[url=]http://www.gamespot.com/features/6209660/index.html?tag=topslot;img;2[/url]
They apparently discuss it and talk to securom about their "technologies". They'll also ask developers and publishers next week on their opinion. Check it out for yet another article on DRM.

Oh so now Gayspot is jumping on to the anti-DRM bandwagon too? I guess EA forgot to pay their bills

No, [url=http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2007/11/30/gamespot-fire-gerstmann-for-honesty]was Eidos, silly.

A few interesting bits on the history of DRM (I was surprised to learn that Diablo 2 used an early version of Securom), but overall I think Gamespot's desire to appear "neutral" on the issue resulted in them writing massive amounts of pure, unadulterated bullshit. Finishing up the article with a bit that started with "But it was publisher/developer Valve that was the first to completely renounce DRM" pretty much destroyed any semblance of competence or journalistic integrity they may have had.

I agree. There are times for journalistic neutrality, and there are times where the only honest thing to do is take a position. Gamespot, by not taking a position, is simply spouting the company line. Though I'm not sure they have ever done more than that. They are just a glorified promotion engine for the mainstream game industry.
I personally draw the line a lot farther back than that. I won't buy anything that needs to be activated in the first place. Also, I don't pick up anything without doing the research first, to see exactly what the limitations are.
I don't agree with "I understand that DRM will never disappear with new titles." I think that's a cop out. Accepting it just allows it to continue. That's what people said with music, and it turned out not to be true in the long run. I do prefer a simple serial number at installation to online activation though.
As a personal choice, it's not so much a matter of "is DRM good or bad?". It's more a matter of "Am I personally going to participate?" Each person gets to make that choice for themselves, but awareness of exactly what's involved is a good thing.

"Unless it becomes intrusive and restrictive, it’s easy to understand why at its core DRM is necessary--artists must protect their intellectual property."
Failure. :P
Good article though, otherwise. Interesting none of the publishers wanted to participate in the discussion.

Game$pot has been a corporate shell for a long time, as evidenced by Rich Gallup's sudden and unexplained departure and their firing of Gerstmann and everyone bailing out of the company after that happened, being replaced by unlikable caricatures soon after. It seems like Gerstmann was the only thing keeping them at the company, but after the sacking everyone jumped ship as fast as they could. I can't even begin to express my hatred for CNet.

Is Gayspot owned by Cnet now? Wasn't it owned by ZDnet last time? Or did CNet gain proprietorship of Gayspot after it bought ZDnet over? I haven't been keeping up with the latest news
-edit-
Sorry for offtopicity ^^

You've got it mostly right. :) GameSpot started as an independent site until ZDNet bought it (I'm not sure when), then CNET gobbled up ZDNet in 2000 (acquiring GameSpot and other child sites in the process); finally, CBS Interactive devoured CNET in 2008 (again including GameSpot and the rest). All of the absorbed companies and sites still exist in some form or other.

Thanks. Ah looks like corporate takeover in play again.

I particularly like this quote from Valve: "The goal should be to create greater value for customers through service value (make it easy for me to play my games whenever and wherever I want to), not by decreasing the value of a product (maybe I'll be able to play my game and maybe I won't)."
The "maybe I'll be able to play my game and maybe I won't" is precisely the experience I have with Steam.

"Gayspot"? Are you 12?

Agreed 100%.