The argument that piracy doesn't lead to lost revenue is complete and utter hogwash. Yes, the ratio of lost sales to copies pirated isn't 1:1... there ARE people who wouldn't be able to afford the game at all (and thus wouldn't be sales anyway), and there ARE people who would buy the game after pirating it. However, it is NOT 0:1, either... there ARE people who can... in fact.. PAY for the games they're pirating, but CHOOSE not to. While it's not 'theft' in the strictly legal sense of the word, as there are no physical goods being taken, it's not exactly saintly behavior, and is detrimental to the way society expects people to behave. If somebody provides a service to you with the expectation, be it a charity car wash or providing a game for you to play, and you consume such service without paying for it... well... there shows to be a significant breakdown. You wouldn't drive off after some high school club washed your car without paying... why would you pirate a game?
Likewise, though... people have to be able to say they're getting their money's worth. You'd be righteously pissed if... in going to the aforementioned car wash, you gave your money, but then told to piss off... or perhaps for a more apt picture to fit the scenario, they cleaned off the windows, but left mud caked on the sideboards. So many times, with so many games, it feels like you're given an experienced that's either incomplete unless you fork over additional money (mandatory day zero DLC and such)... or you're just given a product that is so inferior that there is no reasonable way you can say that it is worth your $60. These are serious issues that need to be addressed by the games industry.
For those saying there's should be no DRM... face it... it is NEVER going to happen. It is just naive to expect that if a game is released without DRM, that nobody will pirate it. Look at World of Goo, Witcher 2, etc. Some DRM is necessary... not so much to ensure that the game never gets hacked (which most likely will happen... sooner or later... if nothing else, the crackers love the challenge), but rather to keep would be paying customers honest. There are fewer people then people would want to admit who would pay for something if they can get it for free. It's that simple.
DRM, however, doesn't have to be completely draconian. Steam, as mentioned in the article, is a very good (though perhaps not perfect) example. It adds something to the games beyond simple DRM. The social aspects, the ability to re-download games, the quickly distributed updates, all provide a reason to make you want to continue using it beyond the simply copy protection. Yes, there are flaws to it, but in my own personal opinion, it's a net positive.
Value is something that needs to be seriously looked it. In all honest, for way too many games these days, they are NOT worth the sticker price of $60 that is asked. Many developers/publishers need to sit down and take an actual look at what they're providing, and price it accordingly. In a handful of cases, the price of games may go up. I know I, for one, would probably have been willing to pay MORE then the $60 asking price for Skyrim, for example... bugs and all. In many other cases, the price would drop. I feel sorry for anybody who paid full price for Duke Nukem: Forever. Finding the balance is key.
SOPA, however... is an iron fisted, heavy handed way of handling things, though. I'm not usually fairly progressive as far as my view of government goes, but in this case, I think the libertarian approach is probably ideal. Have the market decide the balancing point. It's an ongoing and continuing balance to find, and not an easy problem to solve. Blanket censorship without due process... well... most people here know the arguments... the vast majority of which really have nothing to do at all with piracy in the first place.
