I am planing to go to the next office of Fair Trading of my state next week and talk with(better: complain to) them regarding Ubisoft's DRM.
I know, it may be two months to late, but I didn't really had the time to do so. Next week I am free of school and plan to take the chance.
Actually. do you think I should do it? I am convinced that a DRM which requires constant connection because of costumer's mistrust, general suspicion of being a pirate and possible espionage on my computer is against my consumer protection and this is unsettling me. Not only as a gamer but as a democratic civilian.
I figure nobody at the office of Fair Trading world wide would give a fuck because it's just a game company. But still, I want to try my luck. Maybe I'll also start a petition, a real one with 10000 signs, and bring it to Germany's Federal Constitutional Court which is conviniently settled in my town.

indeed. still, let us know how it went :D

All the best, hope it goes well!

Considering the EU ruled it was fine for games companies to charge $ = £ I really don't think you should hold your hopes up.

Well they're there to care about a whole range of relatively unimportant products so I wouldn't worry too much about that.
Plus, given that Ubisoft's DRM works on the principal that you never actually have the full game installed at any time, I'd say there was a case based on that alone. After all, they're advertising an entire product then giving you the bits you need as and when you need them.
The always on aspect is certainly pushing it in terms of being anti-customer, but it's not all that new when you take into account MMOs and other online based games. However, MMOs don't withhold aspects of their game from you. That's a pretty big difference.

Yeah I know
But I am not complaining to the EU, yet. I am about to go to a simple Office of fair trading, if it fails I will (maybe) go with the second option to call pledge on the Constitutional Court of Germany. There is a huge difference both them and the EU how they treat fundamental rights and their protection. I won't go into the details, but they were most of the time a black spot for the EU, especially about the "internet reformations".
I'm not a jurist, but I am sure there is a difference about handling with price treatment and DRM. One of them is abusing some basic rights.
Also, as far the Valve story goes, the EU says they can't do something because the company is in the US and do not have a real “establishment in an EU member state”, they can’t do anything. However Ubisoft is in the EU.
Yeah, pretty sums it up, but again, worth a try.
There is a different for requiring instant connection to online and multuiplayer games and normal single player games. You technically don't need internet connection for Portal since it's just a single player game with no multi-player feature, however Team Fortress 2 does need connection. Just as an example what am I getting at.
Good that you mention it though. If I am going to go to the office of fair trading I need a well conducted catalogue of issues regarding Ubisoft's DRM and their infringement of consumer protection. Since it's really a complex term I need to conduct a really long catalogue.

Go for it !
I would like to buy the new Settlers game, but I won't, just because of the DRM. I downloaded the demo, getting it to run was a real pain with my unstable connexion. This DRM is a pure absurdity.

That's what I just said. I will need to conduct a catalogue of the issues regarding the DRM and the very infrigement of our rights. It will take time though, I am also not really good with the "lingo", and lack of some fundament knewledge of laws, I'll maybe call in a lawyer aswel to help me with this.

Your "LEGAL rights", not your "rights". Keep that in mind. HUGE difference that a lot of people tend to forget when they start arguing this.
It doesn't matter what is morally right. What matters is what is legally right.

One aspect to discuss is the Ubisoft server failures preventing people from playing. It could be possible to argue that Ubisoft was failing to uphold its end of the contract by failing to provide adequate server hardware and software, resulting in people not being able to use the software they paid to use.
After all, I do not believe that it was advertised on the box that you need a constant connection to the Ubisoft servers, merely that you need an internet connection.
Edit: I don't know the EU/German laws on resale of games, but that could be a possibility.

That is grasping at straws, at best. And that is basically the problem here: None of us have researched this to a degree that can go beyond grasping at straws.

An unfortunate divide in what is right and wrong.

You're better off with a petitions. It's a waste of time to do anything on the personal level. What do they care, you're just one guy coming in, they don't see the thousands of others dissatisfied.

Not really. Morality is great to teach people and for philosophers to talk about, but it is a really bad way to rule a society.
Stealing is bad (unless it is software piracy, at which point people pretend it is okay because you are only stealing potential profits :p) and the like. And most of us would agree that, from a moral standpoint, stealing a loaf of bread to feed a starving child is okay.
But what counts as starving?
So it might sound bad, but the law tends to be pretty concrete about a lot of things (until the lawyers get involved...), and that is needed. It might not be fun from a moral/ethical standpoint and it makes people who want to live in a utopia feel bad, but so be it.
Either way though, most of the complaints that tend to be lodged against DRM are about our moral rights and mistaken interpretations of laws in other countries. And there in lies the biggest problem that needs to be overcome.