amok: edit: "not care about DRM" means "not care whether a game is DRM free or not, or how much DRM there is" but leave it to the publishers. Sorry, should have made it clearer and easy to understand. Maybe I should have have used an analogy. You see, there once was this man who had a garden and he let other people use it to grow their own fruit there, and he did not care whether they used fertilisers on their fruit trees or not. There was also another man somewhere who did the same but he cared much about use of fertilisers, that is he only allowed people to grow fruit trees if they did not use any fertilisers at all. So the first man let everyone grow their trees in his garden, he did not care, while the second only let people who shared his philosophy do so.
And the first man was also stealing cars every other Saturday. Again you failed to understand the term "analogy".
Anyway, to point out the flaws in your analogy, I'll need to improve it a bit to better apply to the relationship that Steam and the game publishers have. (See, that is what you should have done too, if you felt my analogy was flawed.)
There is this gardener (Valve) who
rents for money allotments in his garden for people (=game publishers) to grow fruits and stuff. He
knows that some of his clients are using fertilizers that might be a bit questionable.
Later there is a big public outcry of this, and these subtenant gardeners are blamed for using questionable fertilizers (just like in this case game publishers are blamed for using DRM, e.g. SecuROM or GFWL on top of Steam DRM). Then someone points out that the gardener who rented the allotments to them was aware they were using such fertilizers, yet didn't put any restrictions on using them, like the other gardener did. So he feels part of the blame goes also to the gardener for allowing such practices by his subtenants.
But then a bunch of people who happen to like this "couldn't care less" gardener come out and say:
"No no no, you can't blame the landlord gardener! He didn't have a principle that would restrict using fertilizers in his rented gardens, and that makes it all fine and him immune to any accusations. But the subtenants can still be blamed because they were the ones actually using the fertilizers."
One of them also points out that if the gardener had put on such restrictions, most of the subtenants would have probably left, as if no one could possibly expect him to have restrictions that might in any way jeopardize his business, even as little as telling the subtenants to use only fertilizers which the gardener himself deems safe and acceptable.
I personally still feel the landlord gardener can be blamed for willingly allowing the subtenants to use any fertilizers (especially since he was aware of them using questionable fertilizers).
A completely different thing would if someone feels even the subtenants can't be blamed for anything, no matter what fertilizers they were using or not. Or, to take it back to the Steam + game publishers example, the game publishers (like Ubisoft) can't be blamed either for injecting third-party SecuROM etc. on the games they have on the Steam service, especially when many customers find out about them only afterwards. But that was not the case here, the original point was that the publishers/subtenants can still be blamed, even if Steam can't.
