So the only way to truly own a woman's heart is to proceed to surgery, detache it from her body and keep it in a jar next to your bed :( ???

..or, you know, like... be a woman. That works too.

I hope a similar law gets passed in the US soon... Sadly, it seems we're heading the other direction.
No, I'd say the only way to truly own a woman's heart is via transplant. That being said, typically when one talks about "owning a heart" or "giving someone their heart", it's not meant to be taking literally.
Personally, I boycott any games that require such things.

...Except StarCraft II. But even that makes me feel a twinge of guilt every time I play it.
In the United States, you're never legally allowed to copy a game you've bought and then redistribute it... At least, not under typical copyright. Physical or Digital. This has nothing to do with a game's (or other software's) EULA. The End User License Agreement is not recognized as a binding legal contract in the US, and is completely separate from a company's copyrights. There's a big difference between "not legally recognized" and "illegal" here.

You do realize it would most probably mean the death of DRM-free digital delivery, like GOG? The ability to sell and trade digital items is feasible only with very heavy DRM, and probably mostly in very closed systems (unlike Windows PCs) where you have very little control over digital items on your system.

You’ve seemed to have forgotten GoG.com when you wrote your article. They offer DRM free games and are all for the customer unlike services such as Steam..

EVERY.
DAMN.
TIME.

I see no reason that would require DRM. If anything, it'd discourage digital distribution altogether, and get things on track toward a fairer society.
You're the one that started going off on that tangent...

Your rage pleases me.

not that tangent though.... and well forgotten.

I'll explain then. If the publisher wanted to allow trading and second-hand sales of digital items (be it games, digital music, whatever), they would want to make sure that the original buyer wouldn't keep a copy to himself when he legally sells or trades the game. Hence, DRM and closed systems would be needed in order to try to stop such practises.

It'd be no different than what we have now, only the consumer wouldn't be treated like a slave.

What? Are you replying to the same post as it looks like you're replying to? Because your reply makes no sense.

Ummm, with the "tiny" difference that now we can indeed buy some games DRM-free, e.g. in GOG, DotEmu and HumbleIndieBundle.

Of course if you don't care about games (digital or retail) being DRM-free without any online authentication, that's another thing.

Okay, let me simplify it for you: If such a law were passed, some companies would use DRM, some wouldn't. For example, if you were to transfer games you bought on GOG, they'd remove it from your account. It'd be up to the user to delete the files from their computer. It's no different than selling a physical copy of a game that lacks DRM (or that you've cracked), the same possibilities already exist.

But isn't that the point? They'd want to make sure that no one was selling the game and keeping it backed up, since that is piracy. Thus it'd be even harder to get companies to release things DRM-free.