Ok, one last attempt:
Turn that around, and answer the same question; afterall, if so many customers weren't breaking the law, the publishers wouldn't *have to* do it in the first place.
Obeying the law isn't something publishers should do when they feel like it. This is a law we're talking about here, not school yard rule.
My point is that they're doing it for different reasons; their intention is not to harm you in any way or to gain any profit from it.
Really, they don't think a game will make more money with a protection, than without? Hmmm, that begs the question, if the protection isn't designed to effect sales, what's it doing on the disc in the first place?
Microsoft are in court every other week, for Monopolising the software market. Their software isn't disc protected (and at the mercy of illegal users) so how do they make more money than god? They're the biggest producers of software on the planet, and they don't feel it necessary to use disc protections. When you can show me another comapny that makes as much money as them, and has a disc protection to thank for it, I'll say "I love disc protections" <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />
