That's just obfuscating what DRM really is. Sure, it's cool and convenient to use Steam, but it's still DRM. Gold-coated feces, if you'd prefer an analogy. Just for example, you don't actually own the game, and you can't do with it whatever you want.
tl;dr: Convenience is not a justification for restrictions.
I have no problem believing that what you are saying is your opinion but I see no reason why everyone should be of the same opinion.
Why can’t I be perfectly fine with not owning the game and not being able to do with it whatever I want in exchange for the convenience of Steam? What’s wrong with that? I can understand that you believe that those terms are not acceptable but why do you want to force me to believe the same?
Even after understanding perfectly what Steam’s terms entail I still think that buying games there is a good idea. What now?
I don't think people are complaining that games should be free of charge. People are complaining that all of a sudden, the copyright law itself is not enough.
DRM is broken by design because (a) there is no DRM system that hasn't been cracked yet and (b) it punishes honest customers.
Not only that, but many DRM systems require online servers to be active. You don't own the copy you purchased anymore and as soon as that verification server gets shut-down, then your local copy won't work anymore; unless you knowingly break the DMCA to workaround the DRM restrictions (which is always illegal, even if you own the copyright of said content / being the freaking author).
For me, it is far more convenient to just start downloading a torrent from the dozens of trackers I have access to, than pay up for DRMed content and get punished.
That I pay for the apps or other content I use, that's just because the authors deserve getting rewarded and usually it's not their fault that the distribution medium is using DRM; but when it is, that feels like a dick-move to me and I feel no remorse turning to piracy or not using the product at all.
Those who break technological restrictions (DRM) break the law via the DMCA.
Those who download a 'pirated game' do not violate any laws, as far as who has been prosecuted.
Those who UPLOAD a pirated game can be busted for breaking copyright laws, as you made a copy to someone else.
My answer: I do not pay for DRM games. Its illegal for me to 'fix' them, so I pirate. And it saves me money. Start respecting my rights as a user and Ill acknowledge your rights as a creator.
I did not claim that people want games to be free of charge. Why do you think I did?
Again, I know that’s your position but why should I share that position? I’m alright with not owning the game, alright with losing access if the servers go down. It’s ok for me, I don’t care.
Yeah, sorry, I thought you meant it from the following:
Even after understanding perfectly what Steam’s terms entail I still think that buying games there is a good idea
Either way, in general the justification for DRM is to reduce piracy, but it doesn't do a good job IMHO -- for instance, I can find DVD-quality pirated movies two weeks after it has been released in theaters, far faster than the availability of said movies on DVD or Blueray.
What would work better is to stop punishing honest customers and educate people about the need of the industry to have profits.
For instance I go out of my way to buy the music albums of my 3 favorite bands, just to keep them producing the music I like. And one of them has been in business since 1977, being able to survive for 3 decades, while dozens of others have died after 1 or 2 years, complaining about piracy (like the non-existence of piracy would make their music suck less).
tl;dr: Convenience is not a justification for restrictions.