If we didn't have robbers, we wouldn't have balls and chains (DRM).
The example of the "robber" can not be taken too far, because:
1) Sony is
not an authority and
2) a pirate is not
stealing any object or property. A pirate is just copying, so in the worst case a pirate can reduce the chance of profit, and that is not allways the case.
If you can call pirating a robbery, than you can also call
DRM a robbery because DRM is reducing the ability of legitimate buyers to fully use what they've bought.
Or maybe Sony and other big corporates are above the law because they've have the money to buy the lawyers, and then use the law to gain power and more money against the poor Joes that can't defend themselves against the DRM attack.
But the worst case of all is that some people tend to defend this big guys because they are on the side of the law. That is sad because they tend to write the law when they get back the favours to the politicians they helped to the top. But morally they're not allways on the "good" side.
There are legitimate ways of making profit of the good work the game developers do, but DRM is not one of those.
If DRM had succeed on the music market we would lose all our music as soon as our devices died. Is that fair?
Long after the PS3 hardware is on a junkyard it would be interesting and fair to be able to use the game I bought in another type of machine, on an emulator.
Finally, this is a also a philosophy question:
- Is the right of individual property above all society benefit? Can I oblige my clients to do whatever I want just because I am the copyright holder?