Ya what's the big deal here.. strong DRMs do work and will deeply affect a company's bottom line. There's never an insufficient supply of users/whiners who don't give a damn of revenue of the software company or what the hell fair use is about in the eula -- if they can get away with it (be it piracy, abuse or whatever), there's simply no reason not to. Statistically speaking, "honesty, willingness to support developers..." all these factors are directly dependent on how well you implement DRM, that's just it, i don't care how ppl *claim* otherwise.

Take Blizzard's Starcraft II, irrc there're literally hundreds of thousands of signatured whiners out there already (and growing) against it DRM policies, but guess what Blizzard is in a perfect position now to boost sales thru strong DRM, not piratable/abusable weaklings like Starcraft I.

I don't know what softwrap makes, but I bet if there were an easy alternative to Softwrap's stuff in question there probably wouldn't be such a debate in the first place -- end-users would just walk away because of the "annoyance". Looks like Softwrap is in a position to implement strong DRM w/o noticeably losing sales, why not protecting assets with strong DRM?

There's no such a thing as unreasonable drm eula agreement coz nobody points a gun at the end user to decide whether to agree to it or not.