Over the years, I have seen software companies (nearly) cripple their software with DRM and other similar technologies. The companies spend just as much money on the anti-piracy technologies as they do on the software using it. After they release their software, 0-day exploits and work-arounds are found, over and over again, causing the software company to constantly spend more and more money, time, and resources on a piece of technology that was originally meant to do the exact opposite. Yet software companies continue to think that this kind of business model is working (while it does to some extent, I can't imagine it will become easier to use this model, even in the near future).
IMO, within the next 10-20 years, the creation and selling of software won't be worth the time and trouble of coming up with "newer and better" anti-piracy technologies. Creating the software will cost a tenth of implementing any anti-piracy technology. Even now, my personal belief is that (even if your software isn't open source, but freeware), you will make just as much money from contracts and support (through companies and home alike). It may require a pretty hefty EULA (I don't speak legalese, so I am not sure what kind of things you would include in something like that compared to current EULA's), but many anti-malware companies such as
Lavasoft,
Grisoft, and
Avira are already seeing this as a very marketable stance on software, giving away free personal licenses for their software, but charging for support.
I think watching the software industry for the next decade will be very interesting, to see the new ways they face piracy, whether it is crippling their software even more, or freeing it up (it isn't stealing if it is free!).
Any thoughts on this? Is there something I am missing or I should look at more closely? I am more than open to ideas and thoughts on this.