So you know the DRM doesn't work as you know that people just crack it. You also know that DRM is problematic only for people who actually buy the game. Yet somehow you put these two things together and come to the conclusion that it's justified?

You misread my words. I am perfectly aware that they got it all wrong (and I'm equally frustrated about Ubisoft actions). Their reasons for wanting to protect their software is perfectly valid, but the means that they use aren't.

I think you will find that is the big problem most (reasonable) people have with DRM; there's nothing wrong with DRM in concept, its the execution that is all frelled up.

Actually, it is the concept that is flawed, because no DRM can be effective and not be a nuisance to owners of the original at the same time. As long as the customer has the possibility to view/use the digital information, he can copy it. A prime example is HDCP. You can send the audio and video data in an encrypted fashion, you can require all manufacturers of compliant devices to implement all sorts of protection mechanisms, but in the end, the signal has to be decoded somewhere. Namely as a last resort, you could always open up the TV and find where you can read out the decoded data right before it goes to the display panel. The only protection against that is not showing the decoded content at all, and then you're back at disrespecting your actual customers.
Of course there are ways around this. You cannot copy games from streaming game services like Onlive, but the problem remains the same: the paying customer is punished. Of course Onlive claims other advantages for the customers, but still you can't compare the offer to buying a copy of a game.
All boils down to the fact that you cannot prevent people from sharing digital information, you're much sooner going to scare off your actual potential customers than have any impact on piracy. The only sensible solution to this is finding another approach. Notably: rewarding those who pay for the software. Some publishers found that out already, many big ones didn't. To me it feels like large parts of the entertainment media businesses today listen much more to the pirates than their paying customers. The results are easy to predict, have been happening for a long time, and many still don't get it.

But DRM only ever targets paying customers. That's not a fumbled own goal on the publisher's part. That's the intent behind it and what separates it from security measures. Why else would they bother releasing the same old DRM game after game when it's cracked every time?
They want to control how people use their products. It's been that way since they started including EULAs with games. If they wanted to target pirates they could spend far, far less money on targeting people who upload torrents than they currently do on implementing DRM schemes. Yet such practices are rarely if ever undertaken.

In Germany it is exactly as Anamon says.
Even if I have agreed to the Eula beforehand, most of it is null and void.
BGB §307
Clauses which unduly disadvatage the customer are null and void.
An unduly disadvantage is taken for granted with the benefit of the doubt given to the customer, if e.g.
1. a clause is unclear, misleading or against a fundamental idea of the affected law (not even against the law itself) or
2. negates fundamental rights or duties, which arise from the nature of the contract .
In other words, you bought it, you possess it (in a way you possess a book).
But this is german law. I don't know how the EU handles this.

I am no lawyer and I might be missing something, but that doesn't really mean anything. That clause/law is about as unclear as the things it is supposed to affect :p

You are basing your assumptions on what we know of DRM as it is today with today's technology. There is no way anyone can say for certain that someone, somewhere, someday will not come up with a method of encryption and protection that not only prevents piracy, but is completely invisible to the legitimate end user. It is very unlikely to happen and would require some kind of technology or software revolution to make it happen, but it is certainly not completely impossible, its just impossible right now.
However, the technical concepts behind DRM are not what I was referring to, but rather the concept that there is nothing inherently wrong with a rights holder protecting their content from illegal copying and unauthorized use. Its how they choose to protect it that causes all the problems.

I'm not even sure if my translation is correct.
But the key-words of that law are "An unduly disadvantage is taken for granted with the benefit of the doubt given to the customer"
And then the law is very generally applicable , which isn't the same as "unclear".

Again, I am no lawyer, but generally the insanely vague "laws" are also the trivial ones that competent lawyers sidestep in a heartbeat.
Really a matter of precedent, I suspect.

Maybe. I cited this law because it is linked in the german wikipedia-article about the EULA.
As Anamon said, if you buy a game in a store, the EULA is null anyway, if you didn't read it before the deal.
But what if you bought it online and were able to read the terms and conditions beforehand?
Then this law will be applicable and forbids anything which could anyhow be interpretet as a unduly disadvantage to the customer.
In fact many lawyer turned such laws against the normal people by sueing everyone who just wanted to sell a t-shirt on ebay. It worked, selling things online can cost you some thousand euro if your terms and conditions arent absolutely airtight.

Then the portions of the contract which are contrary to the rights of the country are still invalid. If I live somewhere that I have the legal right to live, I have to do something that is deemed to revoke that right, I can't actually sign it away unless that has been made a provisional right.

Actually, no. If it is really invisible to the end-user, i.e. he also really gets the full quality reproduction of the data he bought a copy of, then there will be a means to copy it. As a truly last resort you could go back to lossy reproduction such as an audio feedback loop to record music. But in the end, if the consumer is going to enjoy what he has bought it will always have to be decoded for reproduction on a display, speaker, or whatever. The data can be encrypted as much as you want, if you want to see it you have to decrypt it at some point. The only way around this is, like the Onlive example I mentioned, if you do the decryption remotely and never even give the end-user access to the original data, which is what happens when streaming. But then that is a completely different business model and is for most people not a replacement to actually owning a copy that they can use whenever and however they want.
As for the EULA discussion, the part I was mostly referring to was the "buy in store" case, where the whole EULA is inapplicable regardless of what it says. But yes, even if you close the contract in a way that makes it a valid part of the contract, many of the clauses they usually contain are nil. I don't know about what rights you can't relinquish, but for example where I live, the EULA cannot prohibit you from reselling your software. Publishers can't even tie OEM copies to sold devices. They can write such a clause, but any store has the right to just sell the software separately. Another notable example is reverse engineering, where I think Switzerland has one of the most reasonable laws worldwide: if reverse engineering is needed to "use the product according to the use it was intended for" (or something along those lines), nothing can prevent you from reverse engineering and modifying. The typical case of this regarding this discussion is: if you bought a software product or game, and you cannot use it because the DRM fails (e.g. activation server is down), you are permitted by law to reverse engineer the software and develop a crack.

You have the right/license to use it, you have the right to make 1 backup copy for safety reasons.
The backup needs to be deleted the moment you don't own the media the original is on anymore.
You own the license to use the software, the software itself is protected by all kinds of copyright laws and you don't own it.
A right you don't have for instance is to adjust the original you bought and resell it, with exception of original updates provided by the copyright owner.
It's simular to books. You can resell the book, but you have no right to the text in it.
You only own the physical product, not the content.
The fact you can do more with it doesn't mean you have the right to do so.
I can remove a brick from the side walk and throw it through a window.
The fact I can do it doesn't automatically give me the right to do it.
It's pretty much the same in other EU countries.
Keep in mind that there's a difference between possession and ownership.
You own the book you bought, you possess the text in the book.
Owners have more rights than possessors.
You have the right to do whatever you want with the book.
You don't have the right to do whatever you want with the text in it.
The above is assuming that the book isn't old and in the public domain yet.
Most software EULAs are in direct conflict with EU laws and therefore not valid.
We can simply click we agree to it without any legal consequences.

Actually, in a lot of places you DO have the right to make as many copies as you want, and you DO have the right to modify the software by any means if it is required to get it to work properly. (removing DRM actually falls into this category, because if it restricts rights, then it isn't working "properly") You also have the right to rent, sell or lease the product if you so wish, JUST like a book.
It just so happens in my country(Canada) software is, for the purposes of copyright laws, a book.