You will understand perfectly what we're talking about when you see a nice popup box saying that your copy of a game was activated 3 times and you have to buy a new copy to play it again. OR - when some random software on your computer stops working as it should, or stops working at all. That's the present DRM used in games.

Or just simply some strange software that is installed behind the back of the customer on his computer which then ruins his whole pc. I have not had this happen to me but I've read lots about other people who have.
My experience with DRM is that it's just annoying as hell and it does NOT do what it is suppose to do, which is prevent piracy. As you may know all major games are cracked ON the release date or even before it's released.
Oh, you mentioned steam. Which is in my point of view the only way DRM should work besides how they operate at GOG.com(it's not a real DRM, but you get what i mean) and some other sites

Personally, I've never understood people's complaints about Steam, I find it to be a completely reasonable and mostly unobtrusive form of copy protection. My only complaint with it is the Steam application itself is a bit of a poor performer, though recent updates have begun to address that.
Other forms of modern DRM, such as the current version of SecuROM (v7.x), I find completely offensive, as they do nothing to protect the IP holders from illegal copying and treat the legitimate customer like a criminal. They place unreasonable restrictions on the legitimate use of the software and often behave in ways that, if it were any other software, would be considered malicious.
I agree, if we want publishers to listen to us and get rid of these draconian forms of copy protection, we need to speak with our wallets. Refusing to purchase games with copy protection is only one way to do that. We also need to support DRM-free options, like GOG and Stardock, thus showing publishers that removing or limiting DRM can be a selling point for their games.
However, the sad fact is, the vast majority of average gamers either don't know or care about DRM restrictions unless or until they run up against them, which, in most cases, is not very likely to happen. Those average gamers (or "sheeple" as I like to call them) are just going to continue forking over their money to the publishers, regardless of DRM. At the moment, they outnumber us (the anti-DRM minority) by a significant amount, so their wallets speak a lot louder than ours.

That alone is enough, if you transposed the whole situation to the PC world, for a ridiculous round of conspiracy theories and remarkable accusations about human rights on some of the more wilder forums.
What you experience and accurately describe for the music you have gets very messy for some reason when it comes to computer software although no-one really ever uses the example where they have to activate windows online or via the 'phone.

Oh I just love it when people tar those who do not have a problem with the DRM as sheep. Sorry cogadh but I ain't a sheep, I just don't have a problem with DRM and to be called "sheeple" I think deserves a shit load of abuse.
Get your head from out of your pompous backside and realise that people have a choice, it isn't a stain against humanity to install a game, play it and enjoy it but to be labelled as something just because I don't follow the hysteria is ignorant and, quite frankly, astonishing.
So when a Mac user comes over to you and gives you a gobfull and labels you, you'd not remind him of the choice or the lack of accurate and intelligent reasons to abandon your choice?

Clagg, you need to grow a sense of humor. Learn to recognize a joke when you see one and don't be so overly sensitive.

TC:
I sum up the DRM issue like this:
If anything stops me from using something I bought under any circumstances most would normally call "fair", it's bad. Anything piece of digital information I ever buy, for instance, should be usable on any machine capable of parsing it, and it should work for my entire life on any machine I ever own, and I should be able to resell it.
Anything less I find completely unacceptable and I will become as much as a criminal as necessary to ensure my fair use rights are not limited.

Talking about Steam: That Valve is not able to fix bugs known for years, in both their games and in Steam, and the bad overall perfomance, is what keeps me from liking and therefore from buying Steam.
Also there is almost always a way to get what you want cheaper. Why should i pay $50 for a game, and only for the game, which then takes ages to download, when i can get a nice box, an awesome manual, a CD/DVD which makes me install faster then the DL etc.
Of course, some games come in a simple box just big enough to contain the CD/DVD, and the manual is a 5 paged PDF..but still, it would be cheaper most times.
Also i did not have problems with DRM myself by now, or at least i can not say for sure it is because of DRM.
The idea behind Steam is good, but what they made..
Similar with DRM. I understand they don't want to loose money through piracy, but they should fix the reason, and the problem will vanish, too, and not try to restrain people who actually paid.
Also, it's not so simple like they want to make us believe. Piracy is not always moneyloss. If i'm not sure about a game, i do not buy it. So if the demo (if there is any) doesn't convince me, they will loose money. Unless i "pirate" the full game and think "thats a pretty cool game" - and buy it.
Sometimes i are so convinced of the game, that i buy the sequel/prequel, too, without thinking about it.
So they probably got like $100 *because* i pirated it.

I pasted the words "I just don't have a problem with DRM" into the stupid filter and it has told me that the text is likely to be stupid.
Clearly this means something of importance.

That's easy for most of the DRM related issues Steam is not any better than Securom or any other DRM based scheme.
Basically with Steam or all the others you are at the complete mercy of the good will of the one controlling it, you give them a "blank cheque" hoping they will be nice enough to let you play the game you bought.
And there is not a single warranty you will still be able to continue playing the game in question one or two years after.
Yes you can activate you Steam games on any computer you want as long as you don't play on two different computers at the same time, but it's only because they are "nice" enough to let you to, if for whatever reason they someday change their mind and decide you can only activate a game once before having to re-buy it absolutely nothing prevent them to.
Heck they are already doing it with some game who retains their limited number of activation even if you buy them on Steam.
Also if someday they lose the rights of some of the games you bought (licensing rights are limited in time by definition).. too bad for you. If they are nice enough they might give you your money back but nothing force them to.
And even without going as far as right problems, their DRM allows them to enforce censorship, if a game is baned in your country you won't be able to play it on Steam, if it's censored (like a lot of games are in Germany) then you will only be able to play the censored version. And games censorship is not something that only concern Germans or Australian, Witcher for example was censored in the US.
And unlike Securom, if someday your Steam account got banned you immediately lose access to all you games.
So no Steam is not really better than Securom it just had a prettier consumer friendly looking makeup.

I had to test this just to see if it was true... And it is!
"Text is likely to be stupid."

Others have summed up much of what the issues are with DRM, but there's also the philosophical side: it's about control. You buy a product, you own it. You decide what you want to do with it (within the law). DRM takes that control away from you and gives it to the vendor.
Another thing is this: imagine every game going forward has this type of (SecuROM with limited activations) DRM. Let's assume they're 'generous' enough to give you a revoke option. Now, you want to install a new video card and maybe add some RAM. You have to revoke all your games, install the components, then re-activate all your games again. At present, many revoke options mean you must actually uninstall the game. I don't relish the thought of doing that for the 1 1/2 to 2 dozen games I have on my rig at any given time.
Also, there's the issue of whether your computer is connected to the internet or not. At this time I have 2 gaming rigs in different rooms in the house. One is connected to the internet, the other isn't. Ever. This type of DRM scheme means my off-line rig is basically rendered useless for its intended purpose. This means I either have to haul it downstairs to my current internet connection so I could activate my games, add a hardline into the room that contains the offline rig, or set up a wireless network connection for it. Why should I have to do any of that for a bloody game I've already shelled out 50 or more dollars for?
I'm not against DRM solely on principle, although that's part of it. I've been bitten by it on BioShock. I had two user accounts on my system and then added another hard drive for storage. Not another one on which I reinstalled the OS, just for extra storage. Guess what happened? Locked out of my game. Eventually a revoke tool was released so you could get an activation back. Sadly, it didn't work. So until they finally patched out the activation limits, I was stuck unable to play the game I'd paid for. (As an aside, you still have to activate BioShock when you first fire it up, but there are no longer any limits on the number of activations. The DRM is still alive and well on it though). After that little episode with the 'unnoticeable DRM' (paraphrasing a publisher comment), I vowed not to deal with it again. So I refuse to buy games with activations, limited or not.

I think DRM is less a stopgap against piracy than an attack on the used video game market. EA has long complained about used game sales, and recently Epic has come out and said they are against it as well. Both are looking at ways to stop the used game market. I believe DRM is the first step down that road.

When I read those statements from Epic about how they get nothing from the game reseller market, I immediately thought to myself: Does Ford get anything when I buy or sell a used car? Nope. If Ford decided to make a car that worked fully for me but would have crippled functionality if I tried to sell it used, would I buy it? Nope. Why should the video game industry be any different that any other manufactured product?
This belief (held by the game publishers) that digital media is somehow different and exempt from the rules and standards that apply to all other products is ludicrous. Eventually, consumers are going to catch on to what they are trying to do with these new "anti-reseller" tricks and we are going to see class-action lawsuits galore. I honestly wouldn't be surprised to someday see Congressional hearings on the subject, similar to the baseball steroid scandal hearings.