "as a matter of efficiency." Thomas' case is part of this consolidation.

There are around 10 plaintiffs involved in the consolidation whose cases revolve around the use of SecuROM in various EA titles, Kamber said.

In September this year, Thomas, a Maryland resident, filed a class action lawsuit against EA for allegedly failing to disclose the impact SecuROM's technology has on a user's computer.

Her original complaint, which accused EA of unfair competition and interfering with property, read, "...Nowhere in any of EA's discussions, responses or explanations of its DRM did EA disclose that the Spore disk contained a separately-installed, stand-alone, uninstallable DRM program..."

The class sought over $5 million in damages and legal fees.

Soon after, two more people filed suit against EA over DRM and SecuROM.

Kamber said that his firm has received support for the DRM suits from "many people." "We've been quite pleased with the support we've seen through direct contact and through blogs on this issue."

Still, while many commenters disapprove of EA's copyright security methods, some argue that taking the issue to court is either overkill or just plain frivolous.

To that, Kamber responded, "I appreciate that there's all different kinds sentiment out there. ... It's very important to us that the people and clients that come to us to be their lawyers understand that we support them and their position, that everyone has a right to decide what's installed on their computers.

"Ultimately, just because you buy a game doesn't mean that a company can do whatever it wants to your computer.

"I find it somewhat ironic that game companies or any company would seek to protect its own intellectual property rights by infringing on the intellectual property rights of the computer owner."

EA and SecuROM did not offer comment on the cases.

KamberEdelson's highly-publicized Sony root-kit case, which resulted in Sony recalling offending products, isn't the firm's only foray into DRM issues ("Interestingly, Sony owns SecuROM," Kamber noted). The firm also brought cases against companies that were using the loathed StarForce software in their games, many of which were settled out of court confidentially.

"The SecuROM situation is not all that dissimilar from the StarForce situation," Kamber stated.

Kamber, who seemed confident about winning the SecuROM dispute, explained further his stance on copyright protection:

"We're not saying there shouldn't be DRM or that there can't be DRM. What our clients are saying and what our firm is saying on behalf of its clients is that disclosures are required. Consumers have a right to make an educated decision about what goes on their computers. Software that can potentially harm peoples' computers, etc., is just not acceptable unless an adequate disclosure is made.

"There are people out there that say this type of DRM is not appropriate, some people say 'deal with it, reformat your hard drive.' But people who use their computers for work, which many people do, or for people that use them just for games, it's a tremendous burden to reformat a hard drive.

"In reality, just because you buy a game and want to play it doesn't mean you're agreeing to have your hard drive or computer held hostage by the game companies so they can protect their own intellectual property rights."