In principle I don't disagree with what EA is doing. It's the application of that principle to annual sports franchises that I find reprehensible. EA really pushed the "games as a platform unto themselves" with Rock Band, but they should have applied that model to sports franchises; buy the base game and then download yearly updates to rosters and minor gameplay improvements.
But, as usual, it all comes down to money. For a long time it made practical sense to make annual releases to sports games (before console DLC distribution channels), and monetary sense (people kept buying them because it was difficult to find outdated titles). Now, it doesn't make practical sense (DLC on consoles exists), nor monetary sense (pick up the 1 year old used copy for $5 instead of the marginally more up-to-date $60 version). EA should, if they were thinking about the customer, deliver annual updates via DLC for much less than $60, but the bottom line is money and as such this "anti-trade-in online policy" is EA's attempt to refute what the customer sees as progress in product delivery and maintain the $60 a year per game status quo.
And to top it all off, they make it sound as though they're being robbed. Buy a used copy and your stealing EA's well deserved money, even though charging $60 for annual franchise installments is stealing from the customer. In principle, yes, EA should be paid for each published product that sells. In actuality, they're published products are not worth what they're charging for them. Nobody wins. Except Gamestop.
Used game sales are a bigger problem than piracy? I suppose, if the point and purpose of making games is to make money. However, if the point and purpose of making games is to express something, or share an experience with someone, or to make a game worth playing, then one should embrace every avenue of distribution to ensure one's game is played by as many people as possible.