If you've been following the progress of the Spore DRM story (Part 1 | Part 2), you'll be interested to know it appears the protests against the game's copy protection methods have caused EA to rethink their strategy.

IGN reports Premier Executive Producer for EA's upcoming title Red Alert 3 Chris Corry responded to Spore's backlash, and made a post on the company's forums, saying they're going to ease up on DRM with this next one. Here's the full thing:

Hi guys --

I’ve been hearing your concerns about the DRM situation and wanted to get back to you with some information about our plans. In the case of Red Alert 3 (and all PC titles coming out of EA), we will use SecuROM – the same copy protection that the EALA RTS group has used on our last three titles. This time around, however, the copy protection will be configured to be more lenient than we've supported in the past.

I know this can be somewhat of a polarizing topic, and I thought it would be best to open the lines of communication with some facts:

- We will authenticate your game online when you install and launch it the first time.

- We will never re-authenticate an installation online after the first launch. In other words, no reaching out to a central server post-install to see if you’re “allowed” to play.

- You will be able to install and play on up to five computers.

- This system means you don't have to play with the disc in your computer. Personally, I think this is a huge improvement over our previous copy protection requirements, which have always required a disk to play.

- Life happens. I know it’s unlikely, but for those unlucky few who install the game and have their machines nuked (virus, OS reinstall, major hardware upgrade, etc.) five times, EA Customer Service will be on hand to supply any additional authorizations that are warranted. This will be done on a case-by-case basis by contacting customer support.

-You can, of course, play offline without impediment or penalty.

Red Alert 3 is shaping up to be a world-class RTS game that will give you many hours of enjoyment. I think it would be a shame if people decided to not play a great game simply because it came with DRM, but I understand that this is a very personal decision for many of you and I respect that. As you might imagine, I’m a lot less respectful of those people who take the position that they will illegally download a game simply because it has DRM.

Either way, we’ re very proud of the hard work our team has put into this game and we hope you will all enjoy it when it launches.

It certainly won't be ideal for some (maybe a majority), but it's definitely a compromise and showcases a dialogue between gamers and publishers which is imperative. Why? Because both sides (I feel) need to understand each other if there is to be a better situation for all. Whatever your stance, it's pretty apparent both publishers and gamers are unhappy right now. And despite insistences from its instigators DRM is effective, a Forbes report says otherwise (as do many other reports), in the case of Spore and in general:

DRM only limits the ability of consumers who wouldn't typically pirate media to make copies or share it with friends and family, agrees [peer-to-peer research firm] Big Champagne's [Chief Executive Eric] Garland. But because encryption is so easily broken by savvier--and more morally flexible--users, it does little to stop the flood of intellectual property pirated over the Internet, he contends.

"DRM can encourage the best customers to behave slightly better," he says. "It will never address the masses of non-customers downloading your product."

Update: CNet's Dave Rosenberg cites open source as one solution.