There is nothing like beating a dead horse for the 10th time, but...

It's quite simple, DRM isn't subjective, it's quite well defined. DRM restricts the use of media, hardware and software to the use intended by the publisher/manufacturer. They manage what you can and can't do with your product after you obtained it.

For example, if I buy an real book, I can read it on the couch, on the toilet or in the park, or I could burn it, or make soup of it. Nobody cares. If I buy an electronic book, they restrict me to a certain device and/or software (the book can probably only be used on a specific/unique device and only by certain software). I'm not free to use it however I want, and the publisher actively controls the *use* of it by means of DRM. (and digital laws to the crazy extend that you might actually commit a crime if you do something with it that the publisher or manufacturer did not intend for you to do with it)

Say you'd buy a T-shirt, and every time you want to wear it you would have to ring up the store to get permission, or if you wear it inside out and write on it with a magic marker, you could be prosecuted and jailed because you violated it's intended use. Think that's crazy? well that's exactly where we are now with electronic devices (kindle, xbox, ps3 etc.) software and media. And that is why DRM, and some of the new digital rights laws are 'ebil'.

Gog doesn't restrict the use of the product, after you obtain it you can do with it what you want. Maybe what you do with it is or isn't allowed by gog, but they are not enforcing those rights digitally. (again, the use of the product isn't digitally controlled in any way by gog, many games with DRM do have their use restricted, you can't just use it whenever/however you want, those other companies control the use of your product, gog doesn't)

In that sense, from what I've read here, GG isn't really using DRM either, although you could argue that running the setup is 'using the software', and you could argue that that use is restricted and monitored... I might agree with that.


P.S.

DRM isn't copyright, copyright means a publisher or manufacturer has the sole right to make copies and/or distribute those copies (and other people do not). Copyright doesn't restrict the use of your product other than that it doesn't allow you to make copies of it (sometimes you are allowed to make copies, but not distribute them).

You are aware that this was a more than a year old thread, right?

If you are actually new, I don't think this is a good way to start off on this forum. The people who participated in this thread let it die for a reason.

If you are yet another of Gamerager's alts, well I have nothing more to say than what I've already said on your other necros.

So what now? Either it's simple or it's kind of complex and everybody can argue something which somebody else might agree or not, but not both. :)

My answer: It's definitely DRM in my books but I don't care since there is a way to backup. I don't care about more.

Ah I see it was apparently a touchy subject. I stumbled across this thread in a search and was most certainly not looking for trouble. I was merely providing a hopefully clear explanation of DRM in general, as I had the feeling people where arguing semantics and were unnecessarily aggravated over it (and by the looks of it that feeling was spot on and the aggravation is still there after a year, really no need for it, but it's up to you how you feel).

@Trilarion: When I said it was quite simple I meant the meaning of DRM in general is quite simple and not very subjective. (perhaps the ambiguity here lies in what exactly constitutes 'use' of software) So I think the quote as you use it is a little out of context, but you can do with my post as you please, so feel free to mix and match as you see fit.

It wasn't my intention to dig up old hurt, or start a flamewar. In fact I very rarely post on the internet, first this is because I think it is useless most of the time, but I was apparently tempted this time, thank you for showing me the error of my ways. And second, and I do not mean this to sound patronizing, I'm far too old for most 'internet debates'.

This was very likely my last post on this forum.

I'm thoroughly enjoying gog.com btw, I hope you are too, and have a pleasant day.

^ I thought your post was informative. And thank you.

And is Gamers Gate the game seller that's owned by one of Rupert Murdoch's businesses? Or is that another one? I know he owns one of them online game sellers.

Gamersgate AB is privately held; it was originally owned by Paradox Interactive but is now independent. You can read Paradox's explanation of why it was spun off here: http://www.cinemablend.com/games/GamersGate-CEO-Steam-Dangerous-For-Publishers-20347.html

IGN is the Murdoch-owned operation. Murdoch does not own Gamestop, but IGN and Gamestop cooperate extensively. IGN used to own Direct2Drive, but D2D is now owned by Gamefly (which is privately held).

Lots of people who have axes to grind (including shills for Valve and IGN) go on forums like this one to spread FUD about Gamersgate. To say these people are despicable is a gross understatement.

Gamersgate undeniably has some issues, such as poor website design, lousy download speeds for many parts of the world, and shoddy games' pages, but it's run by a team of really kick ass people. Angie is always quick to respond to problems sent via Twitter and Facebook; Ashot, Max and the other support staff also have reasonably fast, non-copypasta responses, meaning it's always a pleasure to correspond with them.

I could embark on a comparison across different DD platforms here, but I won't. I believe their actions speak enough for themselves (at least in my case).

^ Thank you for this post & link, cjgreen! Very informative! I'm better off for reading your post & the link!

Man I was already convinced to never buy from Steam b/c of the DRM, but now after reading the link, my conviction is doubled. And w/your post my conviction is tripled. It's one thing to have high aims in business, but its another thing to do sabotage to your competitors - which long term thinkers know that competition is NECESSARY to reap long-term profits in the industry; if an entity like Steam has a monopoly, it's eventual doom for the industry, w/Steam being the first to topple over.

Edit: Good information from you to me, as well, lowyhong. I'm learning more of the landscape of the competition here.

They're working on improving the site design.

I expect they're quiet about it because it will roll out when the free-games feature goes live in a couple of months.

Sorry for keeping the dead horse alive, but if by default you have to connect to GG in order to re-install the game that you bought from them earlier, then that is DRM. GOG, on the other hand, does not require such thing after you have obtained the game, so there is no DRM. However, if I understood right, there is a simple workaround to overcome the GG DRM model, as long as you do it while you are downloading/installing the game the first time.

For those who said over a year ago that even retail store is in practise "DRM", DRM does not stand for "DistRibution Method". :) They are two different things: how the goods are delivered to you upon purchase, and are there any technical restrictions how you can use the goods after that.

With e.g. music, it is quite straightforward. After I have bought a digital music file to e.g. Ipod, are there any intentional technical restrictions whether I can take that same file, burn it to a CD-R and listen in my car stereo? If the mp3 file is usable only in that Ipod, or if I had to call or let my car stereo connect via internet to the music store even once before I can use the music file in my car stereo, then that would be DRM.

Of course, for some media the definition of whether it has "DRM" can change over time. When e.g. games originally appeared CDs, you could say they had DRM because you could not copy the CDs. The new CD media itself was the form of DRM.

But later when it became easy to copy CDs to CD-Rs, and even further to make ISO images and mount them even virtually, the very same game could now be considered DRM-free. DRM in this case would mean if the CD game had extra code trying to prevent you from copying or creating an ISO, or require you to connect to any internet service in order to use the copy (or the original game).

For clarification, you can work around the DRM so long as you've downloaded all the files already. Doesn't have to be on the first install.

GoG.com is DRM then.

Because you cannot SELL games you bought on GoG, you can't borrow them (you may share account but I doubt it's not violating the ToS)

etc. etc.

I would say that every digital distributor is a DRM by itself.]

But Gog dosn't use any copyprotection, which is huge advantage.

You can do all those things. You don't have permission to, but GOG has nothing managing you to make sure that you do only what you are permitted. That's the crux. Nothing in yumari's definition describes GOG at all.