A lot of your argument comes from inaccurate information.
Stardocks fight against the right of resale speaks for itself. They are not on the gamers side. They are on the same side as EA here.
This isn't true. EA puts DRM on the games themselves and says you can only install it on 3 (well, now 5) different PCs. Stardock puts no DRM on the games and basically allows you sell your disk and the buyer won't need to jump through any hoops or worry about any activation limits when installing it. He can then re-sell it again, and the third user won't need to worry about anything either. You can't even reasonably compare the two.
I have zero interests in game "rentals" that involve any activations servers at EA, or Steam, or Impulse. They all present a the same future point of failure issues. Company failure, company disinterest in maintenance (see Yahoo,Walmart, Microsoft DRM music servers). Also the effects of acquisitions and consolidations in the industry. EA could purchase Stardock. Any remote server dependencies means you just paid for a rental of unknown term.
None of this is true with Stardock. If you buy a disc, you never need to activate it to play. There's absolutely no protection on it of any kind. You can install it from the disc on a permanently offline PC and never have to worry about any activations.
"Company disinterest" is not a valid scenario because this is all that Stardock does. Unlike Yahoo which tried to dabble in the music distribution business and decided to drop it, this is all that Stardock does, so they can't just decide one day that they're not going to do it anymore.
EA can't buy Stardock. Stardock is a private company.
From what I have read so far, patches are limited to the first owner, this drastically reduces the resale value to a second owner.
As I wrote in a post above, do you typically spend money without getting anything in return? Do you keep MMO subscriptions for games you never, ever play? Do you pay any membership fees to places/sites you never, ever go to?
Patches and constant post-release support costs a lot of money. Is it not natural for them to want to get something back from spending it? They don't see a penny from your re-sale, but now all the support they paid to give you they now have to pay to give another user who they got nothing from. How does this work?
If us ordinary customers frown on spending money without any returns on the investment, how can we reasonably expect otherwise from any company? And again, the difference is they're not saying hey we won't allow you to sell your disk by making it not work, we just want to make sure that our spending is proportionate to how many copies we sell. There's nothing sinister about it.
Furthermore, Stardock is the only company I know that allows you to go to a store, buy a disc, and then be allowed access to the digital download of that game forever. I am not sure if Valve/Steam treat boxed versions of their Source-based games this way, but if they do then that's two companies. That's a huge plus to the buyer and one of the major reason why the serial is non-transferrable - its use is quite different from a common cd key to install the game. Many of us are far less concerned with resale than we are with security of purchase. With Stardock, losing the disc is nothing because you can always re-download. With other companies, we'd have to go and buy it again.
But gog.com will be something I support with my money. 100% free and clear of DRM/Activations etc and they have some old classics I want play.
They're free and clear of everything *because* they are old classics. They are no longer supported by their developers and publishers. I love GOG, and I already got several games from them. But be realistic here, you can't compare the two. GOG is a simple distributor, they don't provide tech support for these games (aside from making sure their own installer works and only getting games that they can run on Vista), they don't make patches for these games - and neither do the original publishers and developers. For all parties, it's pretty much pure profit.
Ultimately, if you don't agree with Stardock's stance then you don't agree and nobody can convince you otherwise. But I'm a big proponent of basing arguments on valid and accurate facts without twisting their meaning to suit your needs