But does Fallout 3 use SecuRom, just toned down a bit?

TBH, I don't mind DRM. The proplom is that they don't tell you what there DRM software dose, and when they do tell you, it is hardly anything. It's like there hidding something.
I can see your point were if people complain, but the fact is that it dose not sound at all like a pirate. I thought the justices system in the US went on the assumption that your are innocent until proven guilty, or is your country getting thicker?

To be honest I always viewed EA and 2K Games as the big bad wolves of the current DRM hype seen from publishers. It's a sad day though if more follow.
Also, I'm not sure killing piracy is really the purpose of the DRM schemes we're starting to see, especially when it comes to the point of limited installations (Bioshock, Mass Effect to mention two high-profile releases with this 'feature').
I propose that it's being done to effectively kill the second-hand market, 'forcing' people to buy a new copy of the game (or pirate it, naturally) rather than just buying their friend's copy who's fed up with it.
What other reason can there be for limited installations? You already have the online activation part in lots of releases these days, coupled with some kind of enveloping DRM like SecuROM or Steam. There's no reason to add limited installations on top of that to fight piracy even more. But nobody will buy a game with one install left used.
Then again, nobody should buy games with three installs left new.
If Fallout 3 comes with no more DRM hassle than the original Oblivion, then I'll most likely pick it up. If it has SecuROM but none of that other crap, I'll consider it. I never had a problem with SecuROM directly, apart from in principle. If it has anything else on top - I'm taking a pass, as I'm already doing with all EA titles.

They want to force un-savvy people into buying a new license because they are "out of activations". This "It's because of dah piracy" claims are nothing but mirrors and cannon-smoke.

I think if EA or 2Kgames really wanted to kill piracy, it would be done very quickly. They would sue the shit out of everyone on the internet that did it. hell, I am considering suing Pirate Bay for giving gaming a bad name. I think it needs to be done.

What irks me most about DRM and disc checks, is the fact that according to my country law I have the right to backup and copy for backup purposes any software I bought.
But since most DRM measures that is not possible, because the copy can't be used to play, hence the back up is useless.

As far as I know, this is not that easy, but i do not know about the details.
Yes, you have a point, but as I wrote in my first post here (which you probably didn't see because of the negative rating...) this minimal DRM ensures, that "normal" people, who can't make No-dvd cracks and who are in majority compared to those who can and will make them, won't be tempted to do something what they wouldn't do if they had to search for it a little. It's not that everyone is a potencial "criminal" (it is a bit too strong word for this though), but as for me, if there was no DRM at all, I would find it hard to resist such things, while downloading a no-dvd crack actually makes me feel that i've done something wrong. (No wonder, as I did something wrong all right.)
I consider this very basic protection to be like a...a warning sign: "Don't step on the grass!"
It is a bit different, as parks don't have EULAs, but I don't think many people read it, actually, so it could be said, that in the previous example EULA is like the rules of the park, which can be seen at the entrance and if every 20. person reads them upon entering, then it's a miracle.
I'm not sure, but the EULA (with which you must agree to instal the software) usually forbids such things, i think. In this case, maybe with agreeing, you abandon your right to make a backup copy for it?
It's just a guess...

Well, law is not my field of expertise, but I'm pretty sure to be able to sell something in country X you have to abide by the laws of said country.

Well, that starts the debate as to whether or not EULAs are legally binding.
I'm sure that consumer law in most countries would state clearly that the act of merely paying for the software gives you a reasonable legal entitlement to use it.
Merely clicking a button with "I agree" written on it to doesn't necessarily mean you've entered into a legal contract with the publisher of said game, especially when that "I agree" button is placed as a simple obstacle between you and something you're legally entitled to use anyway. Given the fact that you can't read the EULA until after you've bought and unsealed the game, and most retailers' unfriendly attitude towards refunding opened PC software, it's all very shaky, legally.
In fact, in my opinion the only time I'd consider any sort of EULA on shop-bought software as legally binding would be if the EULA was presented to me in the store, and if I had signed it before the sale was made.
Under the usual circumstances, though, I'd consider the law of my country to be of more importance than a wall of text I'd clicked to skip over during the install process.

Hm, you are probably right...
But then, agreeing to the EULA is just a formality? Or what kind of weight it has, when considering what you can and cannot do with your software? I guess this changes with the country, but what is the point of the EULA if you actually don't have to follow it? I'm not arguing, just being curious

I think most judges are well aware that less than 1% of people actually read the EULA that comes with software. And even if they had read it, the legalese that they are usually written in can be interpreted multiple ways.
As far as I am aware, very few EULAs have ever held up in court.
And after that, as far as I am concerned the laws of my country are more important than a EULA. If I wanted to make backups I would. Luckily I take good care of my things and have never lost, scratched, or broken a disk, so have no need. I still backup everything I download though.
Furthermore, to get back on topic, YAY for Bethesda!

Probably, considering that all SecuROM versions prior to version 7 were simple CD checks built into the executable (i.e. no additional drivers or services, no online activation, no install limits). That fits the basic description of the intended copy protection, assuming they still have the ability to license the version 4.7.x series of SecuROM.
If they are not going to use SecuROM, then they are likely going to resort to Starforce (please gawd no), TAGES (groan) or less likely SafeDisk (choke).

Ah, the 'casual pirate' so often mentioned by publishers. Well think of it like this:
- the 'casual pirate' (in the sense the publishers are talking about) doesn't exist anymore. It's so easy to get a torrent of any game you want now that if someone really wants to grab the game for free, they can get it easily. DRM is no obstacle to anyone that just wants to take a couple minutes on a google search.
- if they really want to eliminate the 'casual pirate', how does allowing the game to be installed on more than one machine (through their activations) do this? It's basically giving people permission to share the game with their friends.
As a side note (and this is obviously strictly my opinion, but...) I'd have to say those that don't want to spend a minute or two on a google search to get a game if they can't copy/borrow it from their buddy are a very small minority.
Again, this DRM does nothing to stop piracy or hinder people from sharing their games. It's absolutely and completely ineffective at accomplishing its officially stated purpose.

DeathKitten: yes, I'm well aware of the alleged ulterior motive ( and to be honest, I also believe that's what it's all about). But as long as they keep preaching it's all about the pirates, then that's where I'll take up the argument with them. As soon as they openly admit they want to kill second hand sales, then I'll approach it from that angle. But they likely realize the moment they admit that, they'll probably be facing law suits.