Look, the developers/publishers don't put these kind of protections on their disks just to break the law. They do it because of every known cure against illegal distribution of their software, it's considered the most effective one. What, you think they like it? You think they'd do it if they didn't feel they don't have a choice?
As someone said before, the disadvantages of such protections for the users by far don't outweigh the disadvantages for the developers/publisher when not using them.
I'm not gonna complain because I think it's too easy to tell everybody how bad a solution it is without offering any better ideas. What is this, politics? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />
And yeah, some people will argue that they don't get paid for coming up with better solutions, but that's just low.
So maybe they place a driver or two on your disk, is that really worth the fuzz? If all the big companies in their turn made that kind of noise every time you entered the *grey zone* of the law, we'd probably all be deaf by now, and don't you deny that! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/think.gif" alt="" />
I'm not saying those protections aren't illegal, or that I love them, it's just a matter of priorities.
*** Visit 