And here's my two cents about DRM

A couple of days after Spore's release the discussion about the DRM is raging uncontrollably. I've seen and read quite some nice arguments either way at Amazon, and gaming sites like Destructoid:

• ehm... yes. Software and games are inherently licensed for the customer to use: a personal, non-exclusive license to install and use the Software for your personal, non-commercial use... so I agree that I can't actually OWN a game per se. I can however acquire the right to use the Software.
• Spore now uses a DRM which limits someone's installations to three times. Afterwards you have to hope EA's customer service believes the reasons you installed Spore three times already, and gracefully allows you to do it once more. IF they are still around to call... The debate is about this fact. As I see it people are furious that EA has limited their legally acquired right to use a game, and basically put an expiration stamp on a good which previously had none. While you're still paying the same price for the good OR MORE. Yes that tends to ruffle people's feathers. You'd expect this if oil prices would suddenly hit $200 a barrel, or bread prices would rise tenfold.
  
• The funny thing is that protests are definitely noticeable, on forums, in print media, in electronic media and television. But it is also definitely noticeable that EA will try to hide or avoid bad publicity as much as possible. They even delete bad reviews for chrissakes. I'm sure that at some point in the future the sales figures will come out as being satisfactory, even if they are not. Because if the numbers are an EPIC FAILURE and word of this reached popular media, it would also prove the complete and utter uselessness of SecuROM DRM.
• And that's what it boils down to. What is the use of any DRM? Is it an effective deterrent to piracy? I doubt that pirates would even make their opinions heard on the popular forums, rather spending their time to breaking the DRM faster than the other team. So far DRM has proven to be an effective deterrent to SALES. The legitimate customers (or prospective ones) are the ones who hold the discussions, and they are furious.

I see SecuROM DRM as a terrible way of protecting one's property rights. I have always bought games on the pretense that I can use it whenever, even years after. I'm pretty sure I cannot play Spore, or Mass Effect or maybe even Red Alert 3 in ten years time anymore, be it through a lack of online activation, or reinstallation. If I want to play again, I need to buy again. Which means I'm renting a game. And I'm not renting a game that costs 40 to 50 Euros.

In the end, it's all about the money. It's like a mortgage or an insurance, that the bank suddenly decided to raise tenfold, because it was afraid you would lend the money to someone else. And people get awfully defensive when it's about their own money.

Too bad. EA could have used my money. And from many people like me. And now they won't get it.

UPDATE: the Dutch media have finally caught on: [http://www.nu.nl/news/1763713/55/Rechtszaak_tegen_EA_om_DRM_in_spel.html]