The issue stems from the fact that no one has "digital rights" that require managing. The "rights" they're referring to are simply what the Publisher wants or doesn't want you to be able to do, and the DRM Software attempts to enforce that upon you. However, it's only as effective as their ability to enforce it within a court of law. And, the vast majority are basically worthless.
A great example of where DRM falls down is when a company alters their TOS or EULA
AFTER you've purchased or bought the game/software. As a legally binding document, it can only be enforced if you actually agree to
allow the changes - otherwise the original agreement remains, and the alterations are ignored.
However, as we all know, if you decline to agree with the amended TOS or EULA, such as the rubbish pushed out on Steam, Xbox Live and the Playstation network to prevent class action lawsuits, you're software is entirely disabled. That's actually illegal, and invalidates the altered agreement due to the fact that they've amended the original agreement without both parties agreeing to
allow those specific changes. They can't just up and change the terms and conditions of an agreement in a "like it or lump it" situation. The law doesn't work that way. In fact, in a court, at least within Australia, the case would be thrown out and the original TOS or EULA would remain in effect.
The beautiful thing is that you can actually mail a new EULA to the Publisher, as it's an agreement, and give them seven (7) business days to decline the changes or the agreement is said to be agreed upon and now in effect. The difference is in how it's presented. The Publisher forcing a new EULA upon you provides no avenue for negotiation or discussion with regards to the amended terms and conditions, whereas mailing the EULA out does.
Of course, they don't tell you that
