The article you linked to was US law. So unless it's the same in Canada, then its relevance is lost on me.

When I created my account at GOG . . . I agreed to do and not do certain things. Beyond that agreement, there is absolutely nothing that prohibits or hinders me from doing as I please with the games I purchase.
It's really simple . . . they trust their customers to do what is right . . . no force required. GOG's system is exactly the same as the day I opened my account. No install limits, no internet connection required, no disk checks, no registration, no copy protection, etc. etc What's not to like??
Nothing to debate . . . ok, I can't sell these game I want to keep . . . =)

So your argument (and mine :p) is that DRM is defined as something "invasive or obstructive". And that is basically true, and how people tend to define it. They make up weird criteria, but then only apply it when convenient.
I for one find disc swapping to be VERY obstructive, so that is why I generally point out that cd-checks are DRM.
Ubi thinks that people don't mind being connected to the internet 24/7. So they pretend that Ubi-DRM isn't DRM :p
Pretty much all of us don't mind logging in and downloading an installer, so we don't consider GoG to be DRM.
But, if we go by the actual definition of the term, all three of those are DRM. And that is really my entire point. Probably would have helped if I hadn't felt the need to make the funny about how GoG is technically DRM, but whatever.
Most people only ever heard about DRM during the Starforce/Activation Model Securom-era. So they don't think of anything before that as DRM, and they think that DRM is inherently bad. It isn't. DRM is completely neutral. All digital distribution is inherently DRM-based, and I think we'll all agree that gaming has benefited (because of the concept, if not the execution). It is just that so many flavors of DRM tend to annoy the piss out of us that we forget that not all of it is bad.

That's not what I wrote. Not exactly. Essentially DRM is a technology supplied with a product that controls your usage of it. That is typically invasive and obstructive, but the above is my definition of DRM.
It is. And it's very obstructive when old DRM doesn't work with Windows 7 (despite the fact that a 'fixed' version of the game works fine).
Ubicrap only pulled that shit because it was a new form of DRM and they thought they could pull the wool over people's eyes.
Probably because GOG is, you know, internet based. So using the internet to acquire games from GOG is something of an unavoidable occurance.
Which definition would that be?
Again, by what definition? Digital distribution may manage the digital rights of its account holders, but that doesn't make them DRM-based. The three words that comprise DRM might apply, but not any definition of DRM I've seen.

Sorry, couldn't resist posting this again . . . =)

Don't you guys get bored?

What definition? Hell, let's use yours :p
"Essentially DRM is a technology supplied with a product that controls your usage of it."
Okay, if we assume the technology has to actually be bundled with the game itself, then Impulse is a DRM-free service for reasons I have already mockingly explained (you only authenticate when you download/decrypt the file, and never again.).
If we extend that to be technology that controls usage of a product: GoG gets caught in the crossfire. The simple concept of a cookie in our browser of choice controls our usage of the product, at least when you first download it. That can be avoided later on by saving the installer, but Impulse can be avoided by not uninstalling it (and maybe the archives don't need to authenticate. Never figured out how to archive an Impulse game :p).
And the biggest problem: DRM is insanely poorly defined. But if we go by the actual term (Digital Rights Management), it is stuff that manages our rights to digital stuff. And that is a very broad category. And that is kind of my point. DRM itself, as "defined" is pretty much everything and catches GoG.
So people use their own definitions (largely because they think DRM is inherently evil). Lots of the people in the "DRM Free Gaming" thread on this very site don't count disc checks as DRM. Pretty much this entire website doesn't consider having to log-in and download an executable as DRM. But it is still technically DRM :P

"Ubi thinks that people don't mind being connected to the internet 24/7. So they pretend that Ubi-DRM isn't DRM :p"
Just like Gabe pretends Steam isn't DRM you mean ? Nothing new there.
The thing is, if the people who bought AC2 genuinely don't feel inconvienced by it, then according to your own views, we all have to accept that AC2 is DRM free.
"Pretty much all of us don't mind logging in and downloading an installer, so we don't consider GoG to be DRM"
The mind/don't_mind doesn't enter into it. Even if you do mind it, gog is not DRM.
"Most people only ever heard about DRM during the Starforce/Activation Model Securom-era"
You know when most people heard about DRM now ?
"So they don't think of anything before that as DRM, and they think that DRM is inherently bad"
You know what people think now ? Cool power, wish i had that one. I see dead people btw...
"DRM is completely neutral. All digital distribution is inherently DRM-based"
No, it's not, and no they aren't. Gog is DD and not DRM based, just the opposite.
"It is just that so many flavors of DRM tend to annoy the piss out of us that we forget that not all of it is bad."
And i guess it's just because not all of it is bad, and some of it even has an up side attached to it, that some of us try so hard to spin and dismiss the bits that are in fact (very) bad (instead of accepting the compromise and fair share of the responsability of whatever comes tomorrow), thus contributing to murkying the waters even further.

You sir, are confusing network security with DRM . . . the purpose of the two are not the same. I disagree . . . you INSIST that logging into my account, verifying that I am an authorized user and downloading an file with absolutely no restrictions incorporated within is some how . . . . DRM
I do enjoy reading your logic and such though . . .=) . . it is golden sometimes . . .=)

I don't know where people get this from when in his talk at GDC he clearly stated that if you take stuff via DRM without giving stuff back, customers will take their business elsewhere.

I aim to please :p
And instead, I INSIST that logging into your account (providing your credentials to indicate that you are the user you are claiming to be), having your credentials checked to authorize that you are allowed access to the media, and then downloading the file is the same as logging into your account (providing your credentials to indicate that you are the user you are claiming to be), having your credentials checked to authorize that you are allowed access to the media, and then downloading the file :p
That sir, is more about DRM than network security. I really doubt that CD Projekt is more concerned with potential DDoS attacks from unauthorized users downloading Freespace 2 than they are with unauthorized users downloading Freespace 2 :p

You mean he admitted Steam is DRM ? Flat out, no shananigans, no if's or but's ?
If that's the case, Gabe moves up a knotch or two in my book...

Where you miss the point, again, is once I verify who I am (network security), download the file, there is NOTHING else required in order for me to fully use the file.
You keep repeating rhetoric and flawed logic over and over, escalating to further nonexistent speculations as to why your point of view is the only point of view that is correct. Ten pages later . . . you are still defending the indefensible. Makes me smile . . . =)

I am . . . =)

I would argue that DRM applies once you try to use the data you have paid for, not in the process of transmitting it to local storage (unless those are the same process, then the installer, and possibly a DRM, have already started before all data is ready).