Bullshit, you're missing the point, for someone to claim that activating every 30 days is Tolerable they're supposed to be against onerous DRM, that is unacceptable. You may like SC2, fine, you may not have trouble with Battle.net, fine. It is still one of the most restrictive DRM schemes in the marketplace today. To call it tolerable is laughable, it's at least as bad as Steam. You're not even allowed to mod your game as you wish. Have a shitty internet connection just now? You can't play until you download this huge patch, we don't care if you only want to play single player.

If those servers ever get DOSed you can't play. If they go down you can't play. If Blizzard bans you rightly or wrongly, you can't play.
Principal.

You "bought" it supposedly, why should you have to? It doesn't matter if it's easy. It may be easy for you to come up with a quarter every 30 days to give me. If I'm forcing you it's still extortion, even if it's barely an inconvenience for you.t

Steam's DRM is tolerable as well.

Remember though that pride goeth before a fall.......IMO it's just not getting antsy about.

If you don't mind it, fine. It's still one of the most onerous DRMs available in the marketplace today. You constantly have to ask permission to play your games, your right to resell your used games is removed, your right to dispute a transaction is removed, your right to import a game is removed, and finally if you choose to not partake often your ability to even legally purchase a game is removed.

Protest groups can either
A) enter talks with people from the other side of the barricade and try to compromise in finding a solution
or B) forever remain protest groups, maintaining (unrealistically) high demands and rejecting any solution which doesn't fit all their criteria

Based on this, they're either branded "sellouts" or "extremists".

Honestly, the most onerous DRM is a disc check.

DRM=
Dumb
Really Dumb
Mustard sauce

'Nough said :D

I'm pretty sure I've simply made an image of every game with a disc check for ages and only mounted an image. No issues.

I'm not arguing that they don't suck, but they are trivially bypassed and often get patched out. Steam will never get patched out of your Steam games nor will Battle.net get patched out of SC2.
Negotiating on DRM has gotten us jack crap so far, there's no reason to negotiate, the only thing that's happened is our side giving up between something and everything with exactly nothing in return.

You can "get around" both disc checks and steam dependability...both are grey in legality and both are easily done.

Don't know how to get around Steam, guess I could finally play HL2 if I did know, but dunno if I care enough... have to freaking pack...

Some nice gents have provided
alternate" copies of steam games at various locations....they're basically the steam files as bundled up file folders that can run without steam.

Which proves why most if not all DRM is pointless! =))
Thanks Blackboard arrrr!

It's not particularly useful to think of people who don't like DRM as "protest groups." Consumer issues are best boiled down to a simple recognition of factors that play into how people assign value to products. There are people who make products and want to sell them, there are people who may be interested in buying those products, and decisions made by the former with respect to product design affects how much the latter are willing to pay, or if they're even interested in the product at all. The way a group like RYG fits into this is by providing information so that customers can make more informed decisions, and by giving voice to consumer concerns so that the people producing their products can make things that people want to buy. However, what happened with RYG was that the information they provide, in both directions, has become highly distorted, to the point of being less than useless. Additionally, when that distortion is accompanied by them entering into formal "partnerships" with DRM vendors, something smells awfully rotten.

You and me both know that boycotts don't work. We don't live in a world where perfectly informed entities make rational decisions regarding the purchase of goods. People "assign value" in the most nonsensical ways possible. Also - "would you rather get nothing or accept these restrictions ?" is a different question from "what would you like to have ?".

If matters were really that simple, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place.

Whoever said anything about boycotts? Again, all I'm talking about is design decisions of a product affecting how much value people place on it, and thus how much they are willing to pay. And of course people aren't perfectly informed and perfectly rational, but there are still general, rational trends that occur and which should be recognized. And also keep in mind that "getting nothing at all" is a very common position that people routinely take with respect to all sorts of products, if they aren't interested in the product or if their perceived value of the product doesn't match up to the price being asked. The question "what would customers like to have" is something that people selling products should be asking beforehand to make sure their products don't end up in that kind of situation.