Nobody on its right mind would dare to defend DRM (Digital rights management) in front of a web crowd, unless you represent one of the few enterprises pushing it forward, of course.

It's a simple fact of life, the consumer has never been pro-DRM, and for the right reasons. But among the different types of restrictions and scenarios of how DRM is being used today, two specific cases come to mind as examples of poor implementations or just DRM gone awry for the consumer side.

Only this year, three major online music stores (MSN, Yahoo, Walmart) announced they would be taking their DRM servers offline, rendering consumer's music purchases useless to play on new computers. Eventually these companies backed down and extended their deadlines by a few years, but in some of the cases it's only a matter of time.

On the gaming side, the DRM flop of the year has to be Spore. After much anticipation prior to its release, the game got smashed everywhere online because of the copy prevention software that came built into the game. Just yesterday it was also announced that another hit title, Far Cry 2 will be using the same SecuROM DRM software, though restrictions are expected to be less severe.

Yet, for many these imposed restrictions are enough for not spending any money in online music or games. Is this your case? Have you had good/bad experiences with DRM restrictions as outlined above? How could developers and the music industry create a safer environment to generate sales without punishing the paying consumer?